Federal Judge Questions Obama Admin Lawsuit Against Arizona Law

Jerry Markon
Washington Post
July 24, 2010

PHOENIX — A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause “irreparable harm” and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.

“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).

Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department’s argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is “preempted” by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.

"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

At issue in Thursday's hearing, argued in a tan-colored "special proceedings" courtroom" inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.

As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration's effort to stop the state's crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally.

"The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power," Kneedler told a rapt courtroom. Brewer, whose fierce criticism of the federal lawsuit has helped her popularity at home, watched silently from the front row, drawing a "Good afternoon, Governor" from the judge.

Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.

"We keep hearing that we can't really do anything about these illegal aliens -- Arizona should just deal with it," said John J. Bouma, Arizona's lead attorney. "Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable."

The law, which Brewer signed in April, empowers police to question people they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants and to send them to federal authorities for possible deportation. President Obama has strongly condemned the law, and the Justice Department filed suit July 6, setting up an unusual clash between the federal government and a state over who should enforce the nation's immigration laws.

Bolton did not indicate how she might rule, saying only that she will take the matter "under advisement." But she did subject Justice Department lawyers to some pointed questions.

Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don't have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law "in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way."

"It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does," Kneedler said, citing as his main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption."

Based on the Constitution's supremacy clause, it says federal law trumps state statutes. Because the federal government has "preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the government's lawsuit argues, the Arizona law must be struck down.

Bolton questioned key parts of that argument, especially relating to a section of the law that appears to require immigration-status checks if police stop someone for another law enforcement purpose and suspect the person is an illegal immigrant.

Kneedler said the conflict with federal law comes because the status checks are mandatory, which could lead to federal agencies being overwhelmed with deportation requests. Top officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose agents will handle most of the calls from Arizona authorities if the law takes effect, have said they will not necessarily respond to every call.

"There really is no flexibility," Kneedler said.

He added that the Arizona law might lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and is threatening to harm vital cooperation along the border with Mexican authorities, who have strongly condemned the law. "These are very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," he said.

Bouma ridiculed the foreign policy concerns.

"Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted," he said. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring requests from Brewer and numerous other governors for more help in securing the border.

"You can't catch them if you don't know about them," he said. "And they don't want to know about them."

Bolton is hearing six other lawsuits filed against the Arizona law. A former Arizona state court judge, she was nominated for the federal bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, but legal observers say she is hard to pigeonhole ideologically.

Outside the gleaming glass-and-white iron courthouse, named for former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, an angry subtext reflected the divide over how to handle the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

Opponents of the Arizona law clasped hands, prayed and held signs condemning it.

"The law is racist. The police are harassing us because of our brown skin," said Marta Calderon, who sat next to a painting of the Virgin Mary affixed with a sign saying "Stop SB1070," as the immigration law is known.

Nearby, Brandy Baron waved an American flag and expressed her support for the law and her "disgust" at efforts to overturn it.

"I am amazed that the Justice Department would have the nerve to sue us for trying to get laws that are already on the books enforced," she said.

Paul Craig Roberts: Government Abandoned Vietnam POWs

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars.com

May 27, 2010

John McCain worked overtime to make sure Vietnam POWs never came home.

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show today, Paul Craig Roberts talked about the shameful abandonment of POWs by the U.S. government. Roberts mentioned an article by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sydney Schanberg posted on the American Conservative website entitled McCain and the POW Cover-Up.

“John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home,” writes Schanberg. “Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents.”

Schanberg notes there is overwhelming evidence — official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos — of soldiers left behind in Vietnam. McCain has insisted this evidence was “woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth” about the U.S. government. According to McCain, the evidence consists of nothing more than the “bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists,” “hoaxers,” “charlatans,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “dime-store Rambos.”

Schanberg’s articles serve as yet more evidence that the government does not give a whit about its soldiers or for that matter its citizens. Government cannot be trusted. It attracts the worst sort of psychopaths and criminal opportunists. John McCain is with them.

According to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (The Final Days, Ch. 14), Rockefeller minion and high level globalist Henry Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy.

Once again, John McCain, a favorite of the global elite, has demonstrated his capacity for treason.

The following article blurbs contain links to the original articles.

McCain and the POW Cover-Up

Sydney Schanberg

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Read entire article

Silent Treatment

Sydney Schanberg

From the beginning, nearly 40 years ago, the evidence was in plain sight. For reasons unexplained, however, the mainstream press did not acknowledge it and has continued to ignore it to this day.

I’m referring to the evidence that North Vietnam—after the peace treaty had been signed on Jan. 27, 1973 in Paris—held back hundreds of American prisoners, keeping them as bargaining chips to ensure getting Washington’s promised $3.25 billion in war reparations. The funds were never delivered, and the prisoners were never released. Both sides insisted to their people and the world that all POWs had been returned, challenging the voluminous body of facts to the contrary.

Read entire article

Was Rambo Right?

Sydney Schanberg

In the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign, I clicked an ambiguous link on an obscure website and stumbled into a parallel universe.

During the previous two years of that long election cycle, the media narrative surrounding Sen. John McCain had been one of unblemished heroism and selfless devotion to his fellow servicemen. Thousands of stories on television and in print had told of his brutal torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, his steely refusal to crack, and his later political career aimed at serving the needs of fellow Vietnam veterans. This storyline had first reached the national stage during his 2000 campaign, then returned with even greater force as he successfully sought the 2008 Republican nomination. Seemingly accepted by all, this history became a centerpiece of his campaign. McCain’s supporters touted his heroism as proof that he possessed the character to be entrusted with America’s highest office, while his detractors merely sought to change the subject.

Once I clicked that link, I encountered a very different John McCain.

I read copious, detailed evidence that hundreds of American POWs had been condemned to death at enemy hands by top American leaders, apparently because their safe return home would have constituted a major political embarrassment. I found documentation that the cover-up of this betrayal had gone on for decades, eventually drawing in a certain Arizona senator. According to this remarkable reconstruction of events, the average teenage moviegoer of the 1980s watching mindless action films such as “Rambo,” “Missing in Action,” and “Uncommon Valor” was seeing reality portrayed on screen, while the policy expert reading sober articles in the pages of The New Republic and The Atlantic was absorbing lies and propaganda. Since I had been believing those very articles, this was a stunning revelation.

But was this alternate description of reality correct? Could this one article be true and all the countless contrary pieces I had read in America’s most prestigious publications be false, merely the presentation of official propaganda endlessly repeated? I cannot say. I am not an expert on the history of the Vietnam War and its aftermath.

Yet consider the source. The author of that remarkable 8,000-word exposé—“McCain and the POW Cover-Up,” published on The Nation Institute’s website—was Sydney Schanberg, one of America’s foremost Vietnam War journalists. His reporting won him a Pulitzer Prize, and his subsequent book on Cambodia was made into “The Killing Fields,” an Oscar-winning movie. Schanberg later served as one of the highest-ranking editors at the New York Times, with a third of the reporters at our national newspaper of record working under him. A case can be made that no living American journalist can write with greater credibility on Vietnam War matters. And he had labored for years researching and exhaustively documenting the story of American POWs abandoned in Indochina—a story that if true might easily represent the single greatest act of national dishonor ever committed by our political leaders.

He presented a mass of evidence with names, dates, and documentary detail. Many of the individuals mentioned are still alive and could be interviewed or called to testify. Sealed government records could be ordered unsealed. If America wishes to determine the truth, it can do so.

Yet what I found most remarkable about Schanberg’s essay were not its explosive historical claims but the absolute silence with which they were received in the mainstream media. In 2008, John McCain’s heroic war record and personal patriotism were central to his quest for supreme power—a goal he came very close to achieving. But when one of America’s most eminent journalists published an exhaustive report that the candidate had instead served as one of the leading figures in a monumental act of national treachery, our media took no notice. McCain’s public critics and the operatives of his Democratic opponent might eagerly seize upon every rumor that the senator had had a private lunch with a disreputable corporate lobbyist, but they ignored documented claims that he had covered up the killing of hundreds of American POWs. These allegations were serious enough and sufficiently documented to warrant national attention—yet they received none.

All of this might seem unimaginable except that it falls into a strong pattern of the press avoiding stories of overwhelming importance. Consider how many of the national disasters of the past few years have been caused by the unwillingness of our major media to question official truths or the widespread beliefs of our elites. The Iraq “cakewalk” to eliminate Saddam’s WMDs, the nationwide housing bubble, and the Madoff swindle might have been prevented or would never have reached such massive proportions if reporters and editors had been willing to investigate and present claims contrary to the soothing blandishments of the powerful. Instead, it has become the norm for press outlets simply to repeat, with a few word substitutions, stories indistinguishable from those previously published by dozens of other press outlets, without ever examining any contrary evidence that might raise doubts about this perceived reality. Truth has come to mean the lies that everyone believes.

A couple of years ago, in one of my last exchanges with my late friend Lt. Gen. Bill Odom, who ran the National Security Agency for President Ronald Reagan, we agreed a case could be made that today’s major American media had become just as dishonest and unreliable as the old Soviet propaganda outlets of the late 1970s. At the time, we were discussing the coverage of our road to the Iraq War, but subsequent events have demonstrated that this national illness is far more advanced than either of us had suspected. Whether or not Schanberg is proven correct, the shameful cowardice of our mainstream media is already proven by the wall of silence surrounding his work.

In an attempt to breach that wall, we present Schanberg’s account of how his remarkable story was buried, as well as his explosive original article. TAC has also convened a symposium of critics drawn from military, political, and journalism backgrounds to explain how this report could have failed to reach a mass audience. A small political magazine does not have the resources to investigate the detailed evidence of Schanberg’s case, but we can hold a mirror up to America’s major media and force them to see what stories they now regard as completely non-newsworthy.

And if Schanberg’s claims are indeed correct, they reveal the lethal consequences of America’s overweening national pride. After all, his history is a simple one. Following the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the Vietnamese refused to return their French POWs unless Paris agreed to pay financial compensation for the war. The French leaders paid the money and got their men back. Similarly, the Vietnamese refused to return their American POWs unless the U.S. government agreed to pay reparations. Nixon signed a document promising to do exactly that, but the Vietnamese, being cautious, kept many of the POWs back until the money was delivered. Then Congress refused to authorize the funds because “America doesn’t lose wars.” Nixon and later U.S. leaders never acknowledged the fate of these captives lest the American people become outraged. And as the years and decades went by, and various schemes to ransom or rescue the POWs were considered and rejected, their continued existence became a major liability to numerous powerful political figures, whose reputations would have been destroyed if any of the prisoners ever returned and told his story to the American people. So none of them ever came home.

False Flag Cyber Attack Could Takedown The Internet

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Wednesday, Jul 21st, 2010

An increasing clamour to restrict and control the internet on behalf of the government, the Pentagon, the intelligence community and their private corporate arms, could result in a staged cyber attack being used as justification.

Over recent months we have seen a great increase in media coverage of inflated fears over a possible “electronic Pearl Harbor” event, with reports claiming that the U.S. could be “felled within 15 minutes”.

Vastly over-hyped (and in some cases completely asinine) claims that the power grids and other key infrastructure such as rail networks and water sources are wired up to the public internet have permeated such coverage.

Threats against computer networks in the United States are grossly exaggerated. Dire reports issued by the Defense Science Board and the Center for Strategic and International Studies “are usually richer in vivid metaphor — with fears of ‘digital Pearl Harbors’ and ‘cyber-Katrinas’ — than in factual foundation,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a respected researcher and blogger who writes on the political effects of the internet.

Morozov notes that much of the data on the supposed cyber threat “are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies — which need to justify their own existence — and cyber-security companies — which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety.”

When the Cybersecurity Act was introduced by Senator John Rockefeller last year, he made similar claims about the threat of cyber attacks, adding “Would it have been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?”.



Rockefeller’s legislation gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report.

Provisions in the bill would allow the federal government, via the DHS and the NSA, to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications – all in the name of heading off cyber attacks on the nation.

Enhancements of such provisions are contained in the more recent “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act”, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman. The bill would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.

An accompanying cybersecurity control grid would only create greater risk according to experts who note that it would essentially “establish a path for the bad guys to skip down.” Other countries, such as Australia and the UK are following suit.

The program dovetails with the Pentagon’s newly created Cyber Command, headed by Keith B Alexander, the acting head of the NSA and the man behind the massive program of illegal dragnet surveillance of domestic communications since at least 2001.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing, Alexander said the Pentagon’s Cyber Command would enjoy “significant synergy” with the NSA. “We have to show what we’re doing to ensure that we comport, comply with the laws,” said Alexander, perversely claiming the agency is respecting and protecting the privacy of the American people.

The Pentagon considers cyberspace a warfighting domain equal to land, sea, air and space. In 2003, the Pentagon classified the internet as an enemy “weapons system” requiring a “robust offensive suite of capabilities to include full-range electronic and computer network attack.” It has spent Billions of dollars building a super secret “National Cyber Range” in order to prepare for “Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement”, which translates as control over “any and all” computers. The program has been dubbed “The Electronic Manhattan Project”.

The enemy is never specifically named, it is merely whoever uses the net, because the enemy IS the net. The enemy is the freedom the net provides to billions around the globe and the threat to militaristic dominance of information and the ultimate power that affords.

These initiatives represent a continuation of the so called “Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative”, created via a secret presidential order in 2008 under the Bush administration. former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell announced that the NSA’s warrantless wiretaps would “be a walk in the park compared to this,”.

“This is going to be a goat rope on the Hill” McConnell said. My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

As we have previously reported, large corporations such as Google, AT&T, Facebook and Yahoo to name but a few are intimately involved in the overarching program. Those corporations have specific government arms that are supplying the software, hardware and tech support to US intelligence agencies in the process of creating a vast closed source database for global spy networks to share information.

Clearly the implications of this program for the open and free internet, and for liberty in general are very worrying, this has been reflected in the resistance and criticism from groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

In light of this, there is a real danger of a hyped or completely staged cyber attack being propagated in order to bring the issue to public attention and counter the critics who have exposed it as a part of the agenda to restrict the Internet.

In 2008 Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig detailed such ongoing government plans for overhaul and restriction.

Lessig told attendees of a high profile Tech conference that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.

Lessig said that he came to that conclusion following a conversation with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, who informed him that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an “i-Patriot Act” if you will, and that the Justice Department is just waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.

Lessig is the founder of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. He is founding board member of Creative Commons and is a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

These are clearly not the ravings of some paranoid cyber geek.

Though Richard Clarke advocates an enhancement of cyber security, even he has stated that it would be a terrible idea to allow the government to regulate and filter the internet.

We have also recently seen multiple mock attacks conducted by the government, via private outsourcing, on it’s own infrastructure systems. On such exercise, called “We Were Warned: Cyber Shockwave”, involved Former Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff and former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin taking the roles of government leaders. CNN broadcast the entire simulation on prime time television.

Alex Jones recently discussed this issue on Russia Today news programming:





Journalist Webster Tarpley also lays out the hyping of cyber threats as a pretext to takedown the internet:

The Roaring Voice Of The Truth Movement Cannot Be Silenced Through Censorship

With searches such as “Obama Deception Censored” reaching number 1, it was clear that the people were not happy with the censorship.

Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
July 21, 2010

The censorship of the Obama Deception awoke the sleeping giant that is the patriot movement. Google has made a very large statement by reinstating The Obama Deception, after the film was mysteriously pulled along with other top documentary films created by Alex Jones. Not only is this the first time that the mega-corporation has restored a political video of such nature on Youtube, but the restoration also came after Google’s search engines were blasted with hard-hitting search topics.

With searches such as “Obama Deception Censored” reaching number 1, it was clear that the people were not happy with the censorship. Initially, Obama Deception was the hottest search on Google Trends, but it was later pushed down the list despite a high volume of searches.

It was the immense response from concerned patriots that led to proper justice and reinstitution. With The Obama Deception being in the spotlight once more, it allowed for hundreds of thousands of people around the world to injected with a high-potency formula of truth. Censorship only enabled the video to become even more mega viral. Censorship simply does not work, and it only creates a full backlash against the corporation or governmental institution that is issuing the censorship. The roaring voice of the truth movement cannot be silenced, and only grows louder with each intellectual battle against tyranny.

This Is Not The First Incident Of Internet Censorship

Internet censorship has been extremely prevalent in the past few years, with Infowars and Prison Planet being blocked by filters around the world. Beyond censorship of individual websites promoting peaceful demonstrations and resistance to tyranny, the Cybersecurity Bill gives Obama complete control over the internet. This, of course, will most likely be abused beyond all imagination.

The internet has been a vassal of truth and information for years, and corrupt politicians are starting to voice their opposition to the internet and its informational database. Jay Rockefeller, of the Rockefeller family, stated that the internet should never have existed. The Rockefeller family have deep ties with eugenicist ideology, and helped to found IBM through financial funding.

Jay Rockefeller has been confronted by We Are Change, a group that seeks to uncover the truth about 9/11 and other topics, about his position on internet censorship and his ties to eugenics. Instead of providing any answer, Jay Rockefeller begins to run away. One member asks about the famed Bilderberg group, in which he replies with a non-answer, saying that it is not part of the discussion. This is the man who gets a say in whether or not we are able to have an unregulated and uncensored internet.

Criminal Censorship Techniques Wake Up More People

The internet is the medium of choice for most people to display their work, read the news, or stay in contact with friends. When they find out that the internet is being assaulted by outlandish policy, they are going to be furious. If one person’s video is censored, then soon it will be your video. The very ability of free speech is what needs to be protected. Free speech can only be protected as a nation, by protecting the free speech of every single man. On the other side of things, it has already come out that in Britain they hold every phone call, email, and web search for one year. Telecom companies are required to do this by law.

Many People Are Fully Aware Of What Is Going On

The censorship of the Obama Deception is a testament to the ability of the people. Millions are aware of what is going on, and they have the intellectual power to create change through peaceful means. Completely dominating the global trends on Google Trends is but one way that the people have flexed their muscle. The Obama Deception has been seen millions of times, with the censored video receiving more than 6.6 million views, and it will continue to be seen by millions more (granted that the internet remains up and well). Continue to promote The Obama Deception and other truth films, and flex the muscle of the truth movement.

Homeland Security for Whom?

Douglas Valentine
LewRockwell.com
July 21, 2010

The Washington Post has published a splashy exposé about the mammoth “homeland security” intelligence empire that now burdens the United States, financially and ideologically.

As usual, however, there is no real historical context. And that lack of context is part of the story – not just the current dimensions of the empire.

I wrote the following article for Penthouse in the summer of 2003. It was reprinted by CounterPunch later that summer.

At the time I said: “This homeland security boondoggle is the biggest reorganization of the U.S. government in 50 years. It might even bankrupt the country and, perhaps intentionally, throw it into a Depression. That remains to be seen. What is certain is that at a cost of $50 billion in taxpayer’s money, the homeland security infrastructure will provide Bush with 170,000 political cadres, and the internal security he needs to assure the continuity of his political power indefinitely. Except for providing Bush with political internal security, there is no need for the Department of Homeland Security; it is a Trojan Horse through which Bush will unleash his ideological storm troopers and exploit his ill-gotten power to achieve permanent political dominance.”

I put the blame on “Bush” at the time (and the numbers have varied) but it’s really the national security state that’s to blame for the near Depression the homeland security state (financially and ideologically) has caused. And of course the Washington Post is part of the national security state – that secret group of people who control America through secret deals – the type of secret deals that enable Washington Post reporters’ access to anonymous CIA officers.

DC Declares War On States

Chuck Baldwin
July 21, 2010

Among the limited duties of the US Government enumerated in the federal Constitution is Article. IV. Section. 4. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” However, for several decades now, the federal government in Washington, D.C., has shown great ambition and propensity to engage in activities to which it was never authorized, and to ignore those responsibilities with which it is specifically charged. The responsibility of the federal government to protect each State against invasion is a classic example of the latter.

Can anyone deny that the states on the US southern border (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) are being invaded by an ongoing onslaught of illegal aliens (many of whom are violent and dangerous criminals)? Somewhere between 12 and 30 million illegals now reside in the US. The entire country is feeling the effects of this invasion, but the Border States are literally under siege. And not only does the federal government do nothing to protect the states against this invasion, it actively wars against states such as Arizona when they attempt to protect themselves. Yes, I am saying it: the Washington, D.C., lawsuit against the State of Arizona’s immigration laws should be regarded as an act of war against the State of Arizona in particular, and against the states general in principle.

Please consider what Arizona and the other Border States are dealing with. According to published reports:

• In Los Angeles, 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.

• Some private reports state that 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix and 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are for illegal aliens. These reports cannot be verified, of course, because the feds discourage law enforcement agencies from releasing such statistics.

• At any given time, up to 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

• 23% of all inmates in LA County detention centers are “deportable.”

• LA police estimate that violent gangs, such as MS-13 and 18th Street Gang, are “overwhelmingly” composed of illegal aliens.

To read one very enlightening testimony given before Congress by an expert on illegal immigration containing some of the above information (and much more), go here:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mac_donald04-13-05.htm

In addition, the Pew Hispanic Center (an organization friendly to all things Hispanic) reports that by 2007, “nearly one-quarter (24%) of all federal convictions” involve illegal aliens. And “among those sentenced for immigration offenses in 2007, 80% were Hispanic.” The PHC went on to report that illegal Hispanics “represented 29% of all federal offenders.”

See the report at:

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=104

Remember, too, that illegal aliens murder (on average) 12 American citizens EVERY DAY in the United States. That means illegals murder more Americans EVERY YEAR than in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED, TO DATE. Plus, illegal aliens who drive drunk kill an additional 13 Americans EVERY DAY.

See the following report:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103

At this point, I will not again chronicle the financial costs and job losses exacted upon the American taxpayers by these invading illegals, but I encourage you to read a previous column I wrote on this subject. See it here:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1490

Plus, my web site contains an exhaustive page dealing with the problems and costs of the ongoing invasion by illegal aliens against this country. See it at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=123

Add to the above the blatant rhetoric and public statements of activists within radical Hispanic revolutionary groups such as La Raza that incessantly call for the “reconquista” of the southwestern United States, and one can easily discern that the invasion by (mostly) Mexicans in the US is much more than “poor people trying to find a better life.” There is some of that going on, of course, but the invasion also includes violent criminal gang members, drug dealers, human traffickers, rogue government troops, and covert provocateurs who are attempting to destabilize US cities and states, promote crime and violence, disrupt honest elections, and even facilitate revolution against the American citizenry.

And what does the Barack Obama administration do? Instead of obeying the Constitution and helping to protect the State of Arizona (and the other Border States), it sues the State of Arizona for trying to protect itself. Again, by this action, has not Washington, D.C., declared war against the State of Arizona (and, by implication, the other 49 independent, sovereign states)?

Please understand: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and her allies in the Arizona legislature are not only defending their State, they are working to protect every State in the Union. Very obviously, the line is being drawn in the sand against a federal leviathan that increasingly shows blatant disregard for not only its own responsibilities and duties, but for the rights and freedoms of the individual sovereign states, and for the American citizenry as a whole.

And for those misguided Christians and pastors out there who are prone to defend and facilitate this invasion of illegal aliens in the name of Christian compassion, I would like to remind them of the words of our Lord, who said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1 KJV) Thus, our Savior plainly categorizes illegal aliens (or anyone who refuses to enter through a door–or across a border–honestly) as thieves and robbers. Unfortunately, many are also rapists, murderers, violent drug dealers, and slave merchants.

If Barack Obama had even a smidgen of honesty and integrity, instead of attacking the people of the State of Arizona for simply trying to defend themselves against a very real and dangerous foreign invasion, he would take seriously his responsibility to help protect them against this invasion, which Article IV. Section. 4. of the US Constitution clearly requires him to do.

Obama's War on the Internet

Campaign For Liberty

The Ministry of Truth was how George Orwell described the mechanism used by government to control information in his seminal novel 1984. A recent trip to Europe has convinced me that the governments of the world have been rocked by the power of the internet and are seeking to gain control of it so that they will have a virtual monopoly on information that the public is able to access. In Italy, Germany, and Britain the anonymous internet that most Americans are still familiar with is slowly being modified. If one goes into an internet café it is now legally required in most countries in the European Union to present a government issued form of identification. When I used an internet connection at a Venice hotel, my passport was demanded as a precondition and the inner page, containing all my personal information, was scanned and a copy made for the Ministry of the Interior -- which controls the police force. The copy is retained and linked to the transaction. For home computers, the IP address of the service used is similarly recorded for identification purposes. All records of each and every internet usage, to include credit information and keystrokes that register everything that is written or sent, is accessible to the government authorities on demand, not through the action of a court or an independent authority. That means that there is de facto no right to privacy and a government bureaucrat decides what can and cannot be "reviewed" by the authorities. Currently, the records are maintained for a period of six months but there is a drive to make the retention period even longer.

The excuses being given for the increasing government intervention into the internet are essentially two: first, that the anonymity of the internet has permitted criminal behavior, fraud, pornography, and libel. Second is the security argument, that managing the internet is an integral part of the "global war on terror" in that it is used by terrorists to plan their attacks requiring governments to control those who use it. The United States government takes the latter argument one step farther, claiming that the internet itself is a vulnerable "natural asset" that could be seized or damaged by terrorists and must be protected, making the case for a massive $100 billion program of cyberwarfare. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) argues that "violent Islamist extremists" rely on the internet to communicate and recruit and he has introduced a bill in the Senate that will empower the president to "kill" the internet in case of a national emergency.

But all of the arguments for intervention are essentially themselves fraudulent and are in reality being exploited by those who favor big government and state control. The anonymity and low cost nature of the internet means that it can be used to express views that are unpopular or unconventional, which is its strength. It is sometimes used for criminal behavior because it is a mechanism, not because there is something intrinsic in it that makes it a choice of wrongdoers. Before it existed, fraud was carried out through the postal service and over the telephone. Pornography circulated freely by other means. As for the security argument, the tiny number of actual terrorists who use the internet do so because it is there and it is accessible. If it did not exist, they would find other ways to communicate, just as they did in pre-internet days. In fact, intelligence sources report that internet use by terrorists is rare because of persistent government monitoring of the websites.

The real reason for controlling the internet is to restrict access to information, something every government seeks to do. If the American Departments of Defense and Homeland Security and Senator Lieberman have their way, new cybersecurity laws will enable Obama's administration to take control of the internet in the event of a national crisis. How that national crisis might be defined would be up to the White House but there have been some precedents that suggest that the response would hardly be respectful of the Bill of Rights. Many countries already monitor and censor the internet on a regular basis, forbidding access to numerous sites that they consider to be subversive or immoral. During recent unrest, the governments of both Iran and China effectively shut down the internet by taking control of or blocking servers. Combined with switching off of cell phone transmitters, the steps proved effective in isolating dissidents. Could it happen here? Undoubtedly. Once the laws are in place a terrorist incident or something that could be plausibly described in those terms would be all that is needed to have government officials issue the order to bring the internet to a halt.

But the ability to control the internet technically is only part of the story. Laws are being passed that criminalize expressing one's views on the internet, including both "hate crime" legislation and broadly drafted laws that make it a crime to support what the government describes loosely as terrorism in any way shape or form. Regular extra-legal government intrusion in the private lives of citizens is already a reality, particularly in the so-called Western Democracies that have the necessary technology and tech-savvy manpower to tap phones and invade computers. In Europe, draconian anti-terrorism laws enable security agencies to monitor phone calls and e-mails, in many cases without any judicial oversight. In Britain, the monitoring includes access to detailed internet records that are available for inspection by no less that 653 government agencies, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with security or intelligence, all without any judicial review. In the United States, the Pentagon recently sought an internet and news "instant response capability" which it dubbed the Office of Strategic Influence and it has also seeded a number of retired military analysts into the major news networks to provide a pro-government slant on the war news. The State Department is also in the game, tasking young officers to engage presumed radicals in debate on their websites while the growing use of national security letters means that private communications sent through the internet can be accessed by Federal law enforcement agencies. The Patriot Act created national security letter does not require judicial oversight. More than 35,000 were issued by the FBI last year and the recipient of a letter commits a felony if he or she reveals the receipt of the document. In a recent case involving an internet provider in Philadelphia, a national security letter demanded all details of internet messages sent on a certain date, to include account information on clients with social security numbers and credit card references.

The danger is real. Most Americans who are critical of the actions of their own government rely on the internet for information that is uncensored and often provocative, including sites like Campaign for Liberty. As this article was being written, a story broke reporting that Wordpress host Blogetery had been shut down by United States authorities along with all 73,000 Blogetery-hosted blogs. The company's ISP is claiming that it had to terminate Blogetery's account immediately after being ordered to do so by law enforcement officials "due to material hosted on the server." The extreme response implies a possible presumed terrorist connection, but it is important to note that no one was charged with any actual offense, revealing that the government can close down sites based only on suspicion. It is also likely only a matter of time before Obama's internet warfare teams surface either at the Defense Department or at State. Deliberately overloading and attacking the internet to damage its credibility, witness the numerous sites that have been "hacked" and have had to cease or restrict their activities. But the moves afoot to create a legal framework to completely shut the internet down and thereby control the "message" are far more dangerous. American citizens who are concerned about maintaining their few remaining liberties should sound the alarm and tell the politicians that we don't need more government abridgement of our First Amendment rights.

Another Victory: “Google Spies” Number 1 Searched Term on Google

Alex Jones & Matt Ryan
Infowars.com
July 19, 2010

In another show of incredible determination, we have managed to fight back censorship and tyranny with truth by getting “Google Spies” to the top searched term of July 19, 2010. This is one of several victories that have been accomplished thanks to our amazing listeners and readers. This is a direct assault on the cover-up being pulled on the American people by the cartel of elite corporations.

Mainstream news, popular blogs and talk shows regularly refer to Google trends for topics and for the past few days the leading stories have been The Obama Deception, Infowars, Fall of the Republic, Google Censorship and most recently Google Spies. This is a major blow to the establishment and with you help we can keep the truth on top of nonsensical topics like Lindsey Lohan’s legal troubles.

On behalf of everyone at Infowars, thank you again for your continued support in the fight against censorship and tyranny. This couldn’t be accomplished without you.

We are monitoring this as we have noticed trending topics relating to our efforts have been removed in the past. We will keep you informed of the latest developments as things progress.

Update: “Google Spies” has been removed from Google Trends as a hot search within a half-hour of the attached screenshot being taken.

The Decision: Freedom or Slavery?

The Excavator
July 16, 2010

It is obvious to every human being in the world that something is wrong in America, where the fate of a sports star is given prime-time attention on national television, while the fate of criminal bankers on Wall Street goes unreported, unmentioned, undecided. If John F. Kennedy was alive he would probably tell Americans: Ask not what Lebron James can do for your city’s basketball team; ask what Wall Street has done to your city’s dreams and hopes.

Instead of a Kennedy, or an Andrew Jackson in the White House, there is a callous, fake, and devious politician that does not have any loyalty to his country, or any inkling of patriotism.

Instead of a Kennedy, or an Andrew Jackson in the White House, who called the private banking establishment a “den of vipers,” there is a callous, fake, and devious politician that does not have any loyalty to his country, or any inkling of patriotism. He golfs with big banksters, and delivers speeches written by top elitists. The man is so emotionally shallow that he can’t articulate the nation’s anger and distress about the state of the economy without the use of a teleprompter. He isn’t just missing a beat; he’s missing the entire song. And even when he is able to stir some emotions by appealing to people’s distrust of Wall Street, his words are no more authentic than those that are written for a Hollywood film actor. What’s even more scandalous is that he is manipulating the little public support that he has for a corrupt globalist political agenda that he was groomed early on in his political career to carry out.

What else can be said about such a despicable liar as the current President of the United States? Is he aware of the magnitude of the fraud that he is perpetuating on the American people, and on mankind? Does he perceive what penalties lie ahead for him by continuing to insult the American people’s intelligence and sovereignty? Do the American people fully understand the implications of his lies about the wars in the Middle East, 9/11, Wall Street, and the new corporate order agenda? If they did, they should impeach him now. Right now.

Writer and historian Thomas Carlyle warned in his 1850 essay, “Stump-orator,” about men like Barack Obama, and other deceptive politicians, saying that they must not be followed, but exposed, and forever shamed. Carlyle:

“Alas, the palpable liar with his tongue does at least know that he is lying, and has or might have some faint vestige of remorse and chance of amendment; but the impalpable liar, whose tongue articulates mere accepted commonplaces, cants and babblement, which means only “Admire me, call me an excellent stump-orator!” –of him what hope is there? His thought, what thought he had, lies dormant, inspired only to invent vocables and plausibilities; while the tongue goes glib, the thought is absent, gone a-wool-gathering; getting itself drugged with the applausive ‘Hear, hear!” –what will become of such a man? His idle thought has run all to seed, and grown false and the giver of falsities; the inner light of his mind is gone out; all his light is mere putridity and phosphorescence henceforth. Whosoever is in quest of ruin, let him with assurance follow that man,” (Carlyle, Latter-Day Pamphlets, pg. 181).

How long will the world listen to anything that Obama says, or any other puppet lined up behind him who will continue the same agenda of permanent war, permanent spying by the sate, and permanent ownership of society by private banks and corporations? How long will you go along? How long will I?

Why aren’t there more individuals in the U.S. government like Thomas A. Drake and Sibel Edmonds? More talk show hosts on radio like Alex Jones? More journalists in the media like Russ Baker? More news anchors like Amy Goodman? More writers like Arthur Silber and Chris Floyd? More soldiers like Hugh Thompson, Jr.? The world needs bravery, and courage above everything else. Truth-tellers are the peacemakers. They are loyal to a higher authority, to human rights, to the rule of law. Obama, and the U.S. government have zero authority. Dissent against such a criminal state, and the corrupt politicians who serve it is not an act of unlawful rebellion, but an act of true citizenship; a reminder to petty tyrants that draconian laws will not be tolerated by free men and women.

In the book, “Crimes of Obedience: Toward A Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility,” authors Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton emphasize the power to say no to state sanctioned criminality that every human being is born with. Following orders is not a valid excuse. Avoiding individual responsibility is cowardice. They write; “Crimes of obedience are a consequence of authority run amok. They become possible when individuals abandon personal responsibility for actions taken under superior orders, continuing to obey when they ought to be disobeying,” (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989, pg. 20).

For much of the book, Kelman and Hamilton focus on the breakdown of morality, and the human fear of state authority that had allowed the My Lai Massacre to take place, but at the very end they recount the hopeful story of a French village called Le Chambon that housed German and Eastern European Jews under Nazi rule:

“A deeply moving demonstration of the power of social norms against dehumanization was provided by the small Protestant village of Le Chambon in southern France in the years 1940 to 1944, during the period of the Vichy government and the Nazi occupation (Hallie, 1979). Under the leadership of their pastor, the villagers organized themselves into a place of refuge for victims of persecution, most of whom were Jews–and not even French Jews, but refugees from Germany and Eastern Europe. At great cost and in the face of enormous dangers, the people of Le Chambon established houses of refuge for children, sheltered refugees in their own homes, provided them with identity and ration cards, took care of their needs, and helped them escape when the necessity or opportunity arose. Through their efforts, thousands of children and adults were saved from arrest, deportation, and certain death. Many factors combined to launch and sustain this project of organized resistance to government authority: the history of the Protestants in France; the Chambonnais’ sense of obligation to a higher, religious, authority; the character of Andre Trocme, the pastor, and the villagers’ relationship to him; the solidarity of the community. But the motive force behind the resistance, according to Philip Hallie, was the concern for individual human beings shared by the community’s leaders and members–a concern marked by an attitude of caring, a responsiveness to others’ pain, and a sense of duty to help human beings in need. The Chambonnais refused to go along with attempts to dehumanize the victims. When Andre Trocme was informed by a high official about the need to deport the Jews, he replied: “We do not know what a Jew is. We know only men” (Hallie, 1979, p. 103). This response contrasts tellingly with Lieutenant Calley’s statement, cited earlier: “I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women, and children. They were all classified the same . . . just as enemy soldiers” (Hammer, 1971, p. 257).

We began this book with the story of a village in which a crime of obedience was committed during the Vietnam War. It is appropriate that we end the book with the recollection of another village, at another time and place, whose occupants individually and collectively resisted destructive authorities and refused complicity in an officially sanctioned crime. Despite the continuing prevalence of crimes of obedience and the widespread readiness to submit to authority without question, we draw some optimism from the knowledge that the world of modern bureaucracies provides the setting not only for My Lais but also for Le Chambons,” (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989, pg. 337 – 338).

It is a sad reflection of our times that the citizen is not the center of the political universe in America, or almost anywhere in the world, and when he is given some attention during a special occasion like an election, the central aim is to transfer his fanatical impulses that are usually dedicated to his favorite sports team, or television show to a particular political party, or political puppet. But as Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton illustrate in their book, the citizen has the power to place himself in the center of the moral universe, and from there, take a stand for human justice, and the rule of law.

If we collectively and peacefully resist the U.S. military, NATO, and Israel, then the war crimes in the Middle East will be stopped, and future crimes can be prevented. I can’t see why this is so difficult. What is stopping us from taking a bold stand for justice, and the rule of law? Most of us know how great a hoax the war on terrorism is, so why are we not taking a more assertive position against government authority in the West? Can we not see that what was once the shadow of tyranny is now in full-view, with its dark sun shining darkly over us? Are we too distracted by the latest celebrity gossip to decide between freedom and slavery, not only for ourselves, but for future generations, and not only in the West, but for all Mankind? How shameful it is that media propaganda has conquered the fighting spirits of men in our age, blunted our sense of right and wrong, and convinced us to live every day like the last; to tolerate gross human injustices, and the liars who help cover them up.

Professor William McNeile Dixon advised us in the middle of the last century to never lose sight of the treasures of human freedom, and never accept slavery in whatever rag it wraps itself. Dixon:

“Men are to accept serfdom for the sake of peace and quiet, the content of the dungeon, where you have regular meals, and are in danger from robbers. It is an agreeable prospect. For my part I should be much surprised and disappointed in my fellow creatures where they so poor in spirit as to prefer plenty in servitude to freedom with a diet of herbs, were they prepared to accept the ‘base, dishonorable, vile submission’, to lose all dignity and stateliness in their outlook upon both life and death. Time will tell,” (The Human Situation, pg. 292).

National Guard’s “Homeland Response Force” to Patrol Missouri, Nine Other States

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
July 15, 2010

Homeland Response Forces are descending upon Missouri and nine other states, where National Guard units will be the face of Federal power in the regions in the event of a terrorist attack or disaster.

RAND Corp. "Katrina Offers Lessons for Improving the National Guard Response to Catastrophic Domestic Emergencies" http://www.rand.org/…/summer2007/katrina.html
The Sedalia Democrat reports that, along with Missouri, the state where the report was written, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, Utah and California will also host the National Guard Homeland Response Forces in the name of fighting terrorism. A unit will be placed within each of the regions established by FEMA, effectively implementing Federal powers at the state level premptively.

The U.S. Department of Defense announced Monday that Missouri will be one of 10 states to host National Guard Homeland Response Force units to help coordinate federal response to a terrorist attack.

According to the DoD announcement, the move came about following the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review — a congressionally mandated report put together every four years that highlights changes and challenges in national defense strategy. The 2010 report calls for improved coordination with civilian officials and providing resources for large-scale emergency response.

Other states that have announced participation in the program include Ohio.

This ties in with other recent reports of National Guard pitted against the domestic population. Infowars reporters recently exposed the National Guard involvement in Vigilant Guardian exercises training for terrorism & disaster during drills taking place in Chicago, Illinois. Video footage detailing this activity can be seen exclusively at PrisonPlanet.tv.

More shockingly, New York State has further announced the use of National Guard– merged with police– to aid in curbing the drug trade by intervening in local neighborhoods (despite the cynical fact that the CIA and other government agencies enable the importation of narcotics). The reports state that the National Guard will even scan vehicles for ‘guns and drugs’ using high-tech gamma rays.

The National Guards Role in Homeland Defense http://www.ng.mil/features/HomelandDefense/cerfp/index.html



This roll-out of National Guard is not new, but is being phased in at an accelerated pace. The publicly-presented mandate for these National Guard troops continues to revolve around the “disasters” and “terrorism” theme. However, the RAND Corp., an authoritative think tank that has proven close to the political agendas actually being implemented, has prepared the nation for riots within the United States and control of widespread domestic unrest. Their 2009 report “A Stability Police Force for the United States” [PDF] proposes a “hybrid” military/law enforcement unit that would respond to disasters, but effectively act as a Federally-controlled policing force implemented within the bounds of States under the guise of controlling domestic riots, preparing for terrorism and even training for overseas deployment.

The RAND report outlines in part:

“The USMS [U.S. Marshalls Service] hybrid option … provides an important nondeployed mission for the force: augmenting state and local agencies, many of which currently suffer from severe personnel shortages.”

“Furthermore, the USMS has the broadest law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency…. [This model] provides significant domestic policing and homeland security benefits by providing thousands of additional police officers across the United States.”

It is clear that while these events seemingly take place independently, and trickle out of the news without alarm, it is part of a larger plan to implement National Guard in duties never meant for them to undertake across the country, functioning, in essence, as another layer of “authority” over the states and inviduals, and taking power under the pretense of national disaster, terror attack, biological or chemical warfare, the drug war or general domestic unrest. Notice the difference between a response to something that might happen utilizing the National Guard when needed vs. the premeditated deployment of the National Guard along the 10 regional lines drawn by FEMA to serve at any pretext that can be justified. I have included both a RAND Corp. study for integrated National Guard response following Hurricane Katrina as well as an Army report playing out the joint command structures and integrated control of National Guard between Federal and State authorities, all closely paralleling the rise of Fusion Centers to ‘protect the homeland.’

RAND Corp (2007): Katrina Offers Lessons for Improving the National Guard Response to Catastrophic Domestic Emergencies

http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2007/katrina.html

The table outlines how the effects and response requirements of several scenarios now being envisioned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — from radiological, nuclear, and biological terrorist attacks to a major earthquake — would be generally comparable to the effects and response requirements experienced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Thus, the lessons so painfully learned from the hurricane could help America become stronger for all types of future catastrophic domestic emergencies.

Numerous difficulties beset the military response. The initial call-up of the U.S. Army National Guard in Louisiana and Mississippi was hindered by the fact that each state had a brigade, or about 3,000 troops, redeploying from Iraq. It took more than three days for roughly 6,000 backup troops to arrive from other states, because many had neither planned nor exercised for such emergencies. As the forces flowed into the region, they lacked command and control, because it took more than a week for U.S. National Guard (henceforth national guard) division headquarters staffs to arrive. Finally, the president did not decide until the end of the first week of the response to send in active-duty land units from the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps, in part because most of these units were either overseas or preparing to deploy.

To improve military disaster-response efforts, the U.S. Army should take the following steps:

* Give state national guard units the federal mission to conduct homeland security activities, as is the case today for planning and funding counterdrug operations.
* Create ten regional national guard rapid-reaction homeland security task forces.
* Collocate these task forces with the regional planning offices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
* Create opportunities for the regional national guard task forces to train regularly with local first responders, including law enforcement officials, and other local units that are focused on counterterrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
* Train state national guard units for rapid response not only within their states but also for emergencies in other states.
* Prepare governors to call up state national guard units quickly and involuntarily for active-duty, out-of-state emergencies.
* Establish plans to use the Air National Guard or commercial airlines to fly designated national guard units to out-of-state emergencies.
* Prepare state officials to designate backup national guard units that could fill in during disaster response operations for national guard units deployed overseas.
* Assign both national guard and active-duty army units to homeland security missions as part of the army’s routine unit-readiness planning process.
* Prepare state and federal leaders to select quickly from a set of predefined command-and-control alternatives, giving the lead to federal or state task forces, depending on the characteristics of an emergency.



Excerpts from Army Paper Discussing Use of National Guard for Homeland Disaster & Terrorism Response, Including Debate Over Military Command in Light of State vs. Federal Control

Command and Control: Command and Control of Military Forces in the Homeland

Jeffrey W. Burkett
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
July 15, 2010

“To serve in the National Guard is to accept a dual mission. You can be called on to defend the country against enemies abroad, or to protect lives and property here at home in times of local emergency.“1 -Richard B. Cheney

The U.S. military and state National Guard have a long and proud tradition of defending our nation from attack and assisting civil authority during times of crisis. Notwithstanding their primary Federal purpose of fighting wars, the frequency with which U.S. military forces are employed for missions related to homeland security has risen dramatically since 9/11. This change is understandable given the increase in the perceived and actual threat to the United States. The American military, which is one of the largest Federal investments, is arguably the most versatile organization in terms of capability and responsiveness. Fiscal appropriations by Congress for its organizational structure, composition, and equipment are intended to satisfy the current National Military Strategy.

In an effort to streamline military roles and responsibilities for homeland defense2and civil support, several notable changes have taken place since 9/11. First, Presidential authority established U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) in 2002. Second, the National Guard reorganized itself at the state level and launched a series of homeland defense and security programs. Likewise, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) also transformed itself by improving its national coordinating ability and refining its supporting role for state governments and the national defense community. Finally, Congress changed the Federal law (Title 32) that governs the National Guard to create the legal framework for the executive branch to employ the Guard in homeland defense and civil support actions.

Polarizing Domestic Military Assistance

After witnessing complications in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Governor Rick Perry of Texas was determined to lead the Hurricane Rita response by retaining command and control over the Texas National Guard. In response to a White House request to establish an Active-duty officer as a dual-status commander, Governor Perry requested Presidential authorization for a Texas National Guard officer to be approved as a dual-status commander.6 Hurricane Rita did not have the impact on Texas that Katrina had on Louisiana, and significant Federal military support was not required. Nevertheless, Governor Perry’s request went unfulfilled, and unity of command under a dual-status arrangement never happened. Federal forces operating in Texas answered to the Federal chain of command that ran back to USNORTHCOM versus integrating with the state military response directly.

The stalemate over C2 left the impression with Governors and Guard members that National Guard dual-status commanders are not trusted to lead both state and Federal forces for a disaster response.

State Command



The first option is state command and consists purely of National Guard forces ordered to duty by a Governor. Every aspect of such National Guard employment is in accordance with state law and funded by the state. Several hundred Guardsmen around the Nation are in state Active-duty status every day performing state missions such as search and rescue, incident response, and critical infrastructure protection. These missions also provide a domestic deterrent against potential attackers and indirectly support the Nation’s homeland defense and homeland security missions.8 The other status that falls under state command is Title 32, by which Guardsmen perform duties to accomplish training for their Federal mission or execute operational missions approved by the Federal Government, such as counterdrug or homeland defense activities.

The use of state command employs a Joint Force Headquarters-State (JFHQ-State) providing command and control for all in-state National Guard forces. The JFHQ-State can also act as a joint Service headquarters for national-level response efforts during contingency operations.9 In this role, the JFHQ-State will generate a tailored JTF to assume tactical control of National Guard units supporting emergency response requirements. For operations that demand a large response force or multiple unique military capabilities, subordinate JTFs may be generated. The C2 diagram in figure 1 illustrates the simplicity of state-only coordination with multiple JTFs.

The primary advantages of the state command option include the preservation of state sovereignty over the response effort, detailed local area knowledge, clear lines of command, unity of effort, unity of command, avoidance of Posse Comitatus restrictions, and fast response times. With a state-only Guard response, Governors retain their constitutional authority and control. Additionally, this option maximizes familiarity with local conditions, resources, personalities, and organizations.



Because Governors’ constitutional responsibilities span a range of issues from enforcement of civil order to protection of critical infrastructure, the National Guard is a powerful capability in supporting a Governor’s ability to discharge the duties of office effectively. Figure 2 highlights equities against the National Defense Strategy and shows the range of possible duty statuses to reveal the overlapping state-Federal relationship. Viewed in this manner, it is apparent why every state considers essential programs such as Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Packages, and National Guard Rapid Reaction Forces.

Parallel Command



Graphic showing Parallel Command and control: The generic parallel C2 structure depicted in figure 3 illustrates the organizational divide and the high degree of effective coordination that must occur at the operational and tactical levels for this option to be effective.
The second command option introduces Federal military forces under the command and control of USNORTHCOM. For civil support operations, the Federal military responds to DOD-approved requests that originate from an incident command within a state, and USNORTHCOM employs capabilities that operate in parallel with state Guard forces. The underlying assumption for this approach is that the Federal military is available and prepared to respond. Additionally, it is assumed that the National Guard will already be operationally engaged, given their proximity and ability to respond rapidly.

Parallel state/Federal commands have been used exclusively since Operation Winter Freeze in 2004 for operations ranging from the deployment of Navy salvage divers to multiple JTFs with thousands of troops. In all cases, USNORTHCOM operates in support of a Federal agency responsible for an emergency support function (ESF) with the exception of ESF-3, Public Works and Engineering, which is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Federal response usually only occurs in support of the already ongoing state response.

Dual-status Command



The dual-status command structure combines the advantages of the state command option and the parallel command option. The dual-status command structure addresses the unity of command dilemma directly. Under this construct, National Guard commanders on Title 32 status are ordered to Federal Active duty (Title 10 status), retaining their state commission when activated.

This dual-status provides the statutory authority for one person to command both state and Federal military forces simultaneously. This permits the dual-hatted commander to control a unified military response at the operational level in support of the state. In figure 4, a notional dual-status command illustrates the chain of command beginning with the President and Governor. National Guard forces in state Active-duty or Title 32 status perform state missions under the authority of the Governor, and assigned Title 10 Federal forces perform defense support of civil authority for USNORTHCOM.

The advantages of the dual-status command include a Governor retaining authority over the response, clear lines of command, and the ability to integrate Federal military forces operationally to achieve unity of effort. Conversely, Presidential C2 is preserved. Every advantage previously described for the state command applies to the dual-status command.

Federal Command



The final option is a pure Title 10 Federal command. In this arrangement, all National Guard forces are federalized and integrated with Active-duty forces under the command and control of USNORTHCOM. Resorting to this option is unlikely unless an extreme event unfolds and a state is completely overwhelmed and local government ceases to operate. Under these conditions, the President is constitutionally obligated to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States.

The concept of operations is to mobilize National Guard forces using the JFHQ-State and integrate them into the responding Federal JTFs or functional component commands illustrated in figure 5. The Federal Government unilaterally makes decisions, and Presidential involvement is expected to be significant until functioning civil authority is restored in the affected state.

The advantages of a Federal command are that it preserves U.S. sovereignty, leverages the Total Force, and establishes unity of command and effort. The disadvantages include the compromise of state sovereignty, political cost of federalizing the National Guard, and economic cost of taking charge of the response.

Britain Unveils Unmanned ‘Combat Aircraft Of The Future’

Curtis M. Wong
The Huffington Post
July 14, 2010

The UK Ministry of Defence’s “combat aircraft of the future” — a state-of-the-art jet capable of deploying weapons and bringing back intelligence without human guidance — made its long-awaited debut at a ceremony Monday.

Named after the Celtic god of thunder, the Taranis comes equipped with advanced stealth technology. Unlike the current generation of propeller-driven unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV), the Taranis would therefore be able to carry missiles into regions where the military does not have air dominance, the AFP reports.

Initially budgeted at 125 million pounds, the Taranis was originally scheduled to enter ground testing last year in time for military use this year. Instead, the aircraft set producers BAE Systems back an estimated 143 million pounds, and flight testing is expected to commence next year.

Taranis "is a prelude to the next generation of fighting capability," Nigel Whitehead, group managing director of programs and support at BAE, told the Financial Times. "If we are not on top of that, there will be no future for UK aircraft capability."

Though the use of UCAVs and other automation of weaponry is a growing military trend as part of a way to reduce budgets, the Taranis' debut has its share of detractors. As the Globe and Mail reports:

"Militaries are spending large amounts of money to develop robots that can locate targets and "destroy them without human intervention," says Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield, raising the prospect of a scenario similar to that portrayed in the "Terminator" series of movies, in which robots are self-aware enough to start killing humans.

Censorship Alert: Obama Deception Illegally Removed from You Tube

Made to look like a hack, Thought Police Block Mega-Viral Anti-Establishment Documentary After More than a Year of Dominating Viewcounts, Ranking #1 in Search Engines and Waking Up Millions to the False Left-Right Paradigm Perpetuated by Obama

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
July 18, 2010

Alex Jones is on high-alert after someone managed to compromise the “ChangeDaChannel” You Tube account and criminally remove the most-viewed version of “The Obama Deception” available online, which had more than 6.5 million views and whose URL link ranked among the top of all “Obama” related searches.

The channel’s owner was tipped-off about the breach, and was subsequently able to change the password and prevent further deletions of Alex Jones and other patriot documentaries. Both he and members of the Infowars staff believe the video could have only been pulled from behind the scenes at Google or by a government-level cybersecurity admin with access to YouTube records, as the passwords were carefully guarded and unlikely to be guessed at.

The film, which has been attacked before, was censored at a critical time. Just one day before on Friday’s broadcast, Alex challenged activists to drive “Obama Deception” up in the search engines. Only a few hours later, Google trends rankings revealed that it was the #1 search term, above Lindsay Lohan, the BP Oil Spill or the death of George Steinbrenner. What’s more, the viewcount grew by nearly 100,000 in that same single day, demonstrating the accelerated attention the film has been receiving. Further, as a result of topping the online trends charts, dozens of fresh reviews in online papers and blogs were published, including Blue Star Chronicles, Mahoo News and Live Street Journal.



“This was a criminal act, and You Tube needs to investigate, track the IP and find out who did it,” Alex Jones said. “The Obama Deception was getting more and more popular, and the establishment doesn’t like the fact that it exposes the Left-Right paradigm and identifies Obama as a puppet,” he added.

Fighting back against the censorship of The Obama Deception and other patriot works is in your hands. Already, your hard work to promote and propagate this information has resulted in tremendous success. You are equally capable of responding to this negative act with a positive outpouring of numbers in the way of spreading the video, searching for the term and a million other ways of promoting the truth out there. Once again, it is up to you.

The Obama Deception has drawn fierce attacks since its release in March 2009– not only strong words attempting to discredit the powerful information the film puts forward, but in attempts to limit and block the film online. Nevertheless, an estimated 25 million have seen the film worldwide, thanks to hundreds of online versions and DVDs handed out by dedicated activists.



Even so, Google merchant and other shopping carts have blocked its sale after labeling the film as “anti,” “hate” or otherwise “inappropriate.” Before the film was even released, FBI officials asked suspiciously about the film during a visit to Alex’s office, where they attempted to gather information about the documentary, office employees and other information. Earlier in the film’s release, YouTube was caught fudging the viewcount and other statistics for the film. This past week, Alex Jones’ Facebook was blocked for displaying a “Gadsden flag”– a key icon of the Revolutionary War–which drew ire. The Obama Deception was taken down only a few months ago after a false copyright complaint blocked it for several weeks, but was later restored. Even a “Christian” version of YouTube has censored an upload of the film.

Images of President Obama as “the Joker” created a stir last year as well– and it was clear from interference that free speech did not apply to those holding signs with the image at rallies or putting up posters around town or on social networking sites.

21ST CENTURY THOUGHT POLICE: INTERNET CENSORSHIP ALERT

A cadre of White House Intelligensia as well as a new breed of “Cyber Security” at the Pentagon have taken it upon themselves to regulate the Internet, conform “free speech” to their gated-and-streamlined Internet 2 model and “offensively” take on offending web entities. This action has been boldly led by the likes of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who in support of cyber security bill, stated that it might have been “better if we’d never invented the Internet.” More dramatically, Joe Lieberman and others have called for Chinese-style censorship and enabling a “kill switch” at the behest of President Obama or his successors.

Further, a literal information war has been declared in the online space, a veritable frontier battleground for freedom in the 21st Century virtual world. CENTCOM announced its intention to “engage bloggers” and counter errors or “disinformation.” The Air Force has a similar operation, as does the Pentagon.

Likewise, Obama’s Information “Czar” Cass Sunstein outlined a report for the Journal of Political Philosophy recommending engagement on the part of the government to infiltrate conspiracy groups in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks sites. Even more outrageously, he has envisioned a scheme to censor conspiracy theories or tax those who disseminate them. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has also advocated regulating political speech and even banning books.

The flag@whitehouse.gov program even asked supporters to identify “fishy” blogs or websites that might be promoting “disinformation” about health care or other aspects of the White House agenda. The same concept took place during the 2008 campaign where Missouri ran an add threatening to arrest critics who “told a lie” about Obama or promoted ‘disinformation’ such as claims that Obama was born in Kenya.

The web has become the most important public space for political discussion in the 21st Century, as has been very “democratic” in its access to blogs, alternative news, individual and even unpopular opinions, the promotion of ideas and candidates (regardless of budgets or notoriety), audio-visual and printed archives and other vital material that should be protected under Constitutional and democratic principles, but are instead being bullied.

Blocking information is not new, but will only accelerate in the realm of the 21st Century Internet. Opponents of freedom would like to silence widespread online dissent, and will only find justification for moving forward to shut it down and censor its content. The Constitution and Bill of Rights put in place strong protection for expression and personal belief, and a high-tolerance for free speech for a reason– especially when criticizing or questioning high officials and leaders.

OBAMA’S “CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE” IS ELECTION DILEMMA FOR DEMOCRATS

Cadres of angry Obama supporters have been attacking The Obama Deception since its released less than 2 months after Barack Obama’s inauguration. Despite attempts to label the film as “racist” or “anti-government,” The Obama Deception has reached many people, and unnerved the establishment so much, that Alex Jones reportedly made the supposedly leaked White House enemies list, proving that the film has undermined Obama’s effectiveness.

Instead of being able to easily ram-through legislation with the aid of Democratic majorities in BOTH houses, Obama has been forced to fight for issues that are simultaneously gaining in their unpopularity with the public daily. Carbon taxes, the bailout for bankers, health care legislation, amnesty for illegal aliens– alongside the collapsing ecomony– have driven massive fury. All these issues and more have been covered in Alex Jones’ controversial documentary since the dawn of the Obama Administration. The Fall of the Republic further expands that analyze and goes even deeper.

Top news pundits are now saying that the Democrats may likely lose control of not only the House, but the Senate as well in the November 2010 elections. Rahm Emanuel is fleeing his Chief of Staff position; former Clinton Aides are speculating that only a terror attack like 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombing save the Obama Administration, and bolster a political rescue from the angry uprising that has been unseating incumbents, supporters of Health Care and other unpopular legislation, but especially the Congressional Democrats.

With the upcoming midterm elections, the Obama White House is more desperate than ever to regain their credibility, silence those calling the Emperor “naked” and reign in the destruction of America to fit the schedule of his social-engineering masters.

SOLUTIONS: FIGHTING BACK FOR FREE SPEECH AND ON-LINE LIBERTY — A CALL TO ACTION!

As Paul Joseph Watson has recently observed, the lights are going out for free speech on the Internet. But the best defense against such strong attempts to censor and control the web, is to fight back with a full offensive. The same activists who’ve made The Obama Deception one of the most viewed online films of all time, and who’ve driven its name into the top of search trends can once again demonstrate to the powers to be that we are a force of significant numbers. Make it clear that we will never stop fighting and that we will see that this powerful film– and so many other activist tools– aren’t shut down, and instead are spread everywhere into the physical and virtual world.



Fight back against criminal sabotage and outright censorship:

- by spending 5 minutes or so every time you go online to send “The Obama Deception” or “Police State 4″ or “Endgame” into the top of Google, Yahoo, Bing and StartPage’s search engines.

- break apart marketing for mindless celebrities or government “propaganda placement” and use the hype to bring attention to real issues of the day or powerful documentaries that tell the truth

- by spreading other links to The Obama Deception to your friends, family, coworkers and everyone else you know. Spreading these links will, in turn, make them more dominant in search engine results, and help drive the trend as well

- by sending out the new upload of The Obama Deception on Change Da Channel, featuring a warning by Alex Jones about how dire the need is to spread the film and stop the Internet policing

- using Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and other social networking sites to virally share “The Obama Deception” as well as key news articles

-pass out DVDs, pamphlets and flyers in the physical world to people you encounter, and keeping physical and offline archives of vital information that can survive outside of the increasingly-regulated Internet

-wherever it seems relevant, let your Congressman, city representatives, etc know that you support a free Internet; urge them to vote against a “kill switch” and to carefully guard against “cyber security” that is really surveillance and censorship.

- Get The Obama Deception on DVD and make copies forevermore or download the film in high-quality on PrisonPlanet.tv and share it with your familiars.

Share these working links to The Obama Deception:
MrV1420 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpRocaEfQE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756#
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1250419
http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=ZUFhUU5BcWuRpQ3dhTHc&the-obama-deception-hq-full-length-version=
fearblocke – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8pKq9FzmtQ
jh4t3d – (Spanish Subtitles) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtAdmaXuaA0&feature=related
bedoboy – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP_AdVVKFdM
Hashstarr – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85IEs4nCgfo&feature=related
stopcenzurze – (Czech Subtitles) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVhRafT4AkA&feature=related
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f6_1237453305
http://www.viddler.com/explore/Bootlead/videos/20/
http://vimeo.com/3676634
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4706364/obama_deception/

Support youtube.com/ChangeDaChannel
Support youtube.com/TheAlexJonesChannel