How the hell should I know?

"As if the loss of liberties, the increasing militarization of our law enforcement, and the dramatic buildup of the surveillance state since 9/11 are not already sufficiently alarming, imagine how much worse it might get if KGB/FSB-style “security” were fully implemented here. We are rapidly moving in that direction, and unless Congress receives a clear message from the American people and acts to halt this treachery, it is very likely that we could “converge” formally into that hellish system, with our new ally Putin, in the not-too-distant future."

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Fri, 24 May 2013 02:24:00 +0000

Boston Bombing: Latest Globalist Pretext for U.S.-Russia Convergence

Written by William F. Jasper

Predictably, America’s foreign policy establishment is claiming that the Boston Marathon bombing has presented a golden opportunity for the Obama administration and Congress to once again “reset” our relationship with Russia. Almost before the smoke had cleared, various and sundry “experts,” led principally by spokesmen for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), began sounding the theme that this latest terror attack is proof of the need for more cooperation and convergence between U.S. and Russian intelligence agencies.

James M. Lindsay, the CFR’s senior vice president and director of studies, and Anya Schmemann, director of the CFR’s Task Force Program, were among the earliest out of the starting blocks with an April 19 “Waters’ Edge” CFR blog that posited: “The reported identification of the Boston bombers as Chechens may spur increased U.S. support for Moscow’s approach to Islamic extremism. Russia has already offered its assistance in the ongoing investigation, and the Boston bombings will likely lead to increased counterterrorism cooperation between the two countries.”

The following day, April 20, many newspapers and websites carried a Reuters story by Timothy Heritage with the title “Boston bombings — a chance for U.S.-Russia cooperation.” The Reuters story begins:

Russian President Vladimir Putin may have been tempted to tell Barack Obama “I told you so” when U.S. officials blamed two ethnic Chechens for the Boston Marathon bombings. He has long said the United States underestimates the security threat posed by Islamist militants in Russia’s volatile North Caucasus, and has rejected criticism that Moscow’s use of force in the region has been heavy-handed.

The Reuters story quoted Robert Legvold, a CFR member and regular writer for the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, on the likely “positive” effect the bombing would have on U.S.-Russian relations. Reuters reported:

Robert Legvold, professor emeritus at Columbia University and a Russia expert, said the events in Boston would help increase U.S.-Russian cooperation because the sides would share intelligence and information about the suspects.

He underlined that Russia had been quick to rally behind Washington after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and a similar deepening of security cooperation could take place now.

“I think in the end, the Russians under Putin want to keep the relationship as constructive as possible,” Legvold said. “This episode is likely to be more positive than negative (for U.S.-Russian relations).”

“The Boston bombings have led to increased cooperation between Washington and Moscow, a jarring shift coming amid weeks of rancor over American criticism of Russia’s human rights record,” wrote the New York Times team of Eric Schmitt (CFR), Michael S. Schmidt, and Ellen Barry on April 21. “Presidents Obama and Vladimir V. Putin spoke by telephone late Friday night, in a conversation initiated by the Russian side, the Kremlin announced.” The Kremlin’s statement said both leaders expressed “the building of close coordination between Russian and American intelligence services in the battle with global terrorism.”

“I hope the revelation of the bombers’ Chechen ties will, if anything, open a window of opportunity to repair U.S.-Russia security cooperation,” said Matthew Rojansky, deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment, which has long been a sort of sister organization to the CFR — and always reliably pro-Kremlin. (CFR founder John Foster Dulles was chairman at Carnegie, readers may recall, when he brought in fellow CFR member — and Soviet agent — Alger Hiss to be president of the endowment.)

“Now that we ourselves have experienced terror that has a North Caucasus dimension, it certainly gives a chance to revive counterterrorism cooperation,” Angela Stent (CFR), director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University, told RIA Novosti, one of the venerable old Kremlin propaganda organs that continues to serve Putin’s FSB as it did the Soviet KGB.

“Putin has been making the point for 14 years that Chechnya affects all of us,” said Fiona Hill in an Associated Press story on April 23. Hill, formerly the White House’s national intelligence officer for Russia under Obama and President George W. Bush, is a CFR member. In 2005, Hill was the lead author of a Carnegie Endowment study entitled “A Spreading Danger: Time for a New Policy Toward Chechnya,” which claimed, “President Putin has provided an opening for a more positive Western role in the region by informing German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of his desire for active Western involvement in the economic development of the North Caucasus region.”

The proper U.S. response to this generous offer from Putin, said the Carnegie experts, “should involve both Western state aid organizations and international financial institutions, like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.” They envision a massive aid program for the region that would “include restoring transport and communications links, improving social infrastructure like housing and electricity, creating new educational institutions,” etc.

The above-mentioned Carnegie report also warned that “the next soft target of North Caucasian terrorism could be a Western one,” a seemingly prescient prediction of the Boston bombing. The call is not so prescient, however, when one takes into consideration that Carnegie has close ties to Putin’s FSB and may have been presetting the convergence response dial in concert with Kremlin strategists who already had terror provocations planned. The Carnegie Endowment is uniquely situated for this function, with a large presence in Russia at the Endowment’s Moscow Center run by Dmitri Trenin, a disciple of KGB deception strategist Georgiy Arbatov. Even the choice of the name “Moscow Center” for Carnegie’s facility in Moscow is significant; the Carnegie hands who established it would have known that “Moscow Center” has become a standard metonym in spycraft for the central headquarters of the KGB/FSB. It was popularized as the nickname for the KGB strategists in the spy novels of John le Carre. The name is especially apropos here, inasmuch as Carnegie’s Moscow Center is integrally tied into Putin’s ruling clique, as well as other KGB/FSB operations, such as the Gorbachev Foundation.

Glaring “Oversight”

None of the many commentaries we’ve read lately by these so-called experts have pointed out that many of the most notorious “Chechen” terror incidents in Russia over the past two decades have been convincingly exposed as false-flag operations orchestrated by Putin’s FSB.

The CFR’s website features a “backgrounder” on Chechnya entitled “Chechen Terrorism (Russia, Chechnya, Separatist)” that lists all the usual terror incidents in Russia referred to in our major media and attributed to Chechens: the Moscow apartment bombings, the Dubrovka Theater hostage crisis, the Beslan school massacre, etc. No mention at all that many of these events have been shown to be provocations orchestrated by Vladimir Putin and Russia’s intelligence agencies. This has been established beyond doubt particularly in the case of the Moscow apartment bombings, often referred to as “Russia’s equivalent of 9/11.”

The problem is that the CFR “experts” have stubbornly chosen to ignore the mountains of evidence that conflict with their convergence agenda. This is especially obvious considering that an exhaustive new examination and compilation of that evidence, The Moscow Bombings of September 1999, by Hoover Institution Scholar John Dunlop, was published last year. Amy Knight, a genuine Soviet-Russian expert, whom the New York Times has described as “the West’s foremost scholar” of the KGB, says of Dunlop’s book: “The evidence he provides makes an overwhelming case that Russian authorities were complicit in these horrific attacks.” (See our companion article on page 15.)

This writer agrees with Knight. And if the evidence is “overwhelming” that “Russian authorities,” i.e., Putin and Company, were indeed “complicit in these horrific attacks,” then why are these incidents being cited repeatedly as reasons why we must “unite,” “cooperate,” and “converge” with Putin and Company on security and terrorism concerns? Are we supposed to be so fearful of the Chechen provocations that we embrace the provocateurs? Apparently so.

As just one example of the global ripple effect of the CFR’s policy line, we can take a look at an April 19 article from the Independent in the U.K. entitled “From Boston to Chechnya to Moscow: the chain of terror that unites US and Russia.” The article’s subtitle tells us: “Fear of Islamic extremism is a rare bridging link between the US and Russia.” Somewhere around 50 percent of the article is composed of quotes from or references to the CFR backgrounder report we mentioned earlier, “Chechen Terrorism.”

The Independent cites a British terrorism expert, Professor Simon Bennett, who has reliably absorbed the CFR party line — and who also seems to share the CFR’s imperviousness to the overwhelming evidence that the “Chechen” terrorist events are actually Russian FSB instigations. The Independent piece tells readers:

The United States may have become a target for Chechen terrorists in the wake of the harrowing Beslan school hostage crisis nearly 10 years ago, an expert explained today.

The world watched in horror in 2004 as armed Islamic separatist militants, some Chechen, occupied a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, and killed more than 380 people.

Security expert Simon Bennett said the tragedy bridged a gap between the US and Russia by establishing a mutual threat — fundamental Islamic terrorism.

Dr Bennett, director of the Civil Safety and Security Unit at the University of Leicester, said: “One of the few things in the past five or 10 years that has brought the Russians and the US closer together is the perceived threat from Islamic terrorism.”

Terrormasters as Partners

That America’s preeminent think tanks and foreign policy “experts” can be proposing an alliance with the Kremlin to combat terrorism, with virtually nary a peep in opposition to this scheme, is incredible — and deplorable. It also speaks volumes about the subversive impact of the CFR’s dominance of policy debate over the past few decades. It is as if a chorus of experts proposed that the FBI and Justice Department enter into a partnership with all of the recognized heads of Mafia families for a joint operation against organized crime — and not a single objection was raised in opposition to the absurd proposition.

There is no question that the scourge of terrorism in the 20th century was the creation of the Soviet Union’s intelligence services, the KGB and GRU. Important defectors from the Soviet intelligence services and their bloc allies, such as Anatoliy Golitsyn, Alexander Litvinenko, Ion Pacepa, Petr Deriabin, and Jan Sejna, as well as documents from the Soviet secret archives and public admissions by former Soviet officials, have confirmed what responsible scholars of terrorism have always recognized, to wit, that international terrorism could scarcely have existed during its heyday of the 1960s through the 1980s absent the crucial aid and direction provided by the Soviet Union.

Among those in the West who did the most to expose this truth — through books, film documentaries, speeches, newsletters and/or official investigations and reports — were Claire Sterling, Pierre de Villemarest, Hilaire du Berrier, Count Alexandre de Marenches, and Congressmen Lawrence P. McDonald and John Ashbrook.

Even more important to the issue today is the fact that the Kremlin’s terror sponsorship did not cease with the name change from the Soviet Union (USSR) to Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Yuri Andropov, the longest-serving head of the KGB (1967-1982) was most directly responsible for launching the global wave of terror. He went on to become general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

Vladimir Putin and a large contingent of his retinue are all Andropov protégés who publicly venerate Andropov as their hero. They not only have continued Andropov’s Soviet terror strategy, but have dramatically expanded Andropov’s strategic deception of creating “Islamic” terror groups to carry out acts that not only will not be attributed to Russia, but which can be used to create the perception that Russia and the West face a mutual threat and must cooperate to defeat a common enemy. Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, PFLP, PKK, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Islamic Jihad, and numerous other “Islamic” terrorist organization have long Kremlin pedigrees stretching from Andropov’s KGB to Putin’s FSB. We have provided extensive details concerning this ongoing terror connection in a number of articles in The New American, many of which are available online. (See, for example: “Behind Islamic Terror,” “The Real Terror Paymasters,” and “Who’s Who in Terrorism,” all from September 3, 2007; “Putin, Poison, and Murder,” January 22, 2007; “Russian Red Jihad,” October 10, 2012; and “Hizb ut-Tahrir: KGB-FSB Connection?” July 24, 2009.)

Continuous Convergence Path

The proposal for U.S.-Russia cooperation and convergence in military and intelligence matters for the purpose of fighting terrorism is not new; in fact, it has been building in fits and starts for decades, always under the tutelage of the CFR, assisted by folks at Brookings, Carnegie, Rand, and other similarly minded globalist think tanks. As The New American reported in extensive stories in 1996 (“Russia’s Global Crime Cartel”) and 1997 (“Crackdown on ‘Extremism’”) by William Norman Grigg, the Clinton administration’s FBI Director Louis Freeh kicked off this effort in a big way, declaring, “All of the former Cold War adversaries should also consider reprogramming personnel and technologies to the fight against criminals and terrorists.”

We reported then that “under Freeh’s leadership, the FBI, which was once the dreaded enemy of the Soviet KGB, has embraced the KGB’s successor organizations as ‘partners’ in combating the global menace of terrorism and organized crime. On July 4, 1994, Freeh and Sergei Stepashin of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) signed an accord outlining joint training and enforcement efforts. But the groundwork for this development was laid several years earlier through the work of the ‘U.S.-Soviet Task Force to Prevent Terrorism,’ which brought together ‘retired’ KGB and CIA officials to encourage superpower collaboration against terrorism.”

That U.S.-Soviet task force, which got under way in the last days of the Reagan administration and was fully launched in the early days of the George H.W. Bush administration, produced a report entitled Common Ground on Terrorism: Soviet-American Cooperation Against the Politics of Terror. Naturally, the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs, gave it a glowing review, and CFR members in the Bush and Clinton administrations began implementing its recommendations.

Over the past several years, the CFR convergence artists and their Soviet counterparts have sought to spur the process on. On December 30, 2012, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (CFR) and former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov joined to co-write an op-ed for the New York Times (the CFR’s premier propaganda fount) entitled “A New Agenda for U.S.-Russia Cooperation.” The Albright-Ivanov production averred that “American and Russian interests converge on a number of significant and timely issues,” and called on Presidents Obama and Putin to “act together to strengthen global security in general and pave the way for a more stable and predictable world.”

Another of the many stunning examples of the convergence choir in operation is an op-ed for the Guardian by Nikolai Patrushev, Putin’s successor as FSB chief and now secretary of the Russian Security Council. Entitled “Russia and the US: a Fresh Start,” Patrushev’s April 4, 2010 piece was subtitled: “In this post-cold war era we can refocus our energies and co-operate in cutting nuclear weapons and confronting terrorism.” According to this Putin aide, “Once cold war foes, Russia and the west are today united in facing a very real terrorist threat that more than ever requires a joint, co-ordinated and determined effort to defeat it.” Bloomberg Businessweek (a CFR corporate member) picked up the story and spread it worldwide.

As if the loss of liberties, the increasing militarization of our law enforcement, and the dramatic buildup of the surveillance state since 9/11 are not already sufficiently alarming, imagine how much worse it might get if KGB/FSB-style “security” were fully implemented here. We are rapidly moving in that direction, and unless Congress receives a clear message from the American people and acts to halt this treachery, it is very likely that we could “converge” formally into that hellish system, with our new ally Putin, in the not-too-distant future.

Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/15432-boston-bombing-latest-globalist-pretext-for-u-s-russia-convergence

"New evidence also suggests that conditions such as ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) may in fact be simply a symptom of a gluten allergy. Studies indicate that there is a higher incidence of Celiac Disease in ADHD patients, and that symptoms of ADHD tend to improve or disappear entirely once the person begins to eat a gluten-free diet."

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Fri, 24 May 2013 02:20:00 +0000

CDC Says 20 Percent of Children Have Mental Disorder; Why the Increase?

Written by Raven Clabough

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20 percent of American children may have a mental disorder, including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, depression, and autism. Such a report would have some believing that rates of mental disease have increased. However, much of the increase in rates can be attributed to a number of other items, including the wildly expanded definition of these conditions, the increasingly powerful pharmaceutical industry, and a general lack of understanding in the medical community of the effects of improper nutrition.

CBS News reports, “The CDC data was collected between 1994 and 2011, and it shows that the number of children being diagnosed with mental disorders has been steadily growing. The study did not conclude exactly why the numbers are increasing.”

Dr. Ruth Perou, the lead author of this the CDC's first study of children aged three to 17, stated,

This is a deliberate effort by CDC to show mental health is a health issue. As with any health concern, the more attention we give to it, the better. It’s parents becoming aware of the facts and talking to a health-care provider about how their child is learning, behaving and playing with other kids,” said Dr. Ruth Perou, the study’s lead author.

But what some are calling a growth in the rate of mental health issues may in fact be nothing more than a misdiagnosis of health disorders as a result of expanded medical terms and definitions.

Slate.com reported in April:

Beware the DSM-5, the soon-to-be-released fifth edition of the “psychiatric bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The odds will probably be greater than 50 percent, according to the new manual, that you’ll have a mental disorder in your lifetime.

Although fewer than 6 percent of American adults will have a severe mental illness in a given year, according to a 2005 study, many more—more than a quarter each year—will have some diagnosable mental disorder. That’s a lot of people. Almost 50 percent of Americans (46.4 percent to be exact) will have a diagnosable mental illness in their lifetimes, based on the previous edition, the DSM-IV. And the new manual will likely make it even "easier" to get a diagnosis.

Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has been a leading opponent of the DSM-5, asserting that its primary problem is a “lack of validity.”

Dr. Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and author of Saving Normal: An Insider’s Revolt Against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life, fears that the DSM-5 will result in a “massive diagnostic inflation that could lead to tens of millions of people receiving psychiatric drugs they don’t need.”

Perhaps that is the idea.

The CDC study also found that the annual cost of treating these conditions is $247 billion.

In fact, the collusion between psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry has compelled the Senate Finance Committee to launch several investigations, including a probe of Dr. Joseph Biederman, chief of the program in Pediatric Psychopharmacology at Massachusetts General Hospital.

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHRINT), a nonprofit watchdog group, had this to say about Dr. Biederman in a story entitled "The Corrupt Alliance of the Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical Industry":

Biederman has received research funds from 15 pharmaceutical companies. The New York Times exposed how Joseph Biederman earned $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers between 2000 and 2007 but did not report all of this income to Harvard University officials. His marketing of the theory that children have “bipolar” was attributed to the increase in anti-psychotic drug sales for pediatric use in the United States—today 2.5 million children. Following exposure of his conflicts, he stepped down from a number of industry-funded clinical trials. In March 2009, in newly released court documents, Biederman was reported to have promised drug maker Johnson & Johnson in advance that his studies on the antipsychotic drug Risperidone would prove the drug to be effective when used on preschool age children.

And there are a number of other leading psychiatrists who have engaged in similar questionable behaviors that have lined their pockets while assuring that a growing number of children are diagnosed and medicated.

The CCHRINT writes, “With the U.S. prescribing antipsychotics to children and adolescents at a rate six times greater than the U.K., and with 30 million Americans having taken antidepressants for a “chemical imbalance” that psychiatrists admit is a pharmaceutical marketing campaign, not scientific fact, it is no wonder that the conflict of interest between psychiatry and Big Pharma is under congressional investigation.”

Critics have pointed out that the side effects of anti-psychotic drugs could worsen — or in some cases actually cause — symptoms of mental illness.

Additionally, according to the CCHRINT, there is abundant evidence proving a connection between psychotropic medications and violent crimes, and that government officials are well aware of the connection: “Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence,” including 300 homicides.

The FDA has pointed out that prescribing psychiatric medications can have other dangerous side effects as well, including an increased risk of suicidal behaviors in teens and children.

The DSM-5, the new "psychiatric bible" mentioned above, poses a real danger to children, as it could result in their misdiagnosis, followed by prescriptions for drugs that could actually make them ill.

Yahoo Health reports,

A coalition of 32 organizations—including divisions of the influential American Psychological Association (APA)—argue that the DSM-5 lowers the threshold for a diagnosis of mental illness and contributes to "excessive medicalization, stigmatization," and "pathologization of normal human responses and behavior.”

It is also possible that there is, at least in some cases, an actual increase in mental health issues, but that that increase is entirely related to diet and therefore treatable if the medical community knew enough about nutrition and diet.

Medscape Medical News reported in 2011, “In a new and burgeoning area of research, 2 new studies from Australian investigators show that diet quality can have a significant effect on mental health outcomes and may potentially have a role in preventing and treating such common illnesses as depression and anxiety.”

According to one of the researchers, Dr. Felice Jacka, the findings of the studies suggest that teenage depression and anxiety can be prevented by a proper, nutritious diet:

In this study we show that a good-quality diet at baseline predicts better mental health at follow-up, even after adjustments for diet quality at follow-up, sociodemographic variables, exercise, and most importantly, mental health at baseline.

New evidence also suggests that conditions such as ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) may in fact be simply a symptom of a gluten allergy. Studies indicate that there is a higher incidence of Celiac Disease in ADHD patients, and that symptoms of ADHD tend to improve or disappear entirely once the person begins to eat a gluten-free diet.

Similarly, the increase in the presence of genetically-modified organisms in food can be attributed to an increase in signs of mental health disorders.

According to alternative physician Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com, one of the driving forces behind increases in autism and Alzheimer’s disease is a change in the food supply and the increase of genetically engineered (GE) food. He notes that consuming GE foods has the potential to cause gut permeability, also known as “leaky gut,” which predisposes sufferers to an array of health problems, including mental health issues.

Though the CDC’s Dr. Perou contends that more research is needed to determine the causes of mental disorders, and that greater awareness could lead to an increase in diagnoses, a growing number of Americans are advising a more sensible approach to these issues that affect their mental and physical health.

Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/15498-cdc-says-20-percent-of-children-have-mental-disorder-why-the-increase

OOPS!!! Remember, it is getting colder because it is getting warmer...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Fri, 24 May 2013 02:11:00 +0000

Frost Warning Issued For Central Ohio -Record late date

May 23, 2013

Link:
http://12160.info/photo/frost-warning-issued-for-central-ohio-record-late-date?context=user

"But they didn’t have to do that because after 9/11, President Bush, the Pentagon, and the CIA crafted a way to circumvent the protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. In what is undoubtedly the biggest constitutional revolution in our nation’s history, America’s Bill of Rights was effectively amended by presidential decree. By declaring that terrorism could now be considered as either a federal crime or an act of war, President Bush, and later President Obama, now effectively wielded the authority to ignore the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments whenever they wanted."

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 20:11:00 +0000

Murder, Inc.
by Jacob G. Hornberger

For all his faults and failures, President Lyndon Johnson put it correctly: With its assassination program, the CIA was operating a “damned Murder Inc.” Not only does Johnson’s pointed observation observe the true nature of the federal government’s assassination program, it also serves to show that assassination has been an integral part of the U.S. national-security state apparatus since long before the 9/11 attacks.

Johnson wasn’t the only one who got it right. When an assassination team established by U.S.-supported Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet assassinated former Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier and 25-year-old American citizen Ronni Moffitt on the streets of Washington, D.C., the U.S. Justice Department called it murder and criminally prosecuted the members of Pinochet’s assassination team in U.S. federal district court, notwithstanding the fact that the Pinochet regime justified its assassination program under the rubric of the war on communism.

Not so anymore though. Yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking on behalf of President Obama, released a letter that purported to justify Obama’s assassination program under the rubric of the war on terrorism. Echoing Pinochet, Holder argued that federal assassination isn’t murder but rather legal wartime killing.

There’s just one big problem with Holder’s reasoning, however, one that he, not surprisingly, failed to address. That problem is this: terrorism is a federal criminal offense. It’s listed in the U.S. Code as a federal crime. Every year, in fact, the Justice Department brings criminal prosecutions against people who are accused of having committed acts of terrorism or conspiracy to do so.

If terrorism is an act of war, then what in the world is the Justice Department doing bringing criminal charges in U.S. District Court against accused terrorists?

The answer to this apparent riddle is a simple one: After 9/11, the Bush administration figured out a clever but devious way to avoid the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution whenever they wanted. U.S. officials, Bush decreed, would now wield the option of treating an accused terrorist as either a criminal defendant or an enemy combatant.

Yet, those four amendments were enacted precisely because our American ancestors did not want their government going around murdering people, whether they were citizens or not. That’s what the due process clause, which stretches back to Magna Carta, is all about. It requires the government to provide a person with formal notice of what he’s being accused of and an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. That’s what jury trials, which are also required by those four amendments, are all about. And the same principle applies to the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses that the government says support its accusations. The same holds true with respect to the right to call witnesses on one’s own behalf. Our ancestors wanted people to have the right to defend themselves in court before the government killed them.

As everyone knows, oftentimes juries acquit people whom the government accuses of crimes, including the crime of terrorism. Sometimes juries conclude that government witnesses are intentionally lying in an attempt to get a conviction of someone they’re convinced is guilty of the crime. In some cases, juries conclude that the government simply hasn’t sustained the required burden of proof, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” When a person is acquitted of a federal crime, he walks out of the courtroom a free person no matter how convinced the government is that he committed the crime.

That’s our American system of justice. There are plenty of Americans who don’t like it. But they have a remedy — secure a constitutional amendment repealing or modifying the Bill of Rights.

But they didn’t have to do that because after 9/11, President Bush, the Pentagon, and the CIA crafted a way to circumvent the protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. In what is undoubtedly the biggest constitutional revolution in our nation’s history, America’s Bill of Rights was effectively amended by presidential decree. By declaring that terrorism could now be considered as either a federal crime or an act of war, President Bush, and later President Obama, now effectively wielded the authority to ignore the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments whenever they wanted.

If they feel they have sufficient evidence to get a criminal conviction, they’ll ordinarily prosecute the accused in federal court. In that way, they can maintain the appearance that nothing substantive has changed in American constitutional jurisprudence.

But if they have want to go the other route — the “enemy combatant” route, they’ll either incarcerate, torture, and execute the accused in some military or CIA prison camp or they’ll simply assassinate the accused as part of “wartime” operations.

Consider the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. Holder can cite all the information he wants to support the decision to take out Awlaki. But the fact remains: Awlaki was never provided the notice and hearing that due process requires. A federal grand jury never issued a criminal indictment against him, which would have provided the required notice of what he was being accused of. He was never provided a trial in which he had the right to defend himself against what he was being charged with.

In fact, under our post-9/11 system, Obama and Holder are under no legal requirement to even explain why they have assassinated anyone, including Americans. That’s why they continue to remain silent with respect to their assassination of the other three Americans.

Lyndon Johnson had it right. The U.S. national-security state’s assassination program did constitute a damned Murder Inc. So did Pinochet’s assassination program, and Obama’s assassination program is no different. It’s just another sad example of how the national-security state apparatus that has been engrafted onto our constitutional order has taken our country into the dark side.

Link:
http://fff.org/2013/05/23/murder-inc/

"Words Matter" Obama Lies Documented (in his own words)...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 19:58:00 +0000

"Noonan is a Republican, and what Obama did wrong was to use the IRS against some Republicans. Apparently, it has not occurred to Noonan that if Obama–or any president–can use the IRS against opponents, he can use Homeland Security and the police state against them. He can use indefinite detention against them. He can use drones against them."

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 19:39:00 +0000

"We have reached the point where evidence is no longer required. The government’s statements suffice. Only conspiracy kooks produce real evidence."

Why Disinformation Works

Paul Craig Roberts

Have you ever wondered how the government’s misinformation gains traction?

What I have noticed is that whenever a stunning episode occurs, such as 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing, most everyone whether on the right or left goes along with the government’s explanation, because they can hook their agenda to the government’s account.

The leftwing likes the official stories of Muslims creating terrorist mayhem in America, because it proves their blowback theory and satisfies them that the dispossessed and oppressed can fight back against imperialism.

The patriotic rightwing likes the official story, because it proves America is attacked for its goodness or because terrorists were allowed in by immigration authorities and nurtured by welfare, or because the government, which can’t do anything right, ignored plentiful warnings.

Whatever the government says, no matter how problematical, the official story gets its traction from its compatibility with existing predispositions and agendas.

In such a country, truth has no relevance. Only agendas are important.

A person can see this everywhere. I could write volumes illustrating how agenda-driven writers across the spectrum will support the most improbable government stories despite the absence of any evidence simply because the government’s line can be used to support their agendas.

For example, a conservative writer in the June issue of Chronicles uses the government’s story about the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, to argue against immigration, amnesty for illegals, and political asylum for Muslims. He writes: “Even the most high-tech security systems imaginable will inevitably fail as they are overwhelmed by a flood of often hostile and dangerous immigrants.”

The writer accepts all of the improbable government statements as proof that the brothers were guilty. The wounded brother who was unable to respond to the boat owner who discovered him and had to be put on life support somehow managed to write a confession on the inside of the boat.

As soon as the authorities have the brother locked up in a hospital on life support, “unnamed officials” and “authorities who remain anonymous” are planting the story in the media that the suspect is signing written confessions of his guilt while on life support. No one has seen any of these written confessions. But we know that they exist, because the government and media say so.

The conservative writer knows that Dzhokhar is guilty because he is Muslim and a Chechen. Therefore, it does not occur to the writer to wonder about the agenda of the unnamed sources who are busy at work creating belief in the brothers’ guilt. This insures that no juror would dare vote for acquittal and have to explain it to family and friends. Innocent until proven guilty in a court has been thrown out the window. This should disturb the conservative writer, but doesn’t.

The conservative writer sees Chechen ethnicity as an indication of guilt even though the brothers grew up in the US as normal Americans, because Chechens are “engaged in anti-Russian jihad.” But Chechens have no reason for hostility against the US. As evidence indicates, Washington supports the Chechens in their conflict with Russia. By supporting Chechen terrorism, Washington violates all of the laws that it ruthlessly applies to compassionate Americans who give donations to Palestinian charities that Washington alleges are run by Hamas, a Washington-declared terrorist organization.

It doesn’t occur to the conservative writer that something is amiss when marshall law
is established over one of America’s main cities and its metropolitan area, 10,000 heavily armed troops are put on the streets with tanks, and citizens are ordered out of their homes with their hands over their heads, all of this just to search for one wounded 19-year old suspect. Instead the writer blames the “surveillance state” on “the inevitable consequences of suicidal liberalism” which has embraced “the oldest sin in the world: rebellion against authority.” The writer is so pleased to use the government’s story line as a way of indulging the conservative’s romance with authority and striking a blow at liberalism that he does not notice that he has lined up against the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence and rebelled against authority.

I could just as easily have used a left-wing writer to illustrate the point that improbable explanations are acceptable if they fit with predispositions and can be employed in behalf of an agenda.

Think about it. Do you not think that it is extraordinary that the only investigations we have of such events as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing are private investigations, such as this investigation of the backpacks: http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/05/20/official-story-has-odd-wrinkles-a-pack-of-questions-about-the-boston-bombing-backpacks/

There was no investigation of 9/11. Indeed, the White House resisted any inquiry at all for one year despite the insistent demands from the 9/11 families. NIST did not investigate anything. NIST simply constructed a computer model that was consistent with the government’s story. The 9/11 Commission simply sat and listened to the government’s explanation and wrote it down. These are not investigations.

The only investigations have come from a physicist who proved that WTC 7 came down at free fall and was thus the result of controlled demolition, from a team of scientists who examined dust from the WTC towers and found nano-thermite, from high-rise architects and structural engineers with decades of experience, and from first responders and firefighters who were in the towers and experienced explosions throughout the towers, even in the sub-basements.

We have reached the point where evidence is no longer required. The government’s statements suffice. Only conspiracy kooks produce real evidence.

In America, government statements have a unique authority. This authority comes from the white hat that the US wore in World War II and in the subsequent Cold War. It was easy to demonize Nazi Germany, Soviet Communism and Maoist China. Even today when Russian publications interview me about the perilous state of civil liberty in the US and Washington’s endless illegal military attacks abroad, I sometimes receive reports that some Russians believe that it was an impostor who was interviewed, not the real Paul Craig Roberts. There are Russians who believe that it was President Reagan who brought freedom to Russia, and as I served in the Reagan administration these Russians associate me with their vision of America as a light unto the world. Some Russians actually believe that Washington’s wars are truly wars of liberation.

The same illusions reign among Chinese dissidents. Chen Guangcheng is the Chinese dissident who sought refuge in the US Embassy in China. Recently he was interviewed by the BBC World Service. Chen Guangcheng believes that the US protects human rights while China suppresses human rights. He complained to the BBC that in China police can arrest citizens and detain them for as long as six months without accounting for their detainment. He thought that the US and UK should publicly protest this violation of due process, a human right. Apparently, Chen Guangcheng is unaware that US citizens are subject to indefinite detention without due process and even to assassination without due process.

The Chinese government allowed Chen Guangcheng safe passage to leave China and live in the US. Chen Guangcheng is so dazzled by his illusions of America as a human rights beacon that it has never occurred to him that the oppressive, human rights-violating Chinese government gave him safe passage, but that Julian Assange, after being given political asylum by Ecuador is still confined to the Ecuadoran embassy in London, because Washington will not allow its UK puppet state to permit his safe passage to Ecuador.

Perhaps Chen Guangcheng and the Chinese and Russian dissidents who are so enamored of the US could gain some needed perspective if they were to read US soldier Terry Holdbrooks’ book about the treatment given to the Guantanamo prisoners. Holdbrooks was there on the scene, part of the process, and this is what he told RT: “The torture and information extraction methods that we used certainly created a great deal of doubt and questions in my mind to whether or not this was my America. But when I thought about what we were doing there and how we go about doing it, it did not seem like the America I signed up to defend. It did not seem like the America I grew up in. And that in itself was a very disillusioning experience.” http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-guard-islam-torture-608/

In a May 17 Wall Street Journal.com article, Peggy Noonan wrote that President Obama has lost his patina of high-mindedness. What did Obama do that brought this loss upon himself? Is it because he sits in the Oval Office approving lists of US citizens to be assassinated without due process of law? Is it because he detains US citizens indefinitely in violation of habeas corpus? Is it because he has kept open the torture prison at Guantanamo? Is it because he continued the war that the neoconservatives started, despite his promise to end it, and started new wars?

Is it because he attacks with drones people in their homes, medical centers, and work places in countries with which the US is not at war? Is it because his corrupt administration spies on American citizens without warrants and without cause?

No. It is none of these reasons. In Noonan’s view these are not offenses for which presidents, even Democratic ones, lose their high-minded patina. Obama can no longer be trusted, because the IRS hassled some conservative political activists.

Noonan is a Republican, and what Obama did wrong was to use the IRS against some Republicans. Apparently, it has not occurred to Noonan that if Obama–or any president–can use the IRS against opponents, he can use Homeland Security and the police state against them. He can use indefinite detention against them. He can use drones against them.

All of these are much more drastic measures. Why isn’t Peggy Noonan concerned?
Because she thinks these measures will only be used against terrorists, just as the IRS is only supposed to be used against tax evaders.

When a public and the commentators who inform it accept the collapse of the Constitution’s authority and the demise of their civil liberties, to complain about the IRS is pointless.

Link:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

Noam Chomsky: US, A Top Terrorist State...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:55:00 +0000

Ben Swann On Hannity Show...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:54:00 +0000

"Seven kids with misdemeanors on their records (“released on bail” — I am not kidding) for throwing weaponized water.All students are going to learn is that school administration has farmed out its disciplinary responsibilities to a variety of humorless, uniformed thugs — some private, some public — and that there really is no crime too small."

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:53:00 +0000

So It’s Come To This: Seven High School Students Arrested For Throwing… Water Balloons

From the overreaction-is-our-only-reaction,-which-always-starts-off-a-chain-reaction dept

by Tim Cushing

The weather’s (mostly) hot. School’s almost out. And what better way to celebrate summer being almost here than being arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for throwing water balloons.

Hail academia, forever teaching our youth that anything and everything will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, even childhood hijinks our parents would have approved of, if only they weren’t so busy being arrested themselves.

Seven teenage students in North Carolina were arrested on Thursday and charged with a misdemeanor for throwing water balloons during a school prank. A parent was also arrested during the incident.

The seven boys, all between the ages of 16 and 17, threw balloons filled with tap water as an end-of-year prank at Enloe High School in Raleigh. The balloons were rumored to be filled with “other substances,” but Wake County Public School System spokeswoman Renee McCoy said “all indications” were that only water was used.

Six of the teens were charged with disorderly conduct. The seventh was charged with assault and battery for hitting a school security officer with a balloon.

You’ve got to respect the uniform — even if that uniform is a 50/50 polyester/ugly blend. If other students, teachers and administration staff get hit, that’s a paddlin’ simple “disorderly conduct” (a.k.a., the cop’s best friend). And if you can’t respect the security guard’s uniform, you had damn well better respect the boys in blue, or you’ll get thrown to the ground for throwing water balloons.

Kevin Hines, the parent who was arrested, was just acting out of concern for a student’s wellbeing. No good deed goes unpunished, not when we’re sending cops after kids armed with water balloons.

Kevin Hines said saw Raleigh police officers acting aggressively towards a student they were arresting when he drove up to the school.

“Being lifted up by the neck and taken down hard,” Hines said.

Hines said he tried to intervene was but was told he didn’t know the whole story. Hines complied and said he wished to speak to the principal.

“You’re just trying to cause trouble. Get out,” Hines said an officer told him.

Hines said he then attempted to talk to a lieutenant but was approached by two officers and threatening with a TASER. Hines said he told the officers that wasn’t necessary.

“They arrested me on grounds of trespassing,” Hines said. “So, they put cuffs on me and carried me away.”

Swell. An unarmed parent who’s concerned that someone (NOT A COP) might get hurt is handcuffed, threatened with a taser and charged for “causing trouble,” which apparently goes on the books as “second degree trespassing.”

Another parent is “causing trouble” as well, although this might be the kind of trouble that sticks:

The mother of an Enloe High School student has filed a complaint with the Raleigh Police Department after an officer threw her son to the ground Thursday as police responded to a water balloon battle at the school.

Call me naive, but I never thought I’d ever read a sentence this incongruous in my life: “…as police responded to a water balloon battle…” Tase me. Tase me now, lord. At least it wasn’t a water pistol fight. Martial law would have been declared and the National Guard called in.

Here’s the school’s official statement on the “event.”

Renee McCoy, a representative of Wake County Public Schools, said they rely on the training of the Raleigh Police Department in these situations. “We leave those decisions up to Raleigh PD,” McCoy said.

Punt.

Seven kids with misdemeanors on their records (“released on bail” — I am not kidding) for throwing weaponized water. I’m not really sure what schools are teaching kids at this point — that every minor infraction must be dealt with swiftly and brutally? That violating school policies is a criminal offence? Whatever they’re trying to teach by jettisoning critical thinking and replacing it with zero tolerance cops on speed dial, it’s not getting through. All students are going to learn is that school administration has farmed out its disciplinary responsibilities to a variety of humorless, uniformed thugs — some private, some public — and that there really is no crime too small.

Link:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130519/18102623141/so-its-come-to-this-seven-high-school-students-arrested-throwing-water-balloons.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

TV Ad: Hold Obama Accountable for Benghazi Scandal...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:46:00 +0000

Real financial crisis is yet to come a sociologist...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:39:00 +0000

It Can't Happen Here?

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:38:00 +0000

“I Can’t Recite the Constitution, Sir”

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:37:00 +0000

Former IRS Head: “I Can’t Recite the Constitution, Sir”

Prison Planet.com

“You went to law school. Did you study the Constitution?”

“I believe I took Constitutional law, but I’m not prepared to take an exam at this time,” Shulman said with a chuckle. “Meaning I’ll answer any of your question but I can’t promise that I’m an expert.”

Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-irs-head-i-cant-recite-the-constitution-sir.html

"So, is state sovereignty completely gone when it comes to firearms regulations, even if they are blatantly unconstitutional?"

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:34:00 +0000

Feds, mainstream media argue 'there are no states' and feds have ultimate power over all state laws

by: J. D. Heyes

There is a constitutional fight brewing between Kansas, whose current governor is a former federal legislator, and the Obama Administration over the passage of a state law banning federal agents from enforcing national gun control mandates and regulations when all firearms business is conducted between citizens within the state's boundaries.

Gov. Sam Brownback is pushing against a Justice Department assertion the U.S. Constitution prevents his state from passing such a law. In a letter to the governor April 26, Attorney General Eric Holder essentially said that, regardless of the wording of the Kansas measure, Washington's authority supersedes it.

"In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, [the law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional," Holder said. "Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties."

The Kansas law says "any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the Second Amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas."

'The people have spoken'

In response to Holder, Brownback wrote that the process in which the law was formulated and passed expressed the "sovereign will" of state residents, and that he hoped the attorney general "will see their right to do so." He further argued that the Kansas law applies only to firearms in the state of Kansas, so they do not fall under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause, a position not supported by legal scholars interviewed by the mainstream media.

"The state is not free to nullify valid federal laws," Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA and author of a book on gun rights, told the Washington Post. "Federal laws regulating the sale of firearms, even within one state, are clearly constitutional under the Commerce Clause."

He added that the portion of the Kansas law barring state officials from enforcing federal gun statutes was "on sounder ground," but the state could not bar federal officials from enforcing them.

The conservative Heritage Foundation put out a report last year called, "Nullification: Unlawful and Unconstitutional," which concluded that "there is no clause or implied power in either the national or the various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws unilaterally."

Even the libertarian CATO Institute agrees that state officials cannot interfere with federal officials who may be acting to enforce federal gun laws, the Post said.

So, is state sovereignty completely gone when it comes to firearms regulations, even if they are blatantly unconstitutional?

Yes - and no.

Kansas and the Constitution vs. Holder

According to CATO's dissection of the "nullification question," here are some answers to key questions:

-- Can states refuse to enforce federal laws? In a word, yes. "State officials need not enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional; nor may Congress mandate that states enact specific laws," says CATO's chairman, Robert Levy, a constitutional law professor.

-- Can states block federal agents from enforcing federal laws? No, they cannot, under most conditions. "[S]tates may not block federal authorities who attempt to enforce a federal law unless a court has held that the law is unconstitutional," writes Levy.

-- Is there any legal liability for citizens of a state whose lawmakers have nullified a federal law? Yes. "[I]ndividuals are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state where they reside has legalized an activity or pronounced that a federal law is unconstitutional; if convicted, individuals can attempt to vindicate their constitutional rights in court," says Levy.

As for the Commerce Clause, says Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown School of Law, the original intent of the framers was that the federal government had the power to regulate the trade and exchange of goods and transportation between the states, not within them.

Some have argued that application of the clause is far too narrow, but Barnett points out here that, after a thorough examination of the Constitutional Convention records, the Federalist Papers and the ratification debates, he could find no surviving example of the term "Commerce Clause" being used in any broader sense - and certainly not a broader sense to include federal gun statutes that violate the Second Amendment.

We will be following this case carefully.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040457_Kansas_Second_Amendment_states_rights.html#ixzz2U7ACpgx2

"The soft tyranny we endure now on a daily basis has turned scores of Americans into reluctant activists, no longer satisfied with participation in mundane "demonstrations" that prove and accomplish nothing."

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:31:00 +0000

Civil disobedience rising across America as citizens fed up with criminal government

by: J. D. Heyes

To many veterans of the 1960s-era civil rights movement there is a rising angst and discourse among the populace that is eerily familiar to them.

Nearly everywhere you turn, crowds of angry Americans are gathering, no longer content to merely sit idly by and remain spectators to the cavalcade of injustices being perpetuated ad nauseum against We the People by criminal governments that have long since lost their legitimacy.

Run by an elitist ruling class, they prove daily that an elected body can trample rights the same as a sitting monarch or dictator.

The soft tyranny we endure now on a daily basis has turned scores of Americans into reluctant activists, no longer satisfied with participation in mundane "demonstrations" that prove and accomplish nothing.

Rising tide of anger

Some recent cases in point bear rise to this unrest, and if history is a guide, such occurrences will only become more frequent - and more violent - as our rights, traditions and heritage are trampled, disregarded and disrespected.

Take one case in New Jersey recently, where a state Senate panel on gun control cut off testimony on a bill - citing "procedure" - when citizens in attendance clearly had more they wanted to say, as evidenced by their requests to do so from the gallery. As seen in this video, a couple of individuals who attempted to speak were made to leave by a court police officer, but when one man - Frank Fiamingo, president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society - had enough of the Senate panel's dismissive attitude, he organized the dozens of attendees into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, at which time the a) the Senate panel abandoned its attempts to have audience members thrown out; and b) mostly refused to stand during the recitation of the pledge (one senator finally stood towards the end of the pledge).

Here's how it went down, according to one witness account:

After a late start, and a "ten minute break" that lasted more than a half hour, the NJ Senate committee on gun control decides to cut off public comment on the proposed gun control bills at 4 o'clock. The chairman and most of the committee then refuse to honor the pledge of allegiance. This took place at the NJ Senate gun control hearings in Trenton on April 30, 2013. People in the audience were wearing NRA caps which I am sure was not lost on the Senate committee members. The officers from the court who were harassing the people who attended at the end of the clip looked from behind like jack booted Nazi enforcers.

The anger in the room was palpable, as was the frustration.

Freedom going out of style?

At a separate protest, civil rights activist Adam Kokesh - who has pre-announced an armed civil disobedience march on Washington D.C. on July 4th - was violently dragged from a "Smoke Down Prohibition" protest in Philadelphia over the weekend of May 18. Though in this video Kokesh, who is being dragged away from the event by police, has his hands up and is clearly not resisting arrest, that was the ultimate charge leveled against him, according to Natural News founder and editor, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger:

According to Adam Kokesh supporter "Brother Lucas," Kokesh never even smoked pot during the protest, so his arrest is sending shockwaves across the liberty movement because it appears to be illegal and unjustified. The video seems to depict a lawless gang of badge-wearing thugs committing an act of kidnapping against someone merely exercising their free speech rights in a public forum.

What is interesting - even encouraging, if you are lover of liberty - was the reaction of the crowd to Kokesh's detention. As you can see in the video, demonstrators followed police to a barricade they reinforced after taking Kokesh through it. The crowd openly challenged officers and was visibly angry.

These are scenes being repeated all around the country, and with increasing frequency, as more Americans tire of the soft tyranny being directed at them on a daily basis. Look for more unrest in the future.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040459_civil_disobedience_corrupt_government_citizen_protests.html#ixzz2U79mi4fA

"...the global financial system is dominated by a small group of corrupt, power-hungry figures centered around the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve."

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:30:00 +0000

World Bank Insider Blows Whistle on Corruption, Federal Reserve

Written by Alex Newman

A former insider at the World Bank, ex-Senior Counsel Karen Hudes, says the global financial system is dominated by a small group of corrupt, power-hungry figures centered around the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve. The network has seized control of the media to cover up its crimes, too, she explained. In an interview with The New American, Hudes said that when she tried to blow the whistle on multiple problems at the World Bank, she was fired for her efforts. Now, along with a network of fellow whistleblowers, Hudes is determined to expose and end the corruption. And she is confident of success.

Citing an explosive 2011 Swiss study published in the PLOS ONE journal on the “network of global corporate control,” Hudes pointed out that a small group of entities — mostly financial institutions and especially central banks — exert a massive amount of influence over the international economy from behind the scenes. “What is really going on is that the world’s resources are being dominated by this group,” she explained, adding that the “corrupt power grabbers” have managed to dominate the media as well. “They’re being allowed to do it.”

According to the peer-reviewed paper, which presented the first global investigation of ownership architecture in the international economy, transnational corporations form a “giant bow-tie structure.” A large portion of control, meanwhile, “flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.” The researchers described the core as an “economic ‘super-entity’” that raises important issues for policymakers and researchers. Of course, the implications are enormous for citizens as well.

Hudes, an attorney who spent some two decades working in the World Bank’s legal department, has observed the machinations of the network up close. “I realized we were now dealing with something known as state capture, which is where the institutions of government are co-opted by the group that’s corrupt,” she told The New American in a phone interview. “The pillars of the U.S. government — some of them — are dysfunctional because of state capture; this is a big story, this is a big cover up.”

At the heart of the network, Hudes said, are 147 financial institutions and central banks — especially the Federal Reserve, which was created by Congress but is owned by essentially a cartel of private banks. “This is a story about how the international financial system was secretly gamed, mostly by central banks — they’re the ones we are talking about,” she explained. “The central bankers have been gaming the system. I would say that this is a power grab.”

The Fed in particular is at the very center of the network and the coverup, Hudes continued, citing a policy and oversight body that includes top government and Fed officials. Central bankers have also been manipulating gold prices, she added, echoing widespread concerns that The New American has documented extensively. Indeed, even the inaccurate World Bank financial statements that Hudes has been trying to expose are linked to the U.S. central bank, she said.

“The group that we’re talking about from the Zurich study — that’s the Federal Reserve; it has some other pieces to it, but that’s the Federal Reserve,” Hudes explained. “So the Federal Reserve secretly dominated the world economy using secret, interlocking corporate directorates, and terrorizing anybody who managed to figure out that they were having any kind of role, and putting people in very important positions so that they could get a free pass.”

The shadowy but immensely powerful Bank for International Settlements serves as “the club of these private central bankers,” Hudes continued. “Now, are people going to want interest on their country’s debts to continue to be paid to that group when they find out the secret tricks that that group has been doing? Don’t forget how they’ve enriched themselves extraordinarily and how they’ve taken taxpayer money for the bailout.”

As far as intervening in the gold price, Hudes said it was an effort by the powerful network and its central banks to “hold onto its paper currency” — a suspicion shared by many analysts and even senior government officials. The World Bank whistleblower also said that contrary to official claims, she did not believe there was any gold being held in Fort Knox. Even congressmen and foreign governments have tried to find out if the precious metals were still there, but they met with little success. Hudes, however, believes the scam will eventually come undone.

“This is like crooks trying to figure out where they can go hide. It’s a mafia,” she said. “These culprits that have grabbed all this economic power have succeeded in infiltrating both sides of the issue, so you will find people who are supposedly trying to fight corruption who are just there to spread disinformation and as a placeholder to trip up anybody who manages to get their act together.… Those thugs think that if they can keep the world ignorant, they can bleed it longer.”

Of course, the major corruption at the highest levels of government and business is not a new phenomenon. Georgetown University historian and Professor Carroll Quigley, who served as President Bill Clinton’s mentor, for example, wrote about the scheme in his 1966 book Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time. The heavyweight academic, who was allowed to review documents belonging to the top echelons of the global establishment, even explained how the corrupt system would work — remarkably similar to what Hudes describes.

"The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole,” wrote Prof. Quigley, who agreed with the goals but not the secrecy. “This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations."

But it is not going to happen, Hudes said — at least not if she has something do to with it. While the media are dominated by the “power grabber” network, Hudes has been working with foreign governments, reporters, U.S. officials, state governments, and a broad coalition of fellow whistleblowers to blow the entire scam wide open. There has been quite a bit of interest, too, particularly among foreign governments and state officials in the United States.

Citing the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers in creating a federal system of government with multiple layers of checks and balances, Hudes said she was confident that the network would eventually be exposed and subjected to the rule of law, stopping the secret corruption. If and when that happens — even if it may be disorderly — Hudes says precious metals will once again play a role in imposing discipline on the monetary system. The rule of law would also be restored, she said, and the public will demand a proper press to stay informed.

“We’re going to have a cleaned-up financial system, that’s where it is going, but in the meantime, people who didn’t know how the system was gamed are going to find out,” she said. “We’re going to have a different kind of international financial system.... It’ll be a new kind of world where people know what’s going on — no more backroom deals; that’s not going to keep happening. We’re going to have a different kind of media if people don’t want to be dominated and controlled, which I don’t think they do.”

While Hudes sounded upbeat, she recognizes that the world is facing serious danger right now — there are even plans in place to impose martial law in the United States, she said. The next steps will be critical for humanity. As such, Hudes argues, it is crucial that the people of the world find out about the lawlessness, corruption, and thievery that are going on at the highest levels — and put a stop to it once and for all. The consequences of inaction would be disastrous.

Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/15473-world-bank-insider-blows-whistle-on-corruption-federal-reserve

OOPS!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:25:00 +0000

Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report

Written by William F. Jasper

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in trouble, and climate alarmists are hoping the much-ballyhooed report by Australian activist John Cook, released last week, will convince the public to be very afraid of global warming.

The last few years have not been kind to the global-warming alarmists. In the 17th century, François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld is credited with famously quipping, “There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.”

Unfortunately, for the climate catastrophists, their pet theory (though hardly beautiful) has been slaughtered many times over by a brutal and relentless onslaught of facts. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, however, the global-warming alarmists keep coming back like the undead in a B-grade horror flick. The fanatical proponents of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming, or AGW, have powerful supporters with deep pockets who keep resuscitating them. They have a massive institutional base among Big Government, Big Media, Big Foundations, Big Business, and Big Green, all of which have huge incentives to perpetuate AGW alarmism. No matter how many times the AGW fearmongers’ predictions are shot down, they are resurrected and sent back to frighten more voters/taxpayers into submission to global policies, taxes, and controls. Utilizing brute power and deception, they intend to reverse de La Rochefoucauld’s prediction and see the facts murdered by their own triumphant theory.

As we have reported ("Global Warming 'Consensus': Cooking the Books") AGW activist John Cook has been the recipient of a media promotion bonanza for his recent study claiming that 97 percent of climate scientists endorse the global-warming alarmist position. President Obama and Big Media turned it into a claim that 97 percent of all scientists endorse the AGW position. Both claims are wrong. Stung by numerous setbacks, the AGW lobby is desperately attempting to regain ground through a giant bluff, hoping that their false claim of the near unanimity of all scientists will convince politicians and the public to give them the global power and funding they crave.

Among the many fatal blows the climate alarmists have sustained along the way and managed to bounce back from are: Climategate (see here, here, here, and here), Climategate 2, Glaciergate, Polar beargate (see here and here), Himalayagate, Amazongate, Sea levelgate, Hockey stickgate, and more than 120 additional scandals that have repeatedly exposed the discredited premises, fraudulent research, and faulty computer models on which the AGW fright pedaling empire has been built.

The Next Big IPCC Propaganda Push

Now the United Nations’ IPCC is getting set to release the first of three installments of its latest Assessment Report. And the powers that be are obviously concerned that they do not have sufficient public support in the United States to get Congress to enact the type of trillion-dollar transfers and the “complete transformation of the world” envisioned. The IPCC is scheduled to release its Working Group I (WGI) report on the physical science basis of its latest Assessment in September, and they are desperate to gain support for it. In addition to the main stumbling block of American public resistance, they are also running into problems with European countries that once appeared to be locked in as supporters, but which are now revolting due to the crushing costs of alternative “green energy” and their own mounting debt and fiscal problems. Many of these countries are jumping ship and now want to switch to the more affordable natural gas that is flooding the global market, thanks to new “fracking” technology. This has the UN and the globalists in a dither. Last September, Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the UN’s International Energy Agency, warned that “governments are feeling more and more uncomfortable to put money in renewables especially in the days of austerity, and some governments are cutting their support."

"The availability of cheap or lower gas prices are putting additional pressure on renewable energies," Birol said. This is a bad thing, said the UN economist. Reuters gave this report on Birol’s apocalyptic warning regarding these developments:

Birol said that any reduction in investment in renewable energy would increase the risk of an increase in global temperatures by 6 degree Celsius this century, describing the current trend as "catastrophic."

"If there are no urgent and bold policies put in place the door to a 2 degrees trajectory, the door to a normal life for us and for our children, will be closed and will be closed forever," he said.

The “increase in global temperatures by 6 degree Celsius this century” is one of the many absurd — and persistent — claims made by AGW fanatics. Dr. William Happer, one of America’s preeminent physicists and a professor of physics at Princeton University, explains here why the six-degree increase bogeyman is ridiculous and completely without foundation in science. (A less technical layman’s version of the Happer article is available here.)

Many of the world’s leading authorities in climatology, meteorology, atmospheric physics, paleo-geology, and many other disciplines (see below) have been weighing in on the skeptical/realist side over the past few years and taking the position that it is beyond irresponsible for scientists and politicians to burden humanity with enormous and unprecedented tax and regulatory burdens based merely on frightening computer model scenarios that cannot sustain critical scientific examination.

In science, facts and truth are discovered by measurement and experiment, independent of surveys, opinion, popularity contests, and “consensus.” A fact remains a fact whether or not one percent, 97 percent, or 100 percent of scientists believe it to be a fact. And, conversely, a falsehood remains false even if 97 percent or even 100 percent of scientists believe it to be true. The history of science is littered with many discarded falsehoods that were once universally embraced by the scientific consensus of the day. Nevertheless, a credible claim of a consensus of 97 percent — near unanimity — of scientists specializing in climate research (or any area of science) is not one that the common layman can, or should, lightly dismiss. After all, we laymen must rely on expert scientific opinion, on specialists, for many important issues involving health, medicine, energy, national defense, etc. And if virtually all scientists say something is true, we would be foolish to challenge their claims — unless we have extraordinary evidence to the contrary.

There are key words and questions involved here: Do we have a “credible claim of consensus of 97%,” or is there “extraordinary evidence to the contrary”? The answer to the former is a resounding “No,” and to the latter an equally resounding “Yes.”

Crash Goes the Phony Consensus

One of the biggest lies of the AGW alarmist camp has been that virtually all scientists of any stature and expertise support the claims of AGW activists. Only old dinosaurs unfamiliar with modern climate research or corrupt scientists bought off by the fossil fuel industry disagree, goes their argument. The truth is strikingly at odds with this claim. As we noted last year (“'Climate Science' in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda") two of the most important AGW scientist activists have jumped ship and now battle against the cause they once supported: James Lovelock (photo above), the British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis; and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, a founding father of Germany’s environmental movement and a director of one of Europe’s largest alternative energy companies. But that dynamic duo comprises only a minute fraction of the thousands of distinguished scientists who take issue with the AGW activists. In the same article last year, we noted that some of the IPCC’s severest critics are scientists who have served as lead authors and expert reviewers of IPCC reports and have witnessed from the inside the blatant bias and politics masquerading as science. Former and current IPCC experts who have spoken out against the IPCC’s abuse of science include such prominent scientists as:

• Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences;

• Mike Hulme, professor of climate science at East Anglia University where the Climategate e-mails were hacked;

• Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences;

• Dr. John Christy, climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA;

• Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas;

• Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences;

• Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher;

• Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and

• Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans.

In 2010, Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com published an important 321-page report featuring the statements of more than 1,000 renowned scientists worldwide who have challenged the IPCC’s manmade global-warming claims. (The full report may be downloaded for free, as a PDF, here.) The 1,000+ lineup of scientists reads like a Who’s Who of the global scientific community. It includes:

• Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist;

• Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Bracket professor of physics, Princeton University;

• Dr. Leonard Weinstein, 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and presently a senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace;

• Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Prize-winning Stanford University physicist, formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;

• Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of the geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

• Dr. Hans Jelbring, Swedish climatologist of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University;

• Burt Rutan, renowned engineer, inventor, and aviation/space pioneer;

• Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, emeritus professor of physics, and founding director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks;

• Dr. Bjarne Andresen, physicist, and professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; and

• Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa, Canada.

And if still more proof is needed that the science is not “settled” — as Al Gore, the IPCC, the UN, and other members of the alarmist choir claim — more than 31,000 scientists in the United States have signed a petition urging the U.S. government to reject the types of actions that have been proposed at UN forums in Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, and Rio. The Petition Project, organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrates a resounding rejection of claims that there is any kind of "overwhelming consensus" that anthropogenic global warming is a crisis or serious threat.The petition reads, in part:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Many of the scientists cited above, as well as hundreds more among those featured in the ClimateDepot study cited, have published peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, but as our report on the Cook study noted, these articles by skeptic/realist authors have been systematically filtered out of the lists of accepted studies, with the obvious intent of supporting the thesis that published scientists overwhelmingly subscribe to the manmade global warming thesis. The Cook study claimed to be able to find only 78 published studies that supported the skeptical viewpoint. However, PopularTechnology.net published a list of “1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm,” which, again, underscores the shoddy (or intentionally censorious and dishonest) research involved in the celebrated Cook study.

Censorship Exposed

Since we've mentioned censorship, it is worthy of note that the 2009 Climategate e-mail scandal at East Anglia University exposed a vicious and seamy side of the climate-change fraternity that outraged even many of the alarmists’ supporters. As shown here, here, and here, some of the most famous scientists, journals, and institutions promoting AGW alarmism have unethically and maliciously blocked (and/or attempted to block) the publication of papers by fellow scientists who were considered to be opponents of AGW, or who were considered to be simply insufficiently alarmist. Some of the alarmists went even further, attempting to destroy the reputations of skeptics and/or get them fired. If they can’t achieve their “consensus” one way, they’ll get it another.

As we draw closer to the release of the IPCC’s WGI report in September, we can expect that the campaign of climate-alarmist misinformation and disinformation will intensify.

Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15465-climate-consensus-con-game-desperate-effort-before-release-of-un-report

"The history of all nations reveals that trading away civil liberties for security is an illusion that results in the loss of both freedom and security."

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:24:00 +0000

Boston Bombing: The Action Is in the Reaction

Written by Thomas R. Eddlem

The FBI account of suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s apprehension by MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) police in the federal indictment against him was self-serving at best, and fanciful at worst:

On the evening of April 19, 2013, police investigation revealed that there was an individual in a covered boat located at 67 Franklin Street in Watertown. After a stand-off between the boat’s occupant and the police involving gunfire, the individual was removed from the boat and searched.

While it was technically true that Tsarnaev’s apprehension “involved” gunfire, Tsarnaev was not among those who had fired any of the guns that night. The FBI later admitted that Tsarnaev had been unarmed in the boat. All of the dozens — possibly hundreds — of rounds fired off in the moments before the arrest were by arresting officers or their back-up units, not by Tsarnaev. After that cowboy-like melee, the wounded Tsarnaev was arrested.

The FBI account implied a back-and-forth gun battle that ended in Tsarnaev’s surrender. But the reality was that trigger-happy police risked killing an unarmed suspect who already had suffered serious wounds. In essence, it’s only by sheer luck — and poor marksmanship — that Tsarnaev will live to stand trial for his alleged crimes. Interestingly, officials are also investigating whether MBTA Police Officer Richard Donahue was wounded by friendly fire in the shoot-out the night before that resulted in the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhokhar’s older brother.

Moreover, it wasn’t so much a “police investigation” that revealed Tsarnaev to law enforcement as it was a tip from a Watertown resident after the governor’s curfew had been lifted. Franklin Street resident David Henneberry left his house to inspect his boat after police lifted the Watertown curfew. There Henneberry found Tsarnaev in the boat, bleeding, and called the police. Henneberry’s house was a couple of blocks outside of the official search zone, where police were conducting house-to-house searches. In essence, the dragnet-style search ordered by politicians in charge of the police response had done nothing to apprehend the suspect. Nor did the massive use of military ordnance on display on the streets of Boston-area towns speed the apprehension of the suspects. In fact, the “stay-in-place” curfew — officially voluntary — likely delayed apprehension of the 19-year-old Tsarnaev. The political order to vacate the streets had the practical effect of taking a million pairs of eyes off the getaway scene for the duration of the curfew.

Even the criminal charge against Tsarnaev was a result of a legislative exaggeration. The official federal indictment charged Tsarnaev and his brother — who had been killed in a shootout with police the previous night — with using a “weapon of mass destruction.” The term “weapon of mass destruction” (WMD) was once a term describing only chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but in 1994, federal law expanded the definition to include any “destructive device” (bomb) or big-bore “projectile” of more than .50 caliber. By the 1994 legal standard, even an air-powered potato gun can legally qualify as a WMD.

Ironically, the Tsarnaev brothers — if guilty of the Boston Marathon bombings — will have killed fewer people than many other ordinary serial killers. The death toll in the whole Boston area spree was five people (including the elder Tsarnaev brother), whereas — for example — in October 2002, Washington, D.C., snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10 people. By way of contrast, officials in Washington, D.C., did not shut down much of the metropolitan area — as Massachusetts officials did — in order to look for the suspects. Nor did Washington politicians call out the National Guard or employ massive military equipment in order to deal with what was in reality a greater threat to public safety. The divergence between the reactions to threats in public safety today and how officials reacted just a few years ago is telling.

Terrorism: Fear Is Greater Than the Actual Threat

As radical leftist organizer Saul Alinsky once pronounced in his book Rules for Radicals, with political force “the action is in the reaction,” meaning that sometimes it’s more effective to take advantage of a provocation — or even create one — in order to achieve political goals. Alinsky also noted that in politics “the threat itself is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Both such “rules for radicals” apply to the terrorism problem, in that Americans will not give up their cherished freedoms absent a perceived threat. Thus, liberty-hating radicals have come out of the woodwork in the Boston Marathon bombing aftermath, proposing “cures” for the terrorist threat that involve vastly expanded government intelligence and massive surveillance of Americans.

Those calls for more government surveillance of Americans have found a voice in the mayor of New York City. “We live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days,” Michael Bloomberg said in an April press conference. “And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.” Mayor Bloomberg went on to conclude: “Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11.”

In those few sentences, Bloomberg outlined the two false assumptions in virtually every call for more surveillance of Americans: 1. This point in history with the emergence of bombers is new and more scary than in the past and 2. Trading away freedoms for security will lead to more security.

Even before Dhzokhar Tsarnaev’s arrest, slate.com’s technology columnist Farhad Manjoo had joined the surveillance cheerleading squad in his April 19 column for the online magazine: “Cities under the threat of terrorist attack should install networks of cameras to monitor everything that happens at vulnerable urban installations. Yes, you don’t like to be watched. Neither do I. But of all the measures we might consider to improve security in an age of terrorism, installing surveillance cameras everywhere may be the best choice. They’re cheap, less intrusive than many physical security systems, and — as will hopefully be the case with the Boston bombing — they can be extremely effective at solving crimes.”

Manjoo frets about this being an age of terrorism, even though America has been in the era of terrorism at least since the 1886 Chicago Haymarket Riot, when an anarchist bomb-thrower tossed a handmade dynamite bomb into a crowd of police trying to break up an anarchist demonstration. Several police were killed in the blast, and others were killed by police friendly fire in the ensuing melee. The Haymarket Riot later became a global communist holiday after the Second International in Paris commemorated the riots in 1889. Although Chicago police were unable to find the Haymarket bomb-thrower, they did find the bomb factory and many of the bomb-thrower’s confederates.

Law-enforcement agencies had better luck tracking down a far larger wave of bombings from 1917-20 in the wake of the anarchist/Bolshevik revolutions in Europe. The United States suffered some 125 bombing attempts across the country. In April 1919, the bombers sent 36 mail bombs of dynamite to congressmen, leading businessmen, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, governors, leading newspapers, and U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. On June 2 of the same year, the anarchists tried again, setting off larger bombs in eight different cities and again targeting leading politicians and businessmen, including Attorney General Palmer. On September 1, 1920, a horse-drawn cart full of 500 pounds of dynamite — surrounded by metal shrapnel — exploded on Wall Street, killing 38 people.

The era was known as the “Red Scare” despite the fact that the threat was real, and Attorney General Palmer called for the deportation of the anarchists (mostly Italian followers of Luigi Galleani) and Bolsheviks (mostly Russian) from the country as a cure for the chaos:

I have been asked, for instance, to what extent deportation will check radicalism in this country. Why not ask what will become of the United States Government if these alien radicals are permitted to carry out the principles of the Communist Party as embodied in its so-called laws, aims and regulations? There wouldn’t be any such thing left. In place of the United States Government we should have the horror and terrorism of bolsheviki tyranny such as is destroying Russia now.

Reaction to the “Red Scare” of 1919-20 involved the same type of apocalyptic rhetoric as that employed against the threat of Islamic extremism today. And it involved some repression of civil liberties: Aliens were deported without formal due process and the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation (a forerunner of the FBI) engaged in warrantless searches and seizures. But the reaction to more than one hundred bombings was otherwise far more muted than the response to the Boston Marathon bombings: The federal government and local police did not call out the National Guard and deploy military ordnance on the streets of America, nor did they shut down whole cities or collude with local officials to issue curfew restrictions. Perhaps most importantly, the popular reaction against the Palmer raids strengthened the idea that civil liberties needed to be protected.

Calls for a Police Surveillance State

Today, establishment figures have learned the opposite lesson: they want to give government agencies the power to turn the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable government searches and seizures and the implied right to privacy protected by the Ninth and 10th Amendments into dead letters. The New York-based establishment Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) Adjunct Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Richard Falkenrath, the former NYPD deputy commissioner for counterterrorism, is quick to call for empowerment of an American secret police agency by repealing the few remaining restraints on surveillance of Americans. Asked by the CFR if he favored creation of a powerful domestic intelligence service, Falkenrath replied: “If you created a domestic intelligence service, but left all the underlying legal policy and jurisprudential constraints in place, then it would be a wasted bureaucratic reform. My focus has always been not on creating organizations but on rethinking or revising, where appropriate, the constraints that exist for domestic law enforcement at the federal level.” In other words, gut the few remaining restraints on government surveillance of citizens and use existing agencies such as the FBI and CIA to conduct the surveillance.

Falkenrath also defended the decision of Massachusetts officials to call for a curfew for non-police officers during the search. “There were a lot of hard decisions that had to be made, but it’s useful to remember some of the precedents here, one of which is London, July 2005, where an innocent man was shot to death by police acting on the suspicion that he was one of the assailants in a failed bombing. And what that shows is there is reason to be wary of the threat to public safety from thousands of law enforcement officers on high alert trained to shoot to kill. So I don’t second-guess the request on the part of the government for people to remain inside, which was certainly made out of an abundance of caution.”

Falkenrath’s statement has a number of problems, not the least of which is the claim police are trained to “shoot to kill.” That’s not the goal of police work. Police are instead trained to be a life-saving service, not soldiers trained to shoot to kill. At least that’s what they have traditionally been trained to be. Police are called to a higher standard, and in this case, one Hollywood movie paints a more realistic picture of the original purpose of police than Falkenrath, who was once a police official. In the 2003 movie S.W.A.T., Samuel L. Jackson plays the head of the Los Angeles SWAT team and stresses that “SWAT is a life-saving organization, not a life-taking one. That’s why the FBI and Secret Service come here to train with us.” Falkenrath — instead of calling for the retraining of police to act with proper restraint in an urban environment — called for civilians to be increasingly restricted during criminal manhunts.

A World of Cameras — but Whose?

“We have to understand that in the world going forward,” Mayor Bloomberg said in his press conference, “we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff.” Of course, living in an era of video cameras and surveillance is to a certain extent unavoidable when every department store and gasoline station has cameras, and every person who carries a smartphone walks around with video recording technology. The question is not whether cameras can be banned; they can’t. It’s only the centralized government surveillance of citizens that’s worrisome. The question is: Should government be able to centralize control of camera surveillance and put all citizens under surveillance as if they are all enemies? The alternative is for government to rely upon private companies and citizens to provide footage voluntarily when there is a threat to public safety, just as they have traditionally relied upon eyewitnesses such as Dave Henneberry to help catch crooks.

The history of all nations reveals that trading away civil liberties for security is an illusion that results in the loss of both freedom and security. And the question Americans must ask themselves is whether the exaggerated and militarized police response to dangerous fugitives in Boston is the “new normal.” Lovers of freedom should push for a more measured response to what is neither a new threat nor more dangerous than other historical threats. If terrorists truly hate America for its freedoms, as President Bush once claimed, then we should not give the terrorists what they have long demanded: the surrender of American citizens’ liberties.

Sidebar: “Martial Law” in Watertown: The Civil Rights Situation

"Boston,” former Congressman Ron Paul argued in a column for LewRockwell.com on April 29, “got a taste of martial law” during the Boston Marathon bombing ordeal. The reaction to Dr. Paul’s column was a hyperventilating broadcast by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who claimed Paul had “lied” in the column. O’Donnell claimed Paul had lied because the former Texas congressman claimed “tanks” had been used in Boston streets, and the military-style armored cars and humvees used on Boston streets had wheels instead of the caterpillar treads employed by tanks. In another argument on a meaningless technicality, O’Donnell stressed that the state-imposed curfew was officially “voluntary,” and therefore it wasn’t “martial law.”

The reality was more complex. Police and other public officials did declare a “voluntary” curfew across Watertown, Boston, and Cambridge, as O’Donnell had stressed. And one Watertown resident told The New American she saw a neighbor walk his dog unmolested during the curfew. But some people were definitely harassed for violating the “voluntary” curfew — even famous Boston-area television reporters claimed on-air they had been searched multiple times in “stop-and-frisk” warrantless searches. Other Boston television reporters aired video of distraught civilians who were in the process of being detained and searched by police without warrants for the crime of walking down the street during the “voluntary” curfew.

And there were multiple warrantless searches in the Boston area during the manhunt, though all of the residents of Dexter Avenue and Nichols Street in the Watertown lockdown area interviewed by The New American said police first asked permission to search their homes. Viewpoints differed on police behavior, along a spectrum from “they were nice” to “scary,” the latter being applied more to the body armor-clad SWAT teams than ordinary police and National Guard units deployed throughout the town. A few residents who consented to searches of their homes told The New American that had they not given permission, they suspected the police might have come in anyway. This suspicion coincides with press interviews on other blocks in the lockdown area. Those warrantless searches have been reported by wide-ranging sources, such as Alex Jones’ InfoWars.com (which did some excellent firsthand video interviews with Watertown residents), Boston television network-affiliate reporters, and even the leftist Boston Globe newspaper.

From The New American’s own interviews — and interviews by other press — it is not clear if there was any wholesale central directive to ignore Fourth Amendment requirements for search and seizure. (Non-consensual searches require a warrant from a judge, based upon probable cause, supported by an oath, and the warrant must describe what is being searched for and where it will be found). Though a number of unconstitutional searches did take place (e.g., the media people who were searched), they quite possibly took place on an ad hoc basis, perhaps depending upon what block the police were clearing at the time, and which squad of SWAT/FBI agents was doing the clearing.

Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15430-boston-bombing-the-action-is-in-the-reaction

Tying up some more loose ends???

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:21:00 +0000

2 FBI Agents Involved in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Arrest "FALL" Out of Helicopter and Die

Ralph Hornsby

Remember that scene in Scarface?

Two members of the FBI’s elite counterterrorism unit died Friday while practicing how to quickly drop from a helicopter to a ship using a rope, the FBI announced Monday in a statement.

The statement gave few details regarding the deaths of Special Agents Christopher Lorek and Stephen Shaw, other than to say the helicopter encountered unspecified difficulties and the agents fell a “significant distance.”

Last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. And in February, it rescued a 5-year-old boy held hostage for six days in an underground bunker in Alabama.

“Whenever things go really wrong, the FBI calls in the Hostage Rescue Team. It’s the government’s 911,” Coulson said.

Irvin Wells, a former FBI special agent who retired in 1990 after leading the Norfolk field office for three years, stressed that the Hostage Rescue Team is different from the FBI’s regular SWAT teams. He noted that agents assigned to a field office’s SWAT team also must perform other jobs inside the bureau, while agents assigned to the Hostage Rescue Team have no other duties.

Link:
http://12160.info/page/2-fbi-agents-involved-in-dzhokar-tsarnaev-s-arrest-fall-out-of-he

OOPS!!! It's getting colder because it is getting warmer...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:19:00 +0000

Brrr! Seattle, Portland briefly tied for coldest major city in lower 48

By Scott Sistek

Does it feel a bit like January out there today? Your skin does not deceive you.

A cold system from the Gulf of Alaska has settled into the Pacific Northwest, bringing not only a steady winter-like rain but has kept temperatures stuck in the 40s(!) through the late morning.

In fact, at 11 a.m., Seattle was stuck at 46 degrees -- about the average high for mid January. It's so cold in the Northwest that Seattle and Portland were tied as the coldest major cities in the lower 48 states -- and it wasn't even close! (Boise was at 50. Anchorage was also at 46. If we do lower our population threshold for "major city", Spokane checks in at 41.)

Portland would gradually take the trophy by itself as Seattle later warmed into the low 50s as Portland remained stuck in the mid 40s.

While it was cold and grey down here, it was cold and white up in the mountains. Paradise Ranger Station at 5,500 feet up Mt. Rainier had 14 inches of new snow (more than a foot!!) Monday night into Tuesday as their snow base went up from 126 to 140 inches. Temperatures there had dropped to 25 degrees overnight but had "warmed" to 34 by late morning.

Read more here:
http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/Brrr-Seattle-Portland-tied-for-coldest-city-in-lower-48-208526131.html

"Show me the Body and Photos"

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:17:00 +0000

CIA Blocks Release of Bin Laden Photos Signifying Bin Laden Killing Likely Never Took Place

The CIA withholds 52 photos requested by JudicialWatch through a Freedom of Information Act request, raising suspicion that Bin Laden was likely never killed in the official “raid”.

by Shepard Ambellas

If you look back on the whole thing it does seem kind of odd. The whole Bin Laden raid thing.

The Bin Laden raid that was conducted by SEAL Team 6, one of the most elite special forces groups on the entire planet.

The one where some highly trained hero dog tagged along, garnering the hearts and minds of the American public.

The one that later left every member of SEAL Team 6 dead.

The one that has the US government now withholding photos, against FIOA requests, that likely don’t even exist.

Actually, if you actually think it through, the official story was a cover, as no photos or body will ever be revealed.

This raises questions from several angles. One being, Why would a war criminal and known diabolic terrorist, get a proper military burial at sea, unless he was officially on the militaries payroll? It also begs the question. Why would the US military go to such an extent to hide the body so abruptly after the alleged incident?

The Trigger and Distraction

The same week the Bin Laden raid took place, the authenticity of President’s birth certificate was questioned publicly causing a firestorm of negative press. The fire needed to be contained. This very same week multi millionaire, Donald Trump, had come forth, spouting that Obama’s birth certificate was a “forgery”, nothing more than an electronic “fabrication”.

Forensic experts have since concluded that many layers within the president’s birth certificate were manually manipulated, then posted carelessly on the White House’s official website. The PDF layers have been altered and have not been re-zipped properly, showing actual evidence of manipulation and fabrication. Enough evidence has currently been ascertained to convict someone, if not the president himself, connected to birth documents for forgery, and other charges as addressed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Arizona in several press conferences.

Investigators such as WND’s Jerome Corsi, have taken the investigation into this matter a few steps further, traveling to Hawaii to do an on site investigation into live birth records. The findings are astonishing, literally proving that the president, and commander-in chief, Barrack Obama, is not the man he is claiming to be.

However, this evidence has been suppressed by the mainstream media and dismissed as conspiracy theory.

Show me the Body and Photos

The US government’s decision to keep Osama Bin Laden photos taken before, during, and after the SEAL Team 6 “raid” secret, has been upheld recently, after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia backed the decision, lockstep with the establishment. The decision to veto the appeal was passed by a panel of 3 judges against JudicialWatch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

JudicialWatch spokespeople argued that there is no need to hide photos (potentially gruesome in nature) from the American people. After all TV is gruesome and violent. Basically pointing out that there is obviously something to hide.

However, some now question whether the raid that allegedly left CIA trained, Bin Laden, dead by the hands of SEAL Team 6 even took place.

In fact, members of Seal Team 6 have even died since the alleged raid took place.

Excerpts from an ABC article read, “On Tuesday’s ruling, the appeals court said that the CIA properly withheld publication of the images of the al-Qaida leader. The court concluded that the photos used to conduct facial recognition analysis of bin Laden could reveal classified intelligence methods and that images of bin Laden’s burial at sea could trigger violence against American citizens.

Judicial Watch had argued that it was unlikely that images showing the preparation of bin Laden’s body for burial and the burial itself would cause any harm to U.S. national security. At oral arguments in January, the group’s lawyer suggested that graphic photos of bin Laden’s corpse should be distinguished from somber images of bin Laden’s burial at sea.

“As the district court rightly concluded, however, the CIA’s declarations give reason to believe that releasing images of American military personnel burying the founder and leader of al-Qaida could cause exceptionally grave harm,” wrote the panel, made up of Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judges Judith W. Rogers and Harry T. Edwards, all appointees of Democratic presidents. The decision affirms a district court judge’s ruling last year denying the group’s lawsuit over the FOIA.

A CIA official had made a declaration in the case that many of the photos and video recordings are “quite graphic as they depict the fatal bullet wound to and other similarly gruesome images of his corpse.”

From what it looks like no photos of the body will be released anytime soon, or ever.

Link:
http://intellihub.com/2013/05/21/cia-blocks-release-of-bin-laden-photos-signifying-bin-laden-killing-likely-never-took-place/

"God Bless the USA!"

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:14:00 +0000

God Bless the USA!

by Karen Kwiatkowski

We citizens of the US are represented by the very best of us. The Senate, in particular the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is filled to the brim with humanitarians, deep thinking wise men, and just good folks.

Surely, that must be true.

Why, only yesterday, most of these fourteen fine gentlemen and two fine ladies voted to provide aid to freedom fighters in Syria, including training and lethal weapons now, plus a $250 million starter fund for their government once Assad is hung or assassinated. While the committee is dominated by peace-loving Democrats, they are certainly channeling Ronald Reagan and who can say he would not be proud! As another testament to the era of the 1980s, the vote was a model of transparency and clear thinking!

I detect a bit of disbelief. Doubters need go no further than the membership of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, filled as it is with the great military minds of Barbara Boxer and Marco Rubio, environmentalist and professional politician Ben Cardin of Maryland, and clean water activist and leader in various Iran sanctions legislation Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Check out the great record of public service, government efficiency, and tax-fighting of New Hampshire’s Jeanne Shaheen – who simultaneously fights to maintain "her" two military bases and unhindered funding thereto, who happily voted "Yes, God, Yes" on the bill.

And who can forget union and public school fighter Bob Menendez, who chairs the committee, and his wise words yesterday,

The greatest humanitarian crisis in the world is unfolding in and around Syria…Vital U.S. interests are at stake including the stability of the Middle East, loose chemical weapons, and the danger that Syria becomes a safe haven for extremists. The United States must play a role in tipping the scales toward opposition groups and working to build a free and democratic Syria.

I get chills just reading that, and who wouldn’t have wanted to be sitting in that committee room to bask in the glow of American principles and statesmanship!

Of course, doubters among you might suggest that greater humanitarian crises exist, and have for far longer, and with greater human cost. Perhaps you are thinking of the little you know about eastern Congo, or one of the many places the US is already "aiding" with "training and lethal weapons," such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mali, Sudan, Somalia, etc. Perhaps you have some vague idea about suffering and death relating to the blockaded and sanctioned Palestinians, or those starving in North Korea, or even the US-funded prison for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo! If you are thinking that these cases even approach the ethical scope, importance, urgency and actionable-ness of Syria, you are sadly mistaken.

Why, even calm and clear thinking Republican Marco Rubio became emotional and "insisted that it was critical to help groups battling the well-armed, pro-Assad forces and radical jihadists." Vital and critical, to the US as we know it, and as we believe her to be – that shining city on a hill, arms open, and always ready to help those seeking to throw off the yoke of an invasive, unelected, and unaccountable government led by a despot who doesn’t share the vision of the people and is arming against them.

I’m only surprised that more money and assistance was not immediately approved by the Senate committee, and can only say godspeed to this bill in the Senate, and in the House.

It is amazing that the three naysayers in the Foreign Relations Committee were not publicly marched out and held in stocks for the rest of us to laugh at! I mean seriously, Senator Udall (New Mexico) was suggesting that weapons given to the rebels in Syria might end up in the hands of our enemies! Like when has that ever happened? What a fool!

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky commented, "…the U.S. is war weary and reluctant to get involved in a murky conflict with so many factions. …There is no assurance that the weapons would end up in the hands of "liberty-loving, Jeffersonian-type of democrats." He went on to point out that the existing law forbids the passage of this bill, specifically that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force does not allow intervention in Syria and another bars weapons to Syria.

I can imagine the jeering and the laughter in the room when these idiotic ideas were voiced! Thank goodness we could count on the highly respected public servant Senator John McCain to be appropriately derisive.

Of course, behind the scenes, we have the active support in this effort to militarily aid the Syrian rebels, even the al Qaeda connected ones such as Jabhat al-Nusra, by both the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Pentagon. Of course, neither of these groups benefit from war, chaos, confusion, and a vibrant military intelligence, arms, and public commentary marketplace in the Middle East, and no one would ever be so stupid as to suggest that. Nonetheless, they both reluctantly came on board with this proposal to aid Syrian rebels because indeed, this is a humanitarian crisis, not a political one, and it can only be dealt with militarily.

Everybody knows that.

Suggestions that members of the Senate Committee take some of their considerable private wealth and influence and raise the funds to train, arm and transition a new government into Syria were shrugged off, with one Senator saying "What good would that do?"

Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski294.html

If it's not here already...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:11:00 +0000

Tyranny Around the Corner

by Andrew P. Napolitano

A few weeks ago, President Obama advised graduates at Ohio State University that they need not listen to voices warning about tyranny around the corner, because we have self-government in America. He argued that self-government is in and of itself an adequate safeguard against tyranny, because voters can be counted upon to elect democrats (lowercase "d") not tyrants. His argument defies logic and 20th-century history. It reveals an ignorance of the tyranny of the majority, which believes it can write any law, regulate any behavior, alter any procedure and tax any event so long as it can get away with it.

History has shown that the majority will not permit any higher law or logic or value – like fidelity to the natural law, a belief in the primacy of the individual or an acceptance of the supremacy of the Constitution – that prevents it from doing as it wishes.

Under Obama's watch, the majority has, by active vote or refusal to interfere, killed hundreds of innocents – including three Americans – by drone, permitted federal agents to write their own search warrants, bombed Libya into tribal lawlessness without a declaration of war so that a mob there killed our ambassador with impunity, attempted to force the Roman Catholic Church to purchase insurance policies that cover artificial birth control, euthanasia and abortion, ordered your doctor to ask you whether you own guns, used the IRS to intimidate outspoken conservatives, seized the telephone records of newspaper reporters without lawful authority and in violation of court rules, and obtained a search warrant against one of my Fox colleagues by misrepresenting his true status to a federal judge.

James Rosen, my colleague and friend, is a professional journalist. He covers the State Department for Fox News. In order to do his job, he has cultivated sources in the State Department – folks willing to speak from time to time off the record.

One of Rosen's sources apparently was a former employee of a federal contractor who was on detail to the State Department, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Kim is an expert in arms control and national defense whose lawyers have stated that his job was to explain byzantine government behavior so we all can understand it. When he was indicted for communicating top secret and sensitive information, presumably to Rosen, his lawyers replied by stating that the information he discussed was already in the public domain, and thus it wasn't secret.

Prior to securing Kim's indictment, the Department of Justice obtained a search warrant for Google's records of Rosen's personal emails by telling a federal judge that Rosen had committed the crime of conspiracy by undue flattery of Kim and appealing to Kim's vanity until Kim told Rosen what he wanted to hear. In a word, that is rubbish. And the FBI agent who claimed that asking a source for information and the federal judge who found that the flattering questions alone constituted criminal behavior were gravely in error.

Reporters are protected in their craft by the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they can ask whatever questions they wish without fear of prosecution. If Kim revealed classified information to Rosen – a charge Kim vigorously denies – that is Kim's crime, not Rosen's. The Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that it is not a crime for a journalist to seek secrets, to receive them, to possess them and to publish them so long as they affect a matter of material public interest.

The government's behavior here is very troubling. Government lawyers and FBI agents are charged with knowing the law. They must have known that Rosen committed no crime, and they no doubt never intended to charge him, and they never have. They materially misled the judge, who saw the phrase "probable cause" of criminal activity (taken from the Fourth Amendment) in their affidavit in support of the search warrant they sought, and he signed. The judge should have seen this for the ruse it was. It is inconceivable that a person could conspire to commit a crime (release of classified information) that is impossible for that person to commit, particularly with a Supreme Court case directly on point.

This misuse of the search warrant mechanism by misrepresentation of the status of the target continues the radicalization of federal criminal procedure now typical of this Department of Justice. It has claimed that it can release military weapons to foreign criminal gangs just to see where the weapons end up, and that its agents cannot be prosecuted for harm caused by those who received the weapons. It has held that the serious consideration given in the White House by high-ranking government officials to the identity of persons the president wants to kill somehow is a constitutional substitute for due process and thus enables the president to use drones to kill people uncharged with federal crimes. It has extended the public safety exception to the Miranda rule from the few seconds at the scene of the crime spent securing the prisoner, where the Supreme Court has said it resides, to more than 72 hours.

And now this.

The reason we have the due process safeguards imposed upon the government by the Constitution is to keep tyranny from lurking anywhere here, much less around the corner. Due process is the intentionally created obstacle to government procedural shortcuts, which, if disregarded, will invite tyranny to knock at the front door and sneak in through the back. Justice Felix Frankfurter warned of this 70 years ago when he wrote, "The history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards." That was true then, and it is true now.

Do you expect the Department of Justice to cut constitutional corners against you?

Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano102.html

Obviously the government has many things to hide in Newtown...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:09:00 +0000

Officials Draft Secret Bill to Keep Sandy Hook Records Under Wraps

Michael Tennant

What are Connecticut officials trying to hide with regard to last year’s shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School? That is the question raised by a Hartford Courant story indicating that top officials in the executive and legislative branches are secretly collaborating to draft a bill that would “withhold records related to the police investigation into the Dec. 14 Newtown elementary school massacre — including victims’ photos, tapes of 911 calls, and possibly more.”

The Courant discovered the behind-the-scenes machinations Tuesday when it obtained a copy of an e-mail from Timothy J. Sugrue, a top assistant to Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane. Sugrue “discussed options considered so far” in the e-mail, which was sent to “Kane, two other Kane subordinates and to Danbury State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky, who is directing the investigation of the killings,” the paper reported.

Sugrue wrote that he was in contact with Natalie Wagner, a member of Gov. Daniel Malloy’s legal counsel staff, who expected the draft language to be “forthcoming” Tuesday — the bill was being worked on by leaders in both houses of the General Assembly — and would “send [Sugrue] the draft in confidence when she receives it,” upon which he would “immediately forward it.”

In other words, the bill, whose purpose is to keep many of the details of the Sandy Hook investigation secret, is itself being drawn up in secret. It “has not been handled under routine legislative procedures — it hasn’t gone through the committee process, which includes a public hearing, for example,” the Courant observed.

The bill turned out not to be ready by the end of Tuesday, leaving those not privy to the secret negotiations to speculate on its contents.

The newspaper reported that the original intention was to amend “the state’s freedom of information law by adding a blanket exemption to disclosure of any ‘criminal investigation photograph, film, videotape, other image or recording or report depicting or describing the victim or victims’” — an idea opposed by Freedom of Information Commission director Colleen Murphy.

According to Sugrue’s e-mail, however, the plan is now to pass the bill “in the form of a special act” rather than an amendment.

“There is complete agreement regarding photos etc., and audio tapes, although the act may allow the disclosure of audio transcripts,” he wrote.

Officials in the know claim the purpose of the legislation is solely to protect the privacy of crime victims and their families.

“A lot of people, including our office, have heard the concerns expressed by the families of Newtown victims, and are exploring ways to respect the families’ right to privacy while also respecting the public’s right to information,” Mark Ojakian, Malloy’s chief of staff, said in a statement.

“We are seeking legislation to protect crime scene photographs protecting victims and certain 911 tapes,” Kane told the Courant. “It is something that I have been concerned about for years and years and the situation in Newtown brings it to a head. I don’t want family members seeing pictures of their loved ones publicized in a manner in which these are subject to be published.”

Kane’s comments suggest that the bill would apply not just to the Newtown case but also to other criminal cases now subject to public disclosure. He told the paper that he envisions a law that would apply to “crime scene photographs depicting injuries to victims and recordings, 911 recordings displaying the mental anguish of victims. Things like that, of that category. And it seems to me that the intrusion of the privacy of the individuals outweighs any public interest in seeing these.”

The Courant pointed out that blocking the release of victims’ photos would not represent “a significant departure from normal procedures” because “as a matter of long practice, Connecticut police departments do not release grisly photos of victims. These only emerge in public when placed in evidence during criminal trials, and when they do they generally are not published in newspapers or on television.”

On the other hand, prohibiting the release of 911 tapes “would be a major departure,” the paper wrote. “Audio tapes of 911 tapes … are routinely released by police under [freedom of information] laws in Connecticut and across the country…. Such tapes are often used by the news media or lawyers to evaluate the police response to emergencies.”

However, the Courant reports that “law enforcement officials have refused to release the 911 call tapes in the Newtown case so far.” In fact, officials have been very tight-lipped about the entire investigation, telling the public they will just have to wait until a final report is issued this summer. “Most investigative records have yet to be released concerning [alleged shooter Adam] Lanza, including any psychological reports,” the broadsheet noted.

At the same time, state police officers had no qualms about sharing details of the investigation with officers from other states at police conventions, prompting the Courant to editorialize: “If state police officers can leak details of the Newtown investigation at conventions, surely that information can be shared with the Connecticut public. It has more of a right to know than out-of-state police chiefs do…. This isn’t information to be hoarded and shared only at the state police water cooler.”

The Courant views the secret bill as just the latest in a long line of proposals “that would limit the public’s right to know what its government is doing.”

The bill, it declared, “is wrong at every level.”

“Drafting bills in secret — without going through the committee and public hearing processes — is a terrible idea and not how democratic government is supposed to work. If keeping police records private is a good idea, why did the proposal’s backers feel the need to act in secret?”

In addition, with the “awesome power” that police have, “it is essential that the public be able to scrutinize police work, to keep police power in check,” the newspaper maintained.

Moreover, even if one believes that those pushing the legislation have only the interests of the Newtown victims’ families at heart, this “does not outweigh the public’s need for this kind of information,” averred the editors.

Are Connecticut officials trying to cover something up? If this bill passes, the public may never find out. But as the Courantobserved in March, “The longer information is kept under wraps, the more questions there will be about why.”

Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15488-officials-draft-secret-bill-to-keep-sandy-hook-records-under-wraps

Another step closer to drone attacks in the US...

noreply@blogger.com (Wallyworld) — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:07:00 +0000

New Precedent: Armed Domestic Drone Strikes Will Soon Be Reality

Anthony Gucciardi

A new precedent has been set. Despite extensive denial that drone strikes would endanger Americans, Attorney General Eric Holder has now openly admitted that four US citizens were killed through overseas drone strikes since 2009.

While not on United States soil, the deaths of the US citizens in nations like Yemen and Pakistan highlight the new precedent being set by US government heads who wish to use drones as a form of lethal enforcement on US soil. With Holder admitting that Americans have already died via drone strikes following his statements that Obama can alreadyinitiate drone strikes on US soil, we are now seeing the way paved to go ahead and announce armed drones to fight terrorism here in the US.

We all remember the initial rhetoric that drones were ‘no real threat’, and that they were simply unarmed scouting machines used to save lives overseas.

Then, we saw them rapidly enter the nation, and we heard the same tired reassurances. We saw them killing innocents overseas with the high powered weaponry being attached to these ‘scouting’ drones, and we see them still doing so today. But, once again, we’re told not to worry. Political talking heads like Eric Holder assure us that domestic drones, for which over 1,400 permits have been issued, are not meant to be used as weapons. Well, that is unless Obama decides to use the drones as a weapon of war on US soil.

ARMED DOMESTIC DRONES IN THE NEAR FUTURE

Despite the message of assurance regarding the promise that domestic drones would never turn into government-controlled war machines, Eric Holder decided to go ahead and announce that it would actually be entirely ‘legal’ for Obama to issue a drone strike on a US citizen on domestic soil. In fact, CNN reports that Holder does not ‘rule out’ the possibility of domestic drone strikes, and that a scenario could occur in the future. And to strike someone with a drone, of course, you would need weaponry. You would need an armed drone.

In other words, Holder is going against the major promise by the FAA official who ‘promised’ that no armed drones will be flying on domestic soil. But don’t worry, Holder says the government has ‘no intention’ right now of issuing drone strikes on US soil. Just like the government never targeted Constitution and conservative-based groups through the IRS and would never use domestic drones to spy on you. Quite simply, if any power is given to these individuals in government, be sure of one thing: they will use it.

And knowing the track record of drone strikes overseas and how they greatly affect the innocent, drone strikes on US soil against citizens is an even more serious threat. The 3,000 plus deaths from drone strikes overseas in Pakistan alone, which vastly affect the innocent and non-threatening, have even prompted Google employees and big firms alike to develop charts and interactive maps to detail the deaths in a manner that portrays the reality of the situation. One design firm known as Pitch recently went and created an interactive chart that, along with detailing how less than 2% of strike victims are high priority targets, documents the drone strike deaths throughout recent years.

We continue to hear these major announcements from Holder regarding drone strikes, and each time it pushes the precedent further. Each time, he warps the ‘law’ to justify what is being done with drone attacks, and each time we come closer to the announcement that we ‘need’ to use armed drones against domestic terrorists. Just wait for the next terrorist hunt in the US for a high profile crime case to hear more from Holder and the gang on why we need armed domestic drones to keep us safe. It already happened with Dorner and others.

Link:
http://www.storyleak.com/armed-domestic-drone-strikes-reality/