Saturday, March 13, 2010

Government Readies Youth Corps To Take On Vets

Shocking New York Times article about Boy Scouts being trained to disarm and kill American citizens stokes fears of Hitler Youth



Paul Joseph Watson & Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Friday, May 15, 2009
“Ten minutes into arrant mayhem in this town near the Mexican border, and the gunman, a disgruntled Iraq war veteran, has already taken out two people, one slumped in his desk, the other covered in blood on the floor,” begins a shocking New York Times article reporting on how the Boy Scouts are being trained to take on domestic terrorists, which apparently would include war veterans and American citizens if the Homeland Security definition of a terrorist is to be applied.

Homeland Security and the FBI are behind the effort to indoctrinate and train the Boy Scouts to become tomorrow’s Gestapo. “Our end goal is to create more agents,” April McKee, a senior Border Patrol agent, told the Times. “Before it was more about the basics,” said Johnny Longoria, a Border Patrol agent. “But now our emphasis is on terrorism, illegal entry, drugs and human smuggling.”

Is this the literal creation of Hitler-Jugend style youth brigades designed to act as the front line for eventual programs of mass internment and gun confiscation in the advent of a national emergency?

In Nazi Germany, the Hitler Youth succeeded the Boy Scout movement. Hitler Youth training was militarized in comparison to the Boy Scout network, which was largely based around education. Boys aged fourteen and upwards, as well as a separate branch aged 10-14, were trained at preparatory schools to become future Nazi leaders. At its height in 1940, and after it had become mandatory to join, the Hitler Youth boasted no less than 8 million members.

Apparently in a shift away from the traditional Boy Scouts activities of sports, camping, survival skills and team leadership, the government is now training children “to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence” under the banner of the Explorers program, with the aid of military-style exercises aimed at subduing insurgents.

In one scenario, boys are trained how to conduct drug raids and take out an “obstreperous lookout”.

“Put him on his face and put a knee in his back,” a Border Patrol agent explained. “I guarantee that he’ll shut up.”

In other situations, Boy Scouts are trained to disarm “suspected terrorists” and subdue them, including Iraq war veterans.

Scouts are trained to identify the enemy. In a competition in Arizona, one role-player wore traditional Arab dress. “If we’re looking at 9/11 and what a Middle Eastern terrorist would be like,” said A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff’s deputy in Imperial County, California, “then maybe your role-player would look like that. I don’t know, would you call that politically incorrect?”

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Politically correct or not, Homeland Security and the FBI realize Arabs are not the enemy — “rightwing extremists” are.

Last month, Infowars reported on a document produced by the Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Coordinating Center identifying advocates of the Second Amendment, veterans, pro-life activists, and militia members as dangerous terrorists. A subsequent DHS document, entitled “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” pinpointed “antigovernment” types “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” as possible terrorists. “Islamic groups are specifically excluded from this document,” writes Benjamin Sarlin for the Daily Beast.
The new Gestapo Boy Scouts program will train the new Hitler Youth — or Obama youth — for the challenges of a totalitarian globalist future. As the planned implosion of the economy unfolds and unemployment increases, the federal government is picking up the slack. “In the wake of the huge stimulus package to jumpstart the economy, plenty of new positions are being created by 2010. The agencies that will benefit include the Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs departments,” writes Judi Hasson for Fierce Government.

Gestapo Scouts will be required to combat “rightwing extremists” who will refuse to turn in their firearms after the next false flag terror attack or engineered pandemic. SWAT Scouts will be called to deal with those who refuse to participate in mandatory vaccinations. Police state Scouts will be the vanguard for Obama’s million-man Civilian National Security Corps. “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military.

It’s up to the New York Times, as the premier “liberal” propaganda outfit, to sell the militarization of the Boy Scouts to the American people, using the standard bugaboos of Arab terrorists, drug cartel thugs, and marijuana cultivators as the example of why all of this is necessary.

In the real world, however, government is not primarily concerned with drug dealers — after all, the government and Wall Street run most of the drugs — they are worried about growing opposition to the destruction of the Constitution and the imposition of world government by a cabal of international bankers and their corporate fascist partners in crime.

Source: prisonPlanet.com

Boy Scouts Train to Become Homeland Gestapo

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 14, 2009
Once upon a time the Boy Scouts were about camping, backpacking, and canoeing. Boy Scouts were into high adventure and sporting activities. Scouts were about preventing forest fires and “Do a Good Turn Daily.” Scouts worked with the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. They cherished ideals such as the Cub Scout Promise and the Law of the Pack.
Now the Boy Scouts have a new mission — fighting terrorism, rounding up illegal aliens, search and destroying marijuana fields, and embracing the SWAT mentality.



“The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters,” reports the New York Times.
Homeland Security and the FBI are behind the effort to indoctrinate and train the Boy Scouts to become tomorrow’s Gestapo. “Our end goal is to create more agents,” April McKee, a senior Border Patrol agent, told the New York Times. “Before it was more about the basics,” said Johnny Longoria, a Border Patrol agent. “But now our emphasis is on terrorism, illegal entry, drugs and human smuggling.”
“Just as there are soccer moms, there are Explorers dads, who attend the competitions, man the hamburger grill and donate their land for the simulated marijuana field raids. In their training, the would-be law-enforcement officers do not mess around, as revealed at a recent competition on the state fairgrounds here, where a Ferris wheel sat next to the police cars set up for a felony investigation,” Jennifer Steinhauer writes for the Times.
Scouts are trained to identify the enemy. In a competition in Arizona, one role-player wore traditional Arab dress. “If we’re looking at 9/11 and what a Middle Eastern terrorist would be like,” said A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff’s deputy in Imperial County, California, “then maybe your role-player would look like that. I don’t know, would you call that politically incorrect?”
Politically correct or not, Homeland Security and the FBI realize Arabs are not the enemy — “rightwing extremists” are.
Last month, Infowars reported on a document produced by the Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Coordinating Center identifying advocates of the Second Amendment, veterans, pro-life activists, and militia members as dangerous terrorists. A subsequent DHS document, entitled “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” pinpointed “antigovernment” types “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” as possible terrorists. “Islamic groups are specifically excluded from this document,” writes Benjamin Sarlin for the Daily Beast.
The new Gestapo Boy Scouts program will train the new Hitler Youth — or Obama youth — for the challenges of a totalitarian globalist future. As the planned implosion of the economy unfolds and unemployment increases, the federal government is picking up the slack. “In the wake of the huge stimulus package to jumpstart the economy, plenty of new positions are being created by 2010. The agencies that will benefit include the Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs departments,” writes Judi Hasson for Fierce Government.
Gestapo Scouts will be required to combat “rightwing extremists” who will refuse to turn in their firearms after the next false flag terror attack or engineered pandemic. SWAT Scouts will be called to deal with those who refuse to participate in mandatory vaccinations. Police state Scouts will be the vanguard for Obama’s million-man Civilian National Security Corps. “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military.
It’s up to the New York Times, as the premier “liberal” propaganda outfit, to sell the militarization of the Boy Scouts to the American people, using the standard bugaboos of Arab terrorists, drug cartel thugs, and marijuana cultivators as the example of why all of this is necessary.
In the real world, however, government is not primarily concerned with drug dealers — after all, the government and Wall Street run most of the drugs — they are worried about growing opposition to the destruction of the Constitution and the imposition of world government by a cabal of international bankers and their corporate fascist partners in crime.

Source: infowars.com

Information Repackaging: ‘Gadgets and Gimmicks’ of the New World Order

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
May 14, 2009
During a discussion at the 1980 Bilderberg conference in Aachen, West-Germany, one ‘participant’ stood up to make his case for depopulation and the third world. The Bilderberg notes report on page 11:



Director General of UNESCO, Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, paid tribute to the Soviet Union and its then 60-year old regime responsible for murdering many millions of its own people.


‘The speaker (a German participant) went on to say that the leaders of the LDC’s understood that the oil price explosion had hurt the Third World much more than the industrialized countries. And they were beginning to see that they did not have at all the same interests as the oil-producing countries. What they did not perhaps fully understand was what a menace the population explosion was to their countries. It seemed that no one wanted to tell them that- neither the Catholic Church nor others. It would be nearly impossible to feed and employ the future world population at the rate it was growing. This had to be faced seriously; it could not be solved by talking about “gadgets and gimmicks.”’
But his fellow-transnationalists are more patient than the German participant. They work towards a clearly defined objective: to reduce the earth’s population in an orderly fashion. The global warming and climate change propaganda machine has been warmed up in carefully planned stages of succession.
The gadgets and gimmicks the Bilderberger referred to in the 1980 Bilderberg get-together were already in place during the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s en were to be expanded with painstaking accuracy by the global elite in the years and decades to come. To tackle the population problem and convincingly manufacture an ongoing crisis in order to justify their plans, they would have to find some pretext, any pretext, on the condition that it superseded nation-states for their own transnational designs. CFR-head Richard N. Haass offers an insight into the true objective of the environmental argument in a 1991 Club of Rome document, ‘The First Global Revolution’: ‘The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a common 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.’
As anyone can learn, the globalists have decided long ago that the environmental debate is no longer a debate- it has been decreed that the ‘discussion is over’ and everyone should get to bed dreaming that man is the prime cause for global warming on the planet earth, or of any other natural calamity, as long as it serves the double purpose of the elite: to abolish nation-states in favour of a great global government, and reduce the world population. The imagined threat of ‘international terrorism’ being hardly sufficient to justify the drastic measures being implemented, another common enemy has presented itself, staring back at you from the mirror.
As numerous meteorologists have testified to in recent years, their participation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been taken and used to prove a theory that they did not support. And then there are the thousands of meteorologists of good name and standard, who out of scientific righteousness have stepped forward and presented their facts before the public and scientific community. But it is of no concern to the eugenicists of Unesco and the IPCC. They have for a good long time, spanning the last couple of centuries at least, presided over the politics of eugenics and enforced its diabolical mechanisms with energy, cunning and precision. It is not an idle use of words, when we identify eugenicists as such, for however just and noble its cloaking makes them out to be, this supposed righteousness is merely a grotesque carnival-costume intended to shade its true countenance.
For an October 1975 ‘ International Workshop on Environmental Education’, UN-representative Lars Emmelin writes: ‘The adult education effort seems to me most critical. First, because this element- now outside the formal channels of education- will continue to be the decision makers for the next 15 to 20 years, and it is within this period that the most critical and disruptive decisions will have to be made. We cannot afford to focus on youth and let the elders die off before changing our course, which, if time permitted, would be the most efficient way of institutions change.’
In choosing its course for mass-indoctrination, the 1975 workshop explores various ways in which the mass media can be used to ‘sensitize’ the general public in accepting the UN’s long-term ambitions. Under the headline ‘The Media as Environmental Educators’ (page 4) several options are being presented by one of the participants in how the media can best be used: ‘Discussing the role of media as motivators Sandman concludes that: “Four relatively effective kinds of environmental information are: basic ecological principles; prescriptions for environmental action; early warnings of anticipated problems; and assessments of blame for environmental degradation.”’
During an ENESCO-conference in October 1977 held (bizarrely) in Soviet Russia, the Director-General of UNESCO, Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, ‘paid tribute to the Soviet Union and to the spectacular results achieved since the October Revolution in all areas of economic, social and cultural life, particularly in education and science, and, more especially, in environmental education.’ Here the good Director-General pays tribute to a then 60-year old regime responsible for murdering many millions of its own people in great death camps and deliberate mass-scale starvation-operations. Yes, ‘enviromental issues’ were very high on the agenda of the USSR, very high indeed.

After having taken his hat off to his fellow-psychopath, the Director-General plunged into a long and melodious speech on the importance of the ‘environment-issue’ in the decades to come. ‘The objectives and strategies relating to the environment and to development had to be linked and co-ordinated. (…) It would be the task of education to make people aware of their responsibilities in this connection, but in order to do so it must first be reoriented and based on an ethos of the environment.‘ And a little further on he states: ‘Environmental education should also promote attitudes which would encourage individuals to discipline themselves in order not to impair the quality of the environment and to play a positive role in improving it.’ It is true, under the intentionally vague ‘enviroment’-umbrella one can assemble all kinds of calamities and as many solutions to combat them.
‘Work in this programme area‘, the report continues, ‘will be intensified "in the line of the conference’s recommendations and move into a more operational fase. This means, among other activities, "making aid from Unesco available to member states (of the UN) which would like to launch pilot projects"; considering a "bank" of experts on environmental education; augmenting "work in the exchange of experience, in training and in encouraging the production of teaching materials"; and strengthening the Secretariat and Unesco’s infrastructure in general for the increased promotion of environmental education..’
In the meeting, the chairman of the conference stresses that no means will be shunned in the coming propaganda war against the people:
‘Some countries have also taken an interest, as part of in-service training activities, in the environmental education of various social and occupational categories of the population, such as factory workers, farmers, civil servants, etc. Marked progress has been made in the preparation of audio-visual and printed teaching materials concerning the environment, and the mass media are being increasingly used for sensitizing and informing broad sectors of the public about the environment.‘
In a follow-up conference more than ten years later (this time in Moscow) the Secretary-General of Unesco, Federico Mayor, discusses ‘three levels of global education’ in regards to the environment. The first, he states, is the ‘moral imperative’ to reach as many people as humanly possible. The second level is ‘to harness school systems, non-formal learning and informal education to teach and learn about the global issues that shape and threaten the quality of our lives.’ Arriving at the third and last level of global indoctrination, Mayor states: ‘The third level concerns the means at our disposal to project a global reach for education through both simple and highly advanced existing technologies. (…) the daily newspaper and radio have a crucial role to play in building bridges to the wider world. We must promote these media, defend and expand their freedom and appeal to their professionals at all levels to work with us for global education.’
We can hardly accuse the globalists of keeping their plans secret. At every possible UN event or brainstorm conference, they openly brag about their plans for the world in quite explicit ways. The Secretary-General continues about the steps that have to be taken in order to build a ‘new global perception’:
‘Our first initiative would be to create a worldwide expert panel of scientists and educators to plan a global education curriculum of practical value and planetary scope.’

The Secretary-General forgets to mention here that just such a panel was created two years earlier by the very organisation he presides over.
‘Second, putting environmental education at the centre of all curricula from kindergarten to higher studies and training the teachers and the administrators who can carry the massage into all schools.(..) Third, promoting a global civic education by devising teaching methods and materials that emphasize the ethics of worldwide community living.(…) Fourth, teaching the children of the wealthier countries about the conditions of their brothers and sisters in the developing world (…) Fifth, working with the mass media and telecommunication enterprises to produce and broadcast audio-visual packages that introduce audiences, particularly children and young people, to the great teachers of this world at al levels and in all cultures (…). ‘And finally’, the Secretary-General concludes, ‘let me make a very immediate and concrete proposal: building on the broadcast of this forum scheduled for tomorrow (…), to create global television learning networks on the issues of the human agenda for the next century. This would be an experiment in informal global education at its best.’

Under the term ‘Information Repackaging’, the UN has published several manuals on this subject, teaching their cronies how to most effectively influence public opinion. In a 1986 ‘ Manual for Repackaging of Information on Population Education’, the Unesco proposes ‘strategies for integrating population education into different subject areas’- one of these being playing into fears on the part of the population in regards to the subject of their home environment family:
‘For instance, the effectiveness of fear appeals in changing attitudes and behaviour, such as the adverse effects of non- or limited access to education and housing facilities with more than two children, depends on the credibility of the source of information and the extent of general/public support to the message conveyed by a particular piece of information. Fear appeals directed to the welfare of people valued by the receiver of information (e.g. family members, close friends) are also effective.’

On page 37 of the manual, under the header ‘Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI)’, the strategy is further elaborated upon:
‘One SDI package, for instance, focuses on the integration of population education into environmental education. The package contains materials which will help users understand the relationship between man and the environment, as well as provide insights and actual data on how to plan, teach and implement practical environment/population activities for everyday life.’

As we know, the abovementioned ‘gadgets and gimmicks’ are incrementally being used in the mass media as the climate change propaganda machine is working overtime. Using the mass media to prepare the population for globalism, is not only an ambitious plan- it reveals the deceitful spirit behind the provided information, rivalling the work of Joseph Goebbels and his Department of Propaganda.

Source: infowars.com

If They Knew the Truth, They’d Hate Us Even More

Ciaran Dubhuidhe
The Insolent Media Center
May 14, 2009
We Americans like to think of ourselves as civilized people. Historically, we have supported our government in war under the belief that our government and our soldiers are honorable and that we do not engage in unjust wars. Ugly things like genocide, torture, naked aggression, raping, pillaging, and scorched earth policies are things that others do, not us. Since we are so good and virginal in every sense, we reason that others hate us only because of our goodness and purity. If they knew the truth about us, we think, they would love us.



Yet, if this is so, why is it that we need to hide from the world the activities of our soldiers and intelligence agents over seas? Why cannot we, the “liberators” of Iraq, show the world the lovely photos of our soldiers at work Abu Ghraib? Why must the CIA consider destroying the records of American conduct in the prisons at Guantanamo? We are so pure, clean, honorable, and all, aren’t we? What have we got to worry about?
Could it be that those baby faced soldiers we praise and pay tribute to are not as honorable as we would like to believe? According to the latest body keeping the Oval Office seat warm, release of photos showing the activities of our soldiers, activities ordered by George Bush and Dick Cheney, would make the world hate us more than they already do and would, as a consequence, endanger the lives of our soldiers. Just how horrible are these images? We shall discuss that shortly, but before we do, let us consider this claim itself by translating it into smaller statements:
1. If the world knew what we were really like, they would hate us more than that already do.
2. If the world knew what our soldiers do, they would rise up and kill our soldiers.
3. Our government cares about the lives of our soldiers, and so we cannot release the photos.
These are interesting assertions. The first assertion implies that anyone who knows the truth about us, would hate us, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. This contradicts strongly Bush’s assertion that “they hate us for our freedom.”
The second assertion implies that our soldiers are monsters, on an order equal to that of the worst soldiers history has known, for I know of few cases in history where populations have risen up to fight only because a nation’s soldiers were monstrous brutes. In short, this statement implies that the soldiers we are told to support unconditionally are war criminals. Said differently, supporting our troops is aiding and abetting war crimes.
On the third assertion, I ask you this. If the lives of our soldiers are valued by our government, why are they fighting two unnecessary wars? Why do we throw away their lives in defense of a lie and then recoil when their lives are endangered by the truth? Does anyone out there see the irony in that?
The next question to ask ourselves is what exactly did our soldiers do in Abu Ghraib? According to those in the know, our soldiers, on order of Bush and Cheney, raped children in front of their captive mothers. Their brutality was so monstrous that their mothers begged to be killed rather than live with the memory of what was done. Add this to the knowledge we already have of beating innocent captives to death, raping female captives, and torturing captives. The next time you see an American soldier, picture that in your mind – picture that soldier raping a little boy in front of his mother in a prison cell. That is what the world sees when the world sees our soldiers.
I can think of no offense that a soldier could commit worse than those committed by our own. Future generations will watch movies retelling the stories of our soldiers and those stories will be more brutal than the Nazi era movies we grew up watching. Just as you and I vividly see the image of Nazi madmen lining civilians up at a wall and gunning them down, the next generations were see American G.I.’s in uniform raping little boys and girls in front of the mothers while mentally defective Americans stack naked bodies of men in piles and pose before the mountains of flesh for personal pictures. It is hard to see the Romans or Mongol hordes as worse than us. We are at the pinnacle of human depravity.
Moreover, given that our analysis above shows that this government does not care in the least about American soldiers, you can be sure that there is one reason and one reason only that they do not wish the world to see these images. The absolute truth is that they fear their own prosecution. In a just world, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, and George Bush would be summarily arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for crimes against humanity. However, this is not a just world. Our President is the unjust Barrack Obama, a man who is more concerned about his future plans as President of the United States than he is about the rule of law, morality, ethics, or humanity. Mr. Obama has become a accessory after the fact to the crime and a willing participant in its cover up. Mr. Obama has joined the ranks of war criminals.
Sadly we live in a country whose history is much like this current scandal. Our self image is a deception based on denial, cover ups, and delusion. We cannot progress unless we look ourselves in the mirror, not for a quick glance, but for a long and painful self inspection. They do not hate us because we are good. They hate us because we are a selfish and evil people consumed with our own comfort and drowning in the fetid smell of our own decay. We are a depraved, unproductive, and brutal empire on the brink of collapse. They hate us because they should and if they knew the whole truth, they would hate us even more.

Source: The Insolent Media Center

Who Rules America?

Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars
May 14, 2009
What do you suppose it is like to be elected president of the United States only to find that your power is restricted to the service of powerful interest groups?
A president who does a good job for the ruling interest groups is paid off with remunerative corporate directorships, outrageous speaking fees, and a lucrative book contract. If he is young when he assumes office, like Bill Clinton and Obama, it means a long life of luxurious leisure.
Fighting the special interests doesn’t pay and doesn’t succeed. On April 30 the primacy of special over public interests was demonstrated yet again. The Democrats’ bill to prevent 1.7 million mortgage foreclosures and, thus, preserve $300 billion in home equity by permitting homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages, was defeated in the Senate, despite the 60-vote majority of the Democrats. The banksters were able to defeat the bill 51 to 45.
These are the same financial gangsters whose unbridled greed and utter irresponsibility have wiped out half of Americans’ retirement savings, sent the economy into a deep hole, and threatened the US dollar’s reserve currency role. It is difficult to imagine an interest group with a more damaged reputation. Yet, a majority of “the people’s representatives” voted as the discredited banksters instructed.
Hundreds of billions of public dollars have gone to bail out the banksters, but when some Democrats tried to get the Senate to do a mite for homeowners, the US Senate stuck with the banks. The Senate’s motto is: “Hundreds of billions for the banksters, not a dime for homeowners.”
If Obama was naive about well-intentioned change before the vote, he no longer has this political handicap.
Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin acknowledged the voters’ defeat by the discredited banksters. The banks, Durbin said, “frankly own the place.”
It is not difficult to understand why. Among those who defeated the homeowners bill are senators Jon Tester (Mont), Max Baucus (Mont), Blanche Lincoln (Ark), Ben Nelson (Neb), Many Landrieu (La), Tim Johnson (SD), and Arlan Specter (Pa). According to reports, the banksters have poured a half million dollars into Tester’s campaign funds. Baucus has received $3.5 million; Lincoln $1.3 million; Nelson $1.4 million; Landrieu $2 million; Johnson $2.5 million; Specter $4.5 million.
The same Congress that can’t find a dime for homeowners or health care appropriates hundreds of billions of dollars for the military/security complex. The week after the Senate foreclosed on American homeowners, the Obama “change” administration asked Congress for an additional $61 billion dollars for the neoconservatives’ war in Iraq and $65 billion more for the neoconservatives’ war in Afghanistan. Congress greeted this request with a rousing “Yes we can!”
The additional $126 billion comes on top of the $533.7 billion “defense” budget for this year. The $660 billion–probably a low-ball number–is ten times the military spending of China, the second most powerful country in the world.
How is it possible that “the world’s only superpower” is threatened by the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan? How can the US be a superpower if it is threatened by countries that have no military capability other than a guerilla capability to resist invaders?
These “wars” are a hoax designed to enrich the US armaments industry and to infuse the “security forces” with police powers over American citizenry.
Not a dime to prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes, but hundreds of billions of dollars to murder Muslim women and children and to create millions of refugees, many of whom will either sign up with insurgents or end up as the next wave of immigrants into America.
This is the way the American government works. And it thinks it is a “city on the hill, a light unto the world.”
Americans elected Obama because he said he would end the gratuitous criminal wars of the Bush brownshirts, wars that have destroyed America’s reputation and financial solvency and serve no public interest. But once in office Obama found that he was ruled by the military/security complex. War is not being ended, merely transferred from the unpopular war in Iraq to the more popular war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Obama, in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, continues to attack “targets” in Pakistan. In place of a war in Iraq, the military/security complex now has two wars going in much more difficult circumstances.
Viewing the promotion gravy train that results from decades of warfare, the US officer corps has responded to the “challenge to American security” from the Taliban. “We have to kill them over there before they come over here.” No member of the US government or its numerous well-paid agents has ever explained how the Taliban, which is focused on Afghanistan, could ever get to America. Yet this hyped fear is sufficient for the public to support the continuing enrichment of the military/security complex, while American homes are foreclosed by the banksters who have destroyed the retirement prospects of the US population..
According to Pentagon budget documents, by next year the cost of the war against Afghanistan will exceed the cost of the war against Iraq. According to a Nobel prize-winning economist and a budget expert at Harvard University, the war against Iraq has cost the American taxpayers $3 trillion, that is, $3,000 billion in out-of-pocket and already incurred future costs, such as caring for veterans.
If the Pentagon is correct, then by next year the US government will have squandered $6 trillion dollars on two wars, the only purpose of which is to enrich the munitions manufacturers and the “security” bureaucracy.
The human and social costs are dramatic as well and not only for the Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani populations ravaged by American bombs. Dahr Jamail reports that US Army psychiatrists have concluded that by their third deployment, 30 percent of American troops are mental wrecks. Among the costs that reverberate across generations of Americans are elevated rates of suicide, unemployment, divorce, child and spousal abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, homelessness and incarceration. http://www.truthout.org/051209J?n
In the Afghan “desert of death” the Obama administration is constructing a giant military base. Why? What does the internal politics of Afghanistan have to do with the US?
What is this enormous waste of resources that America does not have accomplishing besides enriching the American munitions industry?
China and to some extent India are the rising powers in the world. Russia, the largest country on earth, is armed with a nuclear arsenal as terrifying as the American one. The US dollar’s role as reserve currency, the most important source of American power, is undermined by the budget deficits that result from the munition corporations’ wars and the bankster bailouts.
Why is the US making itself impotent fighting wars that have nothing whatsoever to do with is security, wars that are, in fact, threatening its security?
The answer is that the military/security lobby, the financial gangsters, and AIPAC rule. The American people be damned.

Source: infowars.com

It’s Getting Very Serious Now

Chuck Baldwin
NewsWithViews
May 12, 2009
First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman’s bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend “a clear and present danger” to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.



If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone “militia members”: including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.
The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous “extremists.”
As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.
According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, “A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential ‘threats,’ could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others–any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential ‘extremism.’
“Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any ‘known or suspected dangerous terrorist.’ The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is ‘appropriately suspected’ of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general ‘has a reasonable belief’ that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
“Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being ‘dangerous.’”
WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, “By [DHS] standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”
Pratt was also quoted as saying, “Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast.” He went on to say, “This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done.”
Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for “extremists,” it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.
Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?
This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights–especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.
I’m not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists’ cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America’s War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the “shot heard ’round the world.” And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.
I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential “extremist.” I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious–and how close–the threat of gun confiscation has become?
If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger’s assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a “New Global Order.” He is also reported to have told Medvedev, “By September we’ll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn’t matter what we do, we’ll still be in charge.” (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)
This leads to a very serious question: how many of America’s gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?
As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.

Source: News with Views

House Bill Aims to Strip “Rightwing Extremists” of Second Amendment Right

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 9, 2009
A sinister bill working its way through the House may eventually serve as a companion piece to the Department of Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremist” report that labels veterans and advocates of the Second Amendment as dangerous terrorists — H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York.



The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”


On April 29, with little fanfare or corporate media coverage, H.R. 2159 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The entire bill can be read on the Govtrack website.
A similar bill was introduced in the Senate in 2007 but did not make it out of committee.
As noted above, the DHS has compiled a long list of folks the government considers terrorists. The bill, if enacted, would allow the attorney general, a documented gun-grabber, to deny millions of Americans due process. “[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, tells WorldNetDaily.
Pratt worries that the new bill will be used in conjunction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt continues. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”
On May 1, 2009, Infowars reported on the existence of another DHS document, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon.” It adds more suspected terrorists to the government’s list, including people working in the alternative media, anarchists, pro-life activists, skinheads, lone terrorists, members of the militia movement, “decentralized” terrorists, and others.
The DHS reports were distributed to “federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”
Earlier this week, a man was stopped in Louisiana and detained by police for the crime of displaying a “Don’t tread one me” bumper sticker on his car. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group, according to The American Vision website. “Don’t tread on me” was originally displayed on a flag designed by general and statesman Christopher Gadsden during the Revolutionary War. It is depicted as a terrorist symbol in the DHS “Rightwing Extremist” report.



Stephen Halbrook, Independent Institute Research Fellow and author of the book The Founders’ Second Amendment, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Attorney General nominee Eric Holder.


During Holder’s shoo-in confirmation hearings earlier this year, Stephen Halbrook, Second Amendment attorney, detailed Holder’s vehement opposition to the right to bear arms. Holder’s role in the Waco massacre and Ruby Ridge were expected to be brought up during the hearings but were not.
Shortly after 9/11, Holder penned a Washington Post op-ed entitled “Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists.” In the article, the future Attorney General argues that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also states that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by various government entities. In order to make his point, Holder makes the ludicrous hypothesis that Osama bin Laden would be able to purchase an unregistered firearm at a gun show in America.
The government now possesses the appropriate “watch lists” and has designated specific categories of Americans as domestic terrorists. If H.R. 2159 becomes law the Obama administration and the Justice Department will go after opponents to their far-reaching plan to disarm the nation and deliver it defenseless into the clutches of bankers and corporatists determined to reduce a once proud constitutional republic to the status of a fuedalist backwater.

Source: infowars.com

The UN, Eugenics and the Mass Media

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
May 8, 2009
A March 2009 policy brief by the United Nations Population Division reveals that the long-term plan for worldwide population reduction is not going fast enough, not by a long shot. Under the desperate headline ‘What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?’ the policy brief gives an overview of the progress made by developing countries in regards to the globalists set goal of reducing population and proposes several ways of speeding up the death. Richly draped with graphic illustrations on the state of global population and the progress made by the UN to bring back fertility to ‘acceptable’ levels, the policy brief advises an increased effort on the part of governments to commit to a strict family planning- policy and other measures designed to bring a halt to life.



In New York in December 1994, the United Nations’ participants came up with some practical solutions to the ‘population problem’ — one of which is the integration of population issues with matters of ‘environment’ and ‘human development.’

‘The persistence of high fertility in the majority of the least developed countries and the slow fertility reductions observed among them are associated with high levels of unmet need for family planning.(…) The reduction of fertility could be accelerated if effective measures were taken to satisfy the existing unmet need for family planning.’
After these recommendations, the authors plunge into a long, wailing lament about the slow progress of the desired reducing of the population. They also point the finger to a lack of commitment of the governments concerned and, as expected, the need for a global intervention in order to avoid certain destruction.
This recent policy brief was just one update out of many in regards to the long-term plan by the elite to significantly bring down the numbers of the existing earth population. From the moment the Rockefeller funded ‘family planning’-machine was widely kicked off in the 1960s and 70s, numerous meetings have been held in the last couple of decades where various strategies were discussed to implement population-reduction on as large a scale as possible. The strategies in question were especially directed towards the third world as the globalists had virtual carte blanche in the impoverished developing countries. The famous 1994 population conference in Cairo outlined some of the proposed strategies to be implemented. Then Secretary-General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his opening statement on the International Conference on Population and Development, stated that:
‘I am not exaggerating when I say that not only does the future of the human society depend on this Conference but also the efficacy of the economic order of the planet on which we live.’
During a follow-up-meeting held in New York on December 1994, the United Nations’ participants came up with some practical solutions to the ‘population problem’ - one of which is the integration of population issues with matters of ‘environment’ and ‘human development.’ Another part of the agenda of pressing people to cut down on the number of children was to combine the issue of family-planning with environmental issues:
‘Several priority areas were identified that needed immediate action by the participants. These included creation of awareness of the interrelationships between environment, population and development; advocacy; education; training; population management; gender concerns; monitoring and evaluation; and information dissemination and networking.’
Under the headline: ‘Youth NGOs Agree to Integrate Environment and Population Issues in their Activities’ were mentioned the following activities to brainwash young NGO’s into the right mindset by, again, mixing in environmental issues with population issues:
‘To cooperatively address development problems from the youth perspective, which will ensure their maximum participation, a Working Group of the Regional Consultation of Youth NGOs in Asia and the Pacific was organized in 1994 to mobilize a network of youth NGOs in the region. Among the current issues identified by the Working Group as requiring priority attention were the problems dealing with population, environment and sustainable development. Hence, a Working Group Meeting of the Regional Consultation of Youth NGOs in Asia and the Pacific was held from 19-21 April 1995 at the UNESCO PROAP to discuss and shape a plan of action integrating issues on environment, population and development for consideration by the youth NGOs. (…) To help them develop a relevant plan of action, the participants were exposed and sensitized to the current policies and programmes adopted by FAO, UNEP, UNFPA, and UNESCO in the areas of population, environment and development.’
Further on the use of mass-media is being proposed as effective ‘carriers of population-information’ to hammer dehumanization into the collective consciousness:
‘With more than 2 billion radios in the world, roughly one for every three people, and growing number of televisions, the electronic media plays an increasingly important and influential role in building awareness of population and other development issues.’
The report continues with a prime example of predictive programming:
‘Radio and television soap operas featuring family planning themes, popular songs on population-related issues, and phone-in question-and-answer sessions have all had an impact in different countries. The use of such media can be very important where literacy is low or where written information is not widely circulated. A TV soap opera series is credited with bringing thousands to family planning clinics in Mexico, and night-time drama series integrating family planning themes have proved successful in Egypt, Nigeria and Turkey.‘
In a January 1994 preparation meeting for the Cairo conference called ‘Family Planning Communications Strategies Examined’ the issue was discussed how best to use the media to create tolerance among the general public and ‘how attitudes and beliefs could be changed through the innovative use of traditional and mass media.’
‘The meeting featured case studies and presentations by communication practitioners and covered a wide range of subjects, such as: the use of folk tradition and drama to organize community action in Egypt; the use of micro-communications to encourage acceptance of family planning in the Philippines; the use of traditional and modern media in Ghana; and the use of songs to propagate family planning messages in Latin America. The success in India and Mexico of radio and television soap operas and films on family planning subjects was also discussed.’
During the meeting the Executive Coordinator of the ICPD, Jyoti Shankar Singh, stressed the importance of using mass media to ‘convey family planning and reproductive health messages’:
‘Electronic media, print media (and) interpersonal interventions were all part of the kind of comprehensive information, education and communication (IEC) strategies we need in pursuit of population goals.’
In another technical report (‘Guidelines on Basic Education with special attention to Gender Disparities for the UN Resident Coordinator System’) the message is repeatedly conveyed that:
‘It is important that information be disseminated through various channels including traditional means and packaged in various forms to allow both literate and illiterate persons to understand the key messages.’
In 1997 the UNFPA organized a ‘Regional Media Seminar on Population and Development’ for the role of the mass media in (euphemistically called) ‘Information Repackaging’ for the Pacific islands. The UN officials boasted on the success of the seminar:
‘The seminar brought together journalists in the print and radio media from 9 countries of the South Pacific to explore both the role and potential of mass media as a vehicle for population advocacy, information, education and communication. (…) The seminar explored the role of the media in developing and packaging population materials for identified target groups. The meeting also provided development partners with an opportunity to forge networks with media personnel and develop effective strategies to better address population and development goals and accelerate the implementation of the ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development) Programme of Action.’
In other words: every possible resource should be utilized for propagandizing different target audiences. But the people burdened with designing and implement population education on a large scale emphasized the need for a common tongue and sequence of arguments with which the different UN-divisions sell the people on the idea of dehumanization.
‘Mr. Michael Vlassoff, Senior Technical Officer, Technical and Evaluation Division, UNFPA, introduced the work of the Working Group on Policy-Related Issues. He explained that the Working Group had decided to address the “common advocacy” concern by drawing up a Statement of Commitment that would then be issued by all agencies and organizations involved in the IATF. The aim of such a statement would be to ensure that all UN agencies and organizations use the same language regarding population and development issues.’
The report goes on to list these arguments with which populations worldwide should be lured into embracing modern-day eugenics as a sensible policy:
‘The “Statement of Commitment on Population and Development by the United Nations System”, drafted by the Working Group, is divided into three sections: a general introduction stressing the commitment by the UN agencies and organizations to implement ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development); a section on the linkages between population issues and other development issues; and a concluding section calling for global partnership in addressing these interrelated issues.’
In short- a great part of the 1990s were occupied with a great mobilization of mass media for propaganda purposes by the global elite, a test case so to speak, before implementing the same strategies worldwide in the first decade of the 21st century. And lo and behold! The great global warming swindle arrives just in time as an environmental as well as a development issue to attach the basic message to: there are too many of us- and our numbers should be reduced before the planet is destroyed. Because the warming is global, the response should be so as well. However eloquently the message may be presented by hopelessly compliant media outlets, it is the tyrant’s voice we discern amidst the chatter- and all with ears to hear should educate their neighbor in this all-out information war. Let’s not forget what the elite who have funded the UN from the moment of its very conception have always aspired. In the words of the aristocratic fiend Prince Philip:
‘If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.’

Source: infowars.com

Military Police Document Reveals Integration with Local Law Enforcement

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 8, 2009
On May 5, the WikiLeaks website posted a document entitled “Concept of Operations for Police Intelligence Operations” produced by the U.S. Army and dated March 4, 2009. The 60 page PDF is a “For Official Use Only” intelligence manual from the U.S. Army’s Military Police School.



“PIO [Police Intelligence Operations] supports the homeland defense goals of detecting, deterring, preventing and defeating threats and attacks,” the document states. “PIO supports the range of homeland defense operations and civil support protection capabilities. A CONUS [Contiguous United States] based PIO network that is integrated with local, country, tribal, state and federal, law enforcement entities will ensure a federated approach to enable a unified effort for defense support to civil authorities (DSCA) [Defense Support of Civil Authorities] as well as support (within legal constraints) development and exchange of data assisting in the production of watch lists that deny adversaries access to the homeland, fixed installations/facilities, or expeditionary forces in-transit.”
In short, the document explains how the U.S. military, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, has “integrated” with local law enforcement under the rubric of the GWOT, or so-called Global War on Terrorism. It stresses the need for military police to collect “information that identifies trends, patterns and associations that indicate a possible nexus disrupting or targeting Army operations” within the United States. The “criminal intelligence produced from this analysis should be focused on future coordination” with local law enforcement, again a direct violation of Posse Comitatus.
In 2005, NBC revealed the existence of a DoD database containing information on the antiwar activities of American citizens. “A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a ‘threat’ and one of more than 1,500 ’suspicious incidents’ across the country over a recent 10-month period,” Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, and Rich Gardella reported on December 14, 2005. “Other documents obtained by NBC News show that the Defense Department is clearly increasing its domestic monitoring activities.”
According to Robert Dreyfuss, writing for Rolling Stone, the Pentagon has assembled a nationwide domestic spying machine that rivals the NSA’s warrantless surveillance of telephone and email traffic. “Operating in secret, the Defense Department is systematically gathering and analyzing intelligence on American citizens at home — and a new Pentagon agency called Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) is helping to coordinate the military’s covert efforts with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.” The Pentagon insists the effort is aimed at preventing another attack by al-Qaeda, but as Dreyfuss notes “the military’s efforts at domestic spying have caught few, if any, terrorists.”
In 2008, in response to negative publicity, the Pentagon’s illegal CIFA unit was shuttered, or so the media was told. CIFA maintained a databased called TALON, short for Threat and Local Observation Notice. An ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 2006 revealed that the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force and local police departments had supplied the Pentagon with information that aided intelligence operations against the antiwar movement.
It is not merely the antiwar movement the feds and the military are spying on. During the Tea Party antitax protests held last month, a number of people reported the presence of DHS’ Federal Protective Service at the rallies. “The Department of Homeland Security has an important public safety mission,” says spokesman Russ Knocke. “In a post 9/11 world, I think the public would be comforted to know that part of our mission is to maintain situational awareness of possible vulnerabilities to public safety or even security, such as, for instance, at large public gatherings. The department will, as a routine matter, maintain situational awareness of large public gatherings and share that with state and local partners.”
As it turns out, CIFA was not closed down. It was outsourced to QinetiQ, a major British-owned defense and intelligence contractor based in McLean, Virginia. “Pentagon ‘outsourcing’ of intelligence operations to corporations provide yet another layer of ‘plausible deniability’ to the DoD as it wages the administration’s odious ‘war on terror’ against the American people,” writes Tom Burghardt.
During the Republican National Convention, military intelligence teamed up with federal, state, and local law enforcement to violate the civil liberties of Americans and disregard Posse Comitatus. In late 2008, WikiLeaks posted a DHS document detailing how security forces worked together during the RNC. Many federal, state and local organizations are mentioned in this document and a number of these agencies are military based. NORTHCOM figures prominently in the document (see Did Feds Use Military Intelligence to Spy On RNC Protesters? where there is a link to the DHS document).
The “Concept of Operations for Police Intelligence Operations” document is instrumental because it provides additional information on how this “theater of operation” network operates. Intelligence “fusion cells,” the document explains, are now more prevalent in “operational environments” and these cells enable “commanders to have a ’see, decide and act’ advantage over criminal networks, terrorist groups, cells, and individuals [as noted above, consisting primarily of American citizens opposed to government policies] by ensuring police information and police intelligence is integrated as vital pieces of the overall battlefield visualization.”
As documented on the Infowars and Prison Planet website and covered by Alex Jones on his nationally syndicated radio show, military collaboration with local law enforcement has increased substantially since the false flag terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Most recently, military police have patrolled civilian events such as the Kentucky Derby and the Boston Marathon. DHS, federal agencies, and military police have participated in illegal (under Posse Comitatus) checkpoints in Tennessee, California, Texas, and elsewhere. These operations are designed primarily to acclimate the populace to the presence of uniformed and armed soldiers in our midst — in essence, a standing army — a notion completely antithetical to the sensibilities of the founders.
The “Concept of Operations for Police Intelligence Operations” document is another indication that the military is in the process of incrementally imposing a military dictatorship by stealth in the United States under cover of the bogus GWOT. As then General Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado magazine in December, 2003, the next terrorist attack will result in a cancellation of the Constitution and the imposition of a military dictatorship.
The next terrorist attack will be pulled off by the same people as the first one — not a distant organization of patsies and dupes created by the CIA and hiding out in caves, but forces within the shadow government. Before this can happen, however, the military and police state apparatus must be in order. “Concept of Operations for Police Intelligence Operations” provides us with another glimpse of the operational plans now underway.

You can veiw this document for your self via this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15071238/Concept-of-Operations-CONOPS-for-Police-Intelligence-Operations-PIO

Source: infowars.com

The Future Break Up of the United States of America

Posted by sakerfa on May 7, 2009

The United States of America is really 50 sovereign states in a union and that union can dissolve just like the Soviet Union did. This article will give some possibilities how that break up can occur but there certainly could be other scenarios for this to happen.The major possibility is that after national elections socialist/liberal/progressive forces take control of the executive and legislative branches of government and soon thereafter the Supreme Court. They then would proceed to pass and uphold every sort of socialist legislation such as: hate speech laws, gun laws, immigration laws, socialized medicine, social activism and secular humanism agendas in schools and places of work, outlawing of home schooling, expanding social give-away programs, passing tax laws that burden the middle-class, implementing carbon restrictions and fees, increasing big brother/nanny state police powers and many other laws and regulations that subvert individual freedoms given under the Constitution of the United States for what they will claim to be the greater good of society.
They will increase efforts to redefine the Constitution through activist judges. The courts will also rule that some rights under the Constitution are superseded by international treaties and law.
They will muzzle politically incorrect speech and Christian proselytizing, subvert and brainwash our children with state approved text books and school programs and use national media for political and social propaganda. They will establish unfair tax burdens on the middle class in order to redistribute wealth to the lower class — specifically to those on welfare programs, poor foreign nations and those people who arrived in this nation illegally. They will irresponsibly expand the money supply to pay increasing budget shortfalls, causing the dollar to lose much of its value. Their socialistic polices will create stagflation or hyper-inflation that will effectively wipe out much of the savings of ten’s of millions of people.
At some point in the not too distant future I surmise that a significant segment of the population will rebel against this government and start a secession scenario similar to what I suggest later in this article.
U.S. Vulnerability – Liberals make up the majority populations living in large population states in big cities along both coasts. Those that will oppose this move to communistic fascist-like socialism will be those who make up the majority populations living in the conservative Christian rural heartland of America.
A schism becomes likely between the two worldviews when it becomes obvious to the heartland people that the liberal coastal states will continue to control the American government and that this government will continue to pass and enforce despised amoral laws throughout the United States, regardless of state and local laws. It will especially irk those who believe in biblical moral standards and those who are strict constitutionalists. The heartland people will see national laws and regulations passed and enforced that will ever increase in scope to oppress the rights of freedom loving Bible believing people, corrupt their children, and rob them through unfair federal taxes and irresponsible federal monetary policy.
Some in the heartland of America will not endure these things for long after they realize that the liberal controlled political, educational and media propaganda systems have stacked the deck so that the heartland people will not be able to have a major voice in the policies of this nation through any kind of civil democratic system.
The likelihood that this break up of the union will happen before 2025 A.D.
The likelihood of some kind of breakup of the union is about an eight on a scale of one to ten. The likelihood that the U.S. will fragment into many new nation states, in my opinion, is about fifty-fifty.
The counter-revolution from the heartland may start as a rebirth of the anti federal Government American Patriot Movement and the Libertarians that all but died out after 9/11. The leaders of the movement will address government circumvention of U.S. constitutional rights and it will gain an increasingly large following when muzzled Christian conservatives also identify with their message and some support the movement.
The federal government will obviously oppose these constitutional militias or whatever they decide to call themselves and overreact against them with Homeland Security directed raids that will dwarf Waco. This will only help enlighten more people in the Heartland to the creeping government fascism that is taking control of government and it will spark secession movements in conservative states.
As with prior federal agendas, they will threaten to withhold federal funds and use other coercion techniques against states that will not fully comply with locally unpopular federal laws. That will only alienate state representatives and legislators who will be under much pressure by the local people and cause them to threaten to cut off sending federal taxes to Washington. At some point one northern mountain state will put secession from the union to a emergency state referendum and it will pass. They will declare themselves a free state (like Kosovo) and invite international recognition. Other northern mountain states and some mid-western farming states might soon join with them and create a new union of states.
The federal government will use every means possible to outlaw all this but any federal police-state like actions will only bring violence from both sides and bring international scrutiny. The U.S. government will not be able to use the military to resolve the split because the military will also be totally split on these issues.
Shortly thereafter the Southwest states with large Latino populations will see this as their opportunity for their own nation. Even most of the Anglos living in the Southwest will not oppose the movement because most of them will be totally fed up with the way things are going.
Indian nations will then secede.
As the United States union fails, other regions of the country will see that they will need to form their own group of states. The east coast states could form one union and the west coast states another. The southern bible belt states will also start their own union.
Some Canadian provinces could join with certain former U.S. states, Others provinces might stay Canadian or form their own independent nation. A northern Mexican state or two might join with the Southwest states and Mexico may have their own secessionist movement in the Indian regions of the South.
For a while there will be the Balkanization of North America but at some point for the common good of everyone in North America most states will agree to join a new North American Union of states. It will start as a very limited form of federal government that will control trade, money and some limited social programs. It will not at first be dictating internal federal polices to the individual states.
Much of the world will be having their own economic disasters and separatist movements and the weakened nation states will begin to look more toward regional branches of a world government. The regional branches of world government will allow local autonomy for nation states within global treaties. At least it will start out that way.
By the way, although this would be more unlikely, the break up of the United States could come about from a completely different direction. The Conservatives could take control of America and return it to constitutional law and biblical moral codes. The liberal socialist states might then secede from the union.
Other possibilities are that after terrorist attacks or a national economic crisis, the U.S. becomes a police state and a counter revolution develops against federalized police powers.
Another possibility is that federal and police drug wars against increasingly powerful minority gangs could get out of control. There would be even larger incarceration of minorities then there is now with increased police powers taking away constitutional rights of even innocent people, resulting in a predictable backlash.
The real point is not exactly how this breakup might happen. The point is that America is becoming increasing polarized between liberals and conservatives, religious and irreligious, law abiders and criminals, police and citizens, educators and parents, tax payers and deadbeats, control freaks and freedom lovers, perverts and non perverts etc. If this polarization of America continues to increase we will either have a union break up or we will soon be living under martial law.
It is even likely that some states, counties and cities will break up into smaller local governments because the existing government will no longer reflect the people within.

Source: dprogram.net

Suspect detained over ‘extremist’ bumper sticker

Posted by sakerfa on May 8, 2009

A Louisiana driver has been stopped and detained for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his vehicle and warned by a police officer about the “subversive” message it sent, according to the driver’s relative.
The situation developed in the small town of Ball, La., where a receptionist at the police department told WND she knew nothing about the traffic stop, during which the “suspect” was investigated for “extremist” activities, the relative said.It followed by only a few weeks the release of a Department of Homeland Security “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” report, which prompted outrage from legislators and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.
The report cites individuals who sport certain bumper stickers on their vehicles as suspect, and it was delivered to tens of thousands of local law enforcement officers across the nation.
WND is withholding the driver’s name and the relative’s name at their request.
However, the situation was described on the American Vision blog, too.
According to the relative, the situation happened this way:
Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through the town that has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by stopping speeders and ticketing them. He was pulled over by police officers who told him “he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car.”
Are you ready for a second Declaration of Independence? Sign the petition promoting true freedom once again!
“They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes,” she told WND.
Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.
The company that sells the bumper sticker that was on the car is The Patriot Depot, where Chief Operating Officer Jay Taylor told WND the woman had told his staff about the situation while ordering more bumper stickers.
“It’s rather shocking,” he said. “We supposedly have freedom of speech in our country.
Get your own Gadsden Flag here!
“We joke around every now and then how our spouses will come to visit us in jail,” he continued, citing his products that say, “The Audacity of Nope,” “Taxed Enough Already,” “Born Free, Taxed to Death,” “Bring Home Our Troops: Send the Democrats” and “I’ll Keep my Guns and Money, You Keep the ‘Change’.”
“We hope people realize this is serious,” he said.
American Vision cited the “background check” that was done on the driver.
“Why? [He] had purchased and displayed a conservative ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ bumper sticker.”"
The commentator wrote, “The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan ‘Don’t Tread on Me!’ underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty. Those threats included-and include-illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law.”
American Vision continued: “The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as ‘militia’-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as ‘extremists.’”
“‘Liberals’ and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty ‘extremists’ since at least the 1964 election,” the Vision America statement said. “Small town police misled by phony left wing ‘reports’ are bad enough. Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse.”
WND reported earlier on the DHS report, which advised about the “extremism” that could be expected from returning veterans, those who support homeschooling and oppose abortion, post certain bumper stickers on their vehicles and other factors.
The DHS not only issued that report, but also an earlier memo defining dozens of groups, members of animal rights organizations, black separatists, tax protesters and others as “threats.”
That item, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” reportedly was rescinded almost immediately, but Benjamin Sarlin of The Daily Beast recently obtained and published online a copy of the unclassified memo, dated March 26, 2009.
It defines the “tax resistance movement” – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified.”
It states that tax protesters “have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.”



Apparently, the DHS analyzes the “threat” level of Internet news websites like WorldNetDaily, for the lexicon defines “alternative media” as “a term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.”

Source: WND

After Bailout, GM to Ship Jobs Overseas

By Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 8, 2009
The U.S. government is pouring billions into General Motors in hopes of reviving the domestic economy, but when the automaker completes its restructuring plan, many of the company's new jobs will be filled by workers overseas.



This Story
According to an outline the company has been sharing privately with Washington legislators, the number of cars that GM sells in the United States and builds in Mexico, China and South Korea will roughly double.
The proportion of GM cars sold domestically and manufactured in those low-wage countries will rise from 15 percent to 23 percent over the next five years, according to the figures contained in a 12-page presentation offered to lawmakers in response to their questions about overseas production.
As a result, the long-simmering argument over U.S. manufacturers expanding production overseas -- normally arising between unions and private companies -- is about to engage the Obama administration.
Essentially in control of the company, the president's autos task force faces an awkward choice: It can either require General Motors to keep more jobs at home, potentially raising labor costs at a company already beset with financial woes, or it can risk political fury by allowing the automaker to expand operations at lower-cost manufacturing locations.
"It's an almost impossible dilemma," said former labor secretary Robert B. Reich, now a professor at the University of California-Berkeley. "GM is a global company -- so for that matter is AIG and the biggest Wall Street banks. That means that bailing them out doesn't necessarily redound to the benefit of the U.S. or American workers.
"More significantly, it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of bailing out these big companies. If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?"
The administration has aroused similar complaints by shepherding a merger between Chrysler and Italian automaker Fiat. But it has extracted a promise from Fiat that it will build small cars in the United States.
The complaints about GM's operations portend a potentially larger argument, a political dispute led in part by the United Auto Workers.
"The bottom line is GM would rather pay $2 an hour -- and it's a slippery slope downward," said Alan Reuther, the UAW's legislative director. "If GM is going to be getting government assistance, they ought to be maintaining their manufacturing footprint in the U.S. rather than going off to China, Mexico and South Korea."
Labor costs in those countries are far lower. While paying a U.S. autoworker with benefits costs about $54 an hour, a South Korean worker earns about $22 an hour, a Mexican worker earns less than $10 an hour and some Chinese workers can earn as little as $3 an hour, industry sources said.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, GM chief executive Fritz Henderson met with legislators and sought to ease their concerns over the overseas operations.






He emphasized that the company, which is shuttering factories at home, is also canceling projects in Mexico, Russia and India.
This Story
He also assured legislators that none of the figures are final, and that negotiations with the union are ongoing.
"We continue to work closely with GM, UAW, and all the stakeholders to further refine and develop GM's plan," a Treasury spokesman said.
The U.S. government has loaned GM $15.4 billion. But billions more are expected to be invested, and under the current plan, it will be the majority owner of the company.
The company forecasts that between 2010 and 2014, as the recession recedes, its U.S. sales will rise from 2.4 million to 3.1 million.
Most of that growth -- about two-thirds of it -- will occur in the United States. But about one-third of that growth will come from other countries, mostly Mexico and South Korea.
Those proportions roughly reflect how GM builds the cars it sells in the United States today -- about two-thirds come from the United States and one-third from other countries.
According to the figures shared with lawmakers, the percentage of GM's U.S. sales of cars built in the United States dips from 67 percent in 2009 to 61 percent in 2012. Yet the company projects that by 2014 the percentage will rebound to 66 percent.
Under the viability plan, "the U.S. percentage stays roughly the same," Henderson said in an interview last week.
But the union and some legislators object that the company's U.S.-funded revival should not help pay for expanding foreign operations. Moreover, they believe that planned cuts in Canadian production -- down 23 percent -- will have direct effects on U.S. jobs because the U.S. and Canadian auto industries are so intertwined.
"If you are shutting down plants in this country, U.S. tax dollars should not go for building plants in other countries," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who was among those who met with Henderson.
But company officials and industry analysts have long argued that, even putting aside the issue of labor costs, it makes logistical sense to build some cars in other countries, even if they are destined for sale in the United States.
Take, for example, the Chevrolet Spark, a tiny car that GM sells in South Korea and elsewhere in Asia. In the next few years, the company plans to send some of those cars -- which are built in Changwon -- to the United States for sale.
But since only about 5 percent of the car's market will be in the United States, the manufacturing will remain in South Korea.
Analysts who study the auto companies and their global operation warn against allowing political passions to obstruct GM's efficiency.
"If we start making political decisions with the auto industry, we're going to be in tremendous trouble," said Michael Robinet, vice president of global vehicle forecasts at CSM Worldwide.

Source: Washington Post

Chaos by design?

by Olga Chetverikova

As the world teeters on the brink of financial disaster, leaders are calling for a new world order. As early as the late 1990s, David Rockefeller, author of the idea of private power that is due to replace the governments, said that the world was on the threshold of global changes. He invoked the need of "some large-scale crisis that will make people accept the new world order..." Is the current crisis being used as a mechanism to stoke civil fear and unrest, inducing people to succumb to a system of transnational private power? Olga Chetverikova believes we are in the final stage of that long-time planned ’global control’ agenda.



The champions of the New World Order. David Rockefeller is on the far right.

by Olga Chetverikova

As the world financial and economic crisis comes into its own, the Western community leaders are seeking to impress on mankind the idea that this upheaval will end up ‘turning the world into something different’.

Even though the picture of the ’new world order’ remains vague and fuzzy, the main idea is quite clear: A single global government, goes the argument, has to be established if we don’t want general chaos to prevail.

Every now and again, Western politicians mention the need for a ‘new world order’, a ‘new world financial architecture’, or some kind of ‘supranational control’, calling it a ‘New Deal’ for the world. Nicolas Sarkozy was the first to say so, while addressing the UN General Assembly in September 2007 (that is, before the crisis).

During the February 2009 meeting in Berlin convened to prepare the G20 summit, this was echoed by Gordon Brown, who said that a worldwide New Deal was needed. We are conscious, he added, that where the world financial flows were concerned, we would not be able to emerge from this situation with the help of purely national authorities alone. We need the authorities and world watchdogs to make the activities of financial institutions operating in the world markets totally open to us. Both Sarkozy and Brown are protégés of the Rothschilds. Statements made by certain representatives of ‘the global elite’ indicate that the current crisis is being used as a mechanism for provoking some deepening social upheavals that would make mankind – plunged as it is already into chaos and frightened by the ghost of an all-out violence – urge of its own free will that a ‘supranational’ arbitrator with dictatorial powers intervene into the world affairs.

The events are following the same path as the Great Depression in 1929-1933: a financial crisis, an economic recession, social conflicts, establishing totalitarian dictatorships, inciting a war to concentrate power, and capital in the hands of a narrow circle. This time, however, the case in point is the final stage in the ‘global control’ strategy, where a decisive blow should be dealt to the national state sovereignty institution, followed by a transition to a system of private power of transnational elites.

As early as the late 1990s, David Rockefeller, author of the idea of private power that is due to replace the governments, said that we (the world) were on the threshold of global changes. All we need, he went on, is some large-scale crisis that will make people accept the new world order.

Jacques Attali, Sarkozy’s adviser and former EBRD chief, claimed that the elites had been incapable of dealing with the currency problems of the 1930s. He was afraid, he said, that a similar mistake would be made again. At first we’ll wage wars, he went on, and let 300 million people perish. After that reforms will follow and a world government. Shouldn’t we better think about a world government already at this stage, he asked?



Henry Kissinger: "The President-elect is coming into office at a moment when there are upheavals in many parts of the world simultaneously ... But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy ... I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a ’new world order’ can be created. It’s a great opportunity."

The same was stated by Henry Kissinger: In the final analysis, the main task is to define and formulate the general concerns of the majority of countries, as well as of all leading states with regard to the economic crisis, considering the collective fear of a terrorist jihad. Next, all of that should be converted to a common action strategy… Thus, America and its potential partners are getting a unique chance for turning the moment of the crisis into a vision of hope.

The world is being led to accept the “new order” idea step by step to avoid provoking events that are likely to make the universal protests against the worsening conditions of human existence take ‘a wrong course’ and become uncontrolled. The main thing that Stage One managed to achieve was to start a wide-ranging discussion on ‘global government’ and the ‘inadmissibility of protectionism’ with an emphasis on the ‘hopelessness’ of the national-state models for emerging from the crisis.

This discussion is proceeding against the background of information pressures that help to build up human anxieties, fear, and uncertainty. Some of those information actions are the following: WTO forecasts to the effect that 1.4 billion people are likely to sink below the poverty line in 2009; a warning by the WTO director general that the biggest world trade slide in postwar history is in the offing; a statement by the IMF’s Dominique Strauss-Kohn (a protégé of Sarkozy’s) that a world economic crash is impending unless a large-scale reform of the financial sector of the world economy is implemented, and a crash that is most likely to bring in its wake not only social unrest but also a war.

Against this background, the idea to introduce a as a cornerstone of the ‘new world order’ was put forward. The real masterminds of this long-standing project are as yet in the shadow. Let us note that some or other representatives of Russia are pushed to the fore. This is reminiscent of the situation before World War I, where the Anglo-French circles that possessed some well-elaborated plans for a new division of the world instructed the Russian Foreign Minister to draw up a general program for the Entente Cordiale. It went down in history as the ‘Sazonov program’, even though Russia did not play an independent role in that war and was from the start built into the system of interests of the British financial elite.

On March 19, Henry Kissinger came to Moscow as a member of The Wise Men (James Baker, George Schultz, and others), who had meetings with the Russian leaders before the G20 summit. Dmitry Trenin, director of the Moscow Carnegie Center and participant in the latest US meeting of the Bilderbergers, called that meeting a ‘positive signal’. On March 25, Moskovsky Komsomolets published an article ‘The Crisis and the World Problems’, by Gavriil Popov (currently President of the International Union of Economists) that openly voiced what was normally discussed behind closed doors.

The article mentioned World Parliament, World Government, World Armed Forces, World Police Force, World Bank, the necessity of placing under international control the nuclear weapons, nuclear power generating capacities, the entire amount of space rocket technology, and the planet’s minerals, the imposition of birth-rate limits, the cleansing of humanity’s gene pool, the fostering of people intolerant to cultural and religious incompatibility, and the like.

The “countries that will not accept the global prospects,” says Popov, “must be expelled from the world community.”

Of course, the Moskovsky Komsomolets article conveys nothing new that would enable one to understand the strategy of the global elite. Another thing is important. The establishment of a totalitarian police order and the elimination of national states is being suggested as an open program of action, and what both the liberals, and the socialists, and the conservatives always viewed as ‘new fascism’ is being recommended as the only possible salutary path for the whole of mankind. Someone wants the discussing of these projects to become a norm. In this context, some ‘particularly trusted’ representatives of Russia are pushed to the fore, Russia that will become the main victim of the policy of total plunder should the ‘global government’ become a reality.

The G20 did not discuss the common world currency issue, since time had not yet come for that. The summit itself was a step forward on the way to chaos, because its decisions, if followed blindly, will only worsen the world socioeconomic situation and, to quote Lyndon LaRouche, will “finish off the patient.”

In the meantime, the crisis is being exacerbated, and analysts are predicting an era of mass-scale unemployment. The most pessimistic predictions come from LEAP/Europe 20201, which regularly publishes them in its bulletins and even set them out in an open letter sent to the leaders of the Twenty before the London summit.

As early as February 2006, LEAP was surprisingly precise in describing the prospects for the ‘systemic global crisis’ as a consequence of the financial illness caused by the US debt. LEAP analysts are viewing the current events in the context of the general crisis that began in the late 1970s and is now in its fourth, final and most grave stage, the so-called ‘elutriation phase’, where the collapse of real economy begins. According to LEAP’s Frank Biancheri, it is not simply a recession but the end of the system, in which its main pillar, the US economy, collapsed. “We are witnessing the end of an entire epoch before our own eyes.”

The crisis may lead to some most difficult consequences. LEAP forecasts a rise in unemployment to 15-20% in Europe and as much as 30% in the United States. If the key dollar problem fails to be solved, the world events will take a most dramatic turn. The dollar collapse may take place as early as July 2009, and the potentially decades-long crisis will trigger off “a world-wide geopolitical disintegration” with social upheavals and civil conflicts, with the division of the world into separate blocs, with the world coming back to Europe’s1914, with military clashes, etc. The most powerful popular unrest will take place in countries with the least developed social security systems and the biggest concentrations of weapons, primarily in Latin America and the United States, where social violence is already now manifest in the activities of armed gangs. Experts note the beginning of US population fleeing to Europe, where the direct threat to life is for the time being not so great. Aside from armed conflicts, LEAP analysts forecast power, food and water shortages in areas dependent on food imports.

LEAP experts describe behavior demonstrated by the Western elites as absolutely inadequate: "Our leaders have failed to understand what happened, and show the same amount of incomprehension to this day. We are amid a period of protracted recession, and it was necessary to engage in introducing some long-term measures to cushion the blows, whereas our leaders still hope to avoid a prolonged recession… All of them have been formed around the American pillar and cannot see that the pillar is a shambles…"

But this is not seen by the mid-level leaders, while the top-level world managers are, on the contrary, informed quite well; it is they who are implementing the ‘controlled chaos’ and general disintegration policy, including a civil war and the disintegration of the United States planned for the end of 2009, a scenario that is being widely discussed both by American and world media.

On the threshold of conflicts planned in various areas of the planets, a system is being established that will give a supranational center relying on a large-scale punitive machine total political, military, legal, and electronic control over the population. That system uses the network management principle that allows embedding into any society parallel structures of authority that report to external decision-making centers and are legalized through the doctrine of prevalence of international law over national law. The shell remains national, while real power becomes transnational. Jacques Attali calls this a ‘global law-based state’.

The ruling center of the global law-based state is located in the US. While its fundamentals began to emerge in the 1990s, the fight against terrorism after the 9/11 events has led to radically new phenomena. The passing of the 2001 Patriot Act not only allowed security services to control the American population and suspected foreigners, but also accelerated the passing of state responsibilities into the hands of transnational corporate structures.

Intelligence activities, trade of war, penitentiary system, and information control are passing into private hands. This is done through so-called outsourcing, a relatively new business phenomenon that consists of trusting certain functions to private firms that act as contractors and relying on individuals outside an organization to solve its internal tasks.

In 2007, the American government found out that 70% of its secret intelligence budget is spent on private contracts and that “Cold-War intelligence bureaucracy is transforming into something new, where contractor’s interests dominate.” For American society (Congress included), their activities remain classified, which allows them to gather more and more important functions in their hands.

Former CIA employees say that nearly 60% of their staff are on contracts. Those people analyze most of the information, write reports for those who make decisions in state authorities, maintain communications among various security services, help foreign stations, and analyze data interception. As a result, America’s National Security Agency is becoming more and more dependent on private companies that have access to classified information. No wonder, then, that it is lobbying a bill in the Congress that is supposed to guarantee immunity to corporations that have worked with NSA for the last five years.

The same is happening to private military companies (PMCs), which have been assuming more and more army and police functions. On a significant scale, it started in the nineties in former Yugoslavia, but contract workers were especially widely used in Afghanistan and other conflict zones. They did the ‘dirtiest’ actions, as was the case during the war in South Ossetia, where up to 3000 mercenaries were involved. At the moment, PMCs are real armies, each up to 70,000 strong, that operate in over 60 countries, with annual revenues of up to $180 billion (according to Brookings Institution, USA) For example, over 20,000 employees of American PMCs work in Iraq along with the 160,000 American military contingent.

The system of private prisons is also growing rapidly in the US. The prison industry complex, which uses slave labor and sweatshop practices, is flourishing, and its investors are based on Wall Street. The use of convict labor by private corporations has been legalized in 37 states already, and it is used by major corporations such as IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, Texas Instrument, Intel, Pierre Cardin, and others. In 2008, the number of inmates in US private prisons was about 100,000, and it is growing rapidly, along with the total number of inmates in the country (mostly African-Americans and Latin Americans), which is 2.2 million people, or 25% of all convicts in the world.

After Bush came to power, privatization of the system for transportation and retention of migrants in concentration camps began. In particular, a branch of the notorious firm Halliburton, Kellog Brown and Root (once headed by Dick Cheney), did just that.

The biggest achievements have been made over the last few years in the area of establishing electronic control over people’s identities, carried out under the pretext of counterterrorism. Currently, the FBI is creating the world’s biggest database of biometric indexes (fingerprints, retina scans, face shapes, scar shapes and allocation, speech and gesture patterns, etc.) that now contains 55 million fingerprints. The latest novelties include the introduction of body scanning system in US airports, tracking of literature read by passengers in flight, and so on. A new opportunity to gather detailed information on people’s private lives follow from the NSA Directive N59, passed in summer 2008, ‘Identification and tracking biometry for the purpose of strengthening national security’, and the classified ‘Homeland Terrorism Preparedness Law’.

Evaluating the policy of America’s authorities, ex-Congressman and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul said that America is gradually turning into a fascist state, “We are approaching not a Hitler-type fascism, but one of a softer type, which shows in the loss of civil freedoms, when corporations rule everything and… the government lies in the same bed with big business.” May we remind you that Ron Paul is one of the few American politicians speaking for the closing of the Federal Reserve System as a secret unconstitutional organization?

With Obama’s coming to power, the police order in America is getting tighter and tighter in two directions – strengthening internal security and militarization of civilian institutions. Tellingly, having condemned the infringements on individual freedoms done by the Bush administration, Obama has put his own staff under total control by making them fill out a 63-question form that touches upon the most intricate details of their private lives. In January, the US President signed bills that enable the continuation of the illegal practice of abducting people, keeping them secretly in prisons, and moving them to countries where tortures are used. He also proposed a bill called National Emergency Help Center Establishment Act, which stipulates the establishment of six such centers in US military bases to provide help to people who are displaced due to an emergency situation or disaster and thus get into military jurisdiction. Analysts connect this bill with possible disturbances and consider it proof that the US administration is preparing for a military conflict which may follow after the provocation that is being planned.

The American system of police control is actively implemented in other countries, primarily in Europe – through the establishment of American law hegemony on its territory by means of closing various agreements. A big part here was played by US–European talks out of the glare of publicity on creation of the common ‘area of control over the population’ that were held in spring 2008, when the European Parliament adopted resolution that ratified creation of the single transatlantic market abolishing all barriers to trade and investments by 2015. The talks resulted in the classified report prepared by the experts from six participating countries. This report described the project to create the ‘area of cooperation’ in the spheres of ‘freedom, safety and justice’.

The report dwells upon the reorganization of the system of justice and internal affairs of the EU member states in such a manner that it would resemble the American system. It concerns not only the ability to transfer personal data and cooperation of police services (which is already being carried out), but also, for example, extradition of EU immigrants to US authorities in accordance with the new mandate that abolished all the guarantees the European procedure of extradition provided. In the US the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is in force, and it allows persecution or imprisonment of any person who is identified as an ‘illegally fighting enemy’ by the executive authorities and extends to immigrants from any country not at war with the US. They are persecuted like “enemies” not based on some evidence but because they were labeled so by the governmental agencies. No foreign governments have protested against this law which is of international importance.

Soon they will sign the agreement on personal data communication, in accordance with which the American authorities will be able to obtain such personal information as credit card numbers, bank account details, investments, travel routes or communication via Internet, as well as the information concerning race, political and religious beliefs, habits, etc.. It was under the US pressure that the EU countries have introduced biometric passports. The new EU regulation implies the overall switch of EU citizens to electronic passports from the end of June 2009 by 2012. New passports will contain a chip with not only passport info and a photo, but also fingerprints.

We are witnessing the creation of the global electronic concentration camp, and crisis, conflicts and wars are used to justify it. People tend to tremble in the face of an imaginary danger and are too lazy to see the real one.


Source ; Voltairenet.org - Olga Chetverikova