May 14, 2009
May 12, 2009
March 24, 2009
On March 18, Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, tacked an amendment on H.R. 1388, entitled “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act,” or GIVE (to government), Obama’s plan to require mandatory service for all able young people. Miller’s amendment will “prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing,” according to GovTrack.us, a site that tracks Congress.
|Obama’s call for a “Civilian Security Force” during a campaign speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado.|
In other words, Obama’s “volunteer corps” act, passed by the House with a 321-105 margin and requiring the government to develop a plan for indentured servitude, would deny millions of people their right to oppose and organize against government legistation under the First Amendment. “This is as close to a sedition act, a violation of 1st Amendment rights, as has been proposed in recent history. A basic right as a part of our natural, inalienable rights, is to resist government. Our founders not only knew it was a right but it was a responsibility. This legislation begins to break that down significantly,” writes Gary Wood for the Examiner.
GIVE (up your rights) will conscript millions of young people, put them in uniforms and send them packing to 4-year “public service” academies where they will be indoctrinated and trained to become “public sector leaders.”
GIVE was passed by the House on March 18 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 321 to 105. “At this moment of economic crisis, when so many people are in need of help and so much needs to be done, this could not be more urgent,” said Obama. “It is up to every one of us to do his or her small part to make the world a better place.”
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill addresses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”H.R. 1388 not only reauthorizes programs under the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, but also includes “new programs and studies” and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, explains Bob Unruh for WND.
“Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 ‘volunteers,’ is the beginning of what President Obama called his ‘National Civilian Security Force’ in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate,” Unruh adds.
It appears Miller’s amendment is designed to strip members of this emerging “National Civilian Security Force” of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
The First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
According to GovTrack.us, the addition of the Miller amendment to GIVE was agreed to by voice vote.
On March 23, a similar bill was passed by the Senate on a 74 to 14 vote. “From President Kennedy’s days to the creation of Americorps by then President Bill Clinton, the notion of public service has become a rallying cry. Tonight’s vote, propelled by President Obama’s urging of an expansion, would mean a growth in such work from 75,000 community service jobs to 250,000,” reported the New York Times.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The uproar that ensued as a result of our original story about a document issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center which smeared third party supporters as potential domestic terrorists has forced the Missouri Department of Public Safety to issue an apology to Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr. However, references to people who are anti-abortion, anti-gun control, knowledgeable about the Constitution and even those who simply display political bumper stickers will remain.
As we revealed in our exclusive report two weeks ago, a leaked secret report distributed by the federal Missouri Information Analysis Center lists Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equates them with radical race hate groups and terrorists.
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
The MIAC report ( PDF) does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.
Even after an uproar ensued as a result of widespread media coverage of the report, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon had the temerity to stand behind the document despite its blatantly erroneous content and blasé defamation.However, days after Paul, Baldwin and Barr signed a joint letter demanding that references to themselves and their affiliated political groups be removed from the report, along with a hint of legal action if this didn’t occur, the Missouri Department of Public Safety has issued a formal apology.
“Portions of that report may be easily construed by readers as offensive to supporters of certain political candidates or to those candidates themselves,” Department of Public Safety Director John Britt wrote in his apology letter ( PDF) to Paul, Barr and Baldwin. “I regret that those comments were ultimately included in the final report issued by the MIAC.”
“Unfortunately, in the course of preparing this report, some regrettable information was included in the report on militia groups in Missouri,” Britt wrote. “While the intent of the report was only to identify certain traits that are sometimes shared by members of militia organizations, this report is too easily misinterpreted as suggesting that militia members may be identified by no other indicator than support for a particular candidate or political organization.”
“I have ordered that the offending report be edited to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin,” the letter concludes, without a promise to retract the report altogether, much to the chagrin of the multitude of other banal groups demonized as potential domestic terrorists.
Missourians United For Life, an anti-abortion group, has filed a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union against Governor Nixon following his public support of the document.
“What Governor Nixon is telling Missourians is if you disagree with him on the issue of life or display a pro-life bumper sticker or wear a pro-life pin, you may subjected to action by state law enforcement or your personal information might be sent to a law enforcement analysis center,” said Ed Martin, President of Missourians United for Life. “This is a clear violation of Missourians civil rights. The only intent of such a report by Nixon’s Administration is to harass and intimidate the governor’s perceived political enemies and chill speech and open debate by those who disagree with Jay Nixon on public policy.”
State Rep. Shane Schoeller of Willard added his criticism to the furore, stating, “I don’t want to evolve into a society where people are watched just because they’re out participating in some freedom of speech activity.”
The fact that the bulk of the report, which equates pro-life groups, political activists and people knowledgeable about the Constitution with domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, will not be redacted, proves that the battle is not over.
Outrage over the wholesale defamation of some of the most patriotic and informed groups of American citizens and attempts to educate police that they should be treated as an “enemy” should not subside just because the state has issued a meek apology to Paul, Barr and Baldwin alone.
The entire report needs to be repudiated in order to create a precedent that educating police with this kind of garbage is an insult to the very oath that they swore by in the first place.
March 23, 2009
Last week on the Alex Jones Show, former presidential candidate and Baptist minister Chuck Baldwin said he would co-author with former presidential candidate and House member Ron Paul and former federal prosecutor, former member of the United States House of Representatives and presidential candidate Bob Barr a letter ( see PDF) to the Governor of Missouri, Jeremiah Nixon, protesting the Missouri Information Analysis Center’s document designating Baldwin and his co-authors as terrorists.
Baldwin, Paul, and Barr “respectfully demand” the document in question “be immediately removed from any and all websites associated with or maintained by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof, including the MIAC.” In addition, they demand “said document no longer be circulated by the state of Missouri” and the state repudiate its references to Baldwin, Paul, and Barr.
The letter insists action be taken within three days of receipt.
On March 20, Prison Planet reported Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s defense of the MIAC report. “Getting information, especially public information, out of our fusion center out to local law enforcement agencies is we do every day and we’re going to continue to do,” said Nixon. “Any way they take that information and can analyze what the threat levels are is important to make sure the public stays safe.” ConnectMidMissouri reported. In other words, Nixon will continue to permit MIAC to designate Baldwin, Paul, and Barr as terrorists.
In regard to the content of the MIAC report, see our Police Trained Nationwide That Informed Americans Are Domestic Terrorists, posted on the Infowars and Prison Planet websites on March 13.
After Alex Jones received the MIAC document and it was posted on his websites, the news story went viral and was covered by the Associated Press and other corporate media outlets (Alex Jones, Infowars, and Prison Planet did not receive attribution for breaking the story, however.)
March 23, 2009
This text by Catherine Austin Fitts is a response to an article entitled “The Fed Didn’t Cause the Housing Bubble” by Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, published in the Wall Street Journal
|Alan Greenspan is a liar. The Federal Reserve and its long standing partner, the US Treasury, engineered the housing bubble, including the fraudulent inducement of America as part of a financial coup d’etat.|
In his article on your opinion page, “The Fed Didn’t Cause the Housing Bubble,” Alan Greenspan attributes the housing bubble to lower interest rates between 2002 and 2005. That’s amazing to me.
My company served as lead financial advisor to the Federal Housing Administration between 1994 and 1997. I watched both the Administration and the Federal Reserve aggressively implement the policies that engineered the housing bubble. These are described at my website and in my on-line book,Dillon Read & the Aristocracy of Stock Profits (http://www.dunwalke.com).
One story, for example, is the following:
“In 1995, a senior Clinton Administration official shared with me the Administration’s targets for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage volumes in low- and moderate-income communities. We had recently reviewed the Administration’s plans to increase government mortgage guarantees — most of these mortgages would also be pooled and sold as securities to investors. Even in 1995, I could see that these plans would create unserviceable debt loads in communities struggling with the falling incomes expected from globalization. Homeowners would default on mortgages while losses on mortgage-backed securities would drain retirement savings from 401(k)s and pension plans. Taxpayers would ultimately be hit with a large bill . . . but insiders would make a bundle. I looked at the official and said that the Administration was planning on issuing more mortgages than there were houses or residents. “Shut up, this is none of your business,” the official snapped back.”
From: “Sub-Prime Mortgage Woes Are No Accident” (http://solari.com/news/announcements/08-07-07/)One of the dirty little secrets behind the housing bubble is the long standing partnership of narcotics trafficking and mortgage fraud and the use of the two in combination to target and destroy minority and poor communities with highly profitable economic warfare. This model is global. It is operating in counties throughout the world as well as in US communities.
Of all the actions that the Federal Reserve took to engineer this housing bubble, the one that I would note is Mr. Greenspan’s efforts to pacify Congresswoman Waters regarding allegations of government sponsored narcotics trafficking at a time when open Congressional hearings would have contributed to an important discussion of the operations engaging in mortgage fraud in minority communities. See, “Financial Coup d’Etat,” Chapter 16, Dillon Read & the Aristocracy of Stock Profits which was written in 2005 and published in April 2006, drawing from an article I first published in May 1999.
“On December 18, 1997, the CIA Inspector General delivered Volume I of their report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding charges that the CIA was complicit in narcotics trafficking in South Central Los Angeles. Washington, D.C. ’s response was compatible with attracting the continued flow of an estimated $500 billion–$1 trillion a year of money laundering into the U.S. financial system. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in January 1998 visited Los Angeles with Congresswoman Maxine Waters — who had been a vocal critic of the government’s involvement in narcotics trafficking — with news reports that he had pledged billions to come to her district. In February Al Gore announced that Water’s district in Los Angeles had been awarded Empowerment Zone status by HUD (under Secretary Cuomo’s leadership) and made eligible for $300 million in federal grants and tax benefits.”
Alan Greenspan is a liar. The Federal Reserve and its long standing partner, the US Treasury, engineered the housing bubble, including the fraudulent inducement of America as part of a financial coup d’etat. Our bankruptcy was not an accident. It was engineered at the highest levels.
Your publication of Greenspan’s breezy and bogus history of the housing bubble insults your readership.
Monday, March 23, 2009
China has expressed support for Russia’s proposal to hand the IMF the power to create a new supra-national global currency in response to the call for an alternative to the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.
Last week the Kremlin called for the “creation of a supranational reserve currency to be issued by international institutions as part of a reform of the global financial system.”
The Russian proposal stated that the IMF should take the lead in establishing a “superreserve currency accepted by the whole of the international community.”
China today expressed support for the initiative and said it was ready to discuss the proposal at the upcoming G20 meeting in London on April 2.
Hu Xiaolian, vice governor of the country’s Central Bank, said that China, which holds about $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, was prepared to debate the issue as “the dollar’s dominance and U.S. economic woes could entail considerable currency fluctuations and affect the world financial situation,” reports RIA Novosti.
The creation of a new supra-national global reserve currency to supplant the U.S. dollar would likely lead to a complete collapse of the greenback, of which trillions are held in in foreign exchange reserves by foreign countries such as China and Japan.
As we have previously highlighted, the elite have exploited the problem that they created to push for increased regulation of the world economic system in the pursuit of a de-facto global financial dictatorship.The swift and ruthless exploitation of the economic meltdown on behalf of globalists and central banks revolves around their drive to move towards a one world currency system and an unprecedented centralization of global financial power, a fact that financial analysts are finally beginning to realize.
Earlier this month, Ben Bernanke told an elite gathering at the Council on Foreign Relations that a new overarching financial authority should be created and empowered with sweeping new regulatory responsibilities.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, EU heads such as Joaquin Almunia and establishment media outlets like the Wall Street Journal amongst many others have all continually used the economic crisis as an excuse to argue for greater financial power, a “new world economic order” in which control is concentrated into fewer hands - with the IMF and the World Bank enjoying the spoils.
UK Business Secretary and top Bilderberg member Peter Mandelson has also pushed for a “Bretton Woods for this century,” to help build the “machinery of global economic governance”.
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy all made the same appeal at a conference in Paris on the future of capitalism earlier this year.
Merkel called for the creation of a new global economic body under the UN, similar to the Security Council, to judge government policy.
Sarkozy called for a “new world, new capitalism” during his speech, as he commented “In capitalism of the 21st century, there is room for the state.”
Meanwhile, Blair called for a new financial order which he said should be constructed upon “values other than the maximum short-term profit.”
The globalists’ call for a centralized global economic order has nothing to do with providing solutions to the crisis but everything to do with providing themselves with more power and control over the world’s financial system.
March 23, 2009
Last week a caller to the Alex Jones Show mentioned a speech transcript posted on the CFR website where U.S. National Security Adviser Jones declared the following:
Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal (sic) Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.
Jones made the remark at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.Mr. Jones is basically telling us the National Security Council is run by Henry Kissinger. The NSC
is the principal forum used by Obama for considering national security and foreign policy matters. Biden, Clinton, Geithner, Gates, Mullen, Emanuel, Summers, and others are listed as participants, but not Henry Kissinger.
In 2006, the Associated Press reported that Kissinger advised Bush and Cheney, a fact included in Bob Woodward’s book “State of Denial.”
In other words, the Bush and Obama administrations — never mind the “change” rhetoric — receive the same advice (instructions) from the ruling elite.
Earlier this year, Kissinger went on the floor of the stock market to declare Obama had a chance to create a New World Order.
He can give a new impetus to American Foreign policy, partly because the perception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when really a New World Order can be created — it’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.
Kissinger — along with David Rockefeller, Paul Arthur Allaire, and Richard Holbrooke — directs the American Friends of Bilderberg. He is also connected to the globalist Aspen Institute, the Committee of 300, the Trilateral Commission, and sits on the advisory board of JP Morgan Chase.
“Kissinger has been patiently waiting since at least 1973 for his New World Order egg to hatch,” notes the August Review.
Kissinger earlier praised Obama’s picks for economic recovery, and why not?
Obama picked Trilateral Commission wonder boy Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury. The rest of the team are protégés of Robert Rubin, also a Trilateral and former Treasury Secretary under Clinton.
Obama’s top foreign policy advisor has been Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller.
Finally, before Obama was elected, Kissinger went on the Charlie Rose Show and talked about the New World Order:
But never mind. It’s all a crazy conspiracy theory, never mind another indication that the one-worlders control the president, this time admitted by top NSC honcho James Jones, who just so happens to be a member if the Trilateral Commission.
Remarks by National Security Adviser Jones at 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy
Published February 8, 2009
James L. Jones
U.S. National Security Adviser Jones gave these remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.
"Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.
I think my role today is a little bit different than you might expect. Following the speech of the Vice President and the presence of our distinguished members from the U.S. House of Representatives, I thought that I would spend my time talking to you about how taking the President’s guidance and the Vice President’s comments yesterday, I would spend a few moments trying to discuss how the U.S. National Security Council intends to reorganize itself in order to be supportive. For decades, this conference in Munich has provided a truly exceptional forum for the kind of open dialogue and candid discussions that can only take place among close friends and allies. The Vice President’s attendance and his speech yesterday should send I think a very strong and sincere signal about the seriousness of our purpose when it comes to listening, engaging and building stronger partnerships with all of our friends and allies because the President feels that the transatlantic alliance is a cornerstone to our collective security.
As many of you know, I have been here coming to this conference since 1980 and I have been privileged to work and know many of you here. I would like to salute my military colleagues with whom I have not only a deep friendship but shared many of the issues that we are discussing in a positive way today. And I am delighted to be back in an altered state, so to speak.
I know there is great curiosity about President Obama among many here. And there has been wonderful enthusiasm and new energy with regard to his election from people all over the world. I would like to take just a moment to speak to you about his approach to national security and in fact international security and the role that I see the National Security Council playing. First and foremost the President’s strategic approach will be grounded in the real understanding of the challenges we face in the 21st century. We must simply better understand the environment that we are in. The President, if nothing else, is a pragmatist. He knows that we must deal with the world as it is. And he knows that the world is a very different place than it was just a few years ago. As he said in his inaugural address, the world has changed and we must change with it. And we certainly agree that the world is a multipolar place in the time frame of the moments we are in.
It is hard to overstate the differences between the 20th and the 21st centuries. We have already experienced many, many differences in the 21st century. When this conference first met, everything was viewed through the prism of the Cold War. And in retrospect, life was simpler then. It was certainly more organized. It was certainly more symmetric.
Year in and year out, the strategic environment was fairly consistent and predictable. Threats were "conventional." The transatlantic security partnership was largely designed to meet the threats of a very symmetric world. It was reactive. The NATO partnership was conceived to be a defensive and fairly static alliance. And I spent a good deal of my career in uniform serving within this framework. But to move forward, we must understand the terms national security and international security are no longer limited to the ministries of defense and foreign ministries; in fact, it encompasses the economic aspects of our societies. It encompasses energy. It encompasses new threats, asymmetric threats involving proliferation, involving the illegal shipment of arms and narco-terrorism, and the like. Borders are no longer recognized and the simultaneity of the threats that face us are occurring at a more rapid pace.
And as the President has detailed, a comprehensive approach to our national security and international security in the 21st century must identify and understand that the wider array of existing threats that threaten us. To name a few:
-Terror and extremism has taken many lives and on many continents across the globe.
-The ongoing struggle in Afghanistan and the activity along the Pakistani border is an international security challenge of the highest order.
- The spread of nuclear and chemical biological and cyber-technologies that could upset the global order and cause catastrophe on an unimaginable scale is real. It is pressing and it is time that we dealt with it.
- The overdependence on fossil fuels that endangers our security, our economies, and the health of the planet.
- Protracted tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts.
- Poverty, corruption, and disease stands in the way of progress and causes great suffering in many parts of the world.
- Narco-terrorism that provides the economic fuel for insurgencies.
- And an economic crisis that serves as the foundation of our strength.
This list is by no means exhaustive. The challenges that we face are broader and more diverse than we ever imagined, even after the terrible events of 9/11. And our capacity to meet these challenges in my view does not yet match the urgency of what is required. To be blunt, the institutions and approaches that we forged together through the 20th century are still adjusting to meet the realities of the 21st century. And the world has definitely changed, but we have not changed with it. But it is not too late, and this is the good news.
In our country, one of the institutions that is changing is the National Security Council, which like so much of our national and international security architecture was formed in the wake of World War II and during the Cold War. So let me say a few words about what the National Security Council does and how President Obama has asked that I approach my job as National Security Adviser. The President has made clear that to succeed against 21st century challenges, the United States must use, balance, and integrate all elements of national influence: our military and our diplomacy, our economy and our intelligence, and law enforcement capacity, our cultural outreach, and as was mentioned yesterday, the power of our moral example, in short, our values. Given this role, the NSC is by definition at the nexus of that effort. It integrates on a strategic sense all elements of our national security community towards the development of effective policy development and interagency cooperation. But to better carry out the president’s priorities, the National Security Council must respond to the world the way it is and not as we wish it were. And it must consider the fusion of our national priorities within the broader international context and interest. The NSC’s mission is relatively simple. It should perform the functions that it alone can perform and serve as a strategic center – and the word strategic is operative here – for the President’s priorities.
To achieve those goals we will be guided by several principles. As one of our great comedians in the United States, Groucho Marx, once said, "These are our principles. And if you don’t like them, we have others."
First, the NSC must be strategic, as I mentioned. It is easy to get bogged down in the tactical concerns that consume the day-to-day conduct. As a matter of fact, it is much more enjoyable to be involved at the tactical level. But we won’t effectively advance the priorities if we spend our time reacting to events, instead of shaping them. And that requires strategic thinking. The National Security Council I think is unique in its ability to step back and take a longer and wider view of our American national security and our role in the shared context of our international security as well.
Second, the NSC must manage coordination across different agencies of the government – increasing numbers of agencies. We have learned the hard way that this has real implications, both in terms of how policy has developed in Washington and how it is in fact executed. The NSC must therefore function as a strategic integrator by doing several things. One, by ensuring that dissenting views are heard and considered throughout the policy-making process. Two, by monitoring policy implementation to ensure that agencies are coordinating effectively in the field, and that the President’s priorities are being carried out in practice. Third, the NSC must be transparent. We serve the President. We also serve other principal agencies of our government. And that’s why I am committed to managing a process that is as open as possible so that we forge policies that are widely understood throughout our government by our people and by our partners around the world. Fourth, the National Security Council must be agile. We face nimble adversaries and all of us will have to confront fast-moving crises – from conflict and terrorism to new diseases and environmental disasters. To keep pace, we will have to move faster in developing policy and priorities than did our predecessors. The world is a smaller place. Communications is more rapid. And therefore our reactions must be swifter. And we must be able to communicate rapidly throughout the government and around the world in order to effectively respond.
And finally, the National Security Council must adapt to evolving challenges. There are traditional priorities that we will manage. But we must also update our outlook and sometimes our organization to keep pace with the changing world. To give you just a few examples, the NSC today works very closely with President Obama’s National Economic Council, which is led by Mr. Larry Summers, so that our response to the economic crisis is coordinated with our global partners and our national security needs. The NSC has worked closely with the White House Counsel’s office as we implement the President’s orders to ban torture and close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The National Security Council is undertaking a review to determine how best to unify our efforts to combat terrorism around the world while protecting our homeland. And this effort will be led by Mr. John Brennan.
The National Security Council will be at the table as our government forges a new approach to energy security and climate change that demand broad cooperation across the U.S. Government and more persistent American leadership around the world. And the NSC is evaluating how to update our capacity to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction while also placing a far higher priority on cyber security.
There is no fixed model that can capture the world in all of its complexity. What’s right today will have to be different four years from now or eight years from now. And that’s precisely the point. The NSC’s comparatively small size gives it a unique capacity to reinvent itself as required and to pivot on the key priorities of our time.
Just as we change our ways at home, so too must we change our international partnerships in order to adapt to the 21st century. Minister Jung just pointed out some very good examples of how NATO could change. If there is one overriding characteristic to the world we face, it is the truth that security is shared. And as President Obama has said time and again, we are strongest when we act alongside our partners.
I know there will be much discussion over the next few months as to the future of NATO, so I am not going to dwell on the topic, although I am passionate about it. I do know that the President looks forward to addressing the future of the alliance at the 60th anniversary summit in April. I have been a fan and a participant in NATO since I was a child, watching NATO during the Cold War as I was growing up and as a military commander, watching NATO troops patrol the streets of Kabul and elsewhere in Afghanistan and the Balkans and the skies and in the Mediterranean. And I can tell you this. NATO is as relevant to our common security in the first half of the 21st century as it was to our common defense in the second half of the 20th century. We know that NATO is a strong alliance, perhaps the strongest the world has ever known. Its capacity does not just come from the strength of its arms but from the enduring democratic values that bind our nations together. And from the iron-clad commitment that ensures our collective security. But I also know this. NATO must also change. It needs to become less reactive and more proactive. I think it needs to become less rigid and more flexible. It needs to become less stationary and more expeditionary. And it needs to become more, not less, essential to our collective security. Our Secretary-General has been a strong voice for developing a new strategic vision for the alliance; and judging from this conference, this has been one of the finest conferences I have attended in Munich; and judging from this conference, the time has come to do so.
There is no doubt that NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan poses an enormous task for NATO, but not just NATO, for indeed all international institutions located on the ground in an effort to bring this to a happy and satisfactory conclusion. Given the nexus of terror and extremism, drugs and proliferation, we cannot afford failure in Afghanistan. And that’s why the Obama Administration will work closely with NATO and with the Afghan and Pakistani Governments to forge a new comprehensive strategy to meet achievable goals. This will be a shared effort with our allies. Afghanistan is not simply an American problem, it is an international problem. And as we work to meet these short-term tests, we must show the same strategic vision that mark NATO’s founding six decades ago. Our predecessors had the vision to build institutions that were durable, that could meet the challenges of the day while adapting over the course of several decades. Now the world has changed, and history has called on us to change once more – and this, we must do. President Obama is committed to pursuing a national security strategy that is fully responsive to the challenges that we face. That means facing down current threats, while forging the lasting structures and capabilities that will protect our people and advance our interests well into the future. As part of that effort, we will take steps that I have outlined to be stronger at home and we will seek stronger partnerships with our friends abroad. Those partnerships will require continuous and rapid consultation. As part of that consultation, the Obama Administration will listen closely, be clear about what we are doing, and work hard to find common ground and develop common capabilities. I have no doubt that we are at another crossroads in history. Together we have fought wars and torn down walls of division and together I know that we can meet the challenges of this moment in history if we have the courage and the commitment to change with the times.
Thank you very much."
Essential Documents are vital primary sources underpinning the foreign policy debate.
March 23, 2009
According to the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to national security. Rockefeller is not alone in this assessment. His belief that the internet is the “number one national hazard” to national security is shared by the former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Obama’s current director Admiral Dennis C. Blair.
|Senator Jay Rockefeller pontificates on the threat to national security posed by the internet.|
“It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet,” Rockefeller mused during the confirmation hearing of Gary Locke (see video), Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary. He then cites a dubious figure of three million cyber “attacks” launched against the Department of Defense every day. “Everybody is attacked, anybody can do it. People say, well it’s China and Russia, but there could be some kid in Latvia doing the same thing.”
Jay Rockefeller’s comments reveal an astounding degree of ignorance – or if not ignorance, outright propaganda. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks the government has cranked up the fear quotient in regard to cyber attacks and so-called cyber terrorism, a virtually non-existent threat except in the minds security experts and politicians. In the years since the attacks, not one real instance of real cyberterrorism has been recorded.
“Cyberattacks on critical components of the national infrastructure are not uncommon, but they have not been conducted by terrorists and have not sought to inflict the kind of damage that would qualify as cyberterrorism,” writes Gabriel Weimann, author of Terror on the Internet. “Nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems, as well as the computer systems of the CIA and FBI, are ‘air-gapped,’ making them inaccessible to outside hackers. Systems in the private sector tend to be less well protected, but they are far from defenseless, and nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal.”“Psychological, political, and economic forces have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism,” Weimann continues. “From a psychological perspective, two of the greatest fears of modern time are combined in the term ‘cyberterrorism.’ The fear of random, violent victimization blends well with the distrust and outright fear of computer technology.”
“The sky is not falling, and cyber-weapons seem to be of limited value in attacking national power or intimidating citizens,” notes James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Such a threat is overblown, Lewis explains. He notes that “a brief review suggests that while many computer networks remain very vulnerable to attack, few critical infrastructures are equally vulnerable.” In other words, Rockefeller’s example of a kid in Latvia with a laptop posing a serious “hazard” to national security is little more than sensationalistic propaganda.
So-called cyber terrorists are far less of a threat than government. China and Australia have recently imposed draconian censorship on internet freedom. Brazil, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Ireland , Italy, Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and many other countries also impose nominal censorship on internet freedom. Urgent calls to restrict the medium in various ways through legislation and government action have increased over the last few years (for more detail, see Internet Censorship: A Comparative Study).
However, the real threat to internet freedom is currently posed by IT and ISP corporations, not the government.
|The Alex Jones Show, June 11, 2008: : Death of the Internet. Part 2|
As Alex Jones explained last June, large corporate ISPs are now in the process of imposing bandwidth caps and routing traffic over their networks and blocking certain targeted websites. For instance, in 2005 AOL Time-Warner was caught blocking access to all of Jones’ flagship websites across the entire United States. Other instances of outright censorship include the UK ISP Tiscali blocking subscribers from reaching material on the 7/7 London bombings and Google’s continued and habitual censorship of 9/11 material and Alex Jones’ films on the ever-popular YouTube. There are many other instances as well. (See Censoring the Internet: A Collection of Essential Links on Infowars.)
Jay Rockefeller’s warning about virtually non-existent and largely absurd cyberterrorism reveals increasing government nervousness and apprehension about the medium as a whole, especially as the internet grows by leaps and bounds as an alternative news and activism medium. On numerous occasions over the last few years alternative websites have posted articles exposing government crime, articles the corporate media has largely ignored. During the Bush years, the internet served as a vital resource for information on everything from torture and the destruction of civil liberties to the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, information the corporate media was often unable or unwilling to carry.
For instance, earlier this month Infowars broke a story concerning the Missouri Information Analysis Center and its effort to profile Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters as terrorists. The story was subsequently picked up by the corporate media (although Alex Jones and Infowars did not receive attribution).
As more corporate media outlets fail — as evinced by several high profile newspapers going out of business recently — and more people flock to the internet to get their news and information, the government will increasingly employ fear tactics designed to portray the medium as a refuge for terrorists, pedophiles, and other miscreants.
It appears the Obama administration is attempting to micromanage this effort. Last week CNet “obtained a summary of a proposal from Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that would create an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, part of the Executive Office of the President. That office would receive the power to disconnect, if it believes they’re at risk of a cyberattack, ‘critical’ computer networks from the Internet.” As well, the effort would put the White House National Cybersecurity Advisor in charge of coordinating cyber efforts within the intelligence community and within civilian agencies.
March 21, 2009
The Liberty Restoration Project blog has posted an advisory released last November by the United States Army Reserve. “The United States Army Reserve Command is publishing this Force Protection Advisory to advise all Army Reserve personnel of the planned protests at all Federal Reserve Banks and office locations within the United States on 22 November 2008,” the document reads. “This message provides situational awareness and recommended mitigation measures.”
|Click image to see larger version.|
According to the Army Reserve, the folks gathered and exercising the First Amendment in response to the Federal Reserve’s loan sharking operation are essentially terrorists.
The Army “established relationships” with local law enforcement and the FBI and encouraged them to “update alert rosters,” according to the document. In 2003, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, noted that the “Northern Command cooperates with the other unified commands and shares intelligence with them” and also has forged “relationships [that] cut across federal, state and local agencies, and include players from law-enforcement, emergency services, intelligence agencies and the military.”
In 2008, Air Force Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and NorthCom, told attendees of the National Homeland Defense Foundation symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado, “that effectively defending the homeland and responding to natural or man-made disasters requires an integrated approach that involves federal, state and local governments, and even international and private organizations,” the latter a reference to InfraGard, the private sector Gestapo with shoot to kill orders issued by the FBI (see The FBI Deputizes Business).
“We believe those relationships will be key to our success,” Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart told Garamone.
Northcom and the Army Reserve’s mission apparently also include reporting “all potential protest activities to the Army Reserve Operations Center.” The Army Reserve falls under the Pentagon’s Continuity of Operations program “that ensure[s] the execution of mission-essential functions… during a national security or domestic emergency” (see Militarizing the US “Homeland”: NORTHCOM’s Tasking).
In addition to Northcom “cooperation” with local law enforcement in regard to entirely legal and peaceful demonstrations, a document sent to Alex Jones earlier this month exposes an effort by Homeland Security to work with law enforcement in Missouri to demonize supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr. Ron Paul is quite specific in his call for the Federal Reserve to be closed down. Paul told Alex Jones on March 12 that “the people responsible for the economic crisis should not be hailed as saviors and given more power to fix the problem that they created, but arrested and criminally prosecuted,” as Paul Joesph Watson reported for Prison Planet.
In 2005, NBC obtained a secret 400-page Defense Department document listing more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country related to peaceful anti-war demonstrations. “The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups,” NBC reported.
In the wake of the false flag terror attacks on September 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon established the Counterintelligence Field Activity. CIFA illegally conducted broad domestic operations that targeted antiwar and other dissident domestic groups and logged these in the TALON database. After the unit received negative publicity, the Pentagon’s senior intelligence official, James R. Clapper, recommended to Sec. Def. Gates that the counterintelligence field office be dismantled and that some of its operations be placed under the authority of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
On November 22, 2008, Alex Jones led a rally at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas Texas. The Dallas protest is specifically mentioned in the official Army document. Ron Paul’s brother was also in attendance.
As the documents here demonstrate, the Pentagon as of late 2008 was still in the business of gathering intelligence on entirely legal and non-violent political activity and organizations around the country. As the MIAC document reveals, the feds and their state and local “partners” consider groups in opposition to the Federal Reserve a threat. Now the Pentagon as well has targeted this opposition with “situational awareness and recommended mitigation measures.”
If the above documents are indeed legitimate, they reveal how the Pentagon and the Army Reserve are protecting the Federal Reserve against End the Fed and other organizations engaged in constitutionally protected protest against a cartel of international bankers posing as a department of the federal government.
March 21, 2009
A shocking new gun control law recently introduced in Albany County is being labeled the most draconian piece of anti-second amendment legislation yet seen. The law requires buyers of all ammunition, even shotgun pellets, to provide their drivers license, state their purpose for buying the ammunition, and have the information retained and accessible by law enforcement for no less than 10 years.Anyone buying rounds or shells, even .22s, for hunting or target shooting in Albany State, New York, would have to provide ID, declare the gun and have its serial number registered with the seller. Based on the information provided by the buyer as to the purpose of buying the ammunition, the seller could block the purchase.
The bill is known as “Local Law Number A For 2009″ ( PDF File) and was introduced at the Albany State Legislature on March 3rd.
Gun groups have slammed the law as the first step towards backdoor registration of rifles and shotguns.
Such detailed information would provide authorities with a voluminous database of gun owners and would be the perfect “red list” used to target gun owners in the event of a declaration of martial law, which many have forecast could occur following a total economic collapse or a biological terrorist attack.
As Fred Lebrun writes in the Times Union, “Anyway you look at it, this amounts to yet another unreasonable assault on lawful gun owners and hunters without any logic behind it except to harass. It’s ludicrous.”
“Not to mention that this flies in the face of a long tradition in this state, and in nearly all other states, of not registering long guns – that is, rifles or shotguns. These are not weapons typically used in crimes or the illegal gun trade, anyway.”
The bill is part of a wider trend of draconian gun control legislation that has been introduced on the national level since the 111th Congress began.
The most disturbing bill nationally is H.R. 45, which would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including those already possessed by gunowners. The legislation would also, “Require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at the police station and to sign a certificate that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family,” according to the Gun Owners of America website.
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, March 20, 2009
Yesterday we reported on how a New York State city is considering implementing martial law and replacing the local police force with National Guardsmen, in an effort to clean up law enforcement in the area.
City officials in Schenectady are reportedly considering scrapping the entire police force in response to the actions of a small selection of officers who have been accused of assaulting citizens.
While other options have been raised, such as a consolidated county-wide police force diverting authority to the State Police, Mayor Brian Stratton has indicated that he believes the Governor could declare martial law during a period of “transition”.
Mayor Stratton today sent us a statement clarifying his comments, which were originally made to Capital News 9. Stratton writes that though martial law is not a “permanent remedy” to the problem, the use of state militia to oversee a transitional phase is being seriously considered.We don’t feel in any way that our article “misinterpreted” the Mayor’s comments as he claims. Indeed, our subheadline emphasized the fact that the use of national guard was a “transitional” issue. The main thrust of our report was to express alarm that the extreme measure of declaring martial law was being considered in response to a relatively minor problem.
We were also trying to make the point that for authorities to be able to declare martial law so readily and on such a flimsy pretext sets a dangerous precedent for the entire country.
In addition, the use of military assets in civilian law enforcement is still illegal under Posse Comitatus, unless a clear state of emergency exists.
However, for the purposes of Mr. Stratton’s right of response, we are happy to post his statement in full below.
Dear Mr. Watson:
Your recent posting of an article on www.prisonplanet.com (“City Considers Martial Law to Clean Up Policing”) is misinterpreting the nature and intent of comments I have made to local media regarding the potential use of martial law in the City of Schenectady.
As reported on the local cable news channel, Capital News 9, I have said that martial law might be a necessary but temporary interim measure if in fact our city were to abolish its police department and transition over an extended period to a county-administered force or other option.
The very fact that many officers in our 166-member police department may choose to retire, leave city employment or seek employment elsewhere were the city to plan to ultimately move to that option, could result in a sudden exodus of personnel. Our responsibility to provide continued public safety through adequate numbers of police officers could mean a temporary assignment of State Police, other local law enforcement personnel, or even state militia only as an emergency and temporary measure until such time as a new department is formed and fully staffed.
Contrary to what your readers may believe, the City of Schenectady is not considering the implementation of martial law as a permanent remedy to the ongoing personnel and administrative problems within our police department. We are addressing those challenges internally, as we continue to investigate all realistic, long-term options available should we decide to dissolve or consolidate the department with another non-military law enforcement agency.
I hope that this email will clear any confusion over the recent report on Capital News 9.
Mayor Brian U. Stratton
Schenectady, New York
March 20, 2009
Over the weekend, Obama’s zombie “canvassers” may knock on your door. “The Pledge Project Canvass is an unprecedented effort by a president to reach beyond Congress and tap grassroots supporters for help. Volunteers recruited online by Obama’s Organizing for America, a post-election group, will ask citizens to sign a pledge in support of the president’s policies on energy, health care and education,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
|Mao’s Red Guards organized “neighborhood by neighborhood” too.|
Obama wants you to sign away your life to the bankers on the dotted line.
“This is just the beginning for us,” said Jeremy Bird, deputy national director of Organizing for America, in an online video to Obama supporters this week. “The establishment in Washington won’t welcome this new direction easily. We can’t let this plan be debated solely behind closed doors in Washington, D.C.”
“The canvasses on Saturday, the pledge drive and the calls to Congress are all designed to put our elected officials in Washington on notice that Americans expect that the change President Obama campaigned for becomes reality,” an “Organizing for America” press release explains.
In fact, Obama is the current front man for the bankster-dominated establishment. He’s engaged in an orchestrated parlor trick. He wants you to buy the corporate media generated mirage and myth that he is an outsider, a renegade, a man of the people.
Obama’s “Organizing for America” marching door-to-door followers are required to take a loyalty pledge. “A pledge to support — not the flag, not the constitution, not the country, not even the Democratic Party, but Obama,” writes Lona Manning.In Nazi Germany, civil servants (as well as soldiers and Wehrmacht officers) were required to pledge personal loyalty to the person of Adolf Hitler in place of loyalty to the constitution. Hitler’s opponents, according to historians, failed to act due to their reluctance to violate their personal oath of loyalty.
Mao’s Red Guards organized “neighborhood by neighborhood,” too.
“Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too,” Manning continues. “A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.”
It is not enough the bankers own the president, Congress, and the corporate media — all churning out the same message — now they want you to pledge allegiance to their draconian plan to turn the world into a third world slave labor gulag.