2012 Baaad News Archive


31 December 2012:  In the following article, Paul Craig Roberts provides an excellent summary of the similarities among the supposed Bin Laden "assassination", the Aurora incident and the Sandy Hook Elementary incident.  Don't get distracted, rather, focus on the facts, question the inconsistencies and don't let anything unresolved slip away as they so badly want it to.



» Agenda Prevails Over Truth

By: Paul Craig Roberts| December 28, 2012

In the Western world truth no longer has any meaning. In its place stands agenda.

Agenda is all important, because it is the way Washington achieves hegemony over the world and the American people. 9/11 was the “new Pearl Harbor” that the neoconservatives declared to be necessary for their planned wars against Muslim countries. For the neoconservatives to go forward with their agenda, it was necessary for Americans to be connected to the agenda.

President George W. Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neil, said that prior to 9/11 the first cabinet meeting was about the need to invade Iraq.

9/11 was initially blamed on Afghanistan, and the blame was later shifted to Iraq. Washington’s mobilization against Afghanistan was in place prior to 9/11. The George W. Bush regime’s invasion of Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) occurred on October 7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11. Every military person knows that it is not possible to have mobilization for invading a country half way around the world ready in three weeks.

The Orwellian “PATRIOT Act” is another example of planning prior to the event. This vast police state measure could not possibly have been written in the short time between 9/11 and its introduction in Congress. The bill was already written, sitting on the shelf waiting its opportunity. Why? Who wrote it? Why has there been no media investigation of the advanced preparation of this police state legislation?

Evidence that responses to an event were planned prior to what the government said was a surprise event does suggest that the event was engineered to drive an agenda that was already on the books.

Many on the left-wing are immune to evidence that is contrary to the official 9/11 story, because for them 9/11 is refreshing blow-back from the oppressed. That the oppressed struck back is more important to the left-wing than the facts.

The right-wing can’t let go of the fantasy either. America in all its purity and wonderfulness was attacked because evil Muslims cannot stand our goodness. “They hate us for our freedom and democracy.” The right-wing vision of a great and good America wronged is essential to the right-wing’s sustaining ideology, an ideology that is prepared to commit violence in order to prove its righteousness.

Implausible stories can be useful to other agendas and thus be sustained by their use in other arguments. For example, the Obama regime’s story of the killing of Osama bin Laden is central to Charles Pierson’s story in the November 16-30, 2012, CounterPunch in which Pierson writes about the growing strains on the US-Pakistan alliance. Pierson writes that bin Laden resided next to Pakistan’s largest military academy and that bin Laden “did go next door every Wednesday to use the pool. If the Pakistani government was unaware of bin Laden’s presence this would mark an intelligence failure of heroic proportions.”

Is it plausible that Osama bin Laden, a hunted man (actually a man dead for a decade), visited the Pakistani army, a bought-and-paid-for entity used by Washington to launch attacks on Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal areas, to go swimming every Wednesday?

Or is this a fairy tale made possible by ignoring the live interviews of the neighbors of the alleged “bin Laden compound.” According to Pakistanis who knew the person living in “bin Laden’s compound,” the person Americans were told was bin Laden was a long-time friend who imported foreign delicacies. An eye witness to the “assault” on “bin Laden’s compound” reported that when the helicopter lifted off it exploded and there were no survivors. If there were no survivors, there was no sea burial of bin Laden.

How is it that the US media can produce a story as fact that is contradicted by the news on the ground? Is the answer that the bin Laden assassination story served an agenda by providing evidence that we were winning?

Consider the Sandy Hook school shooting. This shooting serves as an excuse for “progressives” to express their hatred of guns and the NRA and to advance their gun control agenda. Few if any of those hyperventilating over the tragedy know any of the parents of the murdered children. They have shown no similar response to the US government’s murder of countless thousands of Muslim children. The Clinton regime alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children with illegal sanctions, and Clinton’s immoral secretary of state, a feminist hero, said that she thought the sanctions were worth the cost of one half million dead Iraqi children.

Suddenly, 20 US children become of massive importance to “progressives.” Why? Because the deaths foster their agenda – gun control in the US.

When I hear people talk about “gun violence,” I wonder what has happened to language. A gun is an inanimate object. An inanimate object cannot cause violence. Humans cause violence. The relevant question is: why do humans cause violence? This obvious question seldom gets asked. Instead, inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of humans.

In one of its reports on the Sandy Hook shooting, Time noted that such events “inevitably reopen debates about gun control, or more tenuously lead people to complain about American culture itself. Yet on the very same day, a 36-year-old Chinese man attacked 22 children with a knife at a primary school in China, suggesting that there is a critical factor with mass homicides that gets far less attention.” That factor, “the core of these events,” is mental health and “our failure to address it as a society.”

That factor remains unaddressed, because the agenda-driven media is determined to use the Sandy Hook shootings as a means of achieving gun control. One wonders if there is a “knife control” agenda in China. What follows is not an argument that the report of the Sandy Hook shootings is a hoax. What follows is an argument that suspicions are created when agenda takes precedence over reporting and discrepancies in reports are left unresolved.

Agenda-driven news is the reason that apparent inconsistencies in the Sandy Hook story were not investigated or explained. According to some reports, the medical examiner said the children were shot with a rifle, but other reports say the accused was found dead inside the school with two pistols and that a rifle was found outside in the car. The police capture a man in the woods who says “I didn’t do it.” How would a person in the woods know what has just happened? Who was the man? Was he investigated and released? Will we ever know?

Some reports say the school was locked and admission is via security camera and being buzzed in. Why would a heavily armed person be buzzed in? Other reports say he shot his way in. Why wouldn’t such a commotion have alerted the school?

Another puzzle is the video of a father whose child has supposedly been shot to pieces. Prior to the interview he is caught on camera laughing and joking, and then, like an actor, he pulls his face and voice into a presentation of grief for the interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urrRcgB581w and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMINqFGNr-w

The spokesman for the Connecticut State Police is anxious to control the story, warns social media against posting information contrary to official information, but provides little information, refusing to answer most questions. The usual “ongoing investigation” is invoked, but Lanza has already been declared to be the killer and the number of dead reported. About the only hard information that emerges is that the police are investigating where every component of the weapons was manufactured. The relevance to the shooting of where the components of the weapons were manufactured is not explained.

The medical examiner’s press conference is weird. He is incoherent, unsure of what he is supposed to say, hasn’t answers to questions he should have, and defers to police.

Perhaps the best way to avoid fueling suspicion is for public officials not to hold press conferences until they are prepared to answer the relevant questions.

And where are the bodies? Like the alleged murder of Osama bin Laden by a SEAL, the crucial evidence is not provided. Paul Vance, the Connecticut State Police spokesman, said that the “victims’ bodies were removed from the school overnight” and that detectives “were able to positively identify all of the victims and make some formal notification to all of the families of the victims.”

Allegedly, no parent wanted to see the body of their dead child, but how do you know it is your child if you do not see the body? It is a strange kind of closure when it is provided to parents by impersonal detectives. Has anyone seen a body other than a state medical examiner and a few detectives? Where are the media’s films of body bags being carried out of the school? Why would Obama’s gun control agenda forego the propaganda of a procession of body bags being carried out of a school?

Perhaps the sensitivity issue prevailed, but with all the suspicion that already exists about the government and its claims, why fuel the suspicion by withholding visual evidence of the tragedy?

There are reports that when emergency medical help arrived at the school, the medical personnel were denied access to the children on the grounds that there were no survivors and the scene was too gruesome. Yet, there is a conflicting story that one six-year-old girl had the presence of mind to play dead and walked out of her classroom unscathed. If the story is true, how do we know that other survivors did not bleed to death from wounds because the emergency medical personnel were denied access? Did police exercise more control over the scene than was warranted?

It doesn’t seem to matter that questions are not answered and discrepancies are not resolved. The story is useful to the gun control agenda. Progressives, in order to achieve their agenda, are willing adjuncts of the police state. The facts of the shooting are less important than the use of the incident to achieve their agenda.

Probably there are answers to the questions. Moreover, the news reports that are the basis for questions could be incorrect. But why aren’t the answers provided and confusions cleared up? Instead, people who ask obvious questions are dismissed as “insensitive to the tragedy” or as “conspiracy kooks.” This in itself deepens suspicion.

The Colorado movie theater shooting has its own unresolved discrepancies. One eyewitness claimed that there were two shooters. Apparently, the suspect was captured sitting in a car in the theater parking lot, which seems strange. There are claims that the accused, a graduate student in neuroscience, was involved with the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency in mind control research and that he doesn’t remember doing the shooting.

Do we actually know? Apparently not. Wouldn’t it be preferable to investigate these claims rather than to leave them as unanswered sources of suspicion? The loose ends of the Colorado movie shooting contribute to the suspicions caused by news reports of the Sandy Hook shootings.


A shooting incident occurs. The government puts out a story. Agendas form and take the place of the story. Unresolved issues disappear in heated dispute over agendas. Gun control advocates blame guns, and Second Amendment defenders blame other factors.

When the media permit agenda to take precedence over news, people lose confidence in the media and distrust spreads deeper into society. If the media and the government are opposed to conspiracy theories, they should not foster the theories by mishandling the news.

Neither the right-wing nor the left-wing has an interest in getting to the bottom of things. The right-wing is aligned with the police state in order to make us safe from “terrorism” – Muslim terrorism, not the terrorism of the unaccountable police state.

The American left is so feeble that it essentially doesn’t exist. Its issues are gun control, homosexual marriage, abortion, and taxing “the rich.” Such misfocus cannot slow the onrushing militarized police state. American liberals have such an abiding faith in government that they are incapable of believing that beloved government would be culpable in crimes – unless, of course, it was Ronald Reagan’s government.

As tyranny envelops the land, the main goal of the left-wing is to disarm the population.

The American left is the enabler of the police state, and the American right is its progenitor.

Americans began their descent into deception and tyranny in the final years of the 20th century with the Clinton regime’s aggression against Serbia and murderous sanctions on Iraq. These war crimes were portrayed by the US media and foreign policy community as great achievements of Western democracy and humanitarianism.

In the first decade of the 21st century Americans lost their constitutional protections and had their pocketbooks opened to indefinite wars. The latest report is that Washington is sending US troops into 35 African countries.

Worse is to come.

December 31, 2012

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2012 Paul Craig Roberts


27 December 2012:  This is very significant.  They are becoming much more brazen and less secretive as they gain more ground...and less resistance from the masses.

The New American

Bilderberg-picked EU Leader Van Rompuy Calls for Global Governance With Russia

Written by William F. Jasper

Thursday, 27 December 2012 16:45

While much of the Christian and post-Christian worlds were busy rushing about in last-minute preparations for Christmas celebrations, an important event took place in Brussels, Belgium, that went largely unnoticed and unreported. Leaders of the European Union and Russia met in Brussels on December 20 and 21 for the 30th EU-Russia Summit, continuing a process of convergence and interdependence that is leading toward political, economic, and social merger.

In his remarks at the conclusion of the summit, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, made repeated reference to progress toward the goal of “global governance,” which has always been code in globalist circles for world government. Van Rompuy stated


By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance and regional conflict resolution, to global economic governance in the G 8 and G 20, and to a broad range of international and regional issues. I would like to congratulate President Putin for taking over the presidency of G 20. 

As we have reported in this magazine many times, the term “global governance” is an intentionally deceptive term, used by political ruling elites because it is more vague and mushy and sounds less threatening than “global government” or “world government.”  Hence, there will be less political opposition mounted to “global governance” than “world government.”

“Global governance” came into vogue in the late 1990s, following the publication in 1995 of Our Global Neighborhood, a report of the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance. That report attempted emphatically to assure readers that they had nothing to fear; they were not proposing world government. It claimed: 


Global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of the terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government.


United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan practiced the same semantic sleight-of-hand and false assurance at the UN Millennium Summit in New York City in 2000. In his report We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Annan called for “new forms of global governance,” “a new ethic of global stewardship,” “global norms,” and “global rules” — all of which assume a role for the UN as global legislator.

Then Annan addressed the rational apprehension that many people would harbor concerning these new proposals for restructuring the world. “What do we mean by ‘governance’ when applied to the international realm?” he asked. “In the minds of some,” he said, “the term still conjures up images of world government, of centralized bureaucratic behemoths trampling on the rights of people and states.” These fearful conjurations, he assured us, have no basis in reality. “Nothing is less desirable” than world government, said Annan, insisting that “the very notion of centralizing hierarchies is itself an anachronism in our fluid, highly dynamic and extensively networked world — an outmoded remnant of nineteenth century mindsets.”

However, only months prior to the Millennium Summit and Kofi Annan’s report, on February 26, 1999, Sir Shridath Ramphal, a co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, addressed the Commission’s meeting in Barcelona, Spain, and gave a very different take on the matter. Ramphal stated


The point I am making is that when we talk of "governance" and "democracy," we have to look beyond governance within countries and democracy within states. We have to look to Global Governance and Democracy within the Global State. 

A Global “State” with a capital “S” signifies a world “State,” a world government. And Ramphal emphasized that in the conclusion of his talk by celebrating the end of the “Nation State.” He declared: 


As the Century of the Nation State ends, however, to a far greater degree than their governments, people recognize … they understand that the roads to justice and survival are conjoined; that the task is to bring the mutual interests and the moral impulses of mankind together. 

Many of the political elites who formerly dismissed concerns that “global governance” is a ruse for “global government,” now matter-of-factly admit that they are one and the same. Jacques Attali, an ardent globalist and an adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, for instance, has said: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.”

Van Rompuy — Tapped by Bilderbergers

Attali is a veteran attendee of the annual meetings of the super-secret, super-elite Bilderberg Group. Which brings us back to Herman Van Rompuy, frequently referred to as "Bilderberg Van Rompuy," a reference to his having received his current job title through the actions and influence of the Bilderbergers. In a November 17, 2009 article for the U.K.’s Guardian, entitled “Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of 'shambolic' process to fill key jobs,” Ian Traynor wrote


Van Rompuy met Kissinger at a closed session of international policymakers and industrialists chaired by Viscount Etienne Davignon, a discreetly powerful figure in Brussels who was vice-president of the European commission in the 1980s. The viscount currently chairs the Bilderberg Group, the shadowy global freemasonry of politicians and bankers who meet to discuss world affairs in the strictest privacy, spawning innumerable conspiracy theories. Van Rompuy, it seems, attended the Bilderberg session to audition for the European job, calling for a new system of levies to fund the EU and replace the perennial EU budget battles. 

Jon Ronson, another reporter at the Guardian, interviewed Lord Denis Healey, one of the founders of the Bilderberg Group, for a 2001 article entitled, “Who Pulls the Strings?” Although Lord Healey insisted the group was not conspiratorial at all, he confirmed that they are working in the direction of world government. Ronson wrote: 


This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."


He said, "Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy." 

David Rockefeller, a longtime leader at Bilderberg conclaves, was even more explicit when addressing the 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg group. Rockefeller stated: 


We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

That statement and other remarks from the Bilderberg meeting were obtained by French intelligence agents, who were tasked with monitoring the gathering, because of the obvious implications for French national interests and security. The information was then leaked to two French publications. Hilaire du Berrier, a contributing editor to The New American, verified the authenticity of the reports through his friend, former head of French intelligence, Count Alexander de Marenches, and other sources, and provided the first account in English in his Monaco-based monthly HduB Reports in September 1991. It was then published shortly thereafter in The New American. What seemed outlandish to many people at the time, and was frequently dismissed as kooky "conspiracy theory," is being confirmed daily in unfolding events — and admissions from those who are causing the events to happen.

Photo of Russia's President Vladimir Putin (left) with European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso during the EU-Russia Summit, Dec. 21, 2012: AP Images

Related articles:

Bilderberger Confab in United States Goes Unreported … Again
Learning a Lesson From the EU
Politico Smears Bilderberg Opposition
After Bilderberg Meeting, Facebook Official Says End Internet Anonymity
Convergence: Globalists Push Russia-EU Merger
Kissinger, Putin and the New World Oder
Kissinger Sings Convergence Theme With China's "Red Song" Choir
U.S., Russia "Reset" the Convergence Agenda

27 December 2012:  The full-frontal assault on the Second Amendment is in FULL SWING.  Here is an updated summary on the Senate's proposal:

The Daily Sheeple


ALERT: Legislation Details: Senate to Ban Hundreds of Semiautomatic Rifles, Handguns, Shotguns, Magazines

Mac Slavo and Ed Thomas
December 27th, 2012


For anyone who may have thought Senator Feinstein and her colleagues in Congress were bluffing about coming firearms legislation that would restrict the sale, transfer and possession of certain firearms, think again.

A summary of the proposed legislation has been made available, and it’s a whopper.

Among outright banning 120 ‘assault’ related firearms (such as AR-15′s and AK-47′s), the bill will also target any weapon that utilizes a “detachable magazine,” as well as any magazine with a capacity of over ten rounds, which would include semi-automatic handguns and shotguns.

Moreover, if you already own a firearm or modification that ends up on the ban list, you will be required under Federal law to register that gun, complete with a background check, fingerprinting and local law enforcement verification.

Those who have recently purchased firearms that would fall under the ban may soon find Federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) at their door looking to confiscate ‘illegal’ weapons or engage in home searches for illegal accessories like ‘high capacity’ magazines (over 10 rounds), flash suppressors, pistol grips, and bullet buttons (a feature designed to circumvent ‘fixed’ magazine laws in states like California).

The following is a summary of the proposed Assault Weapons Legislation:


Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

  • 120 specifically-named firearms
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
  • Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

(Also available in PDF)


Ammunition, namely the purchase of bulk ammunition, has not been mentioned in the legislation summary. However, previous reports indicate that the purchase of large amounts of ammunition through the internet and directly from dealers may also be in Congress’ sights.

Are Americans prepared to give up their guns?

In Los Angeles, where millions of residents depend on government support to feed their families and receive healthcare, hundreds of cars lined up for hours for a local buy-back program that promised to exchange guns for $100 grocery gift cards. Thousands of handguns, rifles, and antique firearms were turned in – for food.

The lock-down is coming and it’s going to start when Congress reconvenes on January 3, 2013.

Many Americans, who have no concept of why the Second Amendment exists in the first place, will accept it without protest.

Ed Thomas of www.TheDailySheeple.com contributed to this report.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

27 December 2012:  It really is breathtaking when you step back and look at all the surrounding angles they are using to strip us of any and all privacy that we THINK we have left.  This may seem an insignificant issue, but coupled with the new Smart Grid/Smart Meters being used by power companies (many of their capabilities still unknown to the public) one can begin to see the forest in plain view.  One used to be able to secure power and other utilities simply by paying the provider, but now we have to consider the possibility of losing them regardless of those agreements if we are deemed "suspicious" by the tyrants that have such technology and resources available to them.

The Daily Caller


Report: $91 million spent on secret NSA tests probing domestic computer systems



The National Security Agency is conducting secret tests on the computer systems of U.S. private sector entities, including public utilities, a CNET report revealed this week.

The secret program, dubbed Perfect Citizen, is part of an effort by the government to improve security systems in the private sector and test offensive operations against enemies’ computer systems.

Targets reportedly include power grids and gas pipelines. The NSA’s operation reportedly probes their computer systems for vulnerabilities as part of a larger cybersecurity and cyberwarfare initiative.

Details about the program were revealed through documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a Washington, D.C.-based research nonprofit.

Of the 190 pages obtained by EPIC about the program, 98 were heavily redacted for a number of reasons, including portions labeled “classified top secret.”

The program’s existence was first revealed in a 2010 Wall Street Journal report.

CNET noted that an NSA spokesperson had told the publication at the time that the the program did not involve the agency conducting any communications monitoring “or the placement of sensors on utility company systems.”

EPIC, CNET now reports, hopes the new FOIA documents “may help disprove” the NSA’s argument that Perfect Citizen doesn’t involve monitoring private networks.

The Washington Post reported in May that the Pentagon was accelerating its research and development of cyberweapons capable of disrupting enemy military networks — even those not connected to the Internet.

The level of disclosed spending on offensive and defensive spending by the Pentagon on cyberweapons and cybersecurity technology for 2012 was $3.4 billion, according to the Post.

The Pentagon has requested the same amount for the 2013 fiscal year.

The Hill reported late last week that the White House could issue a much-anticipated cybersecurity executive order as early as January.

Perfect Citizen, developed by cybersecurity defense contractor Raytheon under a $91 million contract, is reportedly slated to continue until at least September 2014.

27 December 2012:  I've been waiting for something to trickle out about the "lone" survivor of the shooting- the woman who had been shot in the foot- and came across this article mentioning that the media is now being told that there were TWO survivors, not just the one, but no additional information. Also, there is STILL conflicting information in this story alone saying that the primary weapon was the "long rifle" then, later on stating that the rifle was found in the trunk of the car.


Sandy Hook funerals begin, possible second survivor emerges

Published: Monday, December 24, 2012

By Digital First Media staff and wire reports

A man bows his head as he stands at a makeshift memorial, outside Saint Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church in Newtown, Connecticut December 15, 2012. People in the small Connecticut community of Newtown grieved on Saturday over one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history and police sought answers about what drove a 20-year-old gunman to slaughter 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

REUTERS/Joshua Lott

NEWTOWN, Conn. —
There was talk of the first day of school, the first two funerals and another day of reckoning in this idyllic New England town where 20 first-graders and six women who tried to protect them no longer live.

A few more official updates from police trickled out — there were two people who were allegedly shot by 20-year-old Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary and survived, not the single female adult survivor police had indicated earlier.

In the meantime the nation’s attention turned to a swirling debate over gun control and mental health, and President Barack Obama’s speech in a high school auditorium here Sunday further stoked the debate.

"Are we prepared to say that such violence visited upon our children, year after year, is somehow the price of our freedom?" Obama asked as many in the audience cried. “We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. … But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this."

The school district announced the surviving Sandy Hook Elementary children would return to school in a temporary building in a bordering town, and that other Newtown students would return to school on Tuesday. Some parents protested, saying it was too soon.

School security plans were re-examined as anxious parents tried to find the right course for their children, and there was an early lockdown in nearby Ridgefield, Conn., after there was a report of man spotted with a rifle.

“I actually am very worried,” said parent Megan Ifill, who lives in nearby New Haven and has two school-aged children. “There are so many troubled people out there.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., promised to introduce an assault-weapons ban on the first day of the new Congress. Since the previous ban expired in 2004, a dozen unsuccessful attempts have been made to reinstate it.

Gun rights advocates like Scott Wilson, head of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group, said they hoped the debate over gun control could wait: "Right now, we wish to express our heartfelt sympathies to the families, victims and people of Newtown, Conn.”

Amid the renewed debate, makeshift memorials for the 27 dead — eight boys, 12 girls and seven women, including the alleged shooter’s mother — sprouted up all over, and out-of-state visitors with no connection to the town or the dead came to pay their respects. The mourning was disrupted momentarily by more chaos when St. Rose of Lima’s church was evacuated in the middle of mass Sunday after someone called the church, telling a priest “I’m coming to kill, I’m coming to kill.”

Authorities announced Sunday that the alleged shooter’s mother, Nancy Lanza, died of four gunshots to her head Friday morning. Police sources said suspect Adam Lanza took his mother’s car and guns that may have belonged to her to the school. There, he fired through the school’s glass door to get inside, turned left, and was met by the school’s principal, Dawn Hochsprung, and school psychologist, Mary Scherlach, whom he promptly shot to death. The Hartford Courant reported he then bypassed one classroom full of students and entered another, shooting and killing all 14 children and two teachers inside.

"There were 14 coats hanging there and 14 bodies. He killed them all," anunnamed law enforcement officer told the Courant.

Next, the gunman moved on to teacher Victoria Soto’s classroom, where she and six children became victims of a chilling episode of randomness. Seven of Soto’s pupils made it into a closet unharmed, the Courant reported. Police began to arrive, and Adam Lanza shot himself in the head.

State Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver said all of the dead were struck more than once, and most were killed by bullets from the assault rifle Lanza was carrying. Hundreds of unused bullets were also found at the school. Carver’s staff worked overnight on Friday to autopsy all of the children.

“More than one person stepped out for a while to sit in the locker room and cry, but we all stuck it out ‘till the end,” he said.

The staggering list of the names of the dead was being poured over Sunday as Internet memorials popped up for many of the victims. They included Hochsprung, school psychologist Sherloch, and four teachers who were called heroes. Many families of the dead, especially those with dead children, quickly issued statements asking the media for privacy, and still others talked with reporters about their grief for their lost children, including the father of Emilie Parker, who gave a tearful message to cameras on Saturday: “I’m so blessed to be her dad,” he said.

The shooting Friday began just after 9:30 a.m. in the school about 60 miles northeast of New York City, setting off a nightmarish scene in which hundreds of students and teachers hid under desks and in closets, some too scared to unlock doors even for the police. Children were told to close their eyes as they were led out of the school past bodies.

"I told them that I loved them and that they would be OK,” said one of the teachers who locked the door to her classroom when the shooting began. Some teachers said they told cowering students that there were bad guys in the building, and they needed to wait for the good guys.

The toll at Sandy Hook — 26 students and adults — made it the nation's second-deadliest school shooting, exceeded only by the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, where 32 were killed.

“All information relative to this case is coming from these microphones, and any information coming from other sources cannot be confirmed and is found in many cases to be inaccurate,” Vance said.

Authorities have offered few official details on exactly how the attack unfolded, saying they planned to reveal a motive later. But police radio traffic indicated the shooting lasted only a few minutes before police arrived. A custodian ran through the halls warning of a gunman on the loose, and someone switched on the intercom, alerting people in the building to the attack — and perhaps saving many lives — by letting them hear the hysteria going on in the school office, a teacher said. Later, multiple guns were found, among them a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car. Vance said at a Saturday morning news conference that investigators were tracking the history of the weapons and there were multiple media reports that the guns were registered to Nancy Lanza. There were reports that Lanza might have tried to buy a rifle several days before the shooting, but did not succeed.

A law enforcement official said Adam Lanza was known to have some kind of personality disorder and was possibly on the autism spectrum, but he did not have a criminal record. His older brother, 24-year-old Ryan Lanza of Hoboken, N.J., was questioned but was not believed to have any involvement in the rampage. Investigators still were searching his computers and phone records.

The elder brother told law enforcement he had not been in touch with the alleged shooter since about 2010. Peter Lanza, the father of Adam and Ryan, was informed about the shooting Friday afternoon by a reporter who was waiting outside his home in nearby Stamford. He and Nancy Lanza filed for divorce in 2008.

"Our family is grieving along with all those who have been affected by this enormous tragedy. No words can truly express how heartbroken we are. We, too, are asking why,” he wrote in a statement.

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, who was the one to tell some of the parents that their children were dead, broached the simmering gun issue on Sunday morning.

“We’re unfortunately a violent society,” he said on ‘Meet the Press.’ “We don’t treat the mentally ill well. We don’t reach out to families that are in trouble particularly well. We allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse. There are lots of issues that need to be taken on as a society. … Having said that, [Connecticut has] laws that are more aggressive than most states.”

On Sunday at church services in Newtown, the Rev. Robert Weiss announced that practice for St. Rose of Lima’s church Christmas pageant would continue even though one of the children who was scheduled to play an angel was killed Friday.

At another service at the Newtown United Methodist Church, the Rev. Mel Kawakami said he was angry.

“We’ve seen this before. We must forgive like before,” he said. “But I’m not sure if I’m there yet. The tears are still fresh. The pain is still raw.”

27 December 2012:  Agenda 21 is included in our RECOMMENDATIONS section and is one of the key nails in the coffin, so to speak.  Here are a few highlights of how Agenda 21 and ICLEI are being implemented right under our noses and mostly without a struggle.



Agenda 21 Is Being Rammed Down The Throats Of Local Communities All Over America

Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse
December 24th, 2012


Have you ever heard of Agenda 21?  If not, don’t feel bad, because most Americans haven’t.  It is essentially a blueprint for a “sustainable world” that was introduced at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.  Since then, it has been adopted by more than 200 counties and it has been modified and updated at other UN environmental summits.  The philosophy behind Agenda 21 is that our environmental problems are the number one problem that we are facing, and that those problems are being caused by human activity.  Therefore, according to Agenda 21 human activity needs to be tightly monitored, regulated and controlled for the greater good.  Individual liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the planet.  If you are thinking that this sounds like it is exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers intended when they established this nation, you would be on the right track.  Those that promote the philosophy underlying Agenda 21 believe that human activity must be “managed” and that letting people make their own decisions is “destructive” and “dangerous”.  Sadly, the principles behind Agenda 21 are being rammed down the throats of local communities all over America, and most of the people living in those communities don’t even realize it.

So how is this being done?  Well, after Agenda 21 was adopted, an international organization known as the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI) was established to help implement the goals of Agenda 21 in local communities.  One thing that they learned very quickly was that the “Agenda 21″ label was a red flag for a lot of people.  It tended to create quite a bit of opposition on the local level.

As they try to implement their goals, they very rarely use the term “Agenda 21″ anymore.  Instead, they use much more harmless sounding labels such as “smart growth”, “comprehensive land use planning” and especially “sustainable development”.

So just because something does not carry the Agenda 21 label does not mean that it is not promoting the goals of Agenda 21.

The goals of Agenda 21 are not only being implemented in the United States.  This is a massive worldwide effort that is being coordinated by the United Nations.  An article that was posted on RedState.com discussed some of the history of Agenda 21…


In simplified terms, Agenda 21 is a master blueprint, or guidelines, for constructing “sustainable” communities. Agenda 21 was put forth by the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development, and was adopted by over 200 countries (signed into “soft law” by George Bush Sr.) at the United Nations Rio Conference in 1992. In 1994 the President’s Council for Sustainable Development was created via Executive Order by Bill Clinton to begin coordinating efforts at the Federal level to make the US Agenda 21 compliant.

The same year that Bill Clinton established the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, the International Code Council was also created.

The International Code Council has developed a large number of “international codes” which are intended to replace existing building codes all over the United States.  The following is a list of these codes from Wikipedia


  • International Building Code
  • International Residential Code
  • International Fire Code
  • International Plumbing Code
  • International Mechanical Code
  • International Fuel Gas Code
  • International Energy Conservation Code
  • ICC Performance Code
  • International Wildland Urban Interface Code
  • International Existing Building Code
  • International Property Maintenance Code
  • International Private Sewage Disposal Code
  • International Zoning Code
  • International Green Construction Code

These codes are very long and exceedingly boring, and those that write them know that hardly anyone will ever read them.

And for the most part, they contain a lot of things that are contained in existing building codes or that are common sense.

But a lot of poison has also been inserted into these codes.  If you read them carefully, the influence of Agenda 21 is painfully obvious.

Unfortunately, even most of the local politicians that are adopting these codes don’t take the time to read them.  Most of them just assume that they are “updating” their existing building codes.

So what often happens is that there will be fights in local communities between citizens that are concerned about the encroachment of Agenda 21 and local politicians who regard such talk as nonsense.  The following is an example of what is happening all over the nation


Summit Hill Borough Council last night unanimously adopted the “2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code,” but not before some audience members expressed vehement opposition to it.

An overflow crowd of 34 people attended the meeting, with some there to specifically voice their displeasure.

Sandy Dellicker, a borough resident, said she was against using an “international” maintenance code, arguing that it falls under the plan of Agenda 21 of the United Nations; an agenda for the 21st Century.

She said, “UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world.”

“This is not a conspiracy theory,” she told the council. “This is for real.”

She said the International Property Maintenance Code had been adopted in Montgomery County, but the county “has already gotten rid of it” because of its dictatorial direction.

“This is not what Summit Hill and the United States is about,” she said.

Council members pooh-poohed her assessment. “In my opinion, the International Property Maintenance Code is to protect citizens,” said Council President Michael Kokinda.

It would be great if these codes were just about public safety.  But that is simply not the case.  Sadly, these codes are often used to fine or even imprison homeowners that haven’t done anything wrong.  Sometimes “code violations” are even used as justification to legally steal property from law-abiding homeowners.  A post on the Freedom Reigns Radio blog detailed some of the things that are often done in the name of “code enforcement”…


1) The ‘Code Official’ – anybody the jurisdiction calls – a ‘Code Official’ – is the sole interpreter – no due process – Gestapo!

2) Every day an offense occurs is a separate mandatory misdemeanor – $555/day and/or a month in jail in Charleston, W.Va. They can fine you out of your home and jail you at their whim!

3) Anything the ‘Code Official’ says is not in good working condition – sticky window, dented or plugged gutter, torn window screen – whatever he says is not in good working order – hundreds of dollars of fines per day and/or jail time – usually a month – for every day the offense occurs.

4) Any unsanitary condition – whatever the ‘Code Official’ says is an ‘unsanitary condition’ – empty pop cans – puddles – dog droppings on your property – same deal – same fines and/or jail time – every day.

5) Any plant that the ‘Code Official’ says is a ‘noxious weed’ – same deal – same fines and/or jail time – every day. He can steal raw land.

6) He can fine you out of your home and jail you with no due process. Any court proceedings are window dressing as there is no remedy associated with this ‘code.’

7) It can be ‘adopted’ – just by an ‘administrative decree.’
1) Enter your house whenever he – the sole interpreter – deems reasonable.
2) Prevent you from entering your house.
3) Tear your house down with your stuff in it.
4) Bill you for the demolition.
5) Place a lien on it for fines and/or demolition charges – steal it.
6) And ‘best’ of all, no insurance I know of will cover your losses.

You’re left w/a house and your ‘stuff’ in a landfill – and any remaining unpaid mortgage, any remaining fines, any remaining taxes, and any remaining demolition charges after they steal your property

These codes restrict what homeowners can do with their own properties in thousands of different ways.  If you rebel against one of the codes, the penalties can be extremely harsh.

And there is often “selective enforcement” of these codes.  That means that they will leave most people alone but they will come down really hard on people that they do not like.  You could even end up with a SWAT team on your doorstep.

Just ask some of the people who have been through this kind of thing.

Even if you have your mortgage completely paid off, that doesn’t mean that you really “own” your property.  If you don’t pay your taxes and obey the “codes”, you could lose your property very rapidly.

The philosophy behind all of this is the same philosophy behind Agenda 21.  The elite believe that you cannot be trusted to do the “right thing” with your own property and that your activity must be “managed” for the greater good.  They believe that by controlling you and restricting your liberties that they are “saving the planet”.

Unfortunately, you can probably expect this to get a whole lot worse in the years ahead.  Our society is shifting from one that cherishes individual liberties and freedoms to one that is fully embracing collectivism.  So our politicians will likely be making even more of our decisions for us as the years move forward.





Delivered by The Daily Sheeple




26 December 2012:  Here are a few good points to remember and remind others of as the debate on disarmament continues.  Be ready to cite and fight!






Gun Myths Busted: Automatic Weapons, Buying Guns Online, Background Checks, Assault Rifles and Other Fictions of the Liberal Media


by Mike Adams




People who don't own guns are wildly ignorant about them, and they're easily suckered into liberal media myths that willfully repeat total lies such as being able to "buy guns online" or the idea that you can easily buy "automatic weapons" or "assault rifles." These are all complete lies.


Let's expose the myths right here:


Myth #1: You can buy automatic weapons at any gun shop


This is completely and utterly false. Automatic weapons are highly regulated, extremely expensive ($15,000+) and VERY difficult to acquire. They're also extremely rare and have NEVER been used in any school shooting in America.


Just to acquire an "automatic weapon," you must go through extensive background checks and fingerprinting. You must apply to the federal government (ATF) for permission, then wait six months or longer to be "approved" by the ATF.


I don't own any automatic weapons and have no desire to. Automatic weapons are wildly inaccurate. Even soldiers almost never use automatic fire. They almost always use their own rifles on either single shot or a three-round burst. Full auto is just a really fast way to waste ammo and hit nothing.


Myth #2: You can buy guns online


Many liberals think you can just buy guns online. This is completely and utterly false. You can PAY for a gun online, but gun dealers cannot (and will not) ship a firearm directly to any customer. All guns that are PAID FOR online must be shipped to FFL dealers, which are federally licensed and regulated by the ATF.


A person who pays for a gun online must go through a federal FBI background check just to pick up their gun at the FFL dealer, and they must fill out an extensive form which includes detailed questions on mental health, criminal history and so on.


It is impossible to buy a gun online, but the liberal media keeps lying about this, hoping people will believe their lies.


Myth #3: You don't need a background check to buy guns


This is also a lie. To buy a gun from any gun dealer, whether at a local store or at a gun show, a background check is required by law. Gun dealers cannot, under any circumstances, sell a gun to somebody without either an FBI background check or, in some states, proof that the buyer has a concealed carry permit, which itself requires an FBI background check.


The only exception to the background check rule is when an individual, who is not engaged in the business of firearms sales, wishes to sell his own personal firearm to another individual. This person-to-person sale does not require a background check because it is a non-commercial, non-dealer transaction founded on the fundamental right to engage in personal commerce.


Myth #4: You can easily buy "Assault" rifles in America


Although people banter around the term "assault rifle" a bit too casually, in truth you cannot buy an assault rifle in America without going through an extensive ATF investigation and spending $20,000+ (usually $40,000 or more) on a rare firearm.


What makes a rifle an "assault" rifle? It must have a fire selector switch that can select between single shot, a three-round burst shot, or full-auto fire. None of the civilian AR-15s have these features. Neither do any of the "scary-looking" battle rifles sold in gun shops.


Liberals call something an "assault rifle" because of the way it looks. If it looks "scary" (i.e. has a black composite stock instead of wood) then it must be a BAD gun. Seriously. This is how they think. But in truth, even a composite stock AR-15 purchased at a gun shop right now has absolutely no capability for a 3-round burst or full-auto. That firepower is reserved exclusively for the U.S. military.


So when Obama says things like, "We don't need military rifles on the streets of America," he is LYING to you. We don't have military rifles on the streets of America. What we have is semi-auto, single-shot rifles in the hands of Citizens. Virtually no one has a military "assault" rifle. (The media routinely lies about this...)


Click here for an excellent explanation of what an assault rifle really is.




"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

~ Patrick Henry


Myth #5: The Second Amendment is about hunting


The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense. It has to do with the People of America maintaining a military force for the sole purpose of overthrowing a government that becomes too tyrannical. That is the 100% documented, non-debatable intent of the Second Amendment.


Trench Coxe was one of our nation's founding fathers. He was a consultant to Thomas Jefferson and his newspapers were instrumental in publishing the truth during a time with British troops had DISARMED the colonial populations and banned all guns. Why did they ban guns? So that the people could not fight back against tyranny, of course.


As Coxe wrote in 1788:




Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

~ Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


That same web page goes on to explain how the British General Howe used gun control to oppress the people:




When occupying Philadelphia in 1778, British General Howe had disarmed the population. As reported in Philadelphia newspapers, General Gage had done the same to the citizens of Boston in 1775.


Stewart Rhodes is a modern-day founding father. He's an award-winning constitutional scholar and a champion of liberty for all Americans. Here's what he says about the Second Amendment:




Aybody who tells you that it's okay and constitutional to take away your M1A, your Garand, your FAL, your HK91, your M4 is a liar. They are lying to you. They are either a useful idiot or a traitor who are lying to you, trying to deceive you to think that it's about duck hunting, or even personal defense. It's not even about personal defense. It's about the military capacity of the American people to overthrow a tyrant. That what it's about.

~ Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers, on the December 19th, 2012 episode of the Alex Jones Show.




A Pledge of Personal Resistance


On December 19th, 2012, Stewart Rhodes published the widely-celebrated article, My Personal Pledge of Resistance Against Any Attempt to Disarm Us by Means of an "Assault Weapons Ban"


We reprint that pledge here, in its entirety:


My conscience, and the urgency of our current situation, compel me to speak out. The victim disarmament freaks are now telling us that they don't want to disarm us- oh, no! They just want to take away our "assault weapons" – our semi-automatic, magazine fed, military-style rifles – and the "high capacity" magazines that feed them. They want us to believe that so long as we can own some kind of firearm, after our semi-auto military rifles are taken, we are not disarmed. That is a LIE.


The truth is that our semi-automatic, military pattern rifles are the single most important kind of arm we can own, and are utterly necessary for effective defense of our lives, property, and liberty. When you are disarmed of your military rifles, you are DISARMED. At that time, the lion's share of your military capacity to effectively resist tyranny is removed (yes, accurate bolt action hunting rifles are useful in that role too, but the semi-auto battle rifle is truly the Queen of battle, as Col. Jeff Cooper correctly noted). It is a significant force on the battlefield, and as Patrick Henry said, when you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.


It is the height of Orwellian perversion of language and logic to say that disarming you of the most effective arms for combat that you still have is somehow not really disarming you, because you still have hunting rifles and shotguns. And you can bet that if you let them take your military semi-autos, next on their list will be your bolt action rifles, which they will call "sniper rifles" (and by God, that is certainly what they are good for!). And then when they have those, they will go after any weapon that holds more than a few rounds, or is capable of any degree of long range accuracy and penetrating power, telling you that you really don't need one of those to hunt or target practice (a shotgun will suffice), and then they will take everything except single shot shotguns or .22's (as was done in England) and on down the line. So long as you have at least a .22, they will say you are not "disarmed" while they take everything else (and then they will take the .22s, or insist that you keep them at a gun-range).


We need to call a spade a spade and teach our fellow citizens that taking away military style semi-autos is disarmament. And we need to throw down the gauntlet and take a hard stand against it, right now. When we, as Oath Keepers, pledged to not obey any orders to disarm the American people, this is what we meant. Any attempt to disarm the people of any arms currently in their possession is illegitimate and must be nullified, refused, disobeyed, and resisted.


And so, in response to this obvious assault on our right to keep and bear arms (as in military arms), I feel compelled to make the following personal pledge:


I Stewart Rhodes, as an American, as a military veteran, and as a father, pledge the following:


I Pledge to never disarm, and in particular, to never surrender my military pattern, semi-automatic rifles (and full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them), regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts.


I also pledge to pass on those military pattern rifles to my children and my children's children, as well as the full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition to needed to use them, regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts. As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution:




The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

~ Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


And that "power of the sword" – those "terrible implements of the soldier," includes the people's battle rifles and carbines – their M1As, their FN-LARs, their HK 91s, their Grandfathers' M1 Garand, their AK 47s, their ARs and M4s, etc. – all of the weapons listed as being targeted for Feinstein's new and improved "Assault Weapons Ban."


The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. It is not about hunting, and at its core, the Second Amendment is not really even about self-defense against private criminals. It is about self-defense against public criminals – against tyrants, usurpers, and foreign invaders. (and that is the whole point of the crucial upcoming film, Molon Labe).


Above all other firearms currently available to the American citizen, modern military pattern, semi-automatic rifles provide that military capacity. Protecting the keeping and bearing of such arms of military utility is the heart and soul of the Second Amendment. Thus, any attempt to ban their possession, sale, purchase, or transfer, is an attempt to disarm the American people.


Nor will I surrender my accurate, scoped, bolt action rifles, which are also great force multipliers of military utility in the roles of sniper and marksman. Invaders, tyrants and usurpers fear the sniper and marksman for good reason, and millions of American hunters have the well practiced field-craft and marksmanship skills to serve in those rolls most effectively. We must preserve their means of doing so, including preserving our .50 caliber sniper rifles, our .338 Lapua's, our .300 Win Mags, and other powerful, long-range capable calibers.


Nor will I surrender my semi-automatic pistols with full capacity magazines, which provide me with the capacity to effectively defend against close range, sudden attack.


I will not disarm, regardless of what law is passed by the oath breakers in Congress, or signed into law by the oath breaker in the White House, and I WILL pass on to my children every terrible implement of the soldier currently in my possession.


Further, I will ask my children to also pledge to never surrender those family arms and equipment, regardless of what illegitimate, Bill of Rights violating law is passed by the oath breakers in Washington DC, and regardless of whatever any oath breaking judge may rule.


Further, I pledge to refuse compliance with any and all laws that attempt to strip me and my children of those arms, the full capacity magazines needed to load and fire them, or the parts and ammunition needed to keep them firing. I will use nullification, civil disobedience, and active resistance against all such laws. I will nullify, disobey, and resist as an individual, and I will work with my neighbors to nullify, disobey, and resist as towns, counties, and states. We will not disarm, we will not comply, and we will resist.


Further, I pledge to refuse to vote for, and to actively work to purge from office any elected official, of any party, who violates their oath of office by supporting, endorsing, or voting for any law, action, or decree that attempts to disarm me, my children, or my children's children of any of the above noted arms. I pledge to root the oath breakers out, in a scorched earth policy. I will not buy into the "lesser of two evils" con game, and regardless of what party an oath breaking politician is in, and regardless of the outcome of elections, that oath breaker will not get my vote, ever again, once they betray my trust and violate their oath by voting for an assault weapons ban or any other attempt to curtail my right to bear arms.


Finally, I pledge to defend myself, my neighbors, my town, county, and state, against any attempt to forcibly disarm them pursuant to any "assault weapons ban" or any other illegitimate "law" passed by oath breakers within Congress, or pursuant to any illegitimate order, action, or decree by the oath breaker within the White House. We will not disarm. We will resist. And if given no other choice but to fight or to submit to abject tyranny, we will fight, just as our forefathers in the American Revolution fought against the tyrants, usurpers, and oath breakers of their day.


If we are presented with the "choice" of submission to tyranny or fighting in defense of our natural rights, we will fight, as our forefathers fought, when the British Empire attempted to disarm them and confiscate the military pattern arms, ammunition, and supplies of their time. We will make the same choice as Patrick Henry made, when he rejected "peace" purchased at the price of chains and slavery, and said "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" I too choose liberty or death.


I hereby reaffirm my oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor in defense of the principles of liberty enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, for which our forefathers spilled their blood. We will not let the Republic fall without a fight.


Reprinted with permission from Natural News.


December 26, 2012


Mike Adams is a natural health author and award-winning journalist. He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers' guides, and books on topics like health and the environment. He is the editor of Natural News.


Copyright © 2012 Natural News



26 December 2012:  Recently in my blog I posted a video that gave a history of how governments were able to disarm its civilians and then starve and murder them for various reasons.  This is a reiteration and a reminder of what is coming to US if we don't fight them.  Keep and bear your arms!






Gun Control and Genocide


by Gary North


Sunday, April 24th marked the 90th anniversary of the first genocide of the twentieth century: the Turkish government's slaughter of over a million unarmed Armenians. The key word is "unarmed."


The Turks got away with it under the cover of wartime. They suffered no greater postwar reprisals for this act of genocide than if they had not conducted mass murder of a peaceful people.


Other governments soon took note of this fact. It seemed like such a convenient international precedent.


Seventy-nine years after that genocide began, Hotel Rwanda opened for business.


The Hutus also got away with it. Ironically, at least a decade before – I wish I could remember the date – Harper's ran an article predicting this genocide for this reason: the Hutus had machine guns. The Tutsis didn't. The article was written as a kind of parable, not a politically specific forecast. I remember reading it at the time and thinking, "If I were a Tutsi, I'd emigrate."


It did not pay to be a civilian in the twentieth century. The odds were against you.




The twentieth century, more than any century in recorded history, was the century of man's inhumanity to man. A memorable phrase, that. But it is misleading. It should be modified: "Governments' inhumanity to unarmed civilians." In the case of genocide, however, this is not easily dismissed as collateral damage on a wartime enemy. It is deliberate extermination.






The twentieth century began officially on January 1, 1901. At that time, one major war was in full swing, so let us begin with it. That was the United States' war against the Philippines, whose citizens had the naïve notion that liberation from Spain did not imply colonization by the United States. McKinley and then Roosevelt sent 126,000 troops to the Philippines to teach them a lesson in modern geopolitics. We had bought the Philippines fair and square from Spain for $20 million in December, 1898. The fact that the Philippines had declared independence six months earlier was irrelevant. A deal's a deal. Those being purchased had nothing to say about it.


Back then, we did body counts of enemy combatants. The official estimate was 16,000 dead. Some unofficial estimates place this closer to 20,000. As for civilians, then as now, there were no official U.S.-reported figures. The low-ball estimate is 250,000 dead. The high estimate is one million.


Then World War I opened the floodgates – or, more accurately, the bloodgates.


TURKEY, 1915


The diplomatic game is always verbal. The G-word is verboten. Turks accept – though resent – "tragedy." Hence, all official reports from government-funded sources all over the world – except Armenia – refer to the "Armenian tragedy." This game of diplomacy has been going on since the end of World War I. Reagan was the only President to have used the correct term. President Bush diplomatically used "mass killings" in his a 2003 reference to the event. He also referred to "what many Armenian people have come to call the ‘Great Calamity.'" Many Armenians call it this? Really? Name two. He also said:


I also salute our wise and bold friends from Armenia and Turkey who are coming together in a spirit of reconciliation to consider these events and their significance. I applaud them for rising above bitterness, and taking action to create a better future. I wish them success, building on their recent and significant achievements, as they work together in a spirit of hope and understanding.


Again, name two.


Not being even remotely diplomatic in matters genocidal, I prefer to use the dreaded G-word. The Armenian genocide of 1915 had been preceded by a partial ethnic cleansing, which took two years, 1895 – 97. About 200,000 Armenians were executed.






This event served as the background for Elia Kazan's great movie, America, America (1963), which was nominated for the Oscar in 1964. Kazan tells a fictionalized version of his Greek uncle's emigration to America. Kazan's family followed in 1913. The movie begins with a Greek and an Armenian, friends, who are warned by their former military officer, a Turk, of trouble coming. It comes. Turkish officials lock the Armenian along with other Armenians inside a church. Then they burn it down. The Greek sees this. He vows to get out of the Ottoman Empire and go to America. The movie traces his journey. America was a sanctuary. If ever there was a movie on America, the sanctuary, it's America, America.


The Armenians were easily identifiable. Centuries earlier, the conquering Ottoman Turks had forced them to add the "ian/yan" sound to their last names. They were dispersed throughout the empire, so they did not possess the same kind of geographical concentrations and strongholds that other Christians did in Greece and the Balkans. They never did organize armed resistance forces. That was what led to their destruction. They could not fight back.


They were envied because they were rich and better educated than the ruling society. They were the businessmen of the Ottoman Empire. The same was true in Russia. The same resentment existed in Russia, though not with the intensity of the resentment in Turkey.


Non-Turkish estimates range from 800,000 to 1.5 million Armenians killed. Most of these deaths were low-tech but high efficiency. The army rounded up hundreds or thousands of civilians, drove them into wilderness areas, and waited until they starved to death.




It is still the official position of the Turkish government that this was not genocide; it was a relocation for military reasons. You see, there was a revolt being planned by Armenians and Russians in the border region of Van. This was the explanation provided in 1915 by the Turkish Consol General in New York, in a statement published in the October 15, 1915 issue of the New York Times. An autonomous republic was set up in Van, which was run by someone named Aram. (We read it here first.)


Then, somehow, things just got out of hand. The government was powerless. You know: just like all other governments during wartime with respect to the activities of officials in defense of the nation. Helpless. What's a government to do? Therefore, in recent days, a minor official for the Turkish government has apologized.


"We apologize to the Armenians for us and our ancestors not having been able to prevent the Genocide." These are the words of Jashar Arif, representative of the International Exchange Confederation, who is a Turk. He has arrived in Armenia together with several other Turks to take part in the events of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.


The Turkish government still maintains that the rulers had expected the Armenians to join with Russians to fight Turkey. As recently as April 24, the Philadelphia Enquirer reported that Yasar Yakis, the head of the Turkish Parliament's European Union Affairs Committee, explained the reasons for the relocations. "The Armenians were relocated because they cooperated with the enemy, the Russians, and they . . . killed Ottoman soldiers from behind the lines."


Armenians were systematically killed all over the Empire, not just on the Russian border. Relocation to a camp usually means providing food, shelter, and basic amenities. It doesn't mean letting people starve in the wilderness.


The written text of the government's order is controversial. It was a state secret. One version was smuggled out of Turkey in 1916. It is posted online. As with all such secret orders, it should not be accepted automatically. But it serves as a starting point for full-scale research: open archives openly arrived at.


Our fellow countrymen, the Armenians, who form one of the racial elements of the Ottoman Empire, having taken up, as a result of foreign instigation for many years past, with a lot of false ideas of a nature to disturb the public order; and because of the fact that they brought about bloody happenings and have attempted to destroy the peace and security of the Ottoman state, and the safety and interests of their fellow countrymen, as well as of themselves; and, moreover, as they have now dared to join themselves to the enemy of their existence [i.e., Russia] and to the enemies now at war with our state – our Government is compelled to adopt extraordinary measures and sacrifices, both for the preservation of the order and security of the country and for the welfare and the continuation of the existence of the Armenian community. Therefore, as a measure to be applied until the conclusion of the war, the Armenians have to be sent away to places which have been prepared in the interior villages; and a literal obedience to the following orders, in a categorical manner, is accordingly enjoined on all Ottomans:


First. – All Armenians, with the exception of the sick, are obliged to leave within five days from the date of this proclamation, by villages or quarters, and under the escort of the gendarmerie.


Second. – Though they are free to carry with them on their journey the articles of their movable property which they desire, they are forbidden to sell their lands and their extra effects, or to leave the latter here and there with other people, because their exile is only temporary and their landed property, and the effects they will be unable to take with them, will be taken care of under the supervision of the Government, and stored in closed and protected buildings. Anyone who sells or attempts to take care of his movable effects or landed property in a manner contrary to this order, shall be sent before the Court Martial. They are free to sell to the Government only the articles which may answer the needs of the Army.


Third. – Contains a promise of safe conduct.


Fourth. – A threat against anyone attempting to molest them on the way.


Fifth. – Since the Armenians are obliged to submit to this decision of the Government, if some of them attempt to use arms against the soldiers or gendarmes, arms shall be employed against them and they shall be taken, dead or alive. In like manner those who, in opposition to the Government's decision, refrain from leaving or seek to hide themselves – if they are sheltered or given food and assistance, the persons who thus shelter or aid them shall be sent before the Court Martial for execution.


What happened subsequently was fully consistent with this order.


The Turkish government said in 1989 that the archives regarding the non-existent genocide were now open. But, as it turned out, they were not open to Armenians studying the non-existent genocide.


What the archives prove, according to the Turkish government, is that the Turks were the victims of mass murder by Armenians. Yes, it's hard to believe. But that's what the archives show. We can take the Turkish government's word for this. On April 25, a report appeared on the website of the International Relations and Security Network which is partially funded by the Swiss defense agency. Here, we read:


Armenians say at least 1 million of their ethnic kin died between 1915 – 17 as a result of a deliberate policy of extermination. They say the policy was initiated by the Committee of Union and Progress (Ittihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti), or CUP, which then ruled over the empire. Ankara claims the death toll is grossly inflated and that 300,000 Armenians died during these years. It also says the deaths were the result of negligence, interethnic strife, or wartime operations. It says the CUP leaders – also known as the Young Turks – had no intention of wiping out the empire's largest remaining Christian community. While admitting to the massive deportations of 1915 – which followed the massacre of 200,000 Greeks – Turkey's official historiography says the transfers were aimed at preventing Armenians from collaborating with Russia. Tsarist Russia was then at war with the Ottoman Empire and its German ally. Turkey's official historiography also asserts that more than 500,000 Turks died at the hands of Armenians between 1910 – 1922.


On April 25, 2005 – hot off the TurkishPress.com site – we learn of that ruthless counter-genocide.


Turkish Republican People's Party (CHP) deputy leader Onur Oymen said on Monday, "if you must express grief about Armenian casualties, you also have to talk about more than half a million Turks who were killed in the same incidents."


In a written statement, Oymen said that the decision of the U.S. president Bush not to use the term "genocide" represents the reality.


We must not be too happy about Mr. Bush's statements, told Oymen. "We know for sure that 513,000 Turks were butchered by Armenians. Don't we have a right to ask for sympathy for the murdered Turks?"


"If you are going to mention these incidents and express grief for the Armenians who lost their lives in those incidents, it is our right to expect a word of sympathy for more than half million Turks in the same incidents."


All right, his story is a bit scrambled. It's now up to 513,000 Turks in 1915 – 17, rather than 500,000 Turks 1912-22. But it's all there. In the archives.


We are also assured by a spokesman of the Turkish Ministry of Justice that Turkey has had enough of this genocide nonsense. Quite enough. On April 25, 2005, TurkishPress.com posted this story.


Turkish Minister of Justice and Government Spokesman Cemil Cicek has indicated that, after many years of leaving the issue of so-called genocide to historians, it is now high time for Turkey to start disproving all allegations in various countries.


High time, indeed! Those historians, tied as they are to misleading primary source documents, simply cannot be trusted. They do not pay sufficient attention to primary source documents of official Turkish assurances for 90 years that nothing was happening or had happened, preferring instead to cite unreliable eyewitness accounts of what did happen. Armenian political influence is behind this.


Cicek noted that Armenians influenced the parliaments of the countries in which they are powerful and succeeded in obtaining parliament decisions in their favor in 15 countries.


Ah, yes: the well-known Armenian International Network, which dominates parliaments around the world.


As Turks, we wished that, instead of turning incidents of the past into a topic of hatred and anger, they should be brought to daylight by the historians with an approach looking at the future. . . .


Based on our archives and confidence in our history and culture, we can say that no genocide took place.




What has stuck in the craw of the Turkish government for almost 90 years is an official report issued by the British government, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915–1916. If you don't think governments stick by their official versions of history, consider this April 22, 2005 story in London's Financial Times.


 Turkey challenges genocide ‘fraud'


By Vincent Boland in Ankara


Published: April 22 2005


The Turkish parliament was yesterday preparing to ask the UK to repudiate a historical document that is considered to form the basis of the claim that Armenians were victims of genocide by Ottoman Turks during the first world war.


The initiative comes on the eve of Sunday's 90th anniversary commemorations among Armenians of what they regard as the start of the massacre of up to 1.5m people.


The move is likely to exacerbate the bitter dispute between Turks and Armenians. Supporters of the Armenian cause, particularly in France, are lobbying for the European Union to delay the start of Turkey's accession talks for EU membership until Turkey acknowledges a "systematic extermination" in 1915.


Turkish MPs completed and signed a letter to both houses of the UK parliament arguing that the document was "a fraud based on fabrications, half truths and biased reports and perceptions" of what happened and "a masterpiece of propaganda and tool of deception".


The document, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-1916, was written by the British historian Arnold Toynbee and included in a publication known as the Blue Book, by Viscount Bryce, a British diplomat. It was an official Westminster document, which is why the Turkish parliament wants the House of Commons and House of Lords to act.


Turkey rejects the charge of genocide. It insists that the true death toll among Armenians was about 600,000 and that many died from the effects of civil war, starvation and deportation. It says the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Turks at the time are overlooked.


The letter, which was made available yesterday by the Turkish parliament in the original Turkish and in English translation, will be sent to London imminently.


The letter says British propaganda in the first world war aimed to portray the destruction of the Ottoman Empire as a key aim of the war, to "render British colonialism in Anatolia and Mesopotamia palatable", and to encourage the US to join the Allied side. The Ottoman Empire collapsed into many nations after the war. Its Anatolian heartland is now Turkey.


The British embassy in Ankara declined to comment on the letter. Some Turkish historians say the document has stood the test of time; others say Mr Toynbee later distanced himself from its findings, which were based on eyewitness accounts.


The official UK position is that the massacres were "an appalling tragedy" but that the evidence is not "sufficiently unequivocal" to categorise them as genocide under the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide.


The letter says British propaganda in the first world war aimed to portray the destruction of the Ottoman Empire as a key aim of the war, to "render British colonialism in Anatolia and Mesopotamia palatable", and to encourage the US to join the Allied side. The Ottoman Empire collapsed into many nations after the war. Its Anatolian heartland is now Turkey.


The British embassy in Ankara declined to comment on the letter. Some Turkish historians say the document has stood the test of time; others say Mr Toynbee later distanced himself from its findings, which were based on eyewitness accounts.


The official UK position is that the massacres were "an appalling tragedy" but that the evidence is not "sufficiently unequivocal" to categorise them as genocide under the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide.


Viscount James Bryce was a master historian. His book, The American Commonwealth (1888), is still read by American historians as a primary source document regarding educated English opinion about America. He served as Ambassador to the United States from 1907–13.






The name Arnold Toynbee may ring a bell. By the 1950s, he was one of the most prominent historians on earth. His 12-volume study (1934–61) of 26 civilizations is unprecedented in its breadth. The Treatment of Armenians was his first major publication.


Why some Armenian organization has not bought a copy of Adobe Acrobat Pro 7 and scanned in the full volume, with the documents, remains a mystery to me. The book is in the public domain: pre-1923. But Toynbee's summary is online. This section, which appears in Part VI, "The Deportations of 1915: Procedure," is enlightening. Read it carefully. It is the crucial aspect of the entire genocide. The government confiscated their guns.


A decree went forth that all Armenians should be disarmed The Armenians in the Army were drafted out of the fighting ranks, re-formed into special labour battalions, and set to work at throwing up fortifications and constructing roads. The disarming of the civil population was left to the local authorities, and in every administrative centre a reign of terror began. The authorities demanded the production of a definite number of arms. Those who could not produce them were tortured, often in fiendish ways; those who procured them for surrender, by purchase from their Moslem neighbours or by other means, were imprisoned for conspiracy against the Government. Few of these were young men, for most of the young had been called up to serve; they were elderly men, men of substance and leaders of the Armenian community, and it became apparent that the inquisition for arms was being used as a cloak to deprive the community of its natural heads. Similar measures had preceded the massacres of 1895 – 6, and a sense of foreboding spread through the Armenian people. "One night in winter" writes a foreign witness of these events," the Government sent officers round the city to all Armenian houses, knocking up the families and demanding that all weapons should be given up. This action was the death-knell to many hearts."






I own a copy of The Treatment of Armenians. Or, rather, my wife does. In it, there are two accounts of events in Van, which is where the Turks say a revolt broke out, thereby justifying the forced relocation. These reports were written by Y. K. Rushdooni (as it is spelled in The Treatment of Armenians), my wife's grandfather. They are extremely detailed: street by street activities. Some might think they are just too detailed. Not so.


Y. K. Rushdoony had a photographic memory. Once, his son Haig caught him in his easy chair in front of the fire, head down, eyes closed. "You were sleeping," Haig kidded him. "I was meditating on what I have just read," he replied. "Come on," Haig said. "You were asleep." He handed Haig the book. "Ask me anything about the pages where the book is open to." Haig did. He said that his father began answering each question, word for word, by what was on the page. He went on for two pages. Haig told me this story 50 years later and confirmed it yesterday. "It was the only time I ever challenged him." When, in his old age, Y. K. began to lose his eyesight, he memorized dozens of psalms, so that he could read them at family gatherings. If his sons knew, they did not tell him. Haig, a Ph.D. in geography, has a good memory. Rousas John, his older brother, was also generally regarded as no slouch in the memory department – a master of the footnote. Ask him a question after one of his lectures, and you might get another lecture. (His dying words, after he had briefly exposited a passage that his son had read to him on his deathbed, were these: "Are there any questions?") But, compared to their father, they both said, they were outclassed.


On her way home in 1915, his pregnant wife came across her father's remains in the street. He had been hacked to death. Y. K. took her, his young child, and a £100 sterling note that had been given to him when he graduated from Edinburgh, and fled across the border into Russia. The boy drowned in the escape. The money – hard currency – got the two of them across Russia to Archangel, and from there they bought passage to the United States. Rousas was born in 1916 in New York City.




Lenin disarmed the Russians. Stalin committed genocide against the Kulaks in the 1930s. At least six million died.


The model for 1968 Gun Control Act – even the wording was taken from Hitler's legislation of 1938, which was a revision of the 1928 law passed by the Weimar government. A good introduction to this politically incorrect history of American gun control is on jpfo.org: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.


When Mao's troops took a village, they would kidnap rich people. They would then offer to return the victims in exchange for money. The victims would be released upon payment. Then they would be kidnapped again. This time, the demand was for guns. Then they would be released again. This made the deal look reasonable to the families of the next victims. But once they had the community's guns, the mass arrests and executions began.


The idea that the individual has a right of self-defense is written into the U.S. Constitution: the second amendment. Carroll Quigley, who taught Bill Clinton history at Georgetown, was an expert in the history of weaponry. He wrote a 1,000-page book on medieval weaponry. He argued in Tragedy and Hope (1966) that the American Revolution was successful because the Americans possessed weapons that were comparable to those possessed by British troops. This, he said, was why there were a series of revolts against despotic governments in the eighteenth century. When government weapons became superior, the move toward smaller government ceased to be equally successful.


There is a reason why governments are committed to disarming their citizens. They want to maintain the monopoly of violence, no matter what. The idea of an armed citizenry is anathema to most politicians. After all, what's a monopoly for, if not to be used?




Genocide happens.


It doesn't happen whenever the would-be targets own guns.


April 27, 2005


Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 31-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.


Copyright © 2005 Gary North



26 December 2012:  In maintaining our efforts to stay abreast the drone-aircraft programs here in the United States, it is important to share the progression as they become more and more common and are more widely used by various agencies and businesses.






The Coming Drone Attack on America
Drones on domestic surveillance duties are already deployed by police and corporations. In time, they will likely be weaponised




by Naomi Wolf


People often ask me, in terms of my argument about "ten steps" that mark the descent to a police state or closed society, at what stage we are. I am sorry to say that with the importation of what will be tens of thousands of drones, by both US military and by commercial interests, into US airspace, with a specific mandate to engage in surveillance and with the capacity for weaponization – which is due to begin in earnest at the start of the new year – it means that the police state is now officially here.


In February of this year, Congress passed the FAA Reauthorization Act, with its provision to deploy fleets of drones domestically. Jennifer Lynch, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that this followed a major lobbying effort, "a huge push by […] the defense sector" to promote the use of drones in American skies: 30,000 of them are expected to be in use by 2020, some as small as hummingbirds – meaning that you won't necessarily see them, tracking your meeting with your fellow-activists, with your accountant or your congressman, or filming your cruising the bars or your assignation with your lover, as its video-gathering whirs.




Others will be as big as passenger planes. Business-friendly media stress their planned abundant use by corporations: police in Seattle have already deployed them.


An unclassified US air force document reported by CBS (pdf) news expands on this unprecedented and unconstitutional step – one that formally brings the military into the role of controlling domestic populations on US soil, which is the bright line that separates a democracy from a military oligarchy. (The US constitution allows for the deployment of National Guard units by governors, who are answerable to the people; but this system is intended, as is posse comitatus, to prevent the military from taking action aimed at US citizens domestically.)


The air force document explains that the air force will be overseeing the deployment of its own military surveillance drones within the borders of the US; that it may keep video and other data it collects with these drones for 90 days without a warrant – and will then, retroactively, determine if the material can be retained – which does away for good with the fourth amendment in these cases. While the drones are not supposed to specifically "conduct non-consensual surveillance on on specifically identified US persons", according to the document, the wording allows for domestic military surveillance of non-"specifically identified" people (that is, a group of activists or protesters) and it comes with the important caveat, also seemingly wholly unconstitutional, that it may not target individuals "unless expressly approved by the secretary of Defense".


In other words, the Pentagon can now send a domestic drone to hover outside your apartment window, collecting footage of you and your family, if the secretary of Defense approves it. Or it may track you and your friends and pick up audio of your conversations, on your way, say, to protest or vote or talk to your representative, if you are not "specifically identified", a determination that is so vague as to be meaningless.




What happens to those images, that audio? "Distribution of domestic imagery" can go to various other government agencies without your consent, and that imagery can, in that case, be distributed to various government agencies; it may also include your most private moments and most personal activities. The authorized "collected information may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent". Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told CBS:


"In some records that were released by the air force recently … under their rules, they are allowed to fly drones in public areas and record information on domestic situations."


This document accompanies a major federal push for drone deployment this year in the United States, accompanied by federal policies to encourage law enforcement agencies to obtain and use them locally, as well as by federal support for their commercial deployment. That is to say: now HSBC, Chase, Halliburton etc can have their very own fleets of domestic surveillance drones. The FAA recently established a more efficient process for local police departments to get permits for their own squadrons of drones.


Given the Department of Homeland Security militarization of police departments, once the circle is completed with San Francisco or New York or Chicago local cops having their own drone fleet – and with Chase, HSBC and other banks having hired local police, as I reported here last week – the meshing of military, domestic law enforcement, and commercial interests is absolute. You don't need a messy, distressing declaration of martial law.


And drone fleets owned by private corporations means that a first amendment right of assembly is now over: if Occupy is massing outside of a bank, send the drone fleet to surveil, track and harass them. If citizens rally outside the local Capitol? Same thing. As one of my readers put it, the scary thing about this new arrangement is deniability: bad things done to citizens by drones can be denied by private interests – "Oh, that must have been an LAPD drone" – and LAPD can insist that it must have been a private industry drone. For where, of course, will be the accountability from citizens buzzed or worse by these things?


December 26, 2012


Naomi Wolf is the author of The End of America and Give Me Liberty.


Copyright © 2012 The Guardian







As Jon Rappoport noted, government bureaucrats don’t like it when the people over whom they rule do things on their own. That is why government bureaucrats are now forcing independent-minded people back on the government-controlled grid.


The government bureaucrats don’t like it when the people express their own independence and who show that they do not need those government bureaucrats, or their alleged "security" workers to defend the people. That is why government bureaucrats insist on "gun-free zones," in which children are left vulnerable to attackers, rather than allowing the adults at the school to be armed to protect those children from real harm.


"Let’s put a police officer or security guard in the school," the compromisers cry. However, locking down the schools like this turns the kids into prisoners, and won’t protect them.


The near impossibility of being able to reach those who can rightfully be considered "sheeple" is frustrating now.


For those who are still in denial of the possibility that the U.S. government could possibly ever turn the guns on the people, there is already precedent of this. During the 19th Century American War on Independence, besides President Abraham Lincoln’s State-murders of many thousands of innocent civilians in the South and his army’s murders of hundreds of military protesters in the North, as Thomas DiLorenzo pointed out,


Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without any due process; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers...censored all telegraphs; rigged elections; imprisoned duly elected members of the Maryland legislature along with Congressman Henry May of Baltimore and the mayor of Baltimore; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia to give the Republican Party two more U.S. senators; confiscated firearms in the border states in violation of the Second Amendment…


And there are other examples of those abuses, committed by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and FDR, besides the more recent examples.


And regarding the right to bear arms, a lot of people actually find it absurd if you point out how Hitler took advantage of gun control laws already in place, and further strengthened them to disarm Germans, mainly the Jews. So had Jews in Germany been able to exercise their right to bear arms, many of them might have been able to resist the Nazis from abducting them and taking them to their deaths. (See David Kopel and Richard Griffiths on that issue.)


It really should be the reverse of what the sheeple want: We would be much better off, much safer and more secure with an armed civilian population and a disarmed government!


Finally, while Premier Obama violates his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" on a daily basis, one individual who has declared with very strong and straightforward language his personal pledge to resist the fascist disarmament campaign is Stewart Rhodes, Founder of the Oath Keepers organization. Included in his statement of resistance, Rhodes declares,


I pledge to refuse compliance with any and all laws that attempt to strip me and my children of those arms … I will use nullification, civil disobedience, and active resistance against all such laws.  I will nullify, disobey, and resist as an individual, and I will work with my neighbors to nullify, disobey, and resist as towns, counties, and states.  We will not disarm, we will not comply, and we will resist…

I pledge to defend myself, my neighbors, my town, county, and state, against any attempt to forcibly disarm them pursuant to any "assault weapons ban" or any other illegitimate "law" passed by oath breakers within Congress, or pursuant to any illegitimate order, action, or decree by the oath breaker within the White House. We will not disarm.  We will resist.  And if given no other choice but to fight or to submit to abject tyranny, we will fight, just as our forefathers in the American Revolution fought against the tyrants, usurpers, and oath breakers of their day.

If we are presented with the "choice" of submission to tyranny or fighting in defense of our natural rights, we will fight, as our forefathers fought, when the British Empire attempted to disarm them and confiscate the military pattern arms, ammunition, and supplies of their time.  We will make the same choice as Patrick Henry made, when he rejected "peace" purchased at the price of chains and slavery, and said "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"  I too choose liberty or death.

I hereby reaffirm my oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor in defense of the principles of liberty enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, for which our forefathers spilled their blood.   We will not let the Republic fall without a fight.


And he means it. I don’t know anyone personally who has the guts to declare such a strong statement of resistance to government tyrants. I know I don’t.


But we do need more Stewart Rhodes in America, that’s for sure.


(And fewer buffoonish, dangerous government bureaucrats, that’s for sure.)


December 21, 2012


Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a writer and cartoonist, visit his blog.


Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.








 21 December 2012:  It is very important to remain with a correct and true perspective on the purpose of the Second Amendment.  All the socialist within and without Washington have their hands full of what they claim to be "justification" for enhanced gun control laws and are hungry to gain that much more power and control over the serfs...and sheeple.  We MUST NOT allow them to gain more power over us, rather, we must strip them of what they already have!  Everything we have and are depends on it!




I Fear the Government and the Obedient Sheeple, More Than I Fear Guns


by Scott Lazarowitz

I do not intend to write something here to convince the emotionally hysterical gun-control crowd to abandon their fantasy of removing guns from the world. They live in a fairyland and there appears to be no way to change their minds.

Nor am I trying to even convince the so-called conservatives, the Republicans, the alleged "gun-rights" advocates to stop it with their kowtowing. This is really just a rant (albeit an informed rant).

But I do want to note that the point of the right to bear arms – which is a right, by the way, not a government-granted privilege – is for people to have the means to defend themselves, not just from everyday criminals and predators, but mainly from government tyrants and their minions.

I just don’t understand the so-called gun defenders and gun store owners suddenly joining the irrational hysterics of "Why would anyone need an assault rifle, or military-style weapon? We should ban those." Well, as history has shown, if you’re going to forbid the civilian population from having certain firearms, then for your own safety you will have to forbid police and military from having them too.

But a lot of people don’t seem to understand that. They trust government police and military. A lot of people feel safe with an armed government and a disarmed civilian population. (It really should be the other way around!)

And why is almost no one from the gun-rights crowd pointing out that it’s really the government’s gun restrictions, gun-free zones and "zero tolerance," in which honest, law-abiding civilians (e.g. teachers, school administrators and other adult school workers) are forcibly disarmed by government bureaucrats and police, that increases the vulnerability of these children to an attack by an armed intruder?

This is why I call people "sheeple," "zombies," and assert that many people now are totally hypnotized and brainwashed to love and adore their most vicious predators and threats to society: The State and its loyal flunkies.

For clearly, Washington is preparing for something, whether it is economic collapse and civil unrest, "natural" disasters, or civil war …

Whatever it is, it’s something, and we know the bureaucrats are preparing for something, given the Department of Homeland Security’s purchases of hundreds of millions of hollow-point bullets and high-powered battle rifles, Barack Obama’s Executive Orders to seize control over mass communications in America and seize U.S. infrastructure and people involuntarily, Obama’s preparing the FEMA rendition camps (not to mention the many coffins and mass graves being prepared), the U.S. Army’s manual which outlines a plan to kill rioters and demonstrators, the Army’s training troops to drive tanks through U.S. streets, FEMA’s preparing for food storage confiscation, and more unconstitutional and criminal Obama-police state policies now.

There is also Obama’s NDAA provision of indefinite detention of Americans, which gives the President the power to have the military seize and detain indefinitely anyone that the President or his minions have deemed a "terrorist," a "combatant," or otherwise a criminal, without providing any evidence against the accused.

Obama also has claimed the power – upheld by the court bureaucrats – to assassinate anyone he chooses, based on his own reasons, without any due process or any evidence against the accused.

A widely publicized example of that was Obama’s assassination of Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose only "crime" was criticizing U.S. foreign policy within his religious sermons, totally protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (I have addressed that here and here.)

You see, the power-grabbers have started with the Muslims, after the widespread post-9/11 brainwashing of Americans toward anti-Muslim prejudice and acceptance of anti-Muslim government policies and militarism.

So, thanks to the sheeple zombies’ approval of the post-9/11 hysterical "War on Terror," Washington has now been cracking down on speech, critics of stupid government bureaucrats, political dissent and government whistleblowers. But start with the Muslims and they will go on from there.

More recently, former Marine Brandon Raub’s Facebook posting questioning the government’s official explanation for 9/11 caused such a stir, he was criminally abducted by Secret Service and local authorities and involuntarily detained in a psychiatric ward. He is not the first victim of the State’s such crimes, as there have already been others in recent years.

Among the Obama Regime’s war on whistleblowers, Army Private Bradley Manning suffered major abuse during his extensive pretrial military imprisonment. Manning allegedly released videos and documents to WikiLeaks exposing our own government bureaucrats’ war crimes in Iraq and the bureaucrats’ incompetence and corruption as well.

Former CIA asset Susan Lindauer was another government whistleblower who has already suffered at the hands of the un-American central planning degenerates in Washington.

More examples of the government bureaucrats’ war on speech, political dissent and government criticism include former Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, who wants to "cognitively infiltrate" Internet sites and social media, and Obama’s new law in which Constitutionally-protected protests will be stifled. And even Facebook has suspended the account of a user who questioned the official narrative involving the Sandy Hook, Connecticut school shooting.

But it is clear that Washington wants to stifle criticism and dissent amongst the masses, and us schmucks who do have a right to criticize the most buffoonish and imbecilic bureaucrats who have ever pervaded Washington, DC and who should be criticized, lambasted, raked over the coals, satirized, lampooned – all totally protected by the First Amendment, regardless of what the Supreme Bureaucrats say and/or whether there’s a "War on Terror" or not.

Besides the government’s cracking down on free speech, it has become oppressive in other ways. Examples include the TSA’s VIPR teams now invading the bus terminals, Amtrak stations (which is being encouraged by all the filthy government hand-outs, of course), and on roads and highways, the government siccing S.W.A.T. teams on alleged student loan defaulters, and the FDA’s war on raw milk.



20 December 2012:  Every day, I am more and more deserving it seems to be deemed "suspicious" and, therefore, "guilty" according to Homeland Security's and the Fraudulent Bureau of Investigation's criteria.  How about you?




You May Be a Suspicious Hotel Guest


by Mark Nestmann
The Nestmann Group, Ltd.

 Do you routinely put the “do not disturb” sign on your hotel room door? If you do, you may fit the profile of a suspected terrorist, and the FBI and Homeland Security Administration want to know about it.

 The FBI and HSA have released a joint bulletin to hotels throughout the world alerting them to potentially suspicious activities by hotel guests representing “potential indicators of terrorist activity.”

 Suspicious behaviors by guests include:



  • Avoiding questions typically asked of hotel registrants
  • Requesting a specific room or floor at the hotel
  • Paying cash
  • Using payphones for outgoing calls
  • Use of Internet cafes when Internet is available in the hotel
  • Requesting that their registration at the hotel not be divulged
  • Evading hotel staff, including “refusal of housekeeping services for extended periods”
  • Registration through a third party
  • Entering and leaving the hotel using entrances and exits other than the lobby
  • Leaving unattended vehicles near the hotel building
  • Non-compliance with other hotel policies

 Reviewing this list, it’s obvious that I’m a terrorist. Let’s review a typical hotel stay, say, in Zurich.



  • Avoiding questions. After a long flight, I check into my hotel. At the registration desk, I refuse to provide my email address to avoid spam.
  • Requesting a specific floor. I prefer a quiet room on a higher floor and ask for it when I register. Terrorists like peace and quiet, too, at least until it’s time to go “boom.”
  • Paying cash. Since my credit card charges a 3% fee for overseas transactions, I often pay in cash.
  • Using payphones. Foreign hotels typically charge $3 or more per minute for outgoing calls to the USA. So, I often purchase a prepaid phone card and make the calls for 1/10 the typical in-room rate from a pay phone.
  • Using Internet cafes. After one hotel stay in Zurich, at checkout I received a bill for SFr 200 for Internet use in my room. The hotel billed by the minute rather than a flat daily fee. My mistake for not asking, but I would have happily used an Internet cafe had I known in advance.
  • Evading hotel staff. I often work from my room, and restrict access to it for security and to avoid possible theft. Sometimes I sleep on the same sheets and use the same towels for two or three days. I always thought I was just a slob, but now I know that I’m a terrorist as well.
  • Avoiding the lobby. I will enter and leave a hotel through whatever entrance or exit is most convenient to my room. Obviously, that makes me a terrorist.
  • Leaving unattended vehicles near the hotel. I don’t usually have a vehicle with me when I travel internationally, but when I do I park near the hotel, generally in the hotel parking lot. Once I park the vehicle, it’s unattended. After all, it’s a bit hard to take it into the room with me.
  • Non-compliance with other hotel policies. I’m notorious for such nefarious actions as storing food or drink in the min-bar refrigerator, even if the refrigerator is reserved for mini-bar items. Sometimes I even take an apple from the breakfast buffet to snack on later.

 Yes, that unshaven, white, middle-aged guy with the receding hairline slithering out the side exit to the Internet cafe might just be the next Osama bin Laden. He’s carrying a laptop and looks a little confused. Stop him now and send him to Guantanamo Bay for waterboarding. You never know, he just might confess to inappropriate use of a hotel mini-bar. Not to mention being a known or suspected breakfast buffer terrorist.


19 December 2012: 




How the Newtown Massacre Became a Mind-Control Television Event


by Jon Rappoport
Jon Rappoport's Blog


Recently by Jon Rappoport: Here Come the Grief Counselors, Over the Hill, Pouring Into Newtown, Connecticut





 Mind control. Mass hypnosis. Operant conditioning. Brain entrainment. That’s what we’re talking about here.

 We’re so conditioned to how television covers life that we rarely step back and take notice.

 In the case of massive disasters and crimes, network news rules the roost.

 First, the premiere anchors, who are managing editors of their own broadcasts, give themselves the go signal. They will leave their comfortable chairs and travel to the scene of crime. “It’s that big.”

 The anchors lend gravitas. Their mere presence lets the audience know this story trumps all other news of the moment. That’s the first hypnotic cue and suggestion.

 Of course, the anchors were not in Newtown, Connecticut, as reporters. They weren’t there to dig up facts. Their physical presence at the Sandy Hook School and in the town was utterly irrelevant.

 They could have been doing their newscasts from their studios in New York. Or from a broom closet.

 But much better to be standing somewhere in Newtown. It imparts the sense of crisis to the viewing millions.

 At the same time, the anchors are also there to give assurance. The subliminal message they transmit is: whatever has happened here is controllable.

 The audience knows the anchors will provide the meaning and the official voice of the tragedy. The anchors are, in a way, priests, intoning their benediction to the suffering and their elegies to the dead.

 This is what the audience expects, and this is what they get.

 This expectation, in fact, is so deep that anything else would be considered an insult, a moral crime.

 For example, suppose a network suddenly shifted gears and began interviewing police and residents and asking tough questions about contradictions in the official scenario. Suppose that became the primary focus. Suppose the tone became argumentative, in the interest of, God forbid, the truth.

 In other words, in a jarring shift of perspective, the anchors began asking questions to seek answers. What a concept.

 No, a priest doesn’t browbeat a parishioner. He takes confession and then offers a route to redemption.

 But if, by some miracle, these anchors launched a quest for truth, the whole scene would devolve into uncertainty and even chaos.

 “First, there was a man in the woods. You people chased him. You pinned him down and brought him back into town. Who is he? What’s his name? Where is he? Is he under questioning? What are you asking him? What gave you a clue that he might be a second shooter? Come on. Talk to us. People want to know. We aren’t going anywhere. We want some answers.”

 This is called reporting, a foreign enterprise to these blown-dried kings and queens of media news.

 “Sir, I know ABC definitively reported there was a second shooter. They said you gave them that information. Where did you get it?…No, I’m sorry, that’s not an answer, that’s a non-sequitur.”

 Those of us reporting online declare there is something amiss when the second-shooter story is dropped like a hot potato…and we are called conspiracy theorists.

 Get it? Trying to ask relevant questions becomes conspiracy only because the major media didn’t do their job in the first place.

 “Sir, was it one gun found in trunk of the car or three? Show me the car. Yes. Let’s see it. I want to get the license plate. Excuse me? The car is what, some kind of state secret? I don’t think so. There are twenty dead children in that school over there, and we want to get to the bottom of this. Take me to the car.”

 It’s called an investigation. Reporters do that.

 “Sir, your newspaper ran a story about a man’s body being found in Adam’s brother’s apartment. Then that became Adam’s mother found dead in her own house here in Newtown. What exactly happened there? A mistake? Wouldn’t you say that was a pretty big mistake? How did it happen? What’s that? Typical confusion in the early reporting of a crime? I don’t think so. Thinking a woman was a man and thinking he or she was found in New Jersey instead of Connecticut, that’s not typical at all. Did police find a man’s body. Speak up.”

 Your typical American television viewer would cringe at such demanding questions. You know why? Because he has been entrained and conditioned by news anchors to refrain from digging below the surface. In other words, that viewer is hypnotized.

 “Dr. Smith and Officer Jones, we understand that this boy, who was autistic, extremely shy, who had some sort of personality disorder, went into that school and methodically carried out the slaughter of twenty-seven people. In order for him to do that, he had to reload clips at least twice after the first clip ran out. Does that make sense? We’re not just talking about a violent outburst here, we’re talking about a methodical massacre. How do you explain that?”

 If these anchors kept on asking questions like this, do you know what would happen? The viewing audience would begin to stir, would begin to break through their hypnotic programming and wake up.

 “You know, he’s right. That doesn’t make sense. Maybe there really was a second shooter.”

 “Or that Lanza kid…maybe he didn’t kill anybody at all.”

 “What? You mean he was…set up?”

 “Maybe he was a patsy.”

 Yes. Instead of this kind of talk being consigned to “conspiracy nuts,” it actually becomes part of the evening news experience. Because reporters suddenly ask tough questions.

 But no. We have to go with grief and shock. We have to lead with it and stay with it.

 But that is an artificial construct. Yes, of course people in Newtown feel great shock and pain and loss and grief and horror, but the news producers are consciously moving minutes and hours of it through the tube and filtering out everything else.

 They do this every time one of these events occurs, and so the audience expects it and soaks it in and, in that state of entrainment and hypnosis, the audience doesn’t want anything else…because anything else would BREAK THE FLOW and the spell, and the grief would no longer have the same impact.

 Newtown is presented as a television event. From the outset, the mood is funereal. It has that tinge and coloration. The audience absorbs it and wants no intrusion on it.

 This is Matrix programming.

 The anchor is not only the priest, but also the teacher. He/she shows the audience how to experience the event and what to feel and what to think and how to act.

 One of the great skills of an anchor is the ability to present the news seamlessly. This is what those big paychecks are for: the blends and segueways and the underlying tone of sincerity that bleeds into every detail of what is being reported.

 That is also hypnotic. It sets up a frequency that moves into the brains of the audience. In those brains, it’s an Acceptance-frequency. It’s the mark of a great news anchor, to be able to transmit that and achieve it.

 Scott Pelley (CBS) has only some of that. Diane Sawyer (ABC) is decidedly inconsistent in her ability to deploy it. Brian Williams (NBC) is the contemporary master. That’s why he’s been called the Walter Cronkite of the 21st century.

 “Sir, we have a report that police pinned a second man on the ground just outside the school. What is his name? What did you do with him? Where is he now.”

 No, no, no, no, no. That would crack the Acceptance-frequency like an egg and send the evening news to hell in a handbasket.

 “Sir, I’m glad we finally located you. We understand you were getting ready to go to Bermuda. Now, you were Adam Lanza’s doctor. What drugs did you prescribe him? Not just recently, but going all the way back to the beginning. You see, we’ve compiled a list of possible drugs for Asperger’s and autism and depression, and of course we see that they do, in fact, induce violent behavior. Suicide, homicide. Speak up, Doctor.”

 The egg not only cracks in that case, the news anchor is suspended the next day, and the network releases a statement that his “breakdown” on camera was brought on by stress.

 Pharmaceutical companies put him on their “to-do” list.

 Yet, the questions about the drugs are exactly what a real reporter would ask. Not a “conspiracy theorist.” A reporter, on the scene in Newtown.

 Anyone who thinks that is absurd and out of bounds is hypnotized, programmed. That’s all there is to it.

 Traditional media are dying in this country. Their money is drying up. They could revitalize themselves in a New York minute if they really started COVERING stories and waking up their audience, but that’s not on their agenda. They would rather die.

 They are the hired hands of the elites that own this country. They are the whores sent out every day by their pimps, and they know what their job is and what it isn’t.

 The direction of elite television news is squeezed down the path of consciously constructing artificial events, for mass consumption experienced in a state of emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual mind-control. Those reporters who venture outside that framework are labeled fringe figures on the margins.

 “Lieutenant, excuse me. Hello. Brian Williams, NBC News. I was wondering: if there had been armed employees inside the school, what are the chances the killer could have been stopped before he shot all those children? You know, people who have been trained to shoot and have concealed carry permits. Strong people who could confront a murderer.”

 Oh, people say, that is not a reasonable question. That’s a nutcase question. That question shouldn’t be asked. Why not? You want the real answer? Because it destroys the hypnotic frequency that is being delivered by the television networks. That’s the real answer.

 The viewer: “Don’t bother me, I’m hypnotized. Don’t interrupt the frequency my brain is absorbing while I’m watching the news.”

 And of course, under those conditions, the very last person who should interrupt the hypnotic flow is the anchor himself. He’s the one who’s inducing the hypnosis in the first place.

 That tells you the the anchor is quite definitely NOT there to dig up new facts or perspectives himself.

 Entrainment means: the brain is being bathed in rhythms and frequencies that literally train it to accept the information that is being transmitted at the same time.

 In the same way, a song can succeed because the melody (carrier frequency) makes the trite lyrics seem important.

 Entrainment also makes the recipient feel he is part of something larger. This is a key component. The recipient senses he is a member of a collective that is sharing a moment, an experience.

 “I feel this way, and everybody else does too.”

 This is what substitutes, in our society, for individual experience and self-sufficiency.

 But this collective is not real community. It only appears and feels that way. It is mass hypnosis. You can find that in Gregorian chants and in sermons. You can find it in political speeches.

 The brain is bathed in certain harmonies and responds by Accepting.

 The Globalists’ language is replete with entrainment. “We are all in this together.” “We are healing the planet.” “All of us must strive to make a better world for our children.”

 It sounds right, it seems right, but it is delivered to create a collective instead of a real community. Take a few minutes and read Monsanto’s literature. Read it out loud. Listen to yourself. Try to impart convincing rhythms to the phrases. All of a sudden, you’re in the flow. You’re practicing entrainment.

 This is what network television news does. And we aren’t even talking about the hypnotic effects of the physical signals that deliver the picture to the audience.

 In a previous article, I pointed out that, if we are to believe the network coverage of the Newtown massacre, there wasn’t one angry outraged man or woman in the town. Because we didn’t see them onscreen.

 The networks made sure of that. This was a conscious choice on their part.

 “My son died in that school and I want to know why. I want to know exactly how the killer got in there. Who let him in? How did he get in? I WANT TO KNOW.”

 Sorry, that isn’t part of the coverage.

 It would interrupt the entrainment.

 “Sorry, sir, you’ll have to back away. We’re doing mass hypnosis and mind control here. You’re breaking the rhythm.”

 Instead, that angry man will be funneled to a grief counselor, who will try to soothe his outrage.

 “Sir, we all have to find a way to begin the healing.”

 Events like Newtown are extraordinary teaching moments for television. Network newscasts display a constellation of emotions that are deemed “acceptable and appropriate” for the audience to experience. And the audience is thereby trained to mirror those emotions, to feel them, to express them, to soak in them.

 It’s a closed system.

 This is how, incidentally, gun control works so well. It’s part of the overall message. The audience, existing inside that closed system, in that state of mass hypnosis, can be pointed to exactly the wrong remedy for the tragedy.

 All the network anchor has to do is frown and shake his head a little, when the subject of guns arises. That’s all it takes, and the brains of the audience suck it in:

 “Yes, of course. Take away the guns. If no one had guns, no one could shoot guns. No one would die. No crimes would be committed. How obvious.”

 The capstone that makes this puerile grand solution seem reasonable is: the police are always the good guys; we can trust them; they can have all the guns and then everything will be all right.

 That message is also imparted by the big-time network new anchors. These kings and queens don’t ask police the tough questions. They refrain from doing that.

 In fact, the anchors ARE surrogate police chiefs. They express what the police chiefs would, if they had the anchors’ skills.

 The anchors do stand-ups in Newtown and give us the absolute best of what the police would if they could. And in the process, they transmit:

 Entrainment. Mass hypnosis. Mind control. Operant conditioning.

 It’s perfect, if you want to be an android.

 December 19, 2012


Jon Rappoport runs No More Fake News. The author of an explosive collection, The Matrix Revealed, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

Copyright © 2012 Jon Rappoport

19 December 2012:  If you haven't researched these "Smart Meters" and all of their proven implications, I recommend you do so.  Soon.



Health hazards linked to utility meters



'Smart' units blamed for sleep troubles, stress, headaches, heart problems




Editor’s Note: This is the final article in a series about smart meters and the technology that critics fear could allow utilities and government to monitor how and for what reason energy is used inside your home. The first article explained the “other purposes” government has for the technology. The second article discussed the dangers from meters that explode or ignite.

Smart meters have been associated with privacy issues, data security issues, and fire safety issues, but the biggest danger from RF (radio frequency) meters may be from the signals they give off while reporting their data to the central utility office.


A study conducted by the industry group, the Electric Power Research Institute, concluded that in their tests the radio frequency emissions of smart meters are well within federal safety guidelines. A Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) study titled, “Summary Discussion of RF Fields and the PG&E SmartMeter™ System” concluded that smart meters are “are in full compliance with Federal Communications Commission regulations by a very wide margin.”

But are they? Many people would disagree.

Joe Esposito from Owasso, Okla., had a smart meter installed on his home in 2011 as part of a pilot program developed by the Public Service Company of Oklahoma. Even though he asked that a meter not be installed on his home, Esposito found one mounted on the side of his house when he came home from work.

It was then his health problems started. Esposito started experiencing dental problems, from aching teeth to a constant tingling sensation. He also started to experience aches in his leg which only got worse at night.

After watching a video titled “Smart Meters & EMR: The Health Crisis of Our Time” by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, Esposito followed the advice in the video and installed some lead sheeting around the meter on the outside of his house. The results were dramatic. He had the first good night’s sleep in months and the pain in his leg was gone. Additional protection inside the home added later gave relief from many of his other symptoms. As an experiment, he would sometimes sleep without the protection and his pains would return.

Joe Esposito’s experience is not unique. Thousands of people have reported ringing in the ears, insomnia, headaches, dizziness, nausea, heart irregularities, memory loss, and anxiety after a smart meter was installed on their house or business.

According to a survey conducted by Dr. Ed Halteman, Ph.D., the number of people in the survey who had sleep problems doubled after smart meters were installed.

The survey also indicated that the top health issues suffered by the 318 residents in the survey who had smart meters installed on or near the home included sleep problems (49 percent), stress (43 percent), headaches (40 percent), ringing in the ears (38 percent) and heart problems (26 percent).

In May of 2011, the World Health Organization officially recognized that wireless radiation such as emitted by smart meters is a possible carcinogen.

People who also suffer from Electromagnetic Sensitivity (ES) also seem especially vulnerable to the effects of smart meters.

In recent years, there has been a 60-fold increase in cases of autism which may be explained by changes in the environment. A study by the Association for Comprehensive NeuroTherapy reports that there may be a correlation between fetal (pre-natal) or neo-natal (new-born) exposures to radiofrequency radiation and the increase in the incidents of autism.

Another phenomenon reported by smart meter users was the absence of pollinators in their yards. Residents report the absence of bees, butterflies, hummingbirds and other small insects since the meters were installed. (Some studies are reporting that RF radiation may be a contributing factor to Colony Collapse Disorder experienced in beehives.)

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has released a report titled
“Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health” which warns people with a number of medical conditions to avoid smart meters and has also requested that the Public Utilities Commission of California impose “an immediate and complete moratorium on their [smart meter] use.”

While the AAEM acknowledges that studies such as those conducted by Electric Power Research Institute and PG&E indicate that the meters are safe, the academy contends that “existing FCC guidelines for RF safety that have been used to justify installation of ‘smart meters’ only look at thermal tissue damage and are obsolete, since many modern studies show metabolic and genomic damage from RF and ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) exposures below the level of intensity which heats tissues.”

Magda Havas, Ph.D., professor of Environmental & Resource Studies with Trent University in Ontario, Canada, said, “We are creating a potential time bomb. If smart meters are placed on every home, they will contribute significantly to our exposure and this is both unwise and unsafe.”

Jerry Flynn is a retired Canadian armed forces captain. While in service, Flynn was in signal intelligence and radio warfare. Flynn started looking at the potential dangers from smart meters at the request of his daughter who has three children.

Flynn was immediately concerned about the meters when he learned that the meters used wireless transmissions. He also learned that each smart meter has two radio transmitters inside, both transmitters pulsing microwave radiation which Flynn calls “the most dangerous [electromagnetic radiation] to the human brain.”

Flynn’s time in the military included a period of time the Russians experimented on U.S. embassy staff. Flynn said that the U.S. embassy in Moscow was bombarded with EMF six to eight hours a day five days a week by the Soviets at power levels that were 1/100 of what the U.S. and Canada permit now. They experimented with the same microwave frequencies that come off of standard household wireless appliances.

Between 1953 and 1976, the period of time the testing took place, two U.S. ambassadors died of cancer, one developed leukemia and eventually died from it; 16 women on the embassy staff developed breast cancer, and many others developed immune system disorders, high white blood cell counts, chronic fatigue, and muscle aches.

Flynn said that the United States knew about the testing within a year, but didn’t warn the embassy staff. The U.S. sent researchers over to the embassy with their own monitoring equipment to monitor the tests for themselves. They wanted to also find out the effect of low-level, long-term, non-thermal radiation would have on humans. Flynn said it took 10 years for the embassy staff to be told of the testing.

While most of the embassy staff was subjected to this radiation for a period of two to four years, Flynn points out that the exposure to radiation from a smart meter will be for the rest of your life.

Surprisingly, there is a second transmitter in a smart meter, called a “Zigbee.” This is a transmitter that the utility companies are not talking about now. There are plans for this transmitter to control up to 15 other “smart appliances” in your home. (Anything with a motor on it will eventually be a smart appliance that could be your furnace, refrigerator, dishwasher or “any other thing with a motor.”)

Flynn says these transmitters and smart appliances will be extremely dangerous, especially when used in addition to all the other wireless devices used such as cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, cordless phones – up to 30 devices that emit pulse radiation.

It is interesting to note that Apple advises its customers, “When carrying iPhone, keep it 1.5 cm (5/8 inch) or more away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the maximum levels.” Lloyds of London refuses to underwrite cell phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to a user’s health. (Cell phones and all the above-mentioned wireless devices operate in the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum as smart meters.)

All these sources of RF have evidence that they be harmful to one’s health.

Smart meters may be especially dangerous since the effects of their use may not be fully appreciated.

Olle Johansson, Ph.D. of the Department of Neuroscience with the Karolinska Institute in Solna, Sweden, stated, “The inauguration of smart meters with involuntary exposure of millions to billions of human beings to pulsed microwave radiation should immediately be prohibited.”

Because of these potential dangers, 52 communities in British Columbia have asked that a moratorium be placed in the installation of smart meters in the province pending further study.

Dr. Eilhu Richter, M.D., an associate professor at Hebrew University-Hadassah, has said, “Were these population-wide exposures to smart meters to be a part of a project carried out in a medical setting, to test the risks and benefits of a new technology on human health and well-being, it would be rejected … as an unethical exercise in human experimentation.”

See Part 1, “Watching out for government’s ‘other purposes’”

See Part 2, “Smart meters turn incendiary”



18 December 2012:  The following 22 points are only the tip of the iceberg.  One other huge problem I see with the young men of today is the emasculation that is taking place and even encouraged by many of the young women around them.  Gender identity problems would deminish if the women around these men would but encourage them to rise up and be men- REAL men.




22 Stats That Prove That There Is Something Seriously Wrong With Young Men In America

Michael Snyder
The American Dream
December 18th, 2012



When are we finally going to admit that we have a very serious problem with this generation of young men in America?  We have failed them so dramatically that it is hard to put it into words.  We have raised an entire generation of young males that don’t know how to be men, and many of them feel completely lost.  Sometimes they feel so lost that they “snap” in very destructive ways.  Adam Lanza and James Holmes are two names that come to mind.  Why is it that mass murderers are almost always young men?  Why don’t young women behave the same way?  Sadly, Adam Lanza and James Holmes are just the tip of the iceberg of a much larger problem in our society.  Our young women vastly outperform our young men in almost every important statistical category.  Young men are much more likely to perform poorly in school, they are much more likely to have disciplinary problems and they are much more likely to commit suicide.  In the old days, our young men would gather in the streets or in the parks to play with one another after school, but today most of them are content to spend countless hours feeding their addictions to video games, movies and other forms of entertainment.  When our young men grow up, many of them are extremely averse to taking on responsibility.  They want to have lots of sex, but they aren’t interested in marriage.  They enjoy the comforts of living at home, but they don’t want to go out and pursue career goals so that they can provide those things for themselves.  Our young men are supposed to be “the leaders of tomorrow”, but instead many of them are a major burden on society.  When are we finally going to admit that something has gone horribly wrong?

 There is even a name for this generation of young men that does not want to grow up.  It is called the “Peter Pan generation”.  They want to enjoy the benefits of being grown up without ever taking on the responsibilities.  A member of this “Peter Pan generation” recent wrote an article for the Daily Mail in which he discussed what he and his friends are going through…



I haven’t yet had to grow up so, well, I haven’t.

Reckless, irresponsible and immature? Yes. But at least I can take comfort in the fact I am not alone.

Last week, I read that there is even a name for people such as me. We are the ‘Peter Pan generation’; a sizeable group of 25 to 40-year-olds who exist in a state of extended adolescence, avoiding the trappings of responsibility — marriage, mortgage, children — for as long as possible.

‘Our society is full of lost boys and girls hanging out at the edge of adulthood,’ says Professor Frank Furedi, a sociologist who has been studying this phenomenon, at the University of Kent.

‘Another word sometimes used to describe these people is “adultescent” — generally defined as someone who refuses to settle down and make commitments, and who would rather go on partying into middle age.’

 Young men in America didn’t always behave this way.  Several decades ago, men in America moved away from home, got married and had children much earlier than they do now.  But the young men of today seem to want to put off the “markers of adulthood” for as long as possible.  The following is from an outstanding article by Sandy Hingston



Sociologists cite five “markers” or “milestones” that have traditionally defined our notion of adulthood: finishing school, moving away from the parental home, becoming financially independent, getting married, and having a child. In 1960, 65 percent of men had ticked off all five by age 30; by 2000, only a third had. The experts have plenty of explanations for what’s come to be called “extended adolescence” or “emerging adulthood”—or what New York Times columnist David Brooks calls the “Odyssey Years.” They blame helicopter parents, the burden of student loan debt, much higher poverty rates among young people (nearly half of all Americans ages 25 to 34 live below the national level), and a dearth of vo-tech training and manufacturing jobs. Almost 60 percent of parents are now giving money to their grown kids—an average of $38,340 per child in the years between ages 18 and 34. Whatever happened to the son looking after his mom?

 So why is all of this happening?

 Well, there are a whole host of reasons.  But certainly parents and our education system have to bear much of the blame.  In the old days, young men were taught what it means to “be a man”, and morality was taught to young men both by their parents and in the schools.  But today, most young men have very little understanding of what “manhood” is, and our society has taught them that morality doesn’t really matter.  Instead, television and movies constantly portray young men as sex-obsessed slackers that just want to party all the time, so that is what many of our young men have become.

 How much better off would our society be if we had trained this generation of young men to love, honor, protect and take care of others?

 How much better off would our society be if we had nurtured the manhood of our young men instead of teaching them to be ashamed of it?

 How much better off would our society be if we had disciplined our young men and taught them morality when they were getting off track instead of just letting them do whatever they wanted?

 The following are 22 stats that prove that there is something seriously wrong with young men in America today…

 #1 Males account for approximately 70 percent of all Ds and Fs in U.S. public schools.

 #2 About two-thirds of all students in “special education programs” are boys.

 #3 The average American girl spends 5 hours a week playing video games.  The average American boy spends 13 hours a week playing video games.

 #4 The average young American will spend 10,000 hours playing video games before the age of 21.

 #5 One study discovered that 88 percent of all Americans between the ages of 8 and 18 play video games, and that video game addiction is approximately four times as common among boys as it is among girls.

 #6 At this point, 15-year-olds that attend U.S. public schools do not even rank in the top half of all industrialized nations when it comes to math or science literacy.

 #7 In 2011, SAT scores for young men were the worst that they had been in 40 years.

 #8 According to a survey conducted by the National Geographic Society, only 37 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can find the nation of Iraq on a map.

 #9 According to the New York Times, approximately 57 percent of all young people enrolled at U.S. colleges are women.

 #10 It is being projected that women will earn 60 percent of all Bachelor’s degrees from U.S. universities by the year 2016.

 #11 Even if they do graduate from college, most of our young men still can’t find a decent job.  An astounding 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor’s degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed during 2011.

 #12 Pornography addiction is a major problem among our young men.  An astounding 30 percent of all Internet traffic now goes to pornography websites, and one survey found that 25 percent of all employees that have Internet access in the United States even visit sex websites while they are at work.

 #13 In the United States today, 47 percent of all high school students have had sex.

 #14 The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate on the entire planet.  If our young men behaved differently this would not be happening.

 #15 In the United States today, one out of every four teen girls has at least one sexually transmitted disease.  If our young men were not sex-obsessed idiots running around constantly looking to “score” these diseases would not be spreading like this.

 #16 Right now, approximately 53 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 24 year old age bracket are living at home with their parents.

 #17 According to one survey, 29 percent of all Americans in the 25 to 34 year old age bracket are still living with their parents.

 #18 Young men are nearly twice as likely to live with their parents as young women the same age are.

 #19 Overall, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents in the United States right now according to Time Magazine.

 #20 Today, an all-time low 44.2% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 are married.

 #21 Back in 1950, 78 percent of all households in the United States contained a married couple.  Today, that number has declined to 48 percent.

 #22 Young men are about four times more likely to commit suicide as young women are.

 So what do you think about this generation of young men in America?  Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below…


22 Stats That Prove That There Is Something Seriously Wrong With Young Men In America


Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

18 December 2012:  It is apparent from the article below that these law-enforcement officers have lost sight of who their authority comes from and that it can be revoked.  Remember, all of our God-given rights belong to US- "We The People" and we have only delegated law-enforcement responsibilities to others because we cannot do them ourselves, as individuals, effectively.  They have NO RIGHT to treat the citizens as criminals.  Again, this is a case of "guilty until proven innocent".  Shame on any LEO's who operate under such conditions, for they are nothing but cowards.




 Armed task force to patrol streets



File photo- PPD Chief Todd Stovall said armed officers in SWAT gear would soon be patrolling city streets in high crime areas, going as far as asking people walking down the street for identification and a reason for their presence.



Police chief says citizens could be subject to ID checks



By Ryan Saylor



Published: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:05 PM CST

In response to a recent increase in crime, Paragould Mayor Mike Gaskill and Police Chief Todd Stovall offered residents at a town hall meeting Thursday night at West View Baptist Church what could be considered an extreme solution — armed officers patrolling the streets on foot.

Stovall told the group of almost 40 residents that beginning in 2013, the department would deploy a new street crimes unit to high crime areas on foot to take back the streets.

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.

"We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to."

Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall.




"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it."

Stovall said the foot patrols would begin on the east side of town and would eventually snake into the Pecan Grove area.

He said the police would follow where crime was taking place in order to snuff it out.

Normally, police would not stop individuals for simply walking on the street, but Stovall said the level of crime in certain areas and concerns from residents gave his officers the right to institute the actions announced at the town hall event.

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do."

Stovall further elaborated on the stop-and-ID policy Friday morning, claiming the city's crime statistics alone met the threshold of reasonable suspicion required to lawfully accost a citizen.

"To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area."

Stovall said he did not consult an attorney before announcing his plans to combat crime. He even remained undaunted when comparing his proposed tactics with martial law, explaining that "I don't know that there's ever been a difference" between his proposals and martial law.

Stovall said task force members would not even be required to be looking for a specific suspect before stopping citizens on the street.

"Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said.

Should an individual not produce identification, Stovall said his officers would not back down. Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall.

"I'm hoping we don't run across [any] of that," Stovall said. "Will there be people who buck us? There may be. But we have a right to be doing what we're doing. We have a zero-tolerance. We are prepared to throw your hind-end in jail, OK? We're not going to take a lot of flack."

On Friday, however, Gaskill retreated from the severity of the plan he and Stovall offered to citizens at the town hall.

"The only people who are really going to be impacted by this are mostly the unknowns," Gaskill said.

The mayor said the street crimes unit would not be positioned to cause problems for law-abiding residents.

"We just want to make a presence out there for the criminal element," Gaskill said. "And we want to make a presence for the people who are concerned and give them a sense of security."

Gaskill added he was not concerned about potential profiling by the police department. Even though Stovall had said police would enter neighborhoods with the highest crime rates, Gaskill said officers would respond to where they received calls.

"It would be based on where people have called us and said things are going on in our neighborhood," he said.

Gaskill made clear Friday that when residents called about problems in their neighborhoods, they needed to provide police with information.

"Give us a description — what kinds of clothes they're wearing, [license] plate number. We'll be looking for descriptions," he said.

City Attorney Allen Warmath echoed Gaskill's statements on Friday.

"It is my understanding that if they get a call in an area and they go to an area because of some calls of suspicious activity, they'll make contact," Warmath said.

Warmath said while he had not directly spoken to Stovall, he understood that the street crimes unit would actually be less confrontational than Stovall let on.

"If they have a call that there's some problems in the area, they're at least going to talk to you," he said. "Maybe that person walking their dog saw something. It gives them some information and some leads to find out what's going on."

As for having IDs, he said citizens wouldn't have to worry about that, either. He said the police would not arrest residents solely for failing to produce identification when asked.

Attorney Curtis Hitt of the law firm of Hitt and Kidd said officers were allowed to engage in "consensual questioning" with citizens, though if any circumstances arose that led to an arrest, a judge would have to look at the "totality" of those circumstances.

"The bottom line is it would have to be determined on a case by case basis," he said.

Hitt said he had a high regard for Stovall and the Paragould police. He said he felt their intentions were in the right place, which he believed was preventing crime and making Paragould a safe community.

"At the same time, as an attorney who reads police reports and keeps up with the law, I certainly will be careful of that for any of my clients."

Thursday's town hall meeting was the second of four meetings Paragould officials will host to discuss crime statistics in different parts of town. Officials will meet with residents Tuesday at Center Hill Church of Christ and Thursday at the Paragould Community Center. Both meetings begin at 7 p.m.




17 December 2012:  Another example of how the major news networks are extremely biased on the side of progressivism and socialism. This is one little piece of information they purposely omitted.



Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon



by Mike Benner

 Posted on December 17, 2012

PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained.  The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

 "I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

 The friend and baby hit the floor.  Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

 "He was working on his rifle," said Meli.  "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

 The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

 "As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

 Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.

 "I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli.  "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

 The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

 "I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli.  "It just bothers me."

17 December 2012:  This is just one of NUMEROUS articles citing the socialist progressives' plans to control/ban/confiscate our guns, not to mention China's call for us to ban them.  Folks, if I can ingrain anything into your minds about the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment it would be that it has NOTHING to do with hunting or sporting events.  The Second Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with preserving our ability to throw off a tyrannical government.  If anyone should be disarmed it is the government, not the people.

LA Times


Sen. Feinstein to introduce gun-control bill next year


Gun control demonstration in D.C.

Lindsay Merikas, 26, of Alexandria, Va., wears a button saying "Stop Gun Violence" as she gathered with other supporters of gun control in front of the White House. (Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press Photos)


WASHINGTON — Two days after the shooting deaths of 26 people at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pledged Sunday that she would introduce new gun-control legislation at the beginning of next year’s congressional session.

“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession,” the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

Feinstein said the purpose of her proposal, a version of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, is to get “weapons of war off the streets of our cities.”

FULL COVERAGE: Connecticut school shooting

Officials have said that most of those killed in Friday’s massacre — a toll that included 20 children — were shot with a semiautomatic assault-style rifle.

Feinstein has been at the forefront of gun-control efforts nationally. The assault weapons ban that she pushed followed mass killings in a Stockton schoolyard and in a San Francisco office tower. Feinstein was also at San Francisco City Hall in 1978 when Supervisor Dan White killed Mayor George Moscone and fellow Supervisor Harvey Milk. Feinstein saw White flee their offices and found Milk, memorably saying afterward that when she felt for a pulse, her finger slipped into a bullet hole. Feinstein, then the head of the Board of Supervisors, became mayor upon Moscone’s death.

PHOTOS: Connecticut school shooting

She declined to comment when asked whether President Obama has failed to lead on the issue of gun control but did add that her bill would give him a vehicle to oppose assault weapons.

Although Obama has spoken generally in the past about the need to lessen gun violence, his administration has not said how he will proceed. The president was due to speak at a memorial service in Newtown on Sunday night.

"As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children," Obama said in an address Friday. "And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."


17 December 2012:  It is incidents such as these that serve as a reminder of how much I despise and deplore the TSA and, more especially, the DHS.  We have to abolish both agencies.

Mail Online



'I still feel traumatized!' says disabled girl, 12, detained by TSA after they thought traces of fertilizer on her hands was explosive residue


By Lydia Warren and David Mccormack





The 12-year-old girl left in tears after TSA agents detained her for nearly an hour at a Texas airport because they claimed to have found traces of bomb residue on her hands has revealed she is still 'traumatized' by the incident a week later.

Wheelchair-bound Shelbi Walser was traveling to Florida with her mother, Tammy Daniels, for treatment for her brittle bone disorder on December 8 when she was stopped at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.

Shelbi Walser says she is still in shock by the event that caused a public outcry when video footage emerged showing Shelbi sobbing as officials detained her in front of hundreds of travelers at security, but refuse to allow her mother to get close enough to comfort her.

Scroll down for video

Shelbi Walser
Shelbi Walser

Tears: Shelbi Walser, who suffers from a brittle bone condition, filmed crying after TSA agents at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport detained her for an hour - a week later she says she is still traumatized by the experience

‘I didn’t know what was going to happen and what they were going to do to me. [I thought they might] take me away,’ she told RadarOnline.com.

The little girl makes the trip at least twice a year to receive treatment for brittle bone disease, which has left her wheelchair-bound.

Her mom revealed that during the ordeal Shelbi told her that she didn’t want to go to Florida and that she wanted to go home.

Shelbi said the unpleasant incident meant she would be more nervous in future and she would be washing her hands before going through security for fear that she might test positive again.

A TSA agent swabbed Shelbi's hands and she tested positive for explosives. But the wheelchair, which is likely to have transferred any substance to her hands as she pushed it, was never tested, her mother said.

Rather than ‘explosive residue’, her mom believes it was probably fertilizer they detected on Shelbi’s hands. The family live in the country and Daniels believes it could have transferred to her daughter’s hands via her wheels.

Ordeal: Her mother said she was not allowed to get close to her crying daughter to comfort her

Ordeal: Her mother said she was not allowed to get close to her crying daughter to comfort her


Bizarre: They had to wait for an hour in front of hundreds of travellers while the TSA called a bomb expert

Bizarre: They had to wait for an hour in front of hundreds of travellers while the TSA called a bomb expert

The mom-of-three says the TSA agents called a bomb specialist to the scene, while other passengers reportedly spoke out in support of Shelbi and offered her tissues and candy.

'There were people saying, "Really? You're going to do this to her? Y'all have to take her somewhere private where she's not out in the public and everyone can see her",' Shelbi told Fox in Fort Worth.

'It was frightening. I kinda got mad.'

After nearly an hour, Daniels said agents suddenly told them they were free to pass through the security checkpoint but offered no explanation for the incident.

'It's okay, you didn't do anything wrong, we're going to get you on your way,' an agent can be heard telling Shelbi in the video as she cries into her hands.

The youngster and her mother made it just in time for their flight.

But Shelbi said that a check of wheelchair could have revealed the TSA's mistake much earlier.

'It could have come off fertilizer, because we have chickens,' she told WFAA. 'It could have just come off the ground, because I roll through everything.'

Enraged: Shelbi said they should have checked the wheelchair as she had probably rolled through something

Enraged: Shelbi said they should have checked the wheelchair as she had probably rolled through something


Annoyed: Her mother, Tammy Daniels, said the TSA needs to reconsider how it treats children

Annoyed: Her mother, Tammy Daniels, said the TSA needs to reconsider how it treats children

The Daniels family says that, to date, they have yet to receive an apology from the TSA.

Tammy says: ‘That’s all we’ve wanted is for someone to say: “Shelbi, we’re sorry. We messed up. We are so sorry you went through that”.’

Her mother added that she had been left outraged by the way her daughter was treated.

'I am by no means undermining our safety in the air,' she said. 'After 9/11, by no means am I doing that. But when it comes to children, common sense is not in a textbook.'

But the TSA defended the incident in a statement.

'We are sensitive to the concerns of passengers who were not satisfied with their screening experience and we invite those individuals to provide feedback to TSA through a variety of channels,' it said.

'We work to balance those concerns with the very real threat that our adversaries will attempt to use explosives to carry out attacks on planes.'


Scene: The TSA said they work to balance screenings that are sensitive with the threats of air travel

Scene: The TSA said they try to balance considerate screenings with the threats of air travel

The video is just the latest to bring the TSA's responses into question.

Last month, Representative Ralph Hall of Texas claimed his 17-year-old niece had her dress pulled down after she was taken aside to be screened at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.

The incident happened two years ago but came to light under the Freedom of Information Act after it was caught on surveillance camera. Hall has called for the agent to be fired.

And last year, two other wheelchair users, Jason and Jennifer Steitler from Florida, claim they were forced up from their wheelchairs and groped under their girls by agents at Greater Rochester International Airport in New York.




15 December 2012: 



Counterterrorism Agency: Every Citizen a Suspect

Saturday, 15 December 2012

Written by 

Counterterrorism Agency: Every Citizen a Suspect

Regulations recently signed into effect by Attorney General Eric Holder allow the National Counterterroism Center (NCTC) to monitor records of citizens for any potential criminal activity, without a warrant and without suspicion.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the records that will be subject to seizure and examination by the NCTC include “flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign exchange students and many others.”

Prior to the promulgation of these new regulations, such records were stored on only those citizens suspected of terror-related activity or as part of ongoing criminal investigations.

Furthermore, this information could only be stored for five years; that information will be stored indefinitely, so that the data can be analyzed by federal agents for signs of potential criminal behavior.

These sweeping new powers resulted from a debate among Obama administration intelligence officials, the story reports. 

“The debate was a confrontation between some who viewed it as a matter of efficiency—how long to keep data, for instance, or where it should be stored—and others who saw it as granting authority for unprecedented government surveillance of U.S. citizens,” the Wall Street Journal reports, claiming that the newspaper received this insight into the process through Freedom of Information requests and interviews with representatives at several agencies familiar with the events.

In a historic and unconstitutional way, the new directives grant NCTC the power to place every American under the constant surveillance of the federal government, not because these people have ever merited the attention, but because someday they might.

Granting an agency of the federal government the power to place innocent citizens under surveillance is not only an unconscionable diminution of due process rights, but a wholesale regulatory nullification of the Bill of Rights.

Another equally intrusive aspect of the new regulations allows agents of the U.S. government to exchange the information gathered on citizens to be shared with their counterparts in other countries so that they can conduct their own analyses. 

Should any agent — foreign or domestic — find any hint of potential threats in these files, the individual will be marked for future surveillance so as to prevent commission of future crimes.

Some within the counterrerrorism coterie expressed similar concerns before Attorney General Holder signed off on the new guidelines.

"This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," declared Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal piece.

Naturally, a spokesman for the NCTC assures Americans that the agency will provide “rigorous oversight” of the application of the new guidelines so that citizens’ civil liberties are never violated.

"The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes," said Alexander Joel, civil liberties protection officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal story.

The constitutional threshold is much higher than that, however.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable cause. That is what is required before the government can lawfully search or seize any of the information of the sort now being laid open for agents of the NCTC.

Remarkably, when Mary Ellen Callahan of the DHS expressed her doubts about the program, it wasn’t because she was troubled by the denial of due process and the violation of constitutional provisions specifically forbidding such surveillance. No, Callahan was more worried that the new NCTC directives were bad policy.

Any arguments that the regulations violated the law, the Wall Street Journal claims, were moot in light of the applicable provisions of the Federal Privacy Act of 1974. The article explains this position:

Congress specifically sought to prevent government agents from rifling through government files indiscriminately when it passed the Federal Privacy Act in 1974. The act prohibits government agencies from sharing data with each other for purposes that aren't "compatible" with the reason the data were originally collected.

But the Federal Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt themselves from many requirements by placing notices in the Federal Register, the government's daily publication of proposed rules. In practice, these privacy-act notices are rarely contested by government watchdogs or members of the public. "All you have to do is publish a notice in the Federal Register and you can do whatever you want," says Robert Gellman, a privacy consultant who advises agencies on how to comply with the Privacy Act.

Loophole upon loophole. Each large enough to allow the tools of tyranny to be smuggled in through regulations and then used to build a massive surveillance state of historic and horrifying proportions.

As the constitutional chains that bind the government are loosened, so too are the strength of the links connecting targets of investigation to terrorism. 

For example, the Wall Street Journal reports that NCTC manages a database called Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE). This list includes the names of more than 500,000 people. “Some names are known or suspected terrorists; others are terrorists' friends and families; still more are people with some loose affiliation to a terrorist.”

It is this sort of “loose affiliation” that is most worrisome. If a journalist, for example, were to interview a suspected militant to get his perspective on the drone war, would the identify of that journalist now be included in the TIDE database?

Then, if that reporter’s name is tagged for a having a “loose affiliation” to terrorists, is he liable to be apprehended by the U.S. military and indefinitely detained in a federal prison under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)?

Do Americans have anything to worry about? Should they not be comforted by the NCTC spokesman who promised that great care would be taken to safeguard the civil liberties of all innocent Americans caught in the federal surveillance dragnet?

The story published by the Wall Street Journal suggests the agency might not be that circumspect:

Late last year, for instance, NCTC obtained an entire database from Homeland Security for analysis, according to a person familiar with the transaction. Homeland Security provided the disks on the condition that NCTC would remove all innocent U.S. person data after 30 days.

After 30 days, a Homeland Security team visited and found that the data hadn't yet been removed. In fact, NCTC hadn't even finished uploading the files to its own computers, that person said. It can take weeks simply to upload and organize the mammoth data sets.

Homeland Security granted a 30-day extension. That deadline was missed, too. So Homeland Security revoked NCTC's access to the data.

What was the NCTC’s response to its failure to follow through on the requirement to ditch the data?

They said that such mistakes wouldn’t occur if that had more power to peruse the files of their own accord and if the limits on how long they could store the data were eliminated.

During closed-door sessions at the White House, NCTC officials made that pitch. After some perfunctory wrangling about how the revised regulations would go over with the people, the White House gave the go ahead and the attorney general made it so.

Every day, it seems, the devolution from liberty to tyranny is codified by a government increasingly willing to disregard constitutional limits on its power.

The new guidelines may be downloaded and read here.



14 December 2012:  A horrific tragedy today at Sandy Hooks Elementary in Connecticut.  Words cannot express my feelings right now with the deaths of all those innocent children as well as school staff, but suffice to say that my prayers have been offered up on their behalf all day long.  May God bless and be with them in this difficult time that I can't begin to understand or comprehend.  That being said, I found this from nationalgunrights.org and thought I'd post it.

National Gun Rights

The murders committed in Connecticut earlier today have left me feeling sad and angry.

Quite frankly, I’ve had difficulty staying focused, listening to news reports and thinking about my wife and two young children aged 8 and 11 at home.

I can only imagine the pain the parents and families of those who were murdered at the hands of this evil individual are feeling right now.

My prayers and those of my staff here at the National Association for Gun Rights go out to the families of the victims.

But already, like in so many cases from years past, the gun control lobby is shamelessly using the blood of innocents to advance their anti-gun agenda.

Right now, members of the Washington, D.C. gun control lobby are gathered on the street in front of the White House.

Their hands are wrapped around the black iron gates surrounding the complex and they’re screaming at the top of their lungs.

They aren’t there praying for the victims who died at the hands of a murderer.

One top gun control lobbyist scoffed at the idea of this gathering being called a “vigil,” saying they gathered for the sole purpose of “pressuring Barack Obama to take action.”

Right on cue, President Obama threw them a not-so-subtle bone when he urged “meaningful action” on gun control.

And just a few hours later, billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg demanded President Obama restrict gun rights.

Make no mistake -- this is a dangerous time for the Second Amendment.

Like you, I’m outraged that not even 12 hours after the shooting, the gun control vultures are circling the victims.

The enemies of our Second Amendment rights want you and me to back off and give in to their demands.

But no defender of our gun rights should apologize for the horrific actions of a deranged lunatic.

What you won’t hear on TV or radio or read in the newspaper is that the anti-gun Brady Campaign lists Connecticut as having the 5th “strongest” gun control laws in the entire country.

Connecticut’s strict gun control laws prevent law-abiding individuals who could’ve potentially stopped this massacre from getting access to firearms.

In other words, the teachers and administrators entrusted with the security of the students were sitting ducks, and so were the children.

You also won’t hear that Connecticut law already bans at least one of the firearms that may have been used in these murders.

The gun-grabbers have spent decades in states like Connecticut passing gun control laws that do nothing more than empower criminals.

As Second Amendment activists we MUST be vigilant in these times -- not just in the defense of our loved ones, but in defense of our right to keep and bear arms.

Gun grabbers seize upon every outrage and crime, so we must always be prepared to fight back to protect our Second Amendment rights.

You and I both know that Barack Obama and the gun control crowd will work every angle of this massacre as an excuse to restrict our rights.

Please do two things tonight: pray for the victims and their families, and then prepare for a gun control onslaught like we’ve never seen before.

Your continued engagement and activism could be the only thing that stands between our gun rights and President Obama’s coming gun control schemes.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens' organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights' mailing address is P.O 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is

14 December 2012:  This is why we must be vigilant when it comes to following what our kids are being taught in public schools...as well as some private ones.  Don't assume- EVER- that they are being taught correct history and principles.




Texas teaching 'Allah is the Almighty God'

Curriculum under fire for radical ideas, secrecy

by John Griffing


In the 70 percent of Texas public schools where a private curriculum has been installed, students are learning the “fact” that “Allah is the Almighty God,” charge critics of a new online curriculum that already is facing condemnation for its secrecy and restrictions on oversight.

The program, called CSCOPE, is a private venture operating under the umbrella of the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative, whose incorporation documents state its independence from the State Board of Education of the Texas Education Agency.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/texas-teaching-allah-is-the-almighty-god/#BhbP1sc5mIWK1ajk.99

Other reports previously have raised alarm over the curriculum’s depiction of the Boston Tea Party as a terrorist act on par with the 9/11 attack.

According to documentation that has leaked out, the program describes the Boston Tea Party this way: “A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.”

There also have been reports that the curriculum – contrary to recent Supreme Court rulings – says the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms, is limited to state-run organizations.

“The collective right’s advocates believed that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather it recognized the right of a state to arm its militia. It recognized limited individual rights only when it was exercised by members of a functioning, organized militia while actively participating in the militia’s activities.”

Now come concerns about what critics describe as a definitively pro-Islam bias.

The critics say the studies border on proselytizing.

In one scenario, students are asked to study the tenets of Islam, and critics say the materials provided exceed impartial review of another faith, extending into requirements of conversion and moral imperatives.

A computer presentation utilized as part of a study of Islam includes information on how to convert, as well as verses denigrating other faiths.

According to excerpts, under the heading, “Who Is Allah?,” students are told:

“Allah is the Almighty God.”

“Allah alone is the Creator. He alone deserves our devout love and worship.”

Muhammad is described as having become “disillusioned with the corruption in the city and the growing gap between the urban dwellers and the Bedouins (nomadic herders).”

But there is no mention of his documented sex activities with a child or his penchant for beheading entire indigenous people groups.

CSCOPE’s geography curriculum also is being scrutinized.

A high school question on a geography test asks, “Which of the following has been a benefit of globalization?” Possible answers are as follows: a) pandemics, b) increased standard of living, c) loss of local culture, and finally, d) widespread environmental impacts.

The only “correct” answer accepted in the context of the test is “an increased standard of living.”

WND recently reported the Texas State Board of Education was hearing concerns expressed by parents.

The debate carries national significance because of the influence Texas has on textbook and curriculum publishers as the only state that adopts uniform standards.

CSCOPE advocates say that the volume of information to which students now have access outside the classroom necessitates the move away from textbooks.

“If they’re sitting in a classroom with a textbook, that’s not the world anymore,” said Anne Poplin, Education Service Center Region 9 executive director.

“We’re moving to Bring Your Own Devices. It’s a disadvantage (for children) not to have access to their devices. It’s not a textbook-driven environment. If it is, they’re behind,” Poplin said.

An estimated 70 percent of Texas schools already are involved in the program.

But one of the concerns is that state law requires textbooks to be reviewed by the board of education, and parents are allowed to have access, since CSCOPE is considered a private venture it operates independently of state or local school board oversight.

The state attorney general’s office has ruled that CSCOPE is a government organization subject to requirements of transparency, but because of loopholes in the Texas Public Information Act and Senate Bill 6, passed in 2011, CSCOPE has thus far been able to keep its content from public review. Even parents are denied access.

Kimberly Thomas, a teacher in the Lubbock school district, calls CSCOPE a “joke,” identifying a ninth-grade lesson that asks students to circle capital letters in a sentence.

Her department was rated exemplary by the state prior to the installation of CSCOPE. As Thomas notes, CSCOPE “forces our own department to undo the proven, successful curriculum we have developed that gave us an exemplary rating.”

Just days ago, Thomas Ratliff, a member of the state board and supporter of CSCOPE, said CSCOPE was “supplemental” and that textbooks still are being used.

“CSCOPE is not designed to eliminate textbooks or other instructional materials. It is designed to complement them for the benefit of the teacher and the student,” he wrote in a prepared statement.

CSCOPE employees, on the other hand, claim the software is designed to replace textbooks and, indeed, has in many Texas school districts.

Addressing the issue of the program’s secrecy, Ratliff slammed critics who say they want government to be “run like a business” but then get upset when that happens.

But critics argue private schools, the closest thing to a school being run like a business, still make instructional materials available to parents, something that CSCOPE refuses to do.

The “parent portal” provided on the public portion of CSCOPE’s website has not allayed critics’ concerns. Some of the lessons leaked to the public have contained wide disparities from the summary pages viewable in the public section of CSCOPE’s website.

Ratliff defends this dichotomy by saying that, like iTunes or any other “business,” some things must be placed behind a “pay wall” as part of a business plan. Ratliff claims that CSCOPE is created by “teachers, for teachers.”

But teachers must sign a gag order when required to use CSCOPE in their classrooms.

Complicating the issue is the fact that school districts usually purchase CSCOPE with state tax dollars.

While Ratliff calls the curriculum “instructional material” he said state oversight wouldn’t help, and “I would much rather have 7,000 locally elected school board members decide what content is best for their students, not the 15-member SBOE. Allowing CSCOPE to be developed and implemented at the local level is the ‘local control’ Texans say we want. Injecting SBOE oversight into this would shift us into a ‘controlling the locals’ approach.”

Critics say that’s not the way the system is set up, and CSCOPE actually ends local input since it prevents, on penalty of copyright litigation, distribution of its content to parents.

A vocal critic has been Texas State Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican.

“I did pretty well with textbooks. Benjamin Franklin did pretty well with textbooks. Are they going to say reading books is not effective? Should we all stop reading our Bibles?

“Call me old-fashioned, but there is something about the feel, smell, holding a book; there is a lot to be said for holding a hard copy,” she said.

Separately but in a related issue, Attorney General Greg Abbott has released an opinion that is being is being quoted by critics as disqualifying Ratliff from the state board because of his connections to companies doing business with schools in Texas.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/texas-teaching-allah-is-the-almighty-god/#BhbP1sc5mIWK1ajk.99




13 December 2012:  There are "Toilet Cameras" in airplanes now?  WHAT?



Mess with a TSA airplane ‘toilet camera’ pay a fine of $3,000


Wait, did I miss something? Since when did creepy Janet Napolitano decide to add cameras to airplane toilets now? I have little incentive to fly anywhere these days when you get stuffed into an airplane like a sardine, but now I can’t even [use the toilet] in peace on a plane? What the h*** has this country become?


13 December 2012:  Little by little, Obama is gaining support from various fearmongers-at-large for his Cybersecurity Executive Order that is soon to be released.



Arson by Cyber Attack

Fire Engineering Magazine




Arson by Cyber Attack



By Kevin Coleman

As if fire investigations were not complex enough and the pursuit of arson charges against a suspect were not already extremely challenging, indications are that things are getting worse. A new method of committing the crime of arson has been brought to light. This method leverages computers and computer-related equipment and peripherals. There are so many products and services that use computers and automated controls that it is difficult to find some that don't. Most of those devices are connected to the Internet for a number of reasons. This Internet connection can be exploited to turn these common pieces of equipment into tools for arsonists. These possibilities represent very real risks and have caught the attention of top officials.

President Obama recently discussed the threat the United States faces from cyber attacks in an 800-word column in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Taking the Cyber Attack Threat Seriously." He is not the only high-ranking U.S. official concerned about this 21st century threat. Just recently, General Keith Alexander, the leader of U.S. Cyber Command, said, "What I'm concerned about is the transition from disruptive to destructive attacks." These and other ominous-sounding comments should be considered a warning about what lies around the corner for fire investigators.

Two techniques have recently emerged and have become public about the use of cyber attacks as a destructive mechanism. The first one was discovered by researchers at Columbia University, who discovered a new group of computer security flaws in laser printers that, if exploited, could cause a fire. Based on generally available laser printer market statistics, more than 125 million units are sold each year--a target-rich environment for cyber arsonists. The researchers found that laser printers can be hacked and remotely controlled and manipulated over the Internet. The software /firmware flaws allow hackers access to these devices and give them the ability to cause physical damage. Cyber attackers could remotely access the connected device and continuously turn on the fuser unit (which melts toner onto the page), causing the unit to overheat to the point of catching fire. During their analysis of this threat, researchers conducted a quick scan; within minutes, they were able to identify 40,000 devices connected to the Internet that were vulnerable to this type of attack. This was a far from exhaustive search. Even worse, researchers determined that this security vulnerability is so fundamental that it may impact tens of millions of printers, multifunction copiers, and other hardware that use hard-to-update software/firmware where the vulnerability resides. Since this vulnerability was reported, a few printer manufacturers have taken action and mitigated this risk. Although the actual number of vulnerable printers is not available, it is pretty much a sure bet that many of these devices remain open to this type of exploitation.

The second area of concern focuses on factory automation and industrial control systems, often referred to as supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems. These controllers are used in everything from the power grid to water treatment facilities to commercial heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems as well as the complex processes in the chemical and materials production industries. The global annual market for these systems has been estimated at nearing $50 billion, which indicates the expansiveness of this threat environment. Researchers have warned and actually published multiple SCADA system vulnerabilities that allow remote access and control. These warnings became public prior to the SCADA system vendors were informed about this issue. Thus, there was an immediate risk that these vulnerabilities could be exploited since vendors did not have any time to develop patches. If taken advantage of, cyber attackers could exploit these published vulnerabilities, modify settings, and cause the equipment or process to operate outside specified parameters, which could result in an explosion and a fire.

The concerns raised by this research were so great that federal agencies were privately briefed on the matter. In April 2012, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted the two-day workshop "The Cyber Security for Cyber-Physical Systems." This informative workshop addressed the informational needs of engineers and information technology security specialists who design and maintain these control systems, but what about fire investigators? Research was unable to identify where cyber attacks and hacking were a part of the curriculum for fire investigators, but, put simply, would you as an investigator ever consider the possibility of a cyber attack being the underlying cause of an incident?

The arsonist could be half way around the world and start a fire by continuously cycling the fuser unit of a printer, causing it to overheat or improperly adjust setting on SCADA controllers, causing a volatile reaction, explosion, and fire. As if it was not difficult enough to investigate and prove arson given that most of the evidence is destroyed in the fire, now investigators must add the complexities and challenges of cyber attacks, intrusions, and attack attribution to their activities. The clock is ticking until we encounter arson by cyber attack. Experts have expressed their concerns over the growing likelihood that cyber attacks would result in physical implications and damage. That time looks to be just around the corner. Or is it? Could a cyber attack have already resulted in a fire? It is possible that an origin and cause investigation could have missed this and pointed to a control system or printer malfunction. Clearly, this is an area that must be kept in that back of fire investigators' minds when looking into the cause of a fire.

Kevin G. Coleman is a seasoned security professional and instructor with a comprehensive background in emergency response. He was chief of an ISO class 4 volunteer fire department and is a former International Society of Fire Service Instructors George D. Post - Fire Instructor of the Year. He has 18 years of success in the development and implementation of cutting-edge security and training strategies and continues to work with innovative leaders in business, government, and the military on strategic issues of critical importance such as cyber attacks.

13 December 2012:  More proof that UAV (drone) aircraft is becoming much more common place in the States.



Homeland Security increasingly lending drones to local police



DHS and its Customs and Border Protection agency have deployed drones  to assist local law enforcement and other federal agencies on several occasions.

Far from the battlefields of Afghanistan, a Predator drone was summoned into action last year to spy on a North Dakota farmer who allegedly refused to return a half dozen of his neighbor’s cows that had strayed onto his pastures.

The farmer had become engaged in a standoff with the Grand Forks police SWAT team and the sheriff’s department. So the local authorities decided to call on their friends at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deploy a multimillion dollar, unarmed drone to surveil the farmer and his family.

The little-noticed August 2011 incident at the Lakota, N.D., ranch, which ended peacefully, was a watershed moment for Americans: it was one of the first known times an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) owned by the U.S. government was used against civilians for local police work.

Since then, the Washington Guardian has confirmed, DHS and its Customs and Border Protection agency have deployed drones — originally bought to guard America’s borders — to assist local law enforcement and other federal agencies on several occasions.

The practice is raising questions inside and outside government about whether federal officials may be creating an ad-hoc, loan-a-drone program without formal rules for engagement, privacy protection or taxpayer reimbursements. The drones used by CPB can cost between $15 million and $34 million each to buy, and have hourly operational costs as well.

In addition, DHS recently began distributing $4 million in grants to help local law enforcement buy its own, smaller versions of drones, opening a new market for politically connected drone makers as the wars overseas shrink.

The double-barreled lending and purchasing have some concerned that federal taxpayers may be subsidizing the militarization of local police forces and creating new threats to average Americans’ privacy.

“We’ve seen bits and pieces of information on CBP’s Predator drones, but Americans deserve the full story,” said Jennifer Lynch, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that studies privacy issues and has sought information on drone use in the United States. “Drones are a powerful surveillance tool that can be used to gather extensive data about you and your activities. The public needs to know more about how and why these Predator drones are being used to watch U.S. citizens.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), another privacy advocate which is pursuing litigation to force the disclosure of more information from DHS on drones, says it has found that the government has no official policies for how the drones can be used by local police, does not seek compensation from local law enforcement to recoup taxpayers’ expenses and claims it doesn’t keep records on how many times its drones have been deployed for local use.

CBP’s drone program is shrouded in secrecy and legal ambiguity. Despite a specific mission to protect the border from illegal immigration and drug smuggling, CBP continues to let other federal agencies and local law enforcement bureaus use (its drones) for unrelated purposes,” said Amie Stepanvich, Associate Litigation Counsel for EPIC.

Indeed, when the Washington Guardian inquired about how many times DHS or CPB lent drones to local authorities, officials responded they didn’t have a formal loan-a-drone program but did on occasion lend the UAVs to help local police. But they declined to provide an exact number or a list of localities.

“While CBP does not have a ‘loan a drone’ program, we do work with national and sometimes state and local agencies for assistance,” said Ian Phillips, a spokesman for Customs Border and Protection.

Such answers aren’t satisfying to members of Congress worried about the costs to taxpayers and the implications of letting machines built for war to potentially impact privacy inside the United States in the name of security.

“We should not run from our basic constitutional principles because we have fear. That’s the best way I know for us to lose liberty.  And you eventually give up your liberty if fear is your No. 1 guide,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., an influential voice on the federal budget.

Local police departments, stretching from the Canadian border in the Midwest to the Mexican border in Texas, confirmed to the Washington Guardian they have summoned CPB drones to help in local police matters ranging from the service of arrest warrants to armed standoffs.

Local SWAT commanders, in fact, said DHS and CPB encouraged the use of the drones to give its unmanned pilots training opportunities. And they argue the collaborations and deployments have helped saved lives.

CBP reached out to us for training. We have developed a relationship with them, and we can call them when we feel we need their help,” explained Sgt. Bill Macki, the leader of the Grand Forks, N.D., SWAT team that summoned the drone back in August 2011 at the North Dakota ranch during the farmer standoff.

Macki said his department has asked to use CPB drones three times –inclement weather prevented one of those deployments — and he personally knows of other local departments in the Dakotas that have also used the unmanned aerial vehicles in the last year.

“The Predator drone helps us pull back and (gives us) the ability to control the perimeter and de-escalate the scene significantly,” Macki explained. “The (drones) have been a tremendous asset to our high-risk operations.”

An added bonus for law enforcement is that so far federal officials haven’t asked the local cops to repay the costs. “We have not been charged by CBP for the use of the Predator drone,” Macki said.

While ad hoc deployments continue, in May the Department of Homeland Security launched its “Air-based Technologies Program” to hand out grants to help underwrite local law enforcement purchases of their own drones, said John Appleby of DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s division.

The Texas Rangers, another local police agency, confirmed they too have summoned drones on several occasions from CPB, but said they do not keep records of how often.

A recent report by DHS’s inspector general, the agency’s internal watchdog, mentioned the Rangers’ use as one of several examples in which CPB has deployed its drones for outside police agencies – both at the federal and local level.

For instance, a CBP drone conducted surveillance for a sister federal agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, over a suspected smuggler’s tunnel. The mission yielded information that, according to an ICE representative, would have required many cars and agents to obtain, the report said.

The inspector general report warned that CBP has not implemented a formal process for participants to submit mission requests, and does not have agreements in place for reimbursement of the drone’s operational costs.

DHS is adding to its current drone fleet of 10 with the purchase of 14 more UAVs that will cost taxpayers $443 million. CBP officials have said they would like to ultimately fly the unpiloted aircraft to any part of the nation within a few hours at the request of other agencies to perform non-border security missions.

Safety in increasingly crowded American skies is also a concern. The Federal Aviation Administration has raised concerns about airport towers’ ability to recognize the UAVs.

Earlier this year Congress authorized the FAA Modernization and Reform Act that directed the FAA to accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system by 2015.

But numerous issues continue to dog the FAA’s progress of getting thousands of drones airborne. “Concerns about national security, privacy, and the interference in Global Positioning-System (GPS) signals have not been resolved and may influence acceptance of routine access for UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) in the national airspace system,” a September 2012 Government Accountability Office reported.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., also expressed his concern with U.S. drones taking to the skies.

FAA does not appear to be prioritizing privacy and transparency measures in its plan to integrate nonmilitary drones into U.S. airspace,” Markey said recently. “While there are benefits to using drones to gather information for law enforcement and appropriate research purposes, drones shouldn’t be used to gather private information on regular Americans.”
Others in Congress are supporting the expansion of drones. At least 60 lawmakers have formed a caucus to support the industry.

“UAVs have been absolutely critical in the fight against terrorism overseas, significantly reducing the loss of U.S. lives in war zones, which is one reason why I joined the House caucus.  Another reason is that UAVs are made right here in San Diego,” explained Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

The explosion within the drone industry can be seen in San Diego. One of the two drone manufacturing epicenters it provides California with a much-needed $1.3 billion infusion of revenue.

According to a National University System report, the industry has doubled in the last five years and industry analysts predict the drone marketplace will double again and has the ability to grow its domestic business potentially adding $12 billion to the San Diego economy.

One of the smaller San Diego upstart drone companies, Datron, sees a bright future for smaller drones that weigh fewer than four pounds. Its top-selling drone, the “Scout,” flies for 20 minutes and provides real-time color videos needed to assist law enforcement agencies.

“Our product is geared toward meeting the mission requirements of our tactical users,” said Christopher Barter, program manager for Datron. The Scout operates using a PC tablet computer that is pre-programed, and requires little training. Barter says, “The Scout is the perfect search and rescue UAV.” Also, the 20-minute flight time curtails some privacy issues raised by civil liberties activists, he said.



Drone Hacked over Austin

Melissa Melton
December 12, 2012



Infowars hosted the first ever drone mob this weekend, a citizen protest event where We the People could stand up and say “no” to our government entities spending our taxpayer dollars to upgrade and weaponize drone technology and turn it against us.

While many people came out to fly drones, one man came out to demonstrate that anyone can easily hack and take control of those drones.

Austin, Texas resident George Bliss showed up to the drone mob not with a drone, but with a laptop. Using a free, open source software he downloaded off the internet, Bliss was able to demonstrate how easily anyone can disrupt the signal between drone operator and drone, effectively taking control.

As seen in the video below, with a few keyboard clicks, Bliss was able to cut a drone’s WI-FI signal in seconds and take control of it multiple times.

This is not the first time a drone has been hacked.

Students at the University of Texas were able to take control of an unmanned aerial vehicle in front of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) back in June. With a mere $1,000 in parts, the team built an advanced spoofer to infiltrate drone GPS systems; the team was able to use its spoofer to take control of multiple drones and fly them wherever they chose. Iran also intercepted a top secret CIA RQ-170 stealth drone last year, and officials later admitted Iranians were able to crack the drone’s computers and hijack it. Iran announced it was able to reverse-engineer the drone to build a copy.

President Obama signed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) bill in February, streamlining the process for testing and licensing of local, state and federal drones by 2015. The FAA has now predicted that 30,000 surveillance drones are set to fill America’s skies in the next decade. Unfortunately, the FAA has also admitted drone operators have zero privacy obligations to the public. Commercially available drones include features like remote iPad or smart phone control and come equipped with high definition cameras, but these drones are easily modifiable. A wide array of organizations from police departments to the DHS are now using weaponized drone technology here in America.

“There are several consequences for any action and if anybody wants to get away with something, they’ll pick the prettiest one and they’re gonna sell it based on that,” Bliss said. “If we don’t look for ourselves at the other consequences of the actions that we are being asked to support…then we’re all gonna be enslaved. It’s going to be simple for them to do.”

American citizens are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Now the government, military and law enforcement agencies are using drone technology to spy on the American people. The negative implications are limitless. While there appears to be a huge rush to launch all these unmanned aerial vehicles into our skies, the demonstrated ability to easily hack drones at all levels — from small surveillance units to multi-million-dollar top secret government stealth technology — continues to confirm that these machines place our freedom and civil liberties in serious jeopardy.




12 December 2012:  On to the brand-spanking new Right-To-Work legislation in Michigan.  (If you don't know how I feel about unions and what they promote and instill into their members then you should read my blog for a history and detailed description)  Right now, Jimmy Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, is promising a civil war in that state.  If this is so...and it comes to pass...then I know exactly which side I'm on.  It's time to hit the unions in the kneecaps and keep this momentum going before they help drive the final nails into America's "work ethics and productivity" coffin.  Don't fall for the thug tactics that he and others like him (Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO) employ and don't fall for the "freeloader-guilt" attempts he lays out in the following, either.  No man, woman or child should be forced to pay dues to unions if they don't want to.


Jimmy Hoffa Warns Of "Civil War" As Michigan Governor Signs "Right-To-Work" Into Law

Tyler Durden's picture

Minutes before Michigan Governor Snyder signed the 'Right-To-Work' bill into law...


... Teamsters head Jimmy Hoffa appeared on CNN, as seen in the clip below, warning that:

"This is just the first round of a battle that's going to divide this state. We're going to have a civil war,"

as the bill to weaken unions' power is passed. If Hoffa is right, look for Michigan GDP to soar: after all it is one of the more Keynesian states in the union.

Via AP: Michigan Gov. Snyder signs right-to-work bills

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has signed right-to-work legislation, dealing a devastating and once-unthinkable defeat to organized labor in a state that has been a cradle of the movement for generations.

 He put his signatures on the bills Tuesday, hours after the state House passed the measures as the chants of thousands of angry pro-union protesters filled the Capitol.

 Snyder says a failed ballot proposal to enshrine collective bargaining rights in the constitution triggered the discussion that led to the passage and signing of right-to-work.

 During a news conference, he called the protests "an exercise in democracy."

Jim Hoffa, of the International brotherhood of Teamsters explains his perspective:


Via CNN:

Jimmy Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said Tuesday he expects Michigan unions and lawmakers to break out into "civil war" after the state legislature passed right-to-work bills that would weaken unions' power.

 "This is just the first round of a battle that's going to divide this state. We're going to have a civil war," Hoffa said on CNN's "Newsroom."

 The Republican-controlled state House passed two bills that had already been approved by the GOP-dominated state Senate. Gov. Rick Snyder, also a Republican, is poised to sign the bill, which would allow workers at union-represented employers to forgo paying dues.

 As thousands of protestors gathered at the state capitol on Tuesday, Hoffa called the legislation a "tremendous mistake" and "a monumental decision to make" by outgoing lawmakers in a lame duck session.

 "What they're doing is basically betraying democracy," he told CNN's Brooke Baldwin. "If there's any question here, let's put it on the ballot and let the people of Michigan decide what's good for Michigan."

 Proponents of the legislation say it gives workers more freedom, while opponents say a less robust union presence will negatively affect workers’ rights. Hoffa also argued that those who don't pay union dues will be considered "free riders,” as they’re getting the same benefits from union representation without the cost.

 Hoffa pointed to Michigan's recovering auto industry, saying the Wolverine State has bounced back from the recession without being a "right to work" state.

 "This is basically a step backward," he argued.

12 December 2012:  Yet another example of union thuggery.

Hear the Annoying Tactic One Union Is Using to Protest in Philly That Has Residents Going Crazy

Posted on December 12, 2012

IBEW Union Blasting Crying Baby Outside Apartment in Philadelphia

They’re aren’t many people who can stand the sound of a crying baby (it’s probably why baby’s were created that way — if so many could ignore it, the baby’s cry would be pointless). And the local IBEW union in Philadelphia is using that to its advantage to stage a protest at local apartment complex. But the tactic may now be backfiring, as the union’s choice to blast a crying baby over loud speakers outside the residence for seven hours a day is driving the inhabitants nuts.

“I know everybody says they’ve got their rights,” Jean Smith told WTXF-TV, “and that’s fine. But don’t we have rights too, that we have to hear this constantly — every day?”

Yes, every day. According to the station, the union sets up shop outside the complex like clockwork to protest the building using non-union workers to make some renovations. It then plays this message, followed by a crying baby, from 8 a.m. until mid-afternoon: “Your community is crying for jobs, participation and fair wages.”

But resident David Dickson captures what seems to be the sentiment of the residents: “The crying of the baby- it doesn’t give them no sympathy. It’s not helping them.”

“They don’t seem to care,” another woman added, explaining that residents approached the union nicely about the soundtrack but workers ignored their pleas.

WTXF-TV has the report:

“It’s well within the law,” union boss John Dougherty told the station. “It’s within the first amendment. I’m not apologizing.”

But with public sentiment turning against the union, he has agreed to alter the message — slightly. Now he said he will play Christmas carols, not the crying baby, until after the holidays.

As for the reason they are protesting: the building says it gave the union the option to bid on the job, but the union lost to a private contractor.


Shock Video: Union Activists Attack, Punch Conservative Outside Mich. Capitol
Steven Crowder, Man Punched at Union Protest, Challenges Attacker: ‘He Can Go to Jail’ or Fight Me in ‘Sanctioned Bout for Charity’
White House Responds to Mich. Rep’s Vow That ‘There Will Be Blood’: We’re Not Sure That Means What You Think It Means

12 December 2012:  Here is some more background and insight to union intimidation tactics and the Dictator-in-Chief's condoning of it.

"There Will Be Blood": Union Violence in the Age of Obama

Not so many moons ago, President Obama urged us all to "make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds." He Who Heals advocated "a more civil and honest public discourse" in the wake of the January 2011 Tucson massacre. As usual, though, the White House has granted Big Labor bullies a permanent waiver from the lofty edicts it issues to everyone else.

This week, menacing union goons unleashed threats, profanity and punches in Michigan, which is now poised to become a "right-to-work" state. Obama met the initial outbreak of violence with the same response he's given to every other union outbreak of violence under his reign: dead silence.

On the floor of the Michigan legislature on Tuesday, Democratic state Rep. Douglas Geiss thundered: "We're going to pass something that will undo 100 years of labor relations, and there will be blood. There will be repercussions!" Geiss referenced the Battle of the Overpass, a violent 1937 incident between the United Auto Workers and corporate security officers for the Ford Motor Company. Dozens of union activists were beaten.

But Geiss wasn't crying victim. This was clearly a signal to the brass-knuckled Big Labor bosses, whom Obama egged on during his Monday visit to the state. Obama inveighed against right to work with his usual class warfare dog-whistle. The thugs heard it loud and clear.

As the Michigan House voted inside to approve right-to-work legislation allowing workers to choose whether or not to join/fund unions as a condition of employment, protesters outside the state Capitol ambushed a tented information booth sponsored by the pro-right-to-work state chapter of Americans for Prosperity. Angry union mobsters were filmed cursing and screaming just before the attack.

One hurled an unidentified object at police officers. Another screamed at a citizen journalist filming the chaos: "Freedom of speech this, you f'n fascist a**hole!" Several peaceful AFP members and supporters were stomped on and punched while trapped under the tent as the labor operatives chanted: "This is what democracy looks like." Young Michigan conservative activist and YouTube entrepreneur Steven Crowder was beaten by at least two union assailants while trying to protect the tent and those inside.

Of course, this is just more of the same twisted "civil and honest public discourse" of the administration's union protection squad:

--May 2010: The Service Employees International Union buses in 700 workers from 20 states to storm Bank of America deputy general counsel Gregory Baer's neighborhood and terrorize his youngest son while at home alone in Chevy Chase, Md. The tactic is straight from an SEIU intimidation manual on using community groups to "damage an employer's public image and ties with community leaders and organizations."

--September 2010: AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka praises Nancy Pelosi for taking Obamacare and driving "it down the Republicans' throats and out their backsides."

--August 2011: Striking Communications Workers of America declare "open season" on Verizon. Dozens of cases of sabotaged cable lines are reported.

--September 2011: ILWU bosses lead a "Days of Rage" protest at Port of Longview, Wash., taking a half-dozen guards hostage, sabotaging railroad cars, dumping grain, smashing windows, cutting brake lines, threatening a local TV station and blocking trains in violation of a judicial restraining order.

--February 2011: A Communications Workers of America union thug is caught on tape striking a young female FreedomWorks activist in Washington, D.C.

--February 2011: A Providence, R.I., union supporter says to a cameraman: "I'll f**k you in the ass, you faggot."

--February 2011: Democratic Rep. Michael Capuano of Massachusetts revs up Big Labor goons by urging them to "get a little bloody."

--March 2011: Racist SEIU supporters in Denver, Colo., taunt gay black tea party activist and entrepreneur Leland Robinson, who criticized teachers unions at a Capitol rally, by calling him "son," telling him to "get behind that fence where you belong," and jeering, "Do you have any children? That you claim?"

--March 2011: In Madison, Wis., an unhinged crowd of AFSCME, UFCW and SEIU union protesters corner a Wisconsin GOP senator shouting, "F**k you!" and "Shame!"

--August 2011: In Boston, local IBEW 827 storms Verizon Senior Vice President Bill Foshay's neighborhood. Union members scream, "We're here to fight" in front of his private residence on a weekend afternoon.

--September 2011: Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa screams: "President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out..."

--December 2011: Union-endorsed port protests in Oakland, Calif., Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego and Houston cause massive commerce disruptions, lost wages, property destruction and untold injuries. A year later, ports are shut down on the West Coast during the busy holiday season, and another set of union port strikes -- spearheaded by the violence-prone ILWU and ILA -- threaten the East and Gulf coasts at the end of the month.

We should "do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations," Obama lectured just over a year ago from his politeness pulpit. In the age of Obama, it's Opposite Day 365 days a year.


11 December 2012: We here at Silly Sheeple take the issue of Agenda 21 very seriously and wanted to share with you this review of Glenn Beck's latest book by the same title.

Tuesday, 11 December 2012 15:00

Book Review: Agenda 21

Written by 

Picture yourself living in a small cell in a tightly packed set of compounds divided from the rest of the world by a fence. Your every action is monitored. Your nourishment and water are carefully rationed and given only at designated times. The color of your uniform identifies your occupation. No you are not in prison, but rather the citizen of an all-powerful Republic that has replaced what was once the United States. This fenced set of compounds, located somewhere in the “Republic,” is the setting of Glenn Beck’s newly released novel Agenda 21

Agenda 21 depicts not what is, but rather what could be if the words and statements from Agenda 21’s actual documents and UN promoters were to be carried out to their fullest meaning. 

It is a fictional account from the point of view of a fourteen-year-old girl named Emmeline living in a not-too-distant future, where the private ownership of property is forbidden and citizens are subject to an all powerful “Central Authority” that pledges its collective allegiance to the Republic and the protection of the Earth. 

Citizens live in tightly confined compounds with their “paired” companion, mandated to produce both healthy children and energy for the Republic. Every action is strictly monitored and recorded by the Authority. Citizens consume less than what they produce, receiving equal rations of nourishment and water each day. House, church, Bible, God, and Jesus are all words of the past, what matters now is what is, and what is, is subject to the requirements of the Republic. 

The United States and its traditional pledge of allegiance have been replaced with a new Republic and the following pledge:

We pledge our allegiance

To the wisdom of Central Authority

We pledge our dedication

To the Earth and to its preservation

Those in power recite, “Praise to the Republic” throughout the novel, with citizenry obediently repeating. “Do not fight them” are the words told to Emmeline by her father, who, like Emmeline's mother, tries to protect her. The novel depicts the story of Emmeline’s quest for knowledge and to “save what you think you’re going to lose.” 

It is an easy read, written at a middle-school or high-school level. Chapters are no more than five pages long, with one as short as a page and a half. The brevity of the chapter divisions make it easy for one to read a chapter or two, even when pressed for time. 

The book is 295 pages, but the actual novel itself ends on page 277. The remainder is an afterword written by Glenn Beck himself. The novel content on the other hand, despite bearing Beck’s name on the front cover in large print, was actually written by Harriet Parke.

Parke is a registered nurse who specializes in emergency nursing and Emergency Department management, according to her brief biography in the back inside flap of the book. Although Agenda 21 is Parke’s first published novel, she has been published in the My Dad Is My Hero anthology, five Voices from the Attic anthologies, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and Pittsburgh Magazine

As a listener and viewer of Beck’s radio and cable television programs, Parke became interested in Agenda 21, the United Nation’s socialistic program for “sustainable development,” first unveiled at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 

After hearing about the program and the possible ramifications of its implementation, she did her own research and decided to write about it in the best way she knew how, short stories and fiction. So she wrote the novel.

The novel is not written for the anti-Agenda 21 enthusiast that wishes to learn all about Agenda 21, its origins, and its intended consequences. Rather, it is written for those who have never heard of it, and is presented in a way that Parke hopes will lure the reader's curiosity without overloading him/her with names, dates, and other such historical facts.

The novel is written in as an entertaining story, with fourteen-year-old Emmeline, like Parke’s target audience, being unaware of what Agenda 21 is and why the things (in the futuristic setting of the story) are the way they are. In fact, the term “Agenda 21” only appears once in the book’s first 277 pages, and then only in passing as the name of the past “law” that spawned the creation of the current post-American dystopia in which the novel takes place. 

Parke’s extreme interpretation of Agenda 21 is not that much different from Ayn Rand's depiction of collectivism in the novel Anthem, where the word “I” and individuality have been replaced with “we.” Emmeline is similar to Rand’s male protagonist in Anthem, “Equality 7-2521,” who, like Emmeline, is also on a quest for forbidden knowledge while having to deal with love. 

If you know about Agenda 21 and want to learn more about its specific details and how it will affect you and your community, then this is not the book for you, but if you love novels and enjoy reading fiction, then consider this novel a personal treat. It is very enjoyable, keeping the reader excited from chapter to chapter. Agenda 21 is both a fun and entertaining read, and hopefully not the end of Emmeline’s story. 


Agenda 21, by Glenn Beck and Harriet Parke, New York, NY: Treshold Editions/Mercury Radio Arts, 2012, 295 pages, hardcover.

11 December 2012

Why Are Preppers Hated So Much?

Michael Snyder
The American Dream
December 11th, 2012

Have you noticed that it has become trendy to bash preppers?  For a long time the prepper movement was ignored, but now it has become so large that it is getting very difficult for the mainstream media to pretend that it is not there.  In fact, it has been estimated that there are now approximately 3 million preppers in the United States alone.  So now the mainstream media has decided that mocking the movement is the best strategy, and lots of “critics” and “skeptics” out there have picked up on this trend.  Instead of addressing the very real issues that have caused millions of Americans to prepare for the worst, those criticizing the prepper movement attempt to put the focus on individual personalities.  They try to find the strangest nutjobs they possibly can and then hold them up as “typical preppers”.  The goal is to portray preppers as tinfoil hat wearing freaks that need to be locked up in the loony bin for their own personal safety and for the good of society.  The criticism of preppers has really ramped up in recent months, and it will likely get even worse in 2013.  The establishment does not like any movement that is outside of their control, and the prepper movement is definitely not under their control.

Often, hit pieces on the prepper movement are disguised as articles or shows that are supposed to be “balanced” looks at the movement.  This is especially true of shows such as “Doomsday Preppers“.  That show is the highest rated show that the National Geographic channel has ever had, and it can be a lot of fun to watch.  But if you notice carefully, they almost always try to feature people that they consider to be “freaks” or that are “on the fringe of society”.  Many other “reality shows” follow the exact same recipe.  The goal is to draw high ratings by running a “freak show” that people can’t help but watch.

Even if you go on such a show and try to do your best to explain your prepping in a rational and coherent manner, they will still edit the footage so that it makes you look like a freak.  It really is a no-win proposition.  These shows are trying to make it clear that preppers should be mocked.  The underlying implication is that these people are crazy and that what they are doing is stupid.

And at the end of each segment, the producers of the show are careful to include reasons why the prepper that was just featured is being irrational and why the things they are preparing for are extremely unlikely to happen.  Just in case you missed the message they have been trying to communicate the entire time, they come right out and tell you the conclusion that you are supposed to come to.

And of course we see the same attitudes reflected in reviews of the show.  For example, the following is from a recent Los Angeles Times review of the new season of Doomsday Preppers…

Still, it’s hard not to feel for young Jason from tiny Plato, Mo. (pop. 109), who is awaiting worldwide financial collapse with his homemade, nail-studded “mace-ball bat,” and that his is a life on the verge of going completely wrong. “I’m not afraid to have to kill,” Jason says, in his camouflage pants and dog tag, and there seems to be no question in his mind that it will come to that. (“Jason has always been a worrywart,” says his mother.)

Or for Big Al, from Nashville, who is getting ready for old-school nuclear war by digging down into the earth and surrounding himself with steel. (“I prefer not to use the term ‘bunker’ — to me, it’s an underground house.”) He spends months at a time by himself down there, training for the inevitable — which he expects to weather alone — cooking different combinations of canned goods and, you know, spending too much time alone. One leg pumps constantly as he talks.

The preppers don’t want my pity, of course — quite the opposite, I’m sure. The joke will be on me, they would say, when I am expiring from fallout or smallpox, being carried away in a tornado or torn apart by the hungry ravaging hordes. (I am not even prepared for the Big Earthquake that might more probably get me.)

Would this Los Angeles Times reporter mock other groups of Americans in a similar manner?

Probably not.

But the establishment has made it clear that it is open season on preppers, so this particular writer mocks them with no fear.

Not that any prepper that is thinking clearly would go on a show such as “Doomsday Preppers” anyway.  Sure, it is nice to be on television, but if you are a serious prepper then one of the last things you want to do is to go on television and advertise your preparations to millions of people.

Others have picked up on the contempt that the establishment has for preppers and have started to issue their own critiques of the movement.  For example, an “emergency manager” named Valerie Lucus-McEwen recently published a blog post entitled “Doomsday Preppers are Socially Selfish” that got a lot of attention…

You might wonder why someone like me, who has been in the business of encouraging disaster preparedness for a very long time, is so critical of people who are doing just that. It’s because they are being socially selfish – preparing themselves and the hell with everyone else.  Instead of spending time and energy making changes that would benefit the larger community, in their very narrow focus of loyalty they are more concerned about themselves.

Emergency Managers can’t afford that kind of attitude.  It is diametrically opposed to everything we do. Our job is to prepare individuals and communities and jurisdictions and regions and – ultimately – the globe for disasters, knowing we won’t always succeed.

She followed up that venomous attack with another blog post in which she declared the following…

Selfish is defined as concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself, seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage or well being without regard for others. By that definition, Doomsday Preppers are socially selfish – Disaster Preppers are not.

Subsequently, she has issued a very brief apology, but what she wrote is very typical of the type of thinking that is out there these days.  Anyone that does not “trust the government” and attempts to become “self-sufficient” is actually very “selfish” and is not “being a good citizen”.

And sadly, it appears that being a “prepper” is now enough to get special attention from the authorities.  For example, a 46-year-old prepper in rural Maryland named Terry Porter recently had his home raided by 150 armed law enforcement officers.  The details of this incident were described in a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson

According to a charging document filed in Washington County District Court, Porter “openly admitted to being a prepper” (as if this was an illegal act in and of itself) and said that he was “very irritated” about the recent presidential election. Porter had also invested in an underground bomb shelter and had installed surveillance cameras on his property.

Once the investigation into Porter began, police discovered that he had a 1992 felony drug conviction and was therefore barred from owning firearms. On Thursday last week, no less than 150 armed and militarized police and FBI agents in the guise of tactical assault teams descended on Porter’s house as if they were confronting a terrorist cell. The raid also included helicopters, SWAT crews, armored vehicles and even excavation equipment.

Porter was absent at the time of the raid but turned himself in the next morning at Hagerstown Barrack.

After the raid, the claim that Porter was stockpiling “10-15 machine gun-style firearms” was demolished when police uncovered “four shotguns, a .30-30-caliber rifle and two .22-caliber rifles,” hardly a deadly mass arsenal.

Would 150 officers have shown up at his home if he had not been identified as a “prepper”?

Of course not.

But “preppers” have been labeled as “dangerous” and “crazy” and that is the way that law enforcement authorities now treat them.

So why are preppers hated so much?

It is because they are a direct challenge to the status quo.  Just by prepping, preppers are proclaiming that they do not have faith in the system.  But most people have complete and total faith in the system, and many of them do not like to have that faith questioned.  As I have written about in other articles, polling has found that most Americans expect that the government will take care of them if disaster strikes.  Most people have been trained to “trust the experts” and to “trust the government” all of their lives, and that conditioning can be very difficult to overcome.

This blind faith in the system is a big reason why so many Americans have not made any preparations at all.  In fact, one recent poll discovered that most Americans do not even have three days worth of food in their homes…

A recent survey found that 55 percent of Americans have less than three days supply of food in their homes. Many people have no emergency supplies, or even a first aid kit.

That absolutely astounds me.

Another poll discovered that 64 percent of all Americans are “unprepared for a major natural disaster”.

So what is going to happen to them if something even worse than a major natural disaster hits?

For example, what if the electrical grid went down and we had no more power for an extended period of time?

Well, one survey found that 21 percent of all Americans believe that they would survive for less than a week, and an additional 28 percent of all Americans believe that they would survive for less than two weeks.  Close to 75 percent of all Americans said that they would be dead before the two month mark.

So I guess we sure had better hope and pray that nothing goes seriously wrong, eh?

The truth is that it isn’t the preppers that are crazy.

Rather, it is the people that believe that everything will always be fine and that the government will always take care of them that are crazy.

Our world is becoming increasingly unstable, and now is the time to get prepared.

You may get mocked a bit for prepping now, but later on you sure will be glad that you prepared for the worst.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple



10 December 2012:  This will act a sort of primer for the article following it pertaining to allowing law enforcement to overstep their bounds.




How to brainwash the sheeple into doing anything you want

Mike Bundrant
December 9th, 2012


A few hours ago I was cycling through an nearby neighborhood. As I approached a mother and her two children walking down the sidewalk, the cutest little four-year-old piped up.

“Hi…!” she said.

“Hi…!” I replied.

At that point, mom jerked the little girl by the arm, bent down and whispered something hushed and intense in her ear. As she continued to watch me ride by, I saw the girl’s expression morph from happiness and curiosity into pain, fear and confusion.

“Well, there you have it,” I said to myself. “Fear is once again hammered into an innocent child’s psyche. How sad.”

Children have no way to question their parents’ wisdom. If mom says strangers are dangerous, they are, no questions asked.

In this case mom did more than just tell her I was dangerous. She activated physical pain and fear during the child’s interaction with me. In NLP we call this “anchoring.” By associating an intense state of mind/body – fear and pain – with strangers, the mother hopes to condition her child to avoid them.

The next time the girl finds herself in a similar situation, she will most likely experience fear, pain or confusion. Over time, she will lose her desire to reach out and connect with people she doesn’t know. By avoiding strangers, she hopes to avoid the negative feelings associated with them. Classic Pavlovian conditioning!

Needless to say, there are other more effective, yet non-traumatizing ways to teach children about their own safety, but that is a topic for another article, coming soon.

Anchoring is remarkably effective if done well. Think about it. How many of your responses during the course of a day are preconditioned? Do you stop at red lights? Shake someone’s hand when it is extended to you? Do you pull over when you see flashing red lights in your rear view mirror? You don’t have to think about any of these responses. They are anchored in, ready to be employed when triggered.

If you want someone to be in your herd, then find a way to condition them. Fear works best for creating sheeple.

We could do a warped experiment, for example, on a small child. Find any common object – say a red ball. Hold up the red ball and then terrorize the child into a state of intense fear by yelling or screaming at him. Then, put the ball away and return to normalcy. Repeat this sick little ritual daily.

Before long, all you will need to do is hold up the red ball and the child will respond with anticipatory fear. Soon, the ominous red ball will haunt the child’s dreams.

If you want to expand your power over the child, the red ball is now a nifty tool. Teach the child that the only way to escape the fear inducing red ball is to do what you want. For example, teach him that if he bends down to touch his toes, you will put the ball away immediately. Soon, all you will need to do is pull out the red ball and he will touch his toes without even thinking about it.

His fear may then generalize. When he sees other red objects, he may feel afraid and bend over for them, too. He may even start to bend over compulsively, in anticipation of any potential new red objects that might show up unexpectedly.

Yes, he is now running from the red balls in his mind!

At this point, he might develop a ritual. To prevent any and all red objects that day, he bends over 10 times every morning, noon and night. In other words, he is now a slave to fear. To control him, all you need is a red ball (or to know how to get him to think of one) and a warped conscience.

Much of counseling is devoted to undoing unfortunate anchors that were conditioned in childhood. If the counseling is successful, the red balls of life lose power and new, more positive anchors are put into play – intentional anchors for greater personal power, joy, confidence and so on.

Most people are raised with some version of the red ball. Do what I say or else you’re gonna get it! Do what I tell you or I will reject you, abandon you, hurt you, scare you or otherwise make you feel miserable. 

Negatively conditioning a child in this way is the perfect set up for creating sheeple. All you need to do to herd them is stimulate their fears. People do the most amazing things to avoid fear.

If I were a twisted tyrant creating a country of sheeple, here’s what I’d do:

First, I’d champion principles like conformity, consumerism, instant gratification, social status, and intolerance for personal sacrifice. All of these are wonderful “red ball” kinds of tools that can be used to induce workable positive and negative feelings. Of course, I’d be grateful for all of the lazy, immature parents who help tremendously by enslaving their children to fear. Then, I would:

1. Scare the living hell out of everyone, probably by creating a catastrophe that could “happen again if we don’t take measures to stop it” (we want red balls floating around in people’s imagination).

2. Associate some visual symbol or keyword to the horror of the event.

3. Repeat the keyword or show the symbol at key times or whenever I want to manipulate people. Doing what I want is a way for people to escape the fear that I conditioned in them.

With this system firmly in operation, I am now free to subject my sheeple to all kinds of degrading practices that will keep them in their place, permanently. I can do almost anything I want, given their fears. Amazingly, they will not only cooperate, but even think I am doing them a favor as I degrade and humiliate them!

“We’ve got word that someone in the vicinity may be carrying a red ball! Alright everyone, bend over and let’s inspect your junk. It’s for everyone’s safety.”

The ultimate mind bender is that people end up willingly subjecting themselves to what their parents most feared – molestation by a stranger.

Thank you for protecting me from the dreaded red ball, sir! The inspection wasn’t that bad, either.

Wait, where’s my wallet?

What an ironic mess it would be, if such a society existed!

10 December 2012:  The article says it all.  Like the John Birch Society, I support my local law enforcement agencies...particularly my sheriff's department.  However, it is up to me and every other resident in my county to keep them in check and hold them accountable and reponsible for protecting my rights to life, liberty and property as it pertains to law enforcement-- and that includes how they treat me and mine.  We hired them, we can fire and prosecute them when found lacking and violating.



They Can Do That?! 10 Outrageous Tactics Cops Get Away With

Thanks to the war on drugs, the war on terror and general public apathy about civil liberties, police can stomp all over your rights.

Talk to someone who has never dealt with the cops about police behaving badly, and he or she will inevitably say, “But they can't do that! Can they?” The question of what the cops can or can't do is natural enough for someone who never deals with cops, especially if their inexperience is due to class and/or race privilege. But a public defender would describe that question as naïve. In short, the cops can do almost anything they want, and often the most maddening tactics are actually completely legal.

There are many reasons for this, but three historical developments stand out: the war on drugs provided the template for social control based on race; 9/11 gave federal and local officials the opportunity to ensnare Muslims (and activists) in the ever-increasing surveillance and incarceration state; and a lack of concern from the public at large means these tactics can be applied, often controversy-free, to anyone who resists them.

What follows are 10 of the innumerable tactics the police can use against a population often incapable of constraining their behavior.

1. Infiltration, informants and monitoring. The NYPD's Demographics Unit has engaged in a massive surveillance program directed at Muslims throughout the entire Northeast region, ignoring any jurisdictional limitations and acting as a secret police and intelligence gathering agency – a regional FBI of sorts. The AP's award-winning reports on the Demographics Unit helped bring some information about the program to light, including the revelation that its efforts have resulted in exactly zero terrorism leads.

Although a lawsuit from 1971, the Handschu case, "resulted in federal guidelines that prohibit the NYPD from collecting information about political speech unless it is related to potential terrorism,” legal experts worry that privacy rights have been so diminished that Muslims who are spied on may not be able to seek recourse. The AP quoted Donna Lieberman in November 2011, who said, "It's really not clear that people can do anything if they've been subjected to unlawful surveillance anymore."

Muslims are not the only group that has been targeted. The AP reported that the NYPD has also infiltrated liberal groups and protest organizers. Other cases of entrapment of activists, such as the NATO 5 and the Cleveland 5, are also troubling.

2. Warrantless home surveillance. Just in case you still think there must be some limit on how the authorities can surveil you, there's this -- a federal agency, not the police, but the larger point stands. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that it is legal for a law enforcement agent to enter your house and videotape you without your consent. The case, United States v. Wahchumwah, revolved around a U.S. Fish and Wildlife undercover agent who recorded Wahchumwah without a warrant. The Ninth Circuit found the search to be “voluntary,” which led the EFF to write on its Web site: "The sad truth is that as technology continues to advance, surveillance becomes 'voluntary' only by virtue of the fact we live in a modern society where technology is becoming cheaper, easier and more invasive.”

The Ninth Circuit isn't the only one who thinks warrantless video surveillance is perfectly OK.

“CNET has learned that U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission -- and without a warrant -- to install multiple 'covert digital surveillance cameras' in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana plants were being grown.”

During the Bush years, Congress had to grant retroactive immunity to giant telecoms that engaged in warrantless wiretapping. It seems, the judicial branch wants to save Congress the trouble.

3. Preemptive visits and harassment. One of the favorite tactics of police departments is targeting activists a day before a large event. We saw this on May Day in New York City, as cops descended on several activists' apartments before the day of action, and in Chicago before the massive No NATO protests. The Cleveland 5 were also arrested before May Day, and back in 2008 the RNC8 were also preemptively arrested.

4. Creating call logs from stolen phones. If you lose your phone in NYC and report it to the police, they'll help you find it. So far, so good. Where the agreement turns pear-shaped, however, is what they do with your call logs. The NYPD subpoenas your call log from the day it was stolen onward, under the logic that the records could help find your phone.

But -- and here's the kicker -- they get info for the calls you made on the day it was swiped, and possibly even info from your new cell phone if you keep your number. The information is added to a database called the Enterprise Case Management System, and the numbers are hyperlinked for cross-referencing. The call logs, all obtained without a court order and often without the victim's permission or knowledge, could “conceivably be used for any investigative purpose,” according to the New York Times.

5. Consent searches. Sometimes a cop gives you a command, but phrases it as a question, like, “Would you open your bag so I can look inside?” If you're anything like the vast majority of people in the United States, you have no idea that you're under no lawful obligation to answer in the affirmative. You can, legally speaking, ask if you are being detained, and if the answer is no, you are free to walk away. Or at the very least, not open your bag.

Cops are aware that they can intimidate someone they decide to search, and once they obtain “consent” – e.g. “Yes, man with a gun who is towering over me, you can look in my bag” – any evidence of criminality they find can be used in court. This method of searching people was developed, like several other tactics on this list, during the early 1980s when the Reagan administration ramped up the so-called war on drugs.

Many critics argue that the very idea of a “consensual” interaction between police and the public is impossible, if the police initiate contact. As Justin Peters writes, “[Police] know the average person doesn’t feel they’re in a position to decline a conversation with a cop.” A common tactic is for officers to say they'll let someone off with a warning, then proceed to ask a bunch of questions, even though the person is technically free to go.

6. Stop and frisk. You've probably heard about stop and frisk by now, but for years this odious tactic – and close cousin to consent searches – went woefully underreported in establishment media. The NYCLU released staggering statistics for the year 2011 detailing the massive size of the program in New York City. One particularly memorable figure was that the NYPD stopped more young men of color than there are men of color in NYC. (More information at stopmassincarceration.org.)

7. Pretext stops (Operation Pipeline). The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that cops are free to use minor traffic violations as a pretext to pull over people they suspect of committing drug crimes. Once pulled over, the police obtain “consent” – “Would you get out of the car and empty your pockets?” – and can go on fishing expeditions.

In the Supreme Court's ruling in Ohio v. Robinette, “The Court made clear to all lower courts that, from now on, the Fourth Amendment should place no meaningful constraints on the police in the War on Drugs,” writes Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow. The Court determined that cops don't have to tell motorists they're free to leave before getting “permission” to search their car.

In the mid-1980s, the DEA rolled out Operation Pipeline, a federal program that trained city cops in the shady art of leveraging pretext stops into consent searches. The discretionary nature of many of these searches resulted in massive amounts of racial profiling, so much so that some officials say “the reason racial profiling is a national problem is that it was initiated, and in many ways encouraged, by the federal government's war on drugs.”

8. Police dogs. Don't consent to cops searching your bag? If you're in a car or an airport, police can bring in the dogs to smell your stuff, and if the dog responds, they have probable cause to search you without your consent. “The Supreme Court has ruled that walking a drug-sniffing dog around someone's vehicle (or someone's luggage) does not constitute a 'search,' and therefore does not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny,” Michelle Alexander writes.

But if a dog barks or sits, shouldn't we be comfortable with that triggering probable cause? Radley Balko has reported on the phenomenon of drug dogs giving false positives after reading cues from their handlers

The problem isn't that the dogs aren't capable of picking up the scent; it's that dogs have been bred to please and interact with humans. A dog can easily be manipulated to alert whenever needed. But even with conscientious cops, a dog without the proper training may pick up on its handler's body language and alert whenever it detects its handler is suspicious.

This is called the “Clever Hans effect,” named after the horse who could do arithmetic by tapping his hoof. In reality, the horse could recognize the shift in his owner's body language when he had arrived at the right number.

9. Surveillance drones. The drones are coming, and the few illusions of privacy we cling to will soon disappear. The domestic market for drones in the next decade is estimated in the billions, and police departments are chomping at the bit to implement this new technology. Drones already patrol the US-Mexico border, and cities such as Seattle are moving toward using surveillance drones. In August, a North Dakota court ruled that the first-ever drone-assisted arrest was perfectly legal.

In our ever more authoritarian society, expect politicians and the lobbyists who fund their campaigns to justify increased incursions into privacy in the name of security. The short-term incentives to value privacy have been all but forgotten, as “if you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to fear” has gone from self-evidently absurd cliché to national motto.

10. Enlist the private sector. The comedian Chris Laker says of privatization: “You can't privatize everything. Learned that from RoboCop.” But it seems police departments haven't learned that lesson. In Arizona, police enlisted the help of the Corrections Corporation of America, a private, for-profit prison corporation, in a drug sweep of a public school. PRWatch reports:

"To invite for-profit prison guards to conduct law enforcement actions in a high school is perhaps the most direct expression of the 'schools-to-prison pipeline' I've ever seen," said Caroline Isaacs, program director of the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker social justice organization that advocates for criminal justice reform.

The privatization of nearly all aspects of public life, from education to law enforcement, is a trend we should all find disturbing, not least of all when a company that profits from locking humans in cages is directly involved in the arrest process.

The larger point here is obvious. In the last decade, the Bill of Rights has been shredded at the federal level and the local level. There are few constraints on police, FBI, NSA, and private intelligence companies when it comes to surveillance of the public. That many of these programs and tactics are discretionary exacerbates and magnifies conscious and subconscious racist and classist attitudes among those who carry them out.

Editor's note: a formatting error which has since been corrected erased a block quote from the text of this article, leading to inadvertently  incorrect attribution of a quote. 



Just have to share this as I've never seen The Heritage Foundation as a friend of liberty.  You got it right, Mike!

Be sure to check out the related links below the article as well.




Mike Church's Revolving Door Theory Is Proven by Senator Demint


December 7, 2012

Mandeville, LA - Mike Church's daily Pile of Prep, chock full of Founding Fathers, Christmas Spirit goodness and other [r]epublican stories like Senator DeMint, used to perform the Mike Church Show on Sirius/XM Patriot channel 125. "The prospicient Mr Podesta smartly began where Heritage has, after decades of institutional evolution, only recently arrived. Mr DeMint's Heritage will join the Center for American Progress at the in-the-pocket partisan think-tank avant garde."

Senator DeMint bails on the U.S. Senate to take the helm of DeceptiCON Central, The Heritage Foundation

Perhaps Senator DeMint sees a lucrative buyout in his near future?

So much for the vaunted "DeMint-Paul Caucus" in the Senate

Why did DeMint leave the Senate and who benefits? why the people in the employ of the Heritage Foundation of course, that's who




6 December 2012:  When one considers the idea of false flag events and manufactured crises as I posted in my blog yesterday, it is important to understand some of the erased and whitewashed history that, if not taught at home, any and all of our government-"educated" kids will never learn.  Here is but a small sample of that.


Friday, 07 December 2012 00:00


Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

Written by  James Perloff

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not


On Sunday, December 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, shattering the peace of a beautiful Hawaiian morning and leaving much of the fleet broken and burning. The destruction and death that the Japanese military visited upon Pearl Harbor that day — 18 naval vessels (including eight battleships) sunk or heavily damaged, 188 planes destroyed, over 2,000 servicemen killed — were exacerbated by the fact that American commanders in Hawaii were caught by surprise. But that was not the case in Washington. Comprehensive research has not only shown Washington knew in advance of the attack, but deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the "surprise" attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: "Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war."



Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: "The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power." William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under "utmost secrecy," which, he clarified, "meant preventing disclosure to the American public." Even Robert Sherwood, the president's friendly biographer, said: "If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land."

Background to Betrayal
Roosevelt's intentions were nearly exposed in 1940 when Tyler Kent, a code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London, discovered secret dispatches between Roosevelt and Churchill. These revealed that FDR — despite contrary campaign promises — was determined to engage America in the war. Kent smuggled some of the documents out of the embassy, hoping to alert the American public — but was caught. With U.S. government approval, he was tried in a secret British court and confined to a British prison until the war's end.

During World War II's early days, the president offered numerous provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; shipping 50 destroyers to Britain; and depth-charging U-boats. The Germans did not retaliate, however. They knew America's entry into World War I had shifted the balance of power against them, and they shunned a repeat of that scenario. FDR therefore switched his focus to Japan. Japan had signed a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy (the Tripartite Treaty). Roosevelt knew that if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan."

Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the recent work of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran. Stinnett has obtained numerous relevant documents through the Freedom of Information Act. In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000), the book so brusquely dismissed by director Bruckheimer, Stinnett reveals that Roosevelt's plan to provoke Japan began with a memorandum from Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States. McCollum wrote: "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better." FDR enacted all eight of McCollum's provocative steps — and more.

While no one can excuse Japan's belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.

After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: "We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move." On November 25th, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan's ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot...."

The bait offered Japan was our Pacific Fleet. In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet's commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR's decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: "I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected."

Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor's deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.

Prior Knowledge
One of the most important elements in America's foreknowledge of Japan's intentions was our government's success in cracking Japan's secret diplomatic code known as "Purple." Tokyo used it to communicate to its embassies and consulates, including those in Washington and Hawaii. The code was so complex that it was enciphered and deciphered by machine. A talented group of American cryptoanalysts broke the code in 1940 and devised a facsimile of the Japanese machine. These, utilized by the intelligence sections of both the War and Navy departments, swiftly revealed Japan's diplomatic messages. The deciphered texts were nicknamed "Magic."

Copies of Magic were always promptly delivered in locked pouches to President Roosevelt, and the secretaries of State, War, and Navy. They also went to Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall and to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark. However, although three Purple decoding machines were allotted to Britain, none were sent to Pearl Harbor. Intercepts of ciphered messages radioed between Tokyo and its Honolulu consulate had to be forwarded to Washington for decrypting. Thus Kimmel and Short, the Hawaiian commanders, were at the mercy of Washington for feedback. A request for their own decoding machine was rebuffed on the grounds that diplomatic traffic was of insufficient interest to soldiers.

How untrue that was! On October 9, 1941, the War Department decoded a Tokyo-to-Honolulu dispatch instructing the Consul General to divide Pearl Harbor into five specified areas and to report the exact locations of American ships therein.

There is nothing unusual about spies watching ship movements — but reporting precise whereabouts of ships in dock has only one implication. Charles Willoughby, Douglas MacArthur's chief of intelligence later wrote that the "reports were on a grid system of the inner harbor with coordinate locations of American men of war ... coordinate grid is the classical method for pinpoint target designation; our battleships had suddenly become targets." This information was never sent to Kimmel or Short.

Additional intercepts were decoded by Washington, all within one day of their original transmission:

• November 5th: Tokyo notified its Washington ambassadors that November 25th was the deadline for an agreement with the U.S.

• November 11th: They were warned, "The situation is nearing a climax, and the time is getting short."

• November 16th: The deadline was pushed up to November 29th. "The deadline absolutely cannot be changed," the dispatch said. "After that, things are automatically going to happen."

• November 29th (the U.S. ultimatum had now been received): The ambassadors were told a rupture in negotiations was "inevitable," but that Japan's leaders "do not wish you to give the impression that negotiations are broken off."

• November 30th: Tokyo ordered its Berlin embassy to inform the Germans that "the breaking out of war may come quicker than anyone dreams."

• December 1st: The deadline was again moved ahead. "[T]o prevent the United States from becoming unduly suspicious, we have been advising the press and others that ... the negotiations are continuing."

• December 1st-2nd: The Japanese embassies in non-Axis nations around the world were directed to dispose of their secret documents and all but one copy of their codes. (This was for a reason easy to fathom — when war breaks out, the diplomatic offices of a hostile state lose their immunity and are normally overtaken. One copy of code was retained so that final instructions could be received, after which the last code copy would be destroyed.)

An additional warning came via the so-called "winds" message. A November 18th intercept indicated that, if a break in U.S. relations were forthcoming, Tokyo would issue a special radio warning. This would not be in the Purple code, as it was intended to reach consulates and lesser agencies of Japan not equipped with the code or one of its machines. The message, to be repeated three times during a weather report, was "Higashi no kaze ame," meaning "East wind, rain." "East wind" signified the United States; "rain" signified diplomatic split — in effect, war.

This prospective message was deemed so significant that U.S. radio monitors were constantly watching for it, and the Navy Department typed it up on special reminder cards. On December 4th, "Higashi no kaze ame" was indeed broadcast and picked up by Washington intelligence.

On three different occasions since 1894, Japan had made surprise attacks coinciding with breaks in diplomatic relations. This history was not lost on President Roosevelt. Secretary Stimson, describing FDR's White House conference of November 25th, noted: "The President said the Japanese were notorious for making an attack without warning and stated that we might be attacked, say next Monday, for example." Nor was it lost on Washington's senior military officers, all of them War College graduates.

As Robert Stinnett has revealed, Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches as well. President Roosevelt had access to these intercepts via his routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had authored the original eight-point plan of provocation to Japan. So much secrecy has surrounded these naval dispatches that their existence was not revealed during any of the ten Pearl Harbor investigations, even the mini-probe Congress conducted in 1995. Most of Stinnett's requests for documents concerning Pearl Harbor have been denied as still classified, even under the Freedom of Information Act.

It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 26, 1941:

The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.

So much official secrecy continues to surround the translations of the intercepted Japanese naval dispatches that it is not known if the foregoing message was sent to McCollum or seen by FDR. It is not even known who originally translated the intercept. One thing, however, is certain: The message's significance could not have been lost on the translator.

1941 also witnessed the following:

On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, sent a message to Washington stating: "The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength...."

On November 3rd, still relying on informants, Grew notified Secretary of State Cordell Hull: "War with the United States may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness." He sent an even stronger warning on November 17th.

Congressman Martin Dies would write:

Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. As soon as I received the document I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services.... I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.

Dusko Popov was a Yugoslav who worked as a double agent for both Germany and Britain. His true allegiance was to the Allies. In the summer of 1941, the Nazis ordered Popov to Hawaii to make a detailed study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. The agent deduced that the mission betokened a surprise attack by the Japanese. In August, he fully reported this to the FBI in New York. J. Edgar Hoover later bitterly recalled that he had provided warnings to FDR about Pearl Harbor, but that Roosevelt told him not to pass the information any further and to just leave it in his (the president's) hands.

Kilsoo Haan, of the Sino-Korean People's League, received definite word from the Korean underground that the Japanese were planning to assault Hawaii "before Christmas." In November, after getting nowhere with the State Department, Haan convinced Iowa Senator Guy Gillette of his claim's merit. Gillette briefed the president, who laconically thanked him and said it would be looked into.

In Java, in early December, the Dutch Army decoded a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting attacks on four sites including Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe sent Washington a total of four warnings. The last went to General Marshall's intelligence chief. Thorpe was ordered to send no further messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.

Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America, recorded revealing details in his diary. On December 2nd, he visited the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, "This is the Japanese Task Force proceeding East." It was a spot midway between Japan and Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: "I ask what is the meaning of these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American action.... I myself do not think about it because I believe that everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone here at O.N.I."

On November 29th, Secretary of State Cordell Hull secretly met with freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib. Leib had formerly held several posts in the Roosevelt administration. Hull knew him and felt he was one newsman he could trust. The secretary of state handed him copies of some of the Tokyo intercepts concerning Pearl Harbor. He said the Japanese were planning to strike the base and that FDR planned to let it happen. Hull made Leib pledge to keep his name out of it, but hoped he could blow the story sky-high in the newspapers.

Leib ran to the office of his friend Lyle Wilson, the Washington bureau chief of United Press. While keeping his pledge to Hull, he told Wilson the details and showed him the intercepts. Wilson replied that the story was ludicrous and refused to run it. Through connections, Leib managed to get a hurried version onto UP's foreign cable, but only one newspaper carried any part of it.

After Pearl Harbor, Lyle Wilson called Leib to his office. He handed him a copy of FDR's just-released "day of infamy" speech. The two men wept. Leib recounted his story in the recent History Channel documentary, "Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor."

The foregoing represents just a sampling of evidence that Washington knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack. For additional evidences, see Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland, and Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.* So certain was the data that, at a private press briefing in November 1941, General George Marshall confidently predicted that a Japanese-American war would break out during the "first ten days of December."

However, none of this information was passed to our commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, with the exception of Ambassador Grew's January warning, a copy of which reached Kimmel on February 1st. To allay any concerns, Lieutenant Commander McCollum — who originated the plan to incite Japan to war — wrote Kimmel: "Naval Intelligence places no credence in these rumors. Furthermore, based on known data regarding the present disposition and deployment of Japanese naval and army forces, no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for in the foreseeable future."

Sitting Ducks
To ensure a successful Japanese attack — one that would enrage America into joining the war — it was vital to keep Kimmel and Short out of the intelligence loop. However, Washington did far more than this to facilitate the Japanese assault.

On November 25th, approximately one hour after the Japanese attack force left port for Hawaii, the U.S. Navy issued an order forbidding U.S. and Allied shipping to travel via the North Pacific. All transpacific shipping was rerouted through the South Pacific. This order was even applied to Russian ships docked on the American west coast. The purpose is easy to fathom. If any commercial ship accidentally stumbled on the Japanese task force, it might alert Pearl Harbor. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner, the Navy's War Plans officer in 1941, frankly stated: "We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic."

The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.

Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders' repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in his book And I Was There: "There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts."

The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.

When the White House learned of Kimmel's move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel's action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.

Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his carrier chief, Vice Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, issued plans for a 25-ship task force to guard against an "enemy air and submarine attack" on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th, Admiral Stark, Washington's Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands — further depleting Pearl Harbor's air defenses.

It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous "war warning" to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.

Indeed, the message began conspicuously: "This dispatch is to be considered a war warning." But it went on to state: "The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo." None of these areas were closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: "Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage." The message further stated that "measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population." Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the "war warning" was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall's adjutant general to Short warned only: "Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage."

Thus things stood as Japan prepared to strike. Using the Purple code, Tokyo sent a formal statement to its Washington ambassadors. It was to be conveyed to the American Secretary of State on Sunday, December 7th. The statement terminated relations and was tantamount to a declaration of war. On December 6th, in Washington, the War and Navy departments had already decrypted the first 13 parts of this 14-part message. Although the final passage officially severing ties had not yet come through, the fiery wording made its meaning obvious. Later that day, when Lieutenant Lester Schulz delivered to President Roosevelt his copy of the intercept, Schulz heard FDR say to his advisor, Harry Hopkins, "This means war."

During subsequent Pearl Harbor investigations, both General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, denied any recollection of where they had been on the evening of December 6th — despite Marshall's reputation for a photographic memory. But James G. Stahlman, a close friend of Navy Secretary Frank Knox, said Knox told him FDR convened a high-level meeting at the White House that evening. Knox, Marshall, Stark, and War Secretary Stimson attended. Indeed, with the nation on war's threshold, such a conference only made sense. That same evening, the Navy Department received a request from Stimson for a list of the whereabouts of all ships in the Pacific.

On the morning of December 7th, the final portion of Japan's lengthy message to the U.S. government was decoded. Tokyo added two special directives to its ambassadors. The first directive, which the message called "very important," was to deliver the statement at 1 p.m. The second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was immediately recognized in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations; Sunday was an abnormal day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 p.m. in Washington was shortly after dawn in Hawaii!

Admiral Stark arrived at his office at 9:25 a.m. He was shown the message and the important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor because all his actions had been dictated by a "higher authority." As Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority: Roosevelt.

In the War Department, where the 14-part statement had also been decoded, Colonel Rufus Bratton, head of the Army's Far Eastern section, discerned the message's significance. But the chief of intelligence told him nothing could be done until Marshall arrived. Bratton tried reaching Marshall at home, but was repeatedly told the general was out horseback riding. The horseback ride turned out to be a long one. When Bratton finally reached Marshall by phone and told him of the emergency, Marshall said he would come to the War Department. Marshall took 75 minutes to make the 10-minute drive. He didn't come to his office until 11:25 a.m. — an extremely late hour with the nation on the brink of war. He perused the Japanese message and was shown the delivery time. Every officer in Marshall's office agreed these indicated an attack in the Pacific at about 1 p.m. EST. The general finally agreed that Hawaii should be alerted, but time was running out.

Marshall had only to pick up his desk phone to reach Pearl Harbor on the transpacific line. Doing so would not have averted the attack, but at least our men would have been at their battle stations. Instead, the general wrote a dispatch. After it was encoded it went to the Washington office of Western Union. From there it was relayed to San Francisco. From San Francisco it was transmitted via RCA commercial radio to Honolulu. General Short received it six hours after the attack. Two hours later it reached Kimmel. One can imagine their exasperation on reading it.

Despite all the evidence accrued through Magic and other sources during the previous months, Marshall had never warned Hawaii. To historians — ignorant of that classified evidence — it would appear the general had tried to save Pearl Harbor, "but alas, too late." Similarly, FDR sent a last-minute plea for peace to Emperor Hirohito. Although written a week earlier, he did not send it until the evening of December 6th. It was to be delivered by Ambassador Grew, who would be unable to receive an audience with the emperor before December 8th. Thus the message could not conceivably have forestalled the attack — but posterity would think that FDR, too, had made "a valiant, last effort."

The Roberts Commission, assigned to investigate the Japanese attack, consisted of personal cronies of Roosevelt and Marshall. The Commission fully absolved Washington and declared that America was caught off guard due to "dereliction of duty" by Kimmel and Short. The wrath of America for these two was exceeded only by its wrath for Tokyo. To this day, many believe it was negligence by the Hawaii commanders that made the Pearl Harbor disaster possible.

* Though a major exposer of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Robert Stinnett is sympathetic regarding FDR's motives. He writes in his book: "As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom." In our view, a government that is allowed to operate in such fashion is a government that has embarked on a dangerous, slippery slope toward dictatorship. Nonetheless, Stinnett's position on FDR's motives makes his exposé of FDR's actions all the more compelling.

This article, slightly revised, originally appeared in the June 4, 2001 issue of The New American.

Photo at top: AP Images

Related articles:

Pearl Harbor: Motives Behind the Betrayal

Pearl Harbor: Scapegoating Kimmel and Short



The Pearl Harbor "Surprise"

By, Chris Rossini

There's much more to the "date which will live in infamy" than the U.S. Dept. of Education would like to you know about.

Along with Lincoln, one of the most exalted Presidents in the land of the free is FDR. Is there a town in this country that doesn't have a street named after either of them?

According to the Dept. of Education, FDR not only had the messianic task of saving all of us from the ravages of "capitalism", but he had the added burden of dealing with a "surprise" attack from a bunch of crazy Japanese people.

It's during those trying times that the greatness of an FDR is needed.

Give him three terms if necessary!


Let's now close the schoolbooks, turn off PBS and The History Channel, and come back to reality.

Murray Rothbard, in his amazing work America's Great Depression, crushed the first part of the fairy tale into a fine powder.

The Federal Reserve created the boom/bust of the 1920's, and the Hoover/FDR tag team turned, what should have been a short downturn, into a tortuous and long "Great" one. Hoover got the ball rolling. He said:


"We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever involved in the history of the Republic.”

FDR, then took over the grand experiment from the "laissez-faire" Hoover and...well, you know the rest.

The second part of the FDR fairy tale was recently addressed in a great talk given by Robert Higgs. I highly recommend that you listen to the whole thing, but I transcribed a few excerpts below.

Tuck them away for the next time that you're debating a worshipper of one of America's "Great" Presidents.

Here's Robert Higgs:

Consider these summary statements by George Victor. And, by the way, George Victor is by no means a Roosevelt basher. It's the other way around. He greatly admires Roosevelt and entirely approves of the actions Roosevelt took to bring the United States into the war. So that's why I think he makes a good source for my purposes. You know he didn't set out to provide grist for my mill.

He has a very nice book out called The Pearl Harbor Myth, which I believe is completely honest and well done in its documentation. I'm going to read a long excerpt from that book by George Victor:


"Roosevelt had already lead the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941; into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan's attack on December 7th enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration.

Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell in the spring of 1941. In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisors, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United States; a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment.

Roosevelt told his Ambassador to France, William Bullet, that U.S. entry into war with Germany was certain, but must wait for an incident, which he was confident the Germans would give us. Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt's tactics.

He seems, eventually to have concluded, correctly as it turned out, that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the United States than Germany would be.

The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war; to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. Expecting to lose a war with the United States, and lose it disastrously, Japan's leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians had long agreed.

Meanwhile evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. Japan offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. It was after learning of Japan's decision to go to war with the United States, if the talks "break down" that Roosevelt decided to break them off.

According to Attorney General, Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an incident in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war."

These facts, and numerous others that point in the same direction, are for the most part anything but new. Many of them have been available to the public since the 1940's. As early as 1953, anyone might have read a collection of heavily documented essays on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the late 1930's and early 1940's, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, that showed the numerous ways in which the U.S. government bore responsibility for the country's eventual engagement in World War II.

It showed, in short, that the Roosevelt administration wanted to get the country into the war and worked craftily, along various avenues, to ensure that sooner or later it would get in; preferably in a way that would unite public opinion behind the war, by making the United States appear to have been the victim of an aggressor's unprovoked attack.

As Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, testified after the war:


"We needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act."

At present, however, 70 years after these events. Probably not 1 American in 1,000; maybe not 1 in 10,000 has an inkling of any of this history. So effective has been the pro-Roosevelt, pro-American, pro-World War II faction, that in this country it has utterly dominated teaching and popular writing about U.S. engagement in the so-called "Good War"...

American leaders knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Toyota had communicated to Ambassador Nomura on July 31st. I read from that message:


"Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas."

This was a message U.S. leaders read as of the end of July 1941. They knew the position Japan was in perfectly well. Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington also knew that Japan's measures would include an attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet, they withheld this critical information from the Commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves better to defend against it.

That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the toxin, makes perfect sense. After all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. 

As Stimson confided to his diary, after a meeting with the War Cabinet on November 25th 1941:


"The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

After the attack occurred, Stimson confessed that:


"My first feeling was of relief, that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people."
“It has been the policy of the cabinet at almost all cost to avoid embroilment with Japan until we were sure that the United States would also be engaged.” - Winston Churchill to The British House of Commons on Jan. 27, 1942

6 December 2012:  It is vitally important for each and every American to understand what's being done in Bluffdale, UT with the creation of the NSA's new data storage bank.  You'd better wake up and be ready if you're ever targeted by the federal government.

I am very careful in what I consider "credible" from Russia Today (RT) as they are one of Russia's propaganda arms tailor-made to attract conservatives in each nation they are broadcasted into, but this interview is of great importance.  The video can be found by clicking the source link below.




'Everyone in US Under Virtual Surveillance' – NSA Whistleblower


The FBI records the emails of nearly all US citizens, including members of congress, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. In an interview with RT, he warned that the government can use this information against anyone.

 Binney, one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in the history of the National Security Agency, resigned in 2001. He claimed he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the Constitution, such as how the FBI engages in widespread and pervasive surveillance through powerful devices called 'Naris.'

 This year, Binney received the Callaway award, an annual prize that recognizes those who champion constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.

 RT: In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused on the details of their family drama, one may argue that the real scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen – thousands of his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence. It’s not like any of those men was planning an attack on America. Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a surveillance state?

 William Binney: Yes, that’s what I’ve been basically saying for quite some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.

 RT: And it’s not just about those, who could be planning, who could be a threat to national security, but also those, who could be just…

 WB: It’s everybody. The Naris device, if it takes in the entire line, so it takes in all the data. In fact they advertised they can process the lines at session rates, which means 10-gigabit lines. I forgot the name of the device (it’s not the Naris) – the other one does it at 10 gigabits. That’s why they're building Bluffdale [database facility], because they have to have more storage, because they can’t figure out what’s important, so they are just storing everything there. So, emails are going to be stored there in the future, but right now stored in different places around the country. But it is being collected – and the FBI has access to it.

 RT: You mean it’s being collected in bulk without even requesting providers?

 WB: Yes.

 RT: Then what about Google, you know, releasing this biannual transparency report and saying that the government’s demands for personal data is at an all-time high and for all of those requesting the US, Google says they complied with the government’s demands 90 percent of the time. But they are still saying that they are making the request, it’s not like it’s all being funneled into that storage. What do you say to that?

 WB: I would assume that it’s just simply another source for the same data they are already collecting. My line is in declarations in a court about the 18-T facility in San Francisco, that documented the NSA room inside that AST&T facility, where they had Naris devices to collect data off the fiber optic lines inside the United States. So, that’s kind of a powerful device, that would collect everything it was being sent. It could collect on the order over of 100 billion 1,000-character emails a day. One device.

 RT: You say they sift through billions of e-mails. I wonder how do they prioritize? How do they filter it?

 WB: I don’t think they are filtering it. They are just storing it. I think it’s just a matter of selecting when they want it. So, if they want to target you, they would take your attributes, go into that database and pull out all your data.

 RT: Were you on the target list?

 WB: Oh, sure! I believe I’ve been on it for quite a few years. So I keep telling them everything I think of them in my email. So that when they want to read it they’ll understand what I think of them.

 RT: Do you think we all should leave messages for the NSA mail box?

 WB: Sure!

 RT: You blew the whistle on the agency when George W. Bush was the president. With President Obama in office, in your opinion, has anything changed at the agency, in the surveillance program? In what direction is this administration moving?

 WB: The change is it’s getting worse. They are doing more. He is supporting the building of the Bluffdale facility, which is over two billion dollars they are spending on storage room for data. That means that they are collecting a lot more now and need more storage for it. That facility by my calculations that I submitted to the court for the Electronic Frontiers Foundation against NSA would hold on the order of 5 zettabytes of data. Just that current storage capacity is being advertised on the web that you can buy. And that’s not talking about what they have in the near future.

 RT: What are they going to do with all of that? Ok, they are storing something. Why should anybody be concerned?

 WB: If you ever get on the enemies list, like Petraeus did or… for whatever reason, than you can be drained into that surveillance.

 RT: Do you think they would… General Petraeus, who was idolized by the same administration? Or General Allen?

 WB: There are certainly some questions, that have to be asked, like why would they target it to begin with? What law were they breaking?

 RT: In case of General Petraeus one would argue that there could have been security breaches. Something like that. But with General Allen – I don’t quite understand, because when they were looking into his private emails to this woman.

 WB: That’s the whole point. I am not sure what the internal politics is… That’s part of the program. This government doesn’t want things in the public. It’s not a transparent government. Whatever the reason or the motivation was, I don’t really know, but I certainly think that there was something going on in the background that made them target those fellows. Otherwise why would they be doing it? There is no crime there.

 RT: It seems that the public is divided between those, who think that the government surveillance program violates their civil liberties, and those who say, 'I’ve nothing to hide. So, why should I care?' What do you say to those who think that it shouldnt concern them.

 WB: The problem is if they think they are not doing anything that’s wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does, the central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or not they target you. So, it’s not up to the individuals. Even if they think they aren't doing something wrong, if their position on something is against what the administration has, then they could easily become a target.

 RT: Tell me about the most outrageous thing that you came across during your work at the NSA.

 WB: The violations of the constitution and any number of laws that existed at the time. That was the part that I could not be associated with. That’s why I left. They were building social networks on who is communicating and with whom inside this country. So that the entire social network of everybody, of every US citizen was being compiled overtime. So, they are taking from one company alone roughly 320 million records a day. That’s probably accumulated probably close to 20 trillion over the years.

 The original program that we put together to handle this to be able to identify terrorists anywhere in the world and alert anyone that they were in jeopardy. We would have been able to do that by encrypting everybody’s communications except those who were targets. So, in essence you would protect their identities and the information about them until you could develop probable cause, and once you showed your probable cause, then you could do a decrypt and target them. And we could do that and isolate those people all alone. It wasn’t a problem at all. There was no difficulty in that.

 RT: It sounds very difficult and very complicated. Easier to take everything in and…

 WB: No. It’s easier to use the graphing techniques, if you will, for the relationships for the world to filter out data, so that you don’t have to handle all that data. And it doesn’t burden you with a lot more information to look at, than you really need to solve the problem.

 RT: Do you think that the agency doesn’t have the filters now?

 WB: No.

 RT: You have received the Callaway award for civic courage. Congratulations! On the website and in the press release it says: “It is awarded to those, who stand out for constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.” Under the code of spy ethics – I don’t know if there is such a thing – your former colleagues, they probably look upon you as a traitor. How do you look back at them?

 WB: That’s pretty easy. They are violating the foundation of this entire country. Why this entire government was formed? It’s founded with the Constitution and the rights were given to the people in the country under that Constitution. They are in violation of that. And under executive order 13526, section 1.7 – you can not classify information to just cover up a crime, which this is, and that was signed by President Obama. Also President Bush signed it earlier as an executive order, a very similar one. If any of this comes into Supreme Court and they rule it unconstitutional, then the entire house of cards of the government falls.

 RT: What are the chances of that? What are the odds?

 WB: The government is doing the best they can to try to keep it out of court. And, of course, we are trying to do the best we can to get into court. So, we decided it deserves a ruling from the Supreme Court. Ultimately the court is supposed to protect the Constitution. All these people in the government take an oath to defend the Constitution. And they are not living up to the oath of office.

 Reprinted with permission from Russia Today.



Here we have further proof of the eroding effect society is having on the family.  Mr. Williamson hits the nail on the head with the screaming claims of intolerance that comes from the side of progressives with all the sharpened labels such as "bigot" or "hater".  Don't fall for it.  Stand your ground.  We know and understand the importance of the family and we must do all we can to peacefully and lawfully defend and preserve it.  Without the traditional and true basic family unit as defined by God, we as a nation don't stand a chance in weathering the storms that are surely yet to come.  Unfortunately, this sort of thing is becoming the norm for government "public" schools.  When you are dependent upon the state for your revenue and funding, you are at their mercy in all things.  Parents and school-board members have to work extra hard to enact the right changes when this happens.

Kevin D. Williamson, National Review



That’s Indoctrination!
Everything your suburban fourth-grader needs to know about gay marriage

By Kevin D. Williamson

Next week, fourth-grade students at Penn Valley Elementary School in the gilded Philadelphia suburb of Lower Merion will spend part of their school day watching and discussing a very clever piece of cinematic propaganda courtesy of organized homosexuality. The film is called That’s a Family!, and it is endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign along with other homosexual activist groups.

As a fellow practitioner of the occult arts of persuasion, I must confess my admiration for That’s a Family! The film clearly is a product of the institutional wing of the gay-rights movement, and the filmmaker’s earlier efforts include many examples of the Left’s garden-variety sex and sexuality obsessions: It’s Elementary — Talking about Gay Issues in School, One Wedding and a Revolution (“contains now-historic footage of the tearful exchange of vows between long-time lesbian activists Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon who, celebrating their 51st anniversary, were the first couple to tie the knot”), Straightlaced: How Gender’s Got Us All Tied Up. The ingenious thing about That’s a Family! is that it does not present itself as a straightforward piece of gay agitprop. Though the same-sex couples are clearly at the center of filmmaker Debra Chasnoff’s agenda, she deftly mixes them in with other kinds of “different” families: children with divorced parents, children being raised by guardians other than their parents, adopted children, etc. Crucially, there is a racial-ethnic angle: Families that speak Spanish at home and mixed-race families, here amusingly enough represented by an adorable little girl who explains: “My dad’s Chinese-American and my mom’s German-American. My parents aren’t the same race, but they can still be married,” a statement that obviously is not directed at the imaginary cabal of bigots protesting Sino-Germanic romances.

Which is to say, That’s a Family! is an extended exercise in intentionally begging the question: Moral reservations about homosexuality extending to questions related to marriage and childrearing are indistinguishable from prejudices against mixed-race marriages or discounting the value of adopted families. Question the gay-rights program and you may as well be a member of the Klan — and not the kind of Klansman that Democrats send to the Senate, either. The identification of moral objections to homosexuality with racism is the holy grail of gay-rights rhetoric. As I used to tell my persuasive-writing students, begging the question may be a logical fallacy, but it often is an extraordinarily effective rhetorical tool: Most people are not intellectually sophisticated enough to understand how they have been manipulated. (Me, cynical? In an age of “hope and change” political rhetoric, it is impossible to set the bar too low.)

Most newspaper-reading adult voters do not understand the logical fallacy of begging the question, and I am entirely confident that Lower Merion’s fourth-graders do not, either, high-achieving kids though they may be.

I lived for many years in Lower Merion, where I was the editor of the local newspaper. The township has government schools that are both excellent and shockingly expensive. (I was endlessly entertained by the fact that the local schools’ million-dollar boss styled himself: “Dr. Jamie P. Savedoff, Ph.D.” — Dr. and Ph.D., the guy’s got you coming and going.) Though once a Republican stronghold, the place is not exactly a hotbed of social conservatism, unless by conservatism you mean “serve from the left and clear from the right.” Nonetheless, there are a fair number of Catholics and a few of the old Main Line WASPs who may not be entirely on board with the mandatory celebration of homosexual parenting, and they must of course be suffocated by the very government agency into whose care they are compelled by law to entrust their children for more than a decade.

That’s a Family! is not about tolerance or treating people decently. It is about indoctrination, a fact that its enthusiasts make little attempt to hide. It lists among its endorsers such Democratic worthies as Senator Barbara Boxer, who declares that the film can be used to “break down” attitudes she finds disagreeable. Loret Peterson, a fourth-grade teacher in (of course) San Francisco, wrote that the film provides “a gentle starting point to reach elementary age children with a message of respect for all differences before biases become entrenched and the pressures of middle school set in. . . . We have the opportunity to take an active, moral approach to deflating the power of stereotypes by addressing them in the classroom.”

An active moral approach. I am not at all sure that the government schools are the proper venue for an active moral approach to anything touching fourth-graders and homosexuality. But if children are to have moral instruction in the schools, rather than at home or in the church, then we should probably have a much longer and more detailed conversation than we have thus far about what will be included in that moral curriculum. Is circumspection regarding the situation of a child who identifies four parents consisting of two homosexual couples as his “moms” and “dads” an uncomplicated moral imperative? Hardly. When a child declares, “My two moms are Marilyn and Adrian, and my two dads are Michael and Barry,” that opens up a discussion about which an entire doctoral dissertation in moral theory could be written. Chasnoff and her partisans claim to be driven in part by a desire to prevent bullying, but bullying is precisely what they are engaged in, using the power of the schools to force their political views onto children.

The country hardly needs a state-sanctioned and publicly funded homily on tolerance toward gays (to say nothing of Sino-Germanic couples). This country’s conservative political party fields gay candidates, its annual conservative convention includes a gay-oriented event, and its leading conservative journal benefits from the work of gay contributors. It is also a country in which a great many people believe that traditional family structures play a unique and irreplaceable role in society — and those are the views that It’s a Family! seeks to eliminate. That the gay-rights movement is allowed to co-opt the government schools in its crusade — that it is in fact encouraged to do so — ought to be of concern even to those of us who are broadly in favor of helping gays to go about their business in society much the same as anybody else. If progressives were intellectually honest, they, too, would have some concerns about using the power of government to cultivate particular political opinions in children. But progressives are confident that they will control the educational institutions for the foreseeable future.

There are no cease-fires in the culture wars, because the Left simply will not stop until it has achieved total conformity, which it pursues under the banners of “tolerance” and “diversity,” i.e., a virtue the Left does not possess and a condition the Left will not abide. The front runs through every corporate human-resources office, every college campus, every church, and the fourth-grade classroom at Penn Valley Elementary School, too.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review.


The speculation by the New American in the following article makes a lot of sense if you stop and think about it.  One thing that really bothers us about the whole unmanned aircraft (drone) program is that it far removes the operators (trigger-pullers) from the scene of conflict.  Have you ever stopped to think about how much time some of our young people spend on graphic video games in which they virtually "kill and destroy" for hours on end...being seemingly unaffected?  Think about how many of these young people have literally been raised on these types of games and how many of them are enlisting in the military now.  How much difference is there to them?  Are they able to still adequately discern between what is real and what is virtual reality?  Would these young adults (not all young, but most) pull the same triggers on the same people if they were required to first look them in the eye?  Do they have what it takes to refuse orders to fire upon their own nation's citizens if ever given?  Do they know what it means to "Defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"? 

Think about this for a while.  The drones are coming en masse over U.S. skies very, very soon for both surveillance and assassination all under the guise of "environmentalism" and "terrorism".

The New American

Tuesday, 04 December 2012 09:59


DIA Doubles Spy Numbers Abroad, Rivaling CIA Numbers

Written by 

DIA Doubles Spy Numbers Abroad, Rivaling CIA Numbers


The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is gearing up for an unprecedented growth in the number of its field agents, according to a December 2 story in the Washington Post. The growth follows a pattern of similar surges for other major U.S. intelligence agencies, the NSA and the CIA, since 2001. 

“The DIA overhaul,” the Post explained, “combined with the growth of the CIA since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — will create a spy network of unprecedented size. The plan reflects the Obama administration’s affinity for espionage and covert action over conventional force.”  

The purpose of gearing up the DIA staff may be to better target drone strikes around the world, according to the Post: “The DIA has long played a major role in assessing and identifying targets for the U.S. military, which in recent years has assembled a constellation of drone bases stretching from Afghanistan to East Africa.” The establishment Washington newspaper has noted that this increase in agents is genuinely noteworthy, despite the official talk of budget-tightening in Washington. “This is not a marginal adjustment for DIA,” the agency’s director, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, told the Post at a recent conference, during which he outlined the changes but did not describe them in detail. “This is a major adjustment for national security.” Flynn predicted an “era of persistent conflict” globally in which the DIA is needed for providing on-the-ground intelligence, possibly for military strikes. 

So why is the Obama administration gearing up the DIA instead of the Central Intelligence Agency? The Washington Post seems to think it's because the DIA is less subject to day-to-day congressional oversight than the CIA. The Post suggested:

The expansion of the agency’s clandestine role is likely to heighten concerns that it will be accompanied by an escalation in lethal strikes and other operations outside public view. Because of differences in legal authorities, the military isn’t subject to the same congressional notification requirements as the CIA, leading to potential oversight gaps.

The DIA now has 17,000 employees, still smaller than the NSA (which manages electronic surveillance and which already tracks without warrants every American's telephone and Internet traffic in huge data centers), and smaller than the CIA (which generally manages foreign field intelligence). It is about half the size of the FBI, which is charged mostly with domestic surveillance and law enforcement, an agency that nonetheless has branch offices in scores of foreign countries

An abundance of intelligence agencies charged with spying on citizens of their own government has long been a mark of totalitarian regimes the world over. The communist-era Soviet Union had the twin spy agencies in the KGB (State Security Service) and the MVD (Military Intelligence). Nazi Germany had three spy agencies: the Gestapo (German State Police), Schutztaffel (Protection Squadron, or SS), and the Sturmabteilung (Stormtroopers, or SA).

The question taxpayers and freedom-loving Americans need to ask is: Does America really need such an enormous and costly spy apparatus to keep the nation safe from several hundred potential terrorists spread throughout the world? And do agencies such as the NSA really need to expend billions of tax dollars in computer equipment and staff-hours spying on law-abiding Americans in order to catch foreign terrorist suspects?



This is a fascinating perspective on Pistole's refusal to appear before the congressional subcommittee recently.  Again, things aren't always as they seem and it helps to have more insight and information available.




When a Pervert Calls the Sociopaths’ Bluff


by Becky Akers




Hold onto your hat: this is gonna be a wild ride.


 We begin with a plunge off the mountainside, a stunner so shocking we’ll question our sanity: John "The Pervert" Pistole, Chief Deviant at the TSA, has finally done something – gulp – right.


 Go ahead, try to recover: I’ll wait. Deep breath, relax, and repeat. All set?


 OK, let’s try it again. The Pervert, who legalized routine sexual assault on the public at large – an atrocity no regime anywhere, however brutal or totalitarian, has ever previously attempted or even contemplated –, has behaved laudably.


 To wit, he stood up to the even more reprehensible lowlifes in Congress.


 And poor Perv is taking heat for it, too. The TSA’s army of critics – yay, guys, go! Pulverize this filthy, vile agency! – has excoriated him across the internet. "TSA claims Congress has no jurisdiction over it; refuses to attend hearings," screams one while another’s headline blares, "TSA Claims It Is Above Congressional Oversight." As the latter explains, "The TSA has refused to attend a House Transportation hearing ... , with agency head John Pistole personally refusing to appear and declaring that the Congressional Committee has ‘no jurisdiction over the TSA’. The hearing … [was] held by the Subcommittee on Aviation, a part of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (TIC). It is titled HOW BEST TO IMPROVE OUR NATION’S AIRPORT PASSENGER SECURITY SYSTEM THROUGH COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS."


 As such, this dog-and-pony show was one in an endless series of such "hearings" by various committees and subcommittees, all with similarly tiresome, falsely positive, PR-type headings. Your Intrepid Reporter has commented on several of these monstrosities. They’re as common as corrupt politicians and do absolutely nothing to "improve" the TSA (an impossibility anyway, as absurd as "improving" cancer) or even change it. In fact, over the years that Congress has wasted its time and our money on this nonsense, the TSA has degenerated, if that’s possible, going from an annoying, dangerous, and completely unconstitutional horror to an annoying, dangerous, completely unconstitutional, gate-raping and porno-scanning horror.


 Even The Perv noted the multiplicity of these hearings – and the TSA’s usual attendance at them. In a "Statement in Response to House T[ransporation] & I[nfrastructure] Subcommittee Request for TSA to Participate in Aviation Security Hearing," The Perv announced, "In the 112th Congress alone, TSA witnesses have testified at 38 hearings and provided 425 briefings for Members of Congress." Bingo. And has that achieved anything beyond providing make-work for the otherwise unemployable in Washington DC? Have passengers traipsed to an airport after any of these hearings and breathed freedom’s fresh air sans blue-shirted thugs interrogating and strip-searching them?


 And so I reluctantly submit that we should applaud The Perv for calling Congress on its charade. Here are politicians hoping to score points with us beleaguered serfs by scolding our assailants – all while continuing to "appropriate" the plunder that pays said assailants and buys their toys, whose manufacturers kick back-sorry, contribute to the politicians’ campaigns. It’s a tidy system in which only the serfs lose, nor has Congress any intention whatever of ending it. The Perv simply wearied of his duty as punching bag – though I grin as I imagine his fear of actual justice given his objections to Congress’ anemic slaps on the wrist.


 Notice, too, that Perv didn’t defy Congress, as his legion of enemies charge, but only a committee he insists has no jurisdiction. That’s not to say the TSA doesn’t routinely flout Congress’ dictates, proving that appointed rather than elected leeches control the country (and if we want to recover our freedom, we must extirpate the bureaucracies as well as the political offices.) To cite just two of hundreds of examples, an "acting director" at the TSA "refused to provide members of Congress with the newest version of the TSA's screening manual," while another minion shrugged at the Senate’s rebuke after he violated the Privacy Act.


 Add to these institutional insults the personal ones the TSA’s brutes have visited on congresscriminals. After Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) voted against unionizing the TSA, its lackeys "singled him out" for porno-scanning. And who can forget Rand Paul’s "detainment"? Most recently, we learned that LaWanda exposed the chest of a 17-year-old girl whose uncle happens to be Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX).






You might think such challenges would have long ago driven Congress to annihilate the TSA. Alas, no. Even when the agency degrades their womenfolk, these wusses don’t take a horsewhip to Perv and his ruffians. Instead, they mewl for a "federal investigation." If the TSA spits on Congress, it’s because these nauseating sissies merely wipe it off and slink away with muttered thanks.


 Meanwhile, The Perv seems to be factually correct when he claims the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee [TIC] lacks power over the TSA. But we won’t take his word for it; heck, we wouldn’t take this perpetual liar’s word on where the sun rises. Still, it’s curious that if TIC wields the authority over the TSA that its outgoing chairman, John "The Toupee" Mica (R-FL], claims, its website doesn’t mention it. Under "Jurisdiction," TIC lists "Issues and agencies," including several of the latter by name ("Federal Aviation Administration…National Transportation Safety Board…"). But "Transportation Security Administration" is noticeably absent.


 That didn’t daunt The Toupee. Recall that this weasel and utter hypocrite says he created the TSA (until he first asserted this 2 or 3 years ago, I never heard anyone – neither the media nor his fellow politicians – credit this equally perpetual liar with such a crime). But now he pretends to despise his hatchling: "Unfortunately, … this mushrooming agency has spun out of control…" he thundered in answer to Perv’s no-show. Rich, isn’t it? Rather like a murderer’s lamenting that his hatchet "spun out of control" to leave a trail of traumatized victims behind him, much to his helpless bewilderment.


 But whether or not The Toupee established the TSA, he and his fellow sociopaths hold its purse-strings. Far from "spinning out of control," the TSA dances only as long as Congress pays the piper.


 December 4, 2012


 Becky Akers [send her mail] new novel, Halestorm, is set during the American Revolution. Read it in paperback or on a Kindle.


 Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.







[hyoo-bris, hoo-] 



excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.

Hubris.  Not all power seekers are sociopaths, but are all sociopaths power seekers?  In one form or another...I'd venture to say "yes".  What about those who have "risen above us" and now govern us?  I would venture to say we have an abundance of sociopaths in high places.


 The American Sociopathocracy

 by Jack D. Douglas

 Recently by Jack D. Douglas: Petraeus and the Fierce Struggles for Imperial Power


We have known since the ancient world that all great power drives human beings insane with hubris so that they are blinded to the dangers their powers produce and to the total moral blindness that engulfs their minds and hearts – sociopathy.

The ancient Greeks thought of this catastrophic madness overwhelmingly in terms of political and military power because hubris is most obvious in those realms and has always led quickly to the destruction of those blinded by it and their armies and states, if the people do not first overthrow the blinded sociopaths.

But vast power is also bestowed by vast wealth, fame, and sexual prowess and these also trigger soaring hubris and its blindness and sociopathy.

In America we see all of these sources of hubris at the extreme in the first truly global empire, in the world-destroying nuclear and bio-chemical weapons, in the vast concentrations of wealth at the top, in the vast fame of the global media, and in the sexual revolution and all the drug and beauty industries supporting it.

Hubris engulfed the Church as its vast powers and wealth grew over the centuries. But all concentrations of power, wealth, fame and sexual prowess were small and local compared to the explosion of all of these at the top of the U.S, global empire in this past century.

And, of course, hubris has totally engulfed everyone at the top of the immense U.S. system. Our rulers are so totally blinded by hubris that they cannot even see the obvious fact that America has become a travesty of the original land of Constitutional freedoms and the land of the brave defending those. The shining city on a hill that inspired the world with hope has become a vast, totalitarian police state and murderous empire loathed by all of mankind except other sociopaths wanting to share in the immense plunder and power and by those too ignorant to see that the once shining city has become a terrible black hole of debts and atrocities.

Hubris engulfed not only the political and military rulers, but also the big corp. rulers and even big science in the past 65 years as the "famous scientists" became the high priests of government weapons industries and the absolutist proclaimers of media truth. The Los Alamos scientists fought against this sociopathic "science" at first, but they died away or joined the political empire and went on to help produce more world-destroying weapons, such as hydrogen bombs and bio-chemical dooms-day poisons, viruses and bacteria.

Now the big bio-scientists are powerful, famous, rich and the absolutist proclaimers of truth, so they are engulfed by hubris and sociopathic blindness to their dangers to mankind. They cannot see that they have become Frankenstein pseudo-scientists and death.

No human society can survive long when ruled by totally blinded sociopaths. They quickly destroy themselves, as we older people have seen over and over again in our own lives if we have closely studied what has been happening around the world. The Soviet Sociopathocracy lasted only one long lifetime and then destroyed itself, imploding from the inside. The Nazi Sociopathocracy grew into a totally blinded empire far faster than the Soviets and lasted only about fourteen years. The American Sociopahtocracy grew slowly for most of the last century and then began soaring from the victories of WWII. It took many more decades for the rulers at the top to get total control of our society. They have had that total control for only the past few decades. They are now destroying themselves and their vast, totalitarian system at a soaring rate. Their immense black hole of bad debts alone is swallowing up America at the rate of many trillions more in bad debt every year, much of it hidden by the sociopathic lies broadcast by the sociopathic Republicrat media to the American slaves.

 December 3, 2012

 Jack D. Douglas [send him mail] is a retired professor of sociology from the University of California at San Diego. He has published widely on all major aspects of human beings, most notably The Myth of the Welfare State.

 Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Jack D. Douglas



Okay, it's things like this that inspire our WAKEUP! WEAR line.  It's not quite as good as our "Guns-For-Circus-Tickets" shirt, but really close.






City: Give Us Your Guns, Get A Free Flu Shot - And A Wegman's Gift Card




The stone of liberty can only be chipped away one small piece at a time, lest the sheep awaken and stop the striker.


Ninth Circuit Gives the A-OK For Warrantless Home Video Surveillance

Hanni Fahkoury
Electronic Frontier Foundation
November 30th, 2012

Can law enforcement enter your house and use a secret video camera to record the intimate details inside? On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unfortunately answered that question with “yes.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife agents suspected Ricky Wahchumwah of selling bald and gold eagle feathers and pelts in violation of federal law. Equipped with a small hidden video camera on his clothes, a Wildlife agent went to Wahchumwah’s house and feigned interest in buying feathers and pelts. Unsurprisingly, the agent did not have a search warrant. Wahchumwah moved to suppress the video as an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, but the trial court denied his motion. On appeal before the Ninth Circuit, we filed an amicus brief in support of Wahchumwah. We highlighted the Supreme Court’s January 2012 decision in United States v. Jones – which held that law enforcement’s installation of a GPS device onto a car was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment — and specifically focused on the concurring opinions of Justices Alito and Sotomayor, who were worried about the power of technology to eradicate privacy.

In our brief we argued that although a person may reveal small bits of information publicly or to a house guest, technology that allows the government to aggregate that data in ways that were impractical in the past means that greater judicial supervision and oversight is necessary. After all, a video camera can capture far more detail than the human eye and is specifically designed to allow the government to record, save and review details for another day, bypassing the human mind’s tendency to forget. That means police need a search warrant to engage in the type of invasive surveillance they did in Wahchumwah’s house.

Unconvinced, the Ninth Circuit instead relied on a case from 1966, Hoffa v. United States, ruling that Wahchumwah forfeited his privacy interest when he “voluntarily” revealed the interior of his home to the undercover agent. But its conclusion contradicts not only the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones, but also earlier Ninth Circuit caselaw as well.

In Jones, the Supreme Court made clear that a law enforcement trespass onto private property for the purpose of obtaining information was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Under common law, a defendant was not liable for trespass if their entry was authorized. But the Ninth Circuit previously made clear in Theofel v. Farey-Jones that a person’s consent to a trespass is ineffective if they’re “mistaken as to the nature and quality of the invasion intended.” In fact, Theofel cited another Ninth Circuit case where the court found a “police officer who, invited into a home, conceals a recording device for the media” to be a trespasser.

What that means here is that when the undercover agent concealed his identity and purpose, making Wahchumwah “mistaken as to the nature and quality” of the home visit, the government trespassed onto Wahchumwah’s property. Since that trespass was done for the purpose of obtaining information — to get evidence of bald and gold eagle feather and pelt sales — the government “searched” Wahchumwah’s home. And it needed a warrant to do that; without one, the search was unconstitutional.

Its troubling that the Ninth Circuit did not see it this way (nor are they the only one). Because the sad truth is that as technology continues to advance, surveillance becomes “voluntary” only by virtue of the fact we live in a modern society where technology is becoming cheaper, easier and more invasive. The Wahchumwah case exemplifies this: on suspicion of nothing more than the benign misdemeanor of selling eagle feathers, the government got to intrude inside the home and record every intimate detail it could: books on a shelf, letters on a coffee table, pictures on a wall. And we’re entering an age where criminal suspicions is no longer even necessary. Whether you’re calling a friend’s stolen cell phone and landing on the NYPD massive database of call logs, driving into one of the increasing number of cities using license plate scanners to record who comes in or out, or walking somewhere close to hovering drones, innocent people are running the risk of having their personal details stored in criminal databases for years to come.

The only way to avoid pervasive law enforcement monitoring shouldn’t be to make the choice to live under a rock in the wilderness somewhere. Instead, the Fourth Amendment means today what it meant in 1787: that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” shouldn’t be violated unless the government comes back with a warrant.

Please visit and support EFF for electronic privacy and freedom.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

What else would we expect to see from the Dictator in Chief when he has nothing to lose?

The Blaze

Have You Heard About the Quietly-Released Obama Memo on ‘Insider Threat Policy’?

Posted on November 30, 2012

Obama Issues Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards Memo the Day Before Thanksgiving: Intent, Timing QuestionedIn what some might consider an increasingly growing trend of releasing information just before holidays or the late on Friday afternoon, the White House has yet again quietly published a memo from President Barack Obama, laying out guidelines for executive agencies to establish “effective insider threat programs.”

The presidential memorandum issued on Nov. 21 — the day before Thanksgiving — is called “National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs.” Here’s what the relatively short memo said (Note: Emphasis added):

This Presidential Memorandum transmits the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (Minimum Standards) to provide direction and guidance to promote the development of effective insider threat programs within departments and agencies to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security. These threats encompass potential espionage, violent acts against the Government or the Nation, and unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks and systems.

The Minimum Standards provide departments and agencies with the minimum elements necessary to establish effective insider threat programs. These elements include the capability to gather, integrate, and centrally analyze and respond to key threat-related information; monitor employee use of classified networks; provide the workforce with insider threat awareness training; and protect the civil liberties and privacy of all personnel.

The resulting insider threat capabilities will strengthen the protection of classified information across the executive branch and reinforce our defenses against both adversaries and insiders who misuse their access and endanger our national security.

The memo itself, which places more emphasis on the Insider Threat Task Force established through an Executive Order signed in October 2011, has seen little mainstream media attention. Some speculate though that the timing of the memo might have had something to do with a story that has been well covered this week: the pretrial of Army private Bradley Manning, who is accused of leaking classified information to Wikileaks. Manning, who has been imprisoned since May 2010, will begin his formal hearing Dec. 10.

Jessleyn Radack with the blog the Daily Kos wrote because agencies generally have their own policies regarding classified information, establishing insider threat programs “will more likely be used as a pretext for targeting whistleblowers who are – as [whistleblower Thomas] Drake did – using proper channels to report government waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, mismanagement, or dangers to health and public safety than they will be used to stop actual threats to national security.”

Radack went on to write that she believes the government could have more security if it “focus[ed] its considerable energy and resources on curbing overclassification rather than targeting employees with “programs” that will no doubt chill legitimate speech activities and go after those who dare to blow whistle.”

Interestingly enough, just this week Obama signed a bill that would afford greater protection to federal employees who expose fraud, waste and abuse in government operations. This is a loophole that specifies that whistle-blowers were only protected when they were the first to report misconduct.

The New York Times has pointed out in the past that the Obama administration has prosecuted more government officials for leaking information to the press than any other administration combined.

In addition to some thinking the timing of the memo was done in light of Manning’s looming trial, others worry more generally about its ambiguity. Doug Hagmann with the Northeast Intelligence Network published a column in the Canada Free Press, in which he wrote “there appears to be a deliberate lack of specificity concerning the exact elements that constitute such an “insider threat.”

But that’s not all, Hagmann goes on to analyze Obama’s intention for including the word “centrally” — as part of “centrally analyze [...] threat-related information” He considers this word indicative of what he believes is Obama’s agenda of “the greatest consolidation of power and control under the Executive branch of the government in recent U.S. history.”

Hagmann, like Radack, pointed out that there are measures in place to address insider threats to the government and national security.

This new system being established in the memo, Hagmann calls “the very essence of ‘Big Brother’ within the government itself.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Featured image via Shutterstock.com. 

(H/T: BeforeItsNews.com)

Drones are back in the news today.


House Resolution Seeks Answers on Drone Use

Written by 

Thursday, 29 November 2012

House Resolution Seeks Answers on Drone Use

Texas Republican Ron Paul, Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, and New Jersey Democrat Rush Holt are continuing the fight in the House of Representatives against the use of drones for targeted killing by the Obama administration. They have once again called upon the Obama administration to release documents to justify the use of the overseas drone strikes.

According to the two-pageresolution of inquiryAttorney General Eric Holder would have to "transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, any documents and legal memoranda in the Attorney General’s possession relating to the practice of targeted killing of United States citizens and targets abroad.”

Earlier this year, leaks of classified documents have shed some light on the use of drones, but rather than garnering harsh backlash over some of those counter-terror efforts that were exposed through the leaks, the information only made lawmakers attack what they perceived to be intentional leaks by the Obama administration to bolster his image as a strong anti-terrorist leader. The unconstitutionality, immorality, or illegality of drone use never entered the discussion.

Meanwhile, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has reported that drone strikes have killed over 3,000 people, including more than 1,000 innocent civilians, since 2002.

When introducing the legislation to the House, Kucinich acknowledged, “According to a memorandum prepared by the White House Office of Legal Counsel, when the United States conducts such an attack it is legal. The Congress and the American people have a right to know this legal framework. Congress has an obligation as the sole authority under the Constitution to declare war to know how the use of force abroad is being used, especially against U.S. citizens.”

He continued, “Our strikes are creating a legal precedent that the world will emulate. From Iran to China, other nations are very close to developing comparable technology. If Congress doesn’t act to ensure proper oversight and legal authority for the use of this technology, the consequences could be dire for the American people.”

The Obama administration has carried out over 250 covert drone strikes in just three years, five times more than the 44 approved under George W. Bush.

An article by the New York Times noted that there are suspicions surrounding Obama’s use of drones:

Mr. Obama has avoided the complications of detention by deciding, in effect, to take no prisoners alive. While scores of suspects have been killed under Mr. Obama, only one has been taken into American custody, and the president has balked at adding new prisoners to Guantanamo.

In other words, the Obama administration has found a way to circumvent habeas corpus in yet another flagrant disregard for constitutional rights. The Washington Post opined, “The problem … is the assertion of a presidential prerogative that the administration can target for death people it decides are terrorists — even American citizens — anywhere in the world, at any time, on secret evidence with no review.”

Both Kucinich and Paul have asserted that the need for security should not override the Constitutional rights of the American people.

“We must reject the notion that protecting our national security requires revoking the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. No president can act as judge, jury and executioner, and any attempt to do so is in direct violation of our Constitution, which gives our citizens a right to life and a fair trial,” Kucinich said.

The “resolution of inquiry” is just the latest effort from Kucinich and Paul to combat the use of drones.

In June, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich, along with 25 other members of Congress, submitted a critical letter to the White House demanding information on the use of drones.

The letter, signed by 24 Democrats and two Republicans, including Rep. Paul, demanded information on the authorization and use of drone strikes used by the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command. It asked about the “nature of the follow-up that is conducted when civilians are killed or injured ... and the mechanisms that ensure civilian casualty numbers are collected, tracked and analyzed.”

It continued, “The implications of the use of drones for our national security are profound. They are faceless ambassadors that cause civilian deaths, and are frequently the only direct contact with Americans that the targeted communities have. They can generate powerful and enduring anti-American sentiment.”

Significant concerns about drones were raised when White House counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan commented that their use is authorized “if we have a high degree of confidence that the individual being targeted is indeed the terrorist we are pursuing.”

Kucinich has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s handling of the war on terror. Following the assassination (by drone) of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, believed to be working with al-Qaeda, Kucinich accused the Obama administration of assaulting the Constitution. He argued,

The idea that the United States has the ability to summarily execute a US citizen ought to send chills racing up and down the spines of every person of conscience. The fact that our government can set itself up as policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, all wrapped into one fatal moment, should cause every person who loves this country to be deeply concerned about the direction we’re going.

Former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has made similar assertions, saying the assassination of al-Awlaki may be animpeachable offense.”

In fact, the use of drones to assassinate American citizens has compelled a lawsuit from family members of those citizens. The families of Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, his sixteen-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and operative Samir Khan filed a wrongful death lawsuit in July, citing the murders as unconstitutional.

Fox News reported on the lawsuit, “The complaint, prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), was filed against four senior national security officials: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus and senior commanders of the military’s Special Operations forces, Adm. William McRaven of the Navy and Lt. Gen. Joseph Votel of the Army.”

The complaint focuses on the violations to the Constitution arising from the assassinations of the three men, who were American citizens. Anwar al-Awlaki was born in the state of New Mexico, while his son Abdulrahman was born in Colorado. Khan was a naturalized U.S. citizen whose family lived in Charlotte, North Carolina. Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed in Yemen on September 30, 2011, while Anwar's son Abdulrahman was killed in a separate drone strike on October 14, 2011.

According to the lawsuit:

The U.S. practice of "targeted killing" has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, including many hundreds of civilian bystanders. While some targeted killings have been carried out in the context of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many have taken place outside the context of armed conflict, in countries including Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, and the Philippines.

These killings rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.

Perhaps the recently introduced “resolution of inquiry” will help shed light on the legality of the process of using those drones.

Photo of MQ-9 Reaper Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

If you've not yet read Orwell's 1984, you would do well to do so now.  Granted there are parts of that book that served no purpose in presenting his message, but the parts that are relevant are VERY relevant.  Big Brother is everpresent among us and is only going to become more and more intrusive- not to mention the ever-growing presence of the thought police and their would-be crimes.


It's Happening Faster Than Even I Thought

by Paul Rosenberg

 Since I manage an internet privacy company, people expect me to be pessimistic on the development of the surveillance state. But even I didn't expect the surveillance state to form this quickly.

 2012 has been a banner year for amoral marketers and soul-dead overseers, and the situation is probably much worse than you realize. Allow me to illustrate it briefly:

  • The NSA is spying on every American, and very deeply spying on us. (Read this.)
  • A surveillance system has been installed inside of Facebook. (See this, and this.)
  • AT&T has been giving all of its Internet traffic to the NSA since at least 2006. (See this.)
  • Union thugs have no problem intercepting emails. (See here.)
  • Newspapers are having no problems intercepting emails. (See here.)
  • Stores are now installing face recognition systems. (Here.)
  • The FedGuv is paying big bucks for systems to "predict crime." (Here.)
  • The FBI is building a nation-wide facial recognition system. (Here.)
  • Biometric identification is being rolled out in grammar schools. (Here.)

 I could go on at some length, but I think this list makes my point.


 I'm actually hesitant to tell you more, because it may overwhelm you, which is not helpful. But we don't have the luxury of time, and you should know.

 The really scary thing is that after the various groups (guv, corp, intel, mafia) have all this information (and they do trade amongst themselves), they use it to generate individual-specific feedback. You've seen this for several years already. For example, after you do a Google search on skis you get ads for discount travel to Vail. Please understand that this was just the initial phase.

 Email providers like Google, Yahoo, AOL and the rest have dossiers on you: who you talk to, about what, how often, and much, much more. A few years ago, Google's boss arrogantly bragged in public: We know what you're going to do Tuesday morning.

 But even this is nothing, compared to what's being built just outside of your view.


 Psychologists and marketing experts are being employed to take the information they have on you (a very detailed virtual 'you'), then to invisibly guide you toward decisions that they think are "better for you." I know that this sounds like a distopian novel, but it's very real.

 The instigator and architect of this dark story is a "legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and behavioral economics." If that weren't bad enough, he's also the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs – one of Obama's "Czar" positions.

 His name is Cass Sunstein, and he is as high in the US power structure as one can get. His wife – just to give you a feel for how very deeply connected this guy is – is a Special Assistant to the President, runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, and is on the Staff of the National Security Council.

 I am detailing all of this so you'll get the full impact of the things Sunstein has been writing in books and scholarly papers. For example:

 It is legitimate for choice architects to influence people's behavior. (These "choice architects" are Sunstein and his academic/government friends.)

 Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories.

 Government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes.

 And yes, this is precisely what is taking shape now, generally under the name of soft paternalism. This suite of operations (not just one) has government, corporate and academic support, and lots of experts are getting very nice paychecks for building it (while avoiding their moral senses).

 Consider also that advertisers are finding their holy grail in this: being able to catch you just at the moment when you're in the mood, then delivering a custom ad that shows you precisely how to scratch the itch they implanted.

 What these systems provide is unseen, persistent, scientific manipulation, based upon deep psychological profiles.

 With all the data that is currently available to these people, and given the immense computing power that they now have, personalized manipulations can be prepared for an unlimited number of individuals, automatically, and at a very low cost.


 What all of this means, of course, is the the open Internet is becoming a real-world version of The Matrix, where people are endlessly manipulated by amoral advertisers and eager government overlords. If you think that this sounds too dramatic, check the links and the quotes. What do you think?

 In order to retain our own thoughts in a world of ubiquitous manipulation, our first job is to secure places of refuge: locations where the manipulators can't reach us or intercept our communications. There are several ways to do this, all of them with a price attached.

 One method is to use the Tor system. This requires you to learn some technical things, to spend time implementing them, and to pay close attention to security issues. You'll also have to setup special email and chat systems, using public key encryption. These are all good things to do, of course, but it's a lot to keep track of.

 The other option is to pay serious professionals to do it for you. For that, you need a multi-hop VPN and anonymity network, like the one I represent, Cryptohippie. But whether my service or some other, don't waste your money on false protection. Good protection should include:

  • There should be no single point of failure. No single company should have your payment records and your Internet use data.
  • A minimum of 2 jurisdictionally-aware hops. Modern data thieves watch from multiple locations and cross-link their data. If your traffic goes through a simple anonymizer, it is poorly protected.
  • Protection against DNS leakage.
  • Rotating IP addresses.
  • Real customer service.

 A very deep surveillance state is being completed now. It's your choice whether or not you'll escape it.

 If you can't afford anything, get Tor, GPG, Pigeon and OTR; learn how to use them. If you don't want to do that, then pay a good service. But do something.

 November 28, 2012



We are indeed inching closer to a global ban on firearms.


UN Global Gun Ban Flimflam

Monday, 26 November 2012

Written by 

UN Global Gun Ban Flimflam

On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0 (with 18 abstentions) in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.

China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage. 

As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.

Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.

Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.

As soon as news of the U.S. policy 180 was confirmed, a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.

That was immediately followed by a press release sent out early the next morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference.

Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made toward the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.

Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the conference’s president on July 26 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text. 

The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.

In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”

The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.

Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:

After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.

The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.

With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.

After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.

Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”

That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT. The United Nations will control the purchase of guns and ammo, the possession of guns and ammo, and any guns and ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized, and destroyed.

A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?

The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however. On page 25 of the 1997 UN Secretary General’s Report on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms  (of which the United States was a signatory), a part of the regulations agreed to by the United States is the administering of a psychological test before a person is cleared to buy ammunition.

Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.

How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?

Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.

This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”

Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.

In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.

This will be made much easier when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gets its hands on the portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gun powder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS is scheduled to take possession of the devices before the end of the year, according to testimony presented on Capitol Hill late last year.

The UN’s effort to collect ammo from those they wish to oppress (a disarmed society is a slave society) is nothing new. The “shot heard 'round the world” on Lexington Green in 1775 was fired because British troops planned to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.

Perhaps our reporting on the president’s late-night call putting the wheels of global gun control in motion will awaken modern Americans to the threat to our sacred Second Amendment rights. After all, it was a late night call that roused sleepy colonists in defense of their right to bear arms, as well. This time, however, it is not the British who are coming for our guns and ammunition, but it is the United Nations and agents of our own federal government.

Wonder how they'll succeed at implementing full-blown gun control?  Here's one theory that is very plausable and should be considered and planned for accordingly.



Here’s How it Will be Done…

Eric Peters
Eric Peters Autos
November 25th, 2012


Incrementalism has proved depressingly effective as a tool for getting most people to quietly surrender their rights piecemeal. For gradually habituating them to an ever-diminishing circle of liberty. When the circle finally closes and their rights no longer exist at all, they hardly notice – because by that time, most of their rights have already been taken.

 The final surrender is met with a shrug rather than a scream of outrage.

 Think how Americans have been habituated to arbitrary search and seizure. Something like the TSA would simply not have been tolerated if it came out of the blue sky circa 1980. And no, the terrr attacks of nineleven did not “change everything.” Getting people to accept “sobriety checkpoints” beginning around 1980 changed everything. Accept that – and something like Gate Rape is inevitable.

 The same process works just as well when it comes to dismantling due process – and removing limits on what the government may not do to us. We didn’t get to legal strip searches for jaywalking or littering in one fell swoop. Nor rendition, torture as policy – and presidential kill lists. It is a matter of getting them – getting us – to  tolerate “A” so that “B” will be accepted in turn.

 This is how the citizens of the United States will be disarmed.

 No sudden, mass ban or attempt at confiscation – because that would probably lead to open violence on a large scale and they – people like Dear Leader Obama and his Vyshinsky, AG Eric Holder, know this.

 So, instead, they will first pass “reasonable”restrictions.

 They will target not guns – just dangerousguns. So easy to demagogue anything with, say, a high-capacity magazine. Or which looks “military.” Think how the ground has already been ceded by mainstream “gun rights” groups like the NRA – which invariably talk about “sportsmen” and “hunting.” Who needs an AR-15 (or Sig 220) to hunt?

 Open carry will be next. How many millions of Clovers would support a ban?

 Next, they’ll lobby for a new law (or just issue a fatwa) that makes it much harder to get a CC permit. Such as at a judge’s discretion. And only if you have a “legitimate” purpose. Self-defense will not be considered a legitimate purpose.

 But the big one – tied to Obamacare – will be the transformation of gun ownership into a public healthissue.

 The assault on smoking (and lately, soft drinks) should have alerted people – but as with “sobriety checkpoints,” most people readily supported the imposition of massive taxes on smokers because, after all, it is unhealthy to smoke. And of course, they didn’t smoke. So their rights were not on the table (foolish them). They – most people – never see that an attack on anyone’s rights is an attack on theirrights.They are easily gulled by their moralistic fetishes – their disapproval of some concrete thing other people do which they don’t like. Not seeing that if the government can ban (or control or regulate) thisthan it certainly can ban, control or regulate that. The particulars don’t matter. The principle is everything.

 Thus, smoking has been anathematized – and rendered exorbitantly expensive to partake of. Not an outright ban – not yet. But ever closer, every year.

 And guns? It will be argued it is unhealthy to have a gun in the house. There will be talk of all the suicides and domestic violence (red herrings, these – but exceptionally effective tools of emotional manipulation).

 Inevitably, the children will come into play.

 It will be argued that anyone who possesses a gun must also possess insurance. Just as car owners are required to buy insurance; just as we are soon to be forced to buy health insurance. The same arguments will be used – because they’ve already been accepted. Thus, just as it is not illegal to have a car – so long as you buy insurance for it – it will not be illegal (yet) to own a gun. So long as you are “properly insured.”

 That will be the first step.

 The second step ought to be obvious. Legal gun ownership will rendered increasingly unaffordable.

 As with collectivized car and health insurance, the insurance you will be forced to buy in order to keep a gun will be based on the costs imposed by the collective. It will not matter that you handle your gun safely. Because others have not, you will be made to pay.

 People can afford to buy a $500 rifle or pistol. How many will be able to afford paying $500 a year to lawfully keep that rifle or pistol? How many will be able to afford keeping more than one rifle or pistol? Can you see where this is headed? Is it not brilliant in its subtlety?

 Insurance costs have already proved their effectiveness at limiting the number of vehicles the average person can afford to keep. I’ve written before about the effect mandatory insurance has had on hobbyists. It used to be easy (and legal) to keep a “parts car” or “project car” because other than the costs of buying it and fixing it up, there were no other costs. So long as you didn’t put it on the road, you didn’t have to insure it. In numerous areas around the country, you must now keep valid tags – and insurance – on every single vehicle, even those kept in a garage or in your back yard. If not, the vehicle is subject to confiscation.

 Exactly the same tactics will be deployed against firearms. And it will be impossible to fight – because the fight over the principle was lost long ago. How will anyone argue against mandatory gun insurance when they have already accepted mandatory car insurance and now mandatory health insurance?

 In a very short time, the government will have effectively disarmed most people without ever having had to push for an outright ban. The small handful of people who still possess arms will only be able to possess a few types and be very limited in what they can (legally) do with them.

 Dealing with them will easy. Because there will be so few.

 And because they will have already conceded the point anyhow.

 Throw it in the Woods?


Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We are indeed inching closer to a global ban on firearms.


UN Global Gun Ban Flimflam

Monday, 26 November 2012

Written by 

UN Global Gun Ban Flimflam

On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0 (with 18 abstentions) in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.

China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage. 

As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.

Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.

Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.

As soon as news of the U.S. policy 180 was confirmed, a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.

That was immediately followed by a press release sent out early the next morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference.

Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made toward the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.

Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the conference’s president on July 26 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text. 

The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.

In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”

The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.

Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:

After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.

The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.

With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.

After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.

Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”

That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT. The United Nations will control the purchase of guns and ammo, the possession of guns and ammo, and any guns and ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized, and destroyed.

A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?

The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however. On page 25 of the 1997 UN Secretary General’s Report on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms  (of which the United States was a signatory), a part of the regulations agreed to by the United States is the administering of a psychological test before a person is cleared to buy ammunition.

Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.

How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?

Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.

This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”

Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.

In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.

This will be made much easier when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gets its hands on the portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gun powder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS is scheduled to take possession of the devices before the end of the year, according to testimony presented on Capitol Hill late last year.

The UN’s effort to collect ammo from those they wish to oppress (a disarmed society is a slave society) is nothing new. The “shot heard 'round the world” on Lexington Green in 1775 was fired because British troops planned to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.

Perhaps our reporting on the president’s late-night call putting the wheels of global gun control in motion will awaken modern Americans to the threat to our sacred Second Amendment rights. After all, it was a late night call that roused sleepy colonists in defense of their right to bear arms, as well. This time, however, it is not the British who are coming for our guns and ammunition, but it is the United Nations and agents of our own federal government.


Do you happen to know any sheep that think Obamacare...or Romneycare...or any other tax-funded "healthcare" is a good idea?  You might want to share this with them.  Why do we have to repeat history to get it into our heads- If we're even able to keep them long enough.


Saturday, 24 November 2012 14:30

From Healthcare to Holocaust

Written by 


It all started modestly enough. Hoping to stem the rising tide of socialism in the late 19th century, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck decided to institute a welfare state, the theory being that finding a middle ground between laissez-faire capitalism and full-blown socialism would blunt the popularity of the latter without unduly interfering with the former. Bismarck convinced the Reichstag to create four programs: accident insurance, old-age pensions, disability insurance, and compulsory health insurance.

The health insurance bill, passed in 1883, provided for cash payments to those temporarily unable to work because of illness and in-kind benefits for their medical treatment. Employers paid one-third of the cost of the program; employees paid the rest. According to Wikipedia, “The program was considered the least important [of the four] from Bismarck’s point of view.” But as we shall see, it had perhaps the most pernicious effects of all.

Darwinism in Theory and Practice

Around the same time as socialism was on the ascent, so was another controversial idea: the pseudoscience of eugenics. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, introduced in 1859, posited that creatures with survival advantages would pass those advantages on to the next generation, thereby creating stronger and better versions of their kinds. While Darwin was loath to follow his theory to its logical conclusion — that selective breeding of “superior” humans and prevention of that of “inferior” ones would aid natural selection in producing a “master race” — others were not. Indeed, by seemingly obviating the need for a creator and ultimate lawgiver, Darwin’s theory freed those desiring to artificially accelerate the process of human evolution from the moral constraints that might otherwise have stood in their way.

Throughout the world, but especially in the West, where it was presented as “scientific” and “progressive,” eugenics quickly took hold. Governments began passing laws designed to prevent allegedly inferior humans from reproducing. Persons deemed mentally unfit were prohibited from marrying, as were mixed-race couples. Worse still, individuals were sterilized against their will. America, to its great shame, was in many ways the vanguard of the movement: 31 states passed compulsory sterilization laws in the early 1900s; over 62,000 individuals were sterilized before these practices ended in the 1970s.

In Germany, of course, the idea of building a master race captured the imagination of a young painter who, at the age of 43, would ascend to the same post formerly held by Bismarck. And what the Iron Chancellor had created to prevent the socialists from coming to power would be used by National Socialist dictator Adolf Hitler to exterminate a vast swath of humanity.

From Patients’ Partners to Hitler’s Handmaidens

Like most government programs, Bismarck’s compulsory health insurance program started out small, covering only a portion of the German workforce and primarily giving them sick pay; and, like most government programs, it grew rapidly, covering more and more individuals and changing its focus from sick pay to in-kind benefits. Naturally, whoever is paying the piper calls the tune, and so “by the time of Weimar, German doctors had become accustomed to cooperating with the government in the provision of medical care,” Dr. Marc S. Micozzi wrote in a 1993 article for the Freeman. Micozzi continued:

The reforms of the Weimar Republic following the medical crises of World War I included government policies to provide health care services to all citizens. Socially minded physicians placed great hope in a new health care system, calling for a single state agency to overcome fragmentation and the lack of influence of individual practitioners and local services. The focus of medicine shifted from private practice to public health and from treating disease to preventable health care....

Medical concerns which had largely been in the private domain in the nineteenth century increasingly became a concern of the state. The physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient.

While this led, at least for a short time, to improved public health, “in connection with these reforms the doctor’s role changed from that of advocate, adviser, and partner of the patient to a partner of the state,” Micozzi explained. “Where traditional individual ethics and Christian charity had once stood, the reformers posited a collective ethic for the benefit of the general population.”

As present events demonstrate, welfare states, feeding off the productivity of the private sector, do not fare well during bad economic times; and so when depression struck, “health care became primarily a question of cost-benefit analysis,” observed Micozzi. “Under the socialist policies of the period, this analysis was necessarily applied to the selection of strong persons, deemed worthy of support, and the elimination of weak and ‘unproductive’ people.” Thus, “by the time the National Socialist Party came to power in Germany, the mentally ill and the mentally retarded had begun to be sterilized and to be subjected to euthanasia in large numbers in German government institutions.”

The Nazis built upon this existing philosophy and practice. “An influential manual by Rudolf Ramm of the medical faculty of the University of Berlin proposed that each doctor was to be no longer merely a caretaker of the sick but was to become a ‘cultivator of the genes,’ a ‘physician to the Volk [German people],’ and a ‘biological soldier,’” Robert Jay Lifton wrote in The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide.

Ramm … discussed the virtues of sterilization and labeled “erroneous” the widespread belief that a doctor should under no circumstances take a patient’s life, since for the incurably sick and insane, “euthanasia” was the most “merciful treatment” and “an obligation to the Volk.” That obligation was always central. The physician was to be concerned with the health of the Volk even more than with individual disease and was to teach them to overcome the old individualistic principle of “the right to one’s own body” and to embrace instead the “duty to be healthy.”

Although many doctors were more than willing to accept these notions — six percent of them had already joined the National Socialist Physicians’ League by 1933, and eventually almost half would sign on — some still held to the idea that everyone, even the weak and dying, was deserving of medical treatment. According to Lifton, the Nazis soon found a way to overcome these objections:

They mounted a consistent attack upon what they viewed as exaggerated Christian compassion for the weak individual instead of tending to the health of the group, of the Volk. This partly Nietzschean position, as articulated by Ramm, included a rejection of the Christian principle of caritas or charity, and of the Church’s “commandment to attend to the incurably ill person and render him medical aid unto his death.” … The matter was put strongly by Dr. Arthur Guett, a high-ranking health official, who declared that “the ill-conceived ‘love of thy neighbor’ has to disappear.... It is the supreme duty of the … state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and hereditarily sound portion of the population in order to secure … a hereditarily sound and racially pure folk [Volk] for all eternity.” He added the visionary-idealistic principle that “the life of the individual has meaning only in the light of that ultimate aim.” The doctor, like everyone else in Nazi Germany, was expected to become “hardened,” to adopt what Hitler himself called the “ice-cold logic” of the necessary.

The Un-birth of a Nation

One of the first laws passed under the Nazi regime was the 1933 Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring. Originally drafted during the Weimar Republic — again demonstrating the essential continuity between Weimar and Nazi public-health policy — the law called for the sterilization of any “hereditarily diseased” person, with that phrase defined as anyone suffering from mental retardation, schizophrenia, manic depression, hereditary epilepsy, Huntington’s disease, hereditary blindness or deafness, “any severe hereditary deformity,” or even alcoholism.

The law created numerous “Genetic Health Courts” to decide who would be sterilized. Each was composed of three men — two physicians and a judge — at least two of whom were closely tied to the Nazi Party. “All physicians,” penned Lifton, “were legally required to report to health officers anyone they encountered in their practice or elsewhere who fell into any of the preceding categories for sterilization, and also to give testimony on such matters unrestricted by the principle of patient-doctor confidentiality.” Doctors prosecuted the candidates for sterilization and performed the surgeries on those found unfit to reproduce. Not surprisingly, over 90 percent of those brought before the courts were sterilized, and the sham appeals courts overturned less than five percent of appealed decisions.

As broad as the law’s original definition of “hereditarily diseased” was, it was inevitable that it would be stretched even further than its Weimar-era authors could have imagined. After all, just about anything could be classified as mental retardation, or “feeblemindedness.” And woe betide the doctor whose patient bore an imperfect child; better to sterilize too many individuals than too few. Moreover, noted Lifton:

Inevitably, too, political considerations affected diagnoses and decisions — as was made clear by a directive from Martin Bormann, Hitler’s private secretary and close associate, instructing that the moral and political behavior of a person be considered in making a diagnosis of feeblemindedness. The clear implication was that one could be quick to label “feebleminded” a person seen as hostile to the Nazis, but that one should be cautious indeed about so labeling an ideologically enthusiastic Party member.

In the end, anywhere from 300,000 to 400,000 persons were sterilized, about 5,000 of whom died as a result. For those who somehow escaped the government’s notice before conceiving, there was also the option to force them to abort their potentially unfit offspring. For those deemed fit to conceive, on the other hand, abortion was strictly forbidden, and the Genetic Health Courts could even deny their requests for voluntary sterilization. The perfection of the master race, after all, could only be advanced by increasing its numbers. Not without reason, therefore, did Lifton declare that “sterilization was the medical fulcrum of the Nazi biocracy.”

Physicians were deeply involved not only in Hitler’s forced sterilization program but also in his earliest measures aimed at preventing the commingling of “Aryan” and Jewish genes. The 1935 Nuremberg Laws prohibited marriage and sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews; later laws forced couples to undergo medical examinations to ensure they were not violating the Nuremberg Laws. “The Nuremberg laws were considered public health measures and were administered primarily by physicians, who profited financially as instruments of racist Nazi policies,” Sheldon Rubenfeld wrote in Medicine Magazine.

Sterile Logic
Leads to “Final Solution”

Despite all these attempts to prevent future generations of the “unfit,” there still remained the problem of those “unfit” persons whose births had preceded the Weimar-cum-Nazi programs. For this the Führer devised another solution — the one that ultimately became the “Final Solution.” Rubenfeld recounted:

In May of 1939, Hitler implemented the concept of “extermination of lives not worth living” when he instructed his personal physician, Karl Brandt, to appoint a committee to prepare for the secret “mercy killings” of deformed and retarded children. Jewish children were originally excluded from this program on the grounds that they did not deserve the “merciful act” of euthanasia. Doctors were required to register any child born with congenital deformities — the reporting requirement was eventually extended to cover children up to 17 years old — with local health authorities. After the reports were filed, physicians on the Committee for the Scientific Treatment of Severe, Genetically Determined Illness sorted the infants and children for possible “selection,” a euphemism for death by medical means.

The killings occurred in 28 institutions, including some of Germany’s most prestigious hospitals, administered by pediatricians and medical authorities. The head of the euthanasia program of Brandenburg Hospital emphasized that only physicians should perform euthanasia, saying, “The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor.” Children were killed by a variety of methods, including morphine injections and gassing with cyanide or chemical warfare agents. Some institutions starved the infants and children to death so that they died of “natural causes.”
… More than 5,000 children were killed in the child euthanasia program.

Then came the “T4” program (named for the address of Hitler’s Chancellery, Tiergarten 4), which demanded the “mercy killing” of those deemed incurable. Physicians again made the determination as to who lived and who died, primarily on the basis of a questionnaire. Having decided who would die, physicians proceeded to kill them with poison injections or gas chambers; then they falsified the death certificates. The program was terminated in August 1941, by which time doctors had put to death some 70,000 adults.

Even after T4 had officially ended, Rubenfeld explained, “doctors were encouraged, if not directed by the regime, to act on their own initiative to exterminate ‘lives not worth living.’ The killings continued until, and in some cases even beyond, the demise of the Nazi regime.”

Meanwhile, gas chambers began to be used in concentration camps, where they were used to murder all those unwilling or unable to work — and, of course, anyone even suspected of being Jewish.

The first commandant of Ausch­witz, Rudolf Höss, noted in his autobiography the first large-scale use of a gas chamber in his camp, where 900 Russians were killed:

The Russians were ordered to undress in an anteroom; they then quietly entered the mortuary, for they had been told they were to be deloused. The whole transport exactly filled the mortuary to capacity. The doors were sealed and the gas shaken down through holes in the roof. I do not know how long this killing took. For a little while a humming sound could be heard. When the powder was thrown in, there were cries of “Gas!” then a great bellowing and the trapped prisoners hurled themselves against both doors. But the doors held. They were opened several hours later, so that the place might be aired. It was then that I saw, for the first time, gassed bodies in the mass.... I must even admit that this gassing calmed me, for the mass extermination of the Jews had to start soon, and at that time neither Eichmann nor I had any idea how these killings were to be carried out in the expected mass.... Now we had discovered the gas and also the method.

Shortly thereafter, according to the book Auschwitz Chronicle, which provides a log of daily happenings in the camp, based on official records and the eyewitness testimony of thousands of individuals, Jews were killed en masse. When a transport of Jewish prisoners — often containing in excess of a thousand men, women, and children — entered the camp, after “selection,” fewer than one-third were still left alive to be tattooed with an identification number. (Even entry to the camp didn’t mean safety; most prisoners at Auschwitz would be dead from disease, malnutrition, overwork, or brutality within six months of their arrival.)

In the main, doctors selected which prisoners would be sent to the gas chambers immediately and which would first be worked until they were near death or used for medical experiments that often ended in death.

The most infamous of these doctors was Auschwitz’s Josef Mengele, who more than earned the appellation “the Angel of Death” for his flamboyant prisoner selection method and the grisly experiments he performed on his chosen prisoners, including children and pregnant women.

In the end, up to 17 million people, as many as six million of them Jews, perished at the hands of the Nazis and the physicians who assisted them every step of the way — most of them quite willingly. “No profession in Germany became so numerically attached to National Socialism in both its leadership and membership as was the medical profession,” noted Micozzi. Doctors, having been transformed into agents of the state by Bismarck’s health insurance program, put the state’s interests before those of their patients: Anyone seen as a burden on the state because of existing or potential health problems was marked for death. All this took place under the rubric of science as physicians tried to goose the process of human evolution.

The Lethal Elixir of
State Healthcare and the Culture of Death

In the 67 years since the destruction of the Nazi regime, few doctors in the free world have allowed themselves to be put in the service of such a monstrous cause. During that same period, Western governments have assumed an increasing role in the medical systems of their countries, from the single-payer approach of Great Britain and Canada to the heavily regulated public-private approach of the United States. Meanwhile, the culture of death has metastasized, and its proponents have grown ever bolder.

Abortion-on-demand has been legal in much of the West for dec­ades. In the United States alone, it has prevented well over 50 million people from ever seeing the light of day. Medical ethicists have argued that this is acceptable because unborn children are nonpersons who therefore have no right to life. Some have even extended this reasoning to newborns.

Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer has stated that since infants lack “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness,” “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”

Earlier this year Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne and Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan published a paper called “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in the Journal of Medical Ethics. “Merely being human,” they averred, “is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.” In order to be considered deserving of life, they claimed, a person must be able to attribute value to his own existence. Since neither pre-born nor newly born infants possess this ability, they are by definition fair game for extermination, the professors concluded.