New Eastern Outlook
by Vladimir Odintsov
The security situation in Libya, which is continuing to worsen, forced the White House to vigorously seek solutions to the problem of power in a country plunged into a comprehensive crisis because of the US military intervention in 2011.
De facto, the country is split into three parts – Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and Fezzan, two of which have declared autonomy and almost ignore the central government. Neither the structure of the new state government nor the armed forces have been finalized. There remains a significant number of militants and radical Islamist militants who have not agreed to submit to the control of the authorities and are subordinate only to their field commanders. They organize terrorist attacks, set off explosions near government offices, and actively use the practice of kidnapping as a means to pressure the new Libyan authorities.
The degradation of the situation in Libya in July 2014 took on a landslide character.
However, as the Washington Post wrote, “Libya needs the U.S. for its transition to democracy”, by which Washington tried to explain its “selfless” sympathy for this country. In this case, the newspaper did not fail to note that “the vast oil wealth of the country, coupled with its relatively small and “homogeneous” population (6.5 million citizens), allow Libya to finance its development by involving only modest foreign investment.”
Today in Libya, there is no central authority, which is substituted by two governments: in Tripoli, the Islamists hold the parliament in their hands, and a second parliament acts in Tobruk, which is headed by “anti-Islamists” and recognized by the United States and, hence, the international community.
It is the power structures in Tobruk that Washington has long been “reinforcing” with its people, hoping to create from them a “backbone” for the future of a puppet government that would diligently follow instructions from the White House and, finally, the United States would reap the benefits for which the overthrow of Gaddafi and the armed intervention in Libya were undertaken in 2011. Naturally, for this purpose Washington is focusing on leaders of paramilitaries in Tobruk.
In addition, the recent success of Field Marshal Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who came to power in Egypt, deprived both the White House and the CIA of sleep, strenuously seeking to repeat this “experiment” and plant in the Libyan presidency its own nurtured commander.
The retired general of the Libyan army Khalifa Belqasim Haftar is more clearly becoming such a nominee beneficial for Washington and the CIA, who is today a stone’s throw from leading Libyan army formations and obtaining the support of the national parliament.
Haftar was born in 1949 in Benghazi and began to serve in the Libyan army from an early age. In 1969, he actively supported Gaddafi in the revolutionary overthrow of the King of the United Kingdom of Libya, Idris 1, which largely determined the growth of his military career until 2011. Haftar improved his military knowledge in higher educational institutions of Libya and the Soviet Union, as well as a number of other countries with which the Gaddafi regime maintained close ties.
In the 80s of the last century Haftar, being one of the top army commanders, was actively involved in the Libyan-Chadian armed conflict, was captured by French troops in Chad, where the US extracted him and arranged for him to live in Virginia in 1990 close to CIA headquarters. During his 23 years of exile in the United States Haftar became an American citizen, and not without the participation of the CIA, while in the US he formed an opposition to Gaddafi from other Libya soldiers and civilians who fled. After the US armed intervention in the country and in the wake of the “Arab Spring”, Washington returned him to Libya in 2011, and he became one of the senior staff of the “renovated Libyan army”.
In February 2014 the media reported that Haftar requested the suspension of the National Congress and began military action against Islamic groups that occupied all the government posts of Libya after Gaddafi. However, these actions of his did not lead to noticeable results until May 16 when he launched a military campaign against the current interim government and parliament of Libya, which the emirate’s media has dubbed “the Libyan Charity”.
Today General Haftar has a significant number of weapons, which, according to certain data, is estimated at 50 million units. Therefore recent reports are unsurprising that his group of fighters captured on January 21 the Branch of the Libyan Central Bank in Benghazi, January 22, according to the newspaper New York Times, militants have established complete control over the branch of the central bank, where he kept export revenues from oil sales and foreign exchange reserves of Libya of about $100 billion in total. According to the newspaper, the Libyan central bank was “the nation’s last functioning institution.”
Against the background of these successes, Haftar supporters began to call him “the supreme commander of the army”, and he, in order to further strengthen his personal power, initiated a new wave of criticism against the prime minister and chief of staff, on which his future directly depends. Without resting “on his laurels” and clearly following the recommendations of his American curators, Haftar in a recent interview with Asharq Al-Awsal already announced his intention to run for president, saying “if I have the approval of the people, I will act.”
Vladimir Odintsov, political commentator, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
By Matt Peppe
In recent weeks the Ebola epidemic in West Africa has slowed from a peak of more than 1,000 new cases per week to 99 confirmed cases during the week of February 22, according to the World Health Organization. For two countries that have taken diametrically opposed approaches to combating the disease, the stark difference in the results achieved over the last five months has become evident.
The United States, which sent about 2,800 military troops to the region in October, has announced an end to its relief mission. Most soldiers have already returned. Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby declared the mission a “success.” The criteria for this determination is unclear, as the troops did not treat a single patient, much less save a single life.
President Barack Obama proclaimed the American response to the crisis “an example of American leadership.” As is the case “whenever and wherever a disaster or disease strikes,” according to Obama, “the world looks to us to lead.” The President claimed that the troops contributed not only by their own efforts, but by serving as a “force multiplier” that inspired others.
Obama says the “American values” displayed “matter to the world.” They are an example of “what makes us exceptional.”
By virtue of American supremacy, apparently, these values are superior to those of people from any other nation.
When you look behind the President’s and the Pentagon’s rhetoric, it is difficult to find concrete measures of success. From the beginning, the capacity of American troops to make a difference in containing and eliminating a medical disease was questionable, to say the least.
In October, the Daily Beast reported that soldiers would receive only four hours of training in preparation for their deployment to Africa. That is half of a regular work day for people with no medical background. When they arrived, they did not exactly hit the ground running. “The first 500 soldiers to arrive have been holing up in Liberian hotels and government facilities while the military builds longer-term infrastructure on the ground,” wrote Tim Mak.
The DoD declared on its Website that
“the Defense Department made critical contributions to the fight against the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa. Chief among these were the deployment of men and women in uniform to Monrovia, Liberia, as part of Operation United Assistance.”
So, the chief contribution of the DoD was sending people in military uniforms to the site of the outbreak.
The DoD lists among its accomplishments training 1,539 health care workers & support staff (presumably non-technical and cursory); creating 10 Ebola treatment units (which you could count on your fingers); and constructing a 25-bed medical unit (for a country that has had 10,000 cases of Ebola).
USAID declares that “the United States has done more than any other country to help West Africa respond to the Ebola crisis.” Like the DoD, they are short on quantitative measurements and long on vague business-speak. USAID says they “worked with UN and NGO partners,” “partnered with the U.S. military,” and “expanded the pipeline of medical equipment and critical supplies to the region.”
USAID and other government personnel have clearly helped facilitate the delivery of equipment and supplies, but claims that the U.S. has done more than any other country are dubious.
By the end of April, all but 100 U.S. troops will have left West Africa. There will then be a transition to what Obama called the “civilian response.” This appears equally as vague as the military response.
The U.S. response did involve many people and several hundred millions of dollars, which is, indeed, more than most countries contributed. But an examination of the facts shows that the U.S. played mostly a supporting role, collaborating with other actors in the tangential aspects of the crisis. U.S. government employees were not directly involved in treating any patients. Their role was rather to help other health workers and officials on the front lines who actually did. To say this is an example of American leadership and exceptionalism seems like a vast embellishment.
The other country who has taken a very public role in the Ebola crisis is Cuba. Unlike the U.S., Cuba sent nearly 500 professional healthcare workers – doctors and nurses – to treat African patients who had contracted Ebola. These included doctors from the Henry Reeve Brigade, which has served over the last decade in response to the most high-profile disasters in the world, including in Haiti and Pakistan. In Haiti, the group was instrumental in detecting and treating cholera, which had been introduced by UN peace keepers. The disease sickened and killed thousands of Haitians.
Before being deployed to West Africa, all the Cuban doctors and nurses completed an “intense training” of a minimum of two weeks, where they “prepared in the form of treating patients without exposing themselves to the deadly virus,” according to CNN.
After Cuba announced its plan to mobilize what Cubans call the “army of white robes,” WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said that “human resources are clearly our most important need.”
“Money and materials are important, but those two things alone cannot stop Ebola virus transmission,” she said. “We need most especially compassionate doctors and nurses” to work under “very demanding conditions.”
Like their American counterparts, Cuban authorities also recently proclaimed success in fighting Ebola. They used a clear definition of what they meant.
“We have managed to save the lives of 260 people who were in a very very bad state, and through our treatment, they were cured and have gotten on with their lives,” said Jorge Delgado, head of the medical brigade, at a conference in Geneva on Foreign Medical Teams involved in fighting the Ebola crisis.
The work of the Henry Reeve Brigade was recognized by Norwegian Trade Unions who nominated the group for the Nobel Peace Prize “for saving lives and helping millions of suffering people around the world.”
The European Commission for humanitarian aid and crisis management last week also “recognized the role Cuba has played in fighting the Ebola epidemic.”
For more than 50 years, Cuba has carried out medical missions across the globe — beginning in Algeria after the revolution in 1961 and taking place in poor countries desperately needing medical care throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America. They have provided 1.2 billion consultations, 2.2 million births, 5 million operations and immunizations for 12 million children and pregnant women, according to Granma.
“In their direct fight against death, the human quality of the members of the Henry Reeve brigade is strengthened, and for those in need around the world, they represent welcome assistance,” writes Nuria Barbosa León.
The mission of the DoD is one of military involvement worldwide. As Nick Turse reports in TomDispatch, U.S. military activity on the African continent is growing at an astounding rate. The military “averages about one and a half missions a day. This represents a 217% increase in operations, programs, and exercises since the command was established in 2008,” Turse writes. He says the DoD is calling “Africa the battlefield of tomorrow, today.”
Turse writes that the U.S. military is quietly replicating its failed counterinsurgency strategy in Africa, under the guise of humanitarian activities.
“If history is any guide, humanitarian efforts by AFRICOM (U.S. Africa Command) and Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa will grow larger and ever more expensive, until they join the long list of projects that have become ‘monuments of U.S. failure’ around the world,”
There are some enlightening pieces of information listed by the DoD as part of the “transition to Operation Onward Liberty.” The DoD “will build partnership capacity with the Armed Forces of Liberia” and will “continue military to military engagement in ways that support Liberia’s growth toward enduring peace and security.”
It is unclear what role the U.S. military will help their Liberian counterparts play, unless peace and security is considered from the perspective of multinational corporations who have their eyes on large oil reserves, rather than the perspective of the local population.
The U.S. military, unsurprisingly, seems to be using the Ebola crisis as a pretext to expand its reach inside Africa, consistent with the pattern of the last seven years that Turse describes. The deployment of several thousand troops to West Africa can be understood as a P.R. stunt that is the public face of counterinsurgency.
U.S. troops are used as props. What may sound like a massive effort is little more than propaganda. The idea is to associate troops with humanitarianism, rather than death, destruction and torture. In reality, one doctor can save more lives than hundreds of soldiers. A true humanitarian mission would be conducted by civilian agencies and professionals who are trained and experienced specifically in medicine, construction and administration, not by soldiers trained to kill and pacify war zones.
In Liberia, as in most of Africa, Washington’s IMF and World Bank-imposed neoliberal policies have further savaged a continent devastated by 300 years of European colonialism. Any U.S. military involvement in Liberia and elsewhere is likely to reflect the economic goals of the U.S. government, which is primarily concerned with continuing the implementation of the Washington consensus.
Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law, warned last fall about the dangers of using a “war on terror template” in response to a disease such as Ebola.
“Countering Ebola will require a whole new set of protections and priorities, which should emerge from the medical and public health communities. The now sadly underfunded National Institutes of Health and other such organizations have been looking at possible pandemic situations for years,”
Greenberg writes. “It is imperative that our officials heed the lessons of their research as they have failed to do many times over with their counterparts in public policy in the war on terror years.”
This is the opposite of the strategy the Obama administration elected to take. It would be wise to question the alarming militarization of American foreign assistance. The continued expansion of the national security apparatus occurs at the direct expense of vital civilian agencies. The Cuban model is evidence of what is possible with an alternative approach.
The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges
Not a day goes by that I do not receive an email from one of my readers advising me to get out of America while I still can. As the level of tyranny in this country increases, there is a proportionate increase in Americans wondering out loud as to whether they should stay or go.
Americans Have Three Options When It Comes to Expatriation
As I see it, Americans have three choices when it comes to expatriation:
1. We can leave the country for a less volatile place to live.
2. There are places we could emigrate to which would buy us a little time against the full rollout of tyranny.
3. We could simply lay down and take our beating as so many victims of genocide have in the past. Or, we can resist the final stages of tyranny and pay for our disobedience with our lives.
The Reasons to Leave America Are Compelling
There can be no question that we are headed for hyperinflation and economic collapse. Because America has notions of freedom and entrepreneurship, the globalists must make an example out of such undesirable attributes.
Employment issues aside, America only has to look at three economic indicators to know that we are in a lot of trouble. The budget deficit is $17 trillion dollars, unfunded (partially or otherwise) mandated social programs constitutes another $222 trillion dollars and the credit swap derivatives total between $1 quadrillion dollars to $1.5 quadrillion dollars.
When we look at Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and all the government programs that we all take for granted, the price tag is a whopping $222 trillion dollars. These numbers are going to be exacerbated and grow exponentially because the bulk of the baby boomers are entering retirement age. Even if we took every single penny that the federal government takes in and devote it to paying off these social programs, it would take 111 years to pay off this debt.
In the United States, credit swap derivatives created national debt totals of over one quadrillion dollars. That is one thousand trillion dollars! The entire GDP of the planet is estimated at $66 trillion dollars. And somehow, in the infinite wisdom of Congress in 2008, we falsely and naively believed that a $750 billion transfer of wealth (i.e., Bailout #1) was magically going to save the economy and the collective futures of the American middle class. In short, the debt created by futures speculation is approximately 16 times greater than the sum total of the entire wealth on the planet! And we think we are going to climb out of this? We could fund 1,000 bailouts and the eventual outcome will be the same, slavery by debt.
It is the belief of many that the depth of suffering and ensuing governmental persecution, inside of the United States, will be greater inside of the U.S. than anywhere else. Therefore, it is a very prudent option to leave. Even if America was not headed toward her Armageddon, it seems prudent to leave.
Do It For The Kids
One could make a compelling case that one should leave because the children have not future. It may not be any better anywhere else, but to stay here, appears to be economic suicide for your children’s future.
At this present point in time, about half of all recent college graduates are working at jobs that do not even require a college degree. The number of Americans in the 16 to 29 year old age bracket with a job declined by 18 percent between 2000 and 2010. Incomes for U.S. households led by someone between the ages of 25 and 34 have fallen by about 12 percent after you adjust for inflation since the year 2000. In the United States today, 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees. One poll discovered that 29 percent of all Americans in the 25 to 34 year old age bracket are still living with their parents. Overall, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents according to Time Magazine.
America is no longer the land of opportunity as the United States is not even in the top ten. In fact, the United States only ranks 20th in terms of overall gross pay! There are very sound economic reasons to look at when deciding on whether you should leave the country. Young adults who are degreed and/or skilled in fields such as engineering or information technology skills, are really wasting their time by working in the United States. Eight of the world’s ten highest-paying countries for information technology (IT) managers are in Western Europe, according to a new by Text-Enhance”>survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The survey found that Swiss managers are paid the most, followed by those in Germany and Denmark. In fact, IT management is another field where U.S. workers fail to crack the top ten in income, the United States ranks 14th in IT management compensation. Even debt ridden Spain, Italy and Greece pay their IT managers more than what Americans earn on average. These are very compelling reasons to leave.
Civil Liberties and Threats From the US Government
Well, we may not have our health and we may not have our wealth, but at least we have our freedoms, don’t we? Nothing could be further from the truth. Our local police forces are being federalized and incidences of unwarranted police brutality from our federalized police are skyrocketing.
With the Patriot Acts, the NDAA and several other draconian pieces of legislation designed to protect us from the boogey men we call terrorists, we have lost Habeas Corpus, we are losing our free speech rights to the United Nations and every form of due process that we once cherished under our Constitution. Net Neutrality is threatening to dissolve the Independent Media as we know it. And if you don’t like the unfolding criminal enterprise system which suddenly appeared before our collective eyes, the bankers have rolled out a technocratic police state which would make Stalin and Hitler envious. Both the police state and impending martial law are bolstered by the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of high tech bullets engraved with the names of citizens who dare to oppose this tyranny! The Constitution has been destroyed and thrown on to the garbage pile of history. And only in tinhorn dictatorships and communist countries do we find this kind of criminal enterprise flourishing!
Where the Rubber Meets the Road
I have personally known a FEMA retiree and his family who have left their home for a self-contained community with like-minded alphabet soup agency personnel in order to protect their families from what is coming. Additionally, Doug Hagmann’s DHS insider contact painted a very grim picture of the deadly martial law crackdown that is coming. Same stories, different venues. If you believe that a false flag attack is in our near future, and if you believe that brutal martial law, complete with gun confiscation, was going to take place and if you think that FEMA camps and mass executions of political undesirables were going to occur, then these would be some very valid reasons for leaving this country.
Some Things To Consider Before You Leave
As Americans face crushingly higher taxes and increasingly draconian enforcement tactics, an increasingly greater number of Americans are choosing to flee for greener pastures. It is actually fairly easy to renounce one’s own U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Department of State regulations state that the potential ex-patriot must “appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer, in a foreign country and sign an oath of renunciation. One should consider their renunciation action carefully because it is irrevocable once declared.
However, nothing is quite as simple as it appears when dealing with our criminal government that has been hijacked by the bankers. If you try and leave America, you will be assessed a 15% exit fee. Yes, that is correct, you are penalized for exercising the privilege to leave the country. This is similar to the Reich Flight Tax that was implemented as part of a larger emergency decree with the goal of stemming capital flight during the unstable Interbellum period. After the Nazis seized power in 1933, the Nazi government largely used the tax to confiscate assets from persecuted people (mostly Jews) who sought to flee the Third Reich. Do you remember as children we were taught to make fun of the Soviet Union for building fences to keep their citizens in? By the way, Russia has a flat 13% tax rate.
Many Americans Have Already Left
An expatriate, who has left America for the greener pastures of Germany, has written to me over a dozen times telling me to get out of America while I still can. I freely admit, that on the balance sheet, the reasons to leave outweigh the reasons to stay. And the reasons to move our children away from the growing tyranny in this country are even more numerous. However, our enemy calls themselves the New World Order for a reason. It may be possible to move to a place like Norway and get some temporary relief, but in reality, you would only be staying one step ahead of the burning bridge.
In 2013, over a 155,000 Americans expatriated to foreign countries, mostly for economic reasons. In total, over five million Americans are choosing to live outside the United States. Just why are Americans leaving this land of “freedom” and opportunity in record numbers, with no end in sight?I have bad news for these people.You expats may have temporarily escaped high taxes and over regulation from the federal government, however, when, and not if, the dollar collapses, all foreign currencies will collapse as well and you will be trapped in a foreign land. I do, however, agree that there are some valid reasons, at least on the surface for leaving.
The Future Is Never Guaranteed
I am reminded of the story of an American man lamenting about the fact that the Soviets and the Americans would someday engage in a devastating nuclear war. The man researched and studied the best place to relocate to in order to avoid what he felt was the coming nuclear holocaust. He literally took years before deciding to move as he studied prevailing wind patterns, alliances between the Soviets and the Americans before deciding to relocate. Eventually, he decided to move to the Falkland Islands 33 years ago. Subsequently, his new home was shelled and bombed by the British in the Falklands War with Argentina and the man lost family members. It is impossible to prepare for all eventualities.
Where To Go?
Even if you could leave, you might be doing so without your money. Remember, in 2013, banks like Chase limited wire transfers to foreign countries to $50,000 and banned foreign wire transfers.
I predict that under this pathetic president and our insider-trading congress, millions are going to be looking to leave the country. It is my belief that if the number of expatriates grows much beyond present levels, the government will enact policies to make it increasingly more difficult to leave the country.
To those of you that write to me and ask me for advice, I am not going to give it. In this article, I have listed some facts that you may wish to consider. However, I will not bear the responsibility for advising people on such an important decision. This decision is between you, your family and God.
For all the illegal immigrants that think it is so important that you obtain U.S. citizenship, I would advise you to look at the reasons on why so many Americans have already left as well as the reasons I have listed in this article. The grass is not always greener on the other side of the hill. When you leave places like Mexico, you are trading one form of overt government and corporate corruption for another that is a little less obvious, but America will prove to be just as enslaving at the end of the day.
For myself, I am not leaving because I believe in what I am doing and I feel this is where God wants me to be. The future is not guaranteed to any of us. But my way, should not necessarily be your way.
Where would you go? What factors would you consider when choosing a relocation country? Leave a comment below and let’s begin a dialogue on this as to whether it is time to leave the former home of the free? Whatever you decide, you better do it quickly, because when martial law comes, the borders will be shut down to expatriation.
The Organic Prepper
by Daisy Luther
It’s time for an intervention. We need to talk.
Are you concerned about the stuff they call “food” at the grocery store? Do you opt for whole foods most of the time, and feel unwell if you eat so-called “junk food”? Are your views about food causing you to make changes in your day-to-day life? Do you believe there is a connection between the food you eat and your physical and mental well-being?
Then, it’s time to face reality. If you choose to eat food without chemicals on a regular basis, you, my friend, are mentally ill.
It’s called Orthorexia Nervosa.
A study found on PubMed explains. (Wow, it’s like they know me.)
Orthorexia is an obsessive-compulsive process characterized by extreme care for and selection of what is considered to be pure ‘healthy’ food. This ritual leads to a very restrictive diet and social isolation as a compensation. Orthorexics obsessively avoid foods which may contain artificial colours, flavours, preservant agents, pesticide residues or genetically modified ingredients, unhealthy fats, foods containing too much salt or too much sugar and other components. The way of preparation, kitchenware and other tools used are also part of the obsessive ritual.
Huh. They say that like it’s a bad thing.
Don’t despair. If you’re a sufferer, there’s help. The same study states:
Treatment of orthorexia require a multidisciplinary team involving physicians, psychotherapists and dietitians. In some cases, antiserotoninergic drugs may be required as part of the treatment.
So the long and the short of it?
If you want to be healthy, you’re sick. You need a team of doctors and dietitians to cure you from trying to be healthy. And maybe some medicine. The desire for good health is an illness, and Big Pharma and Big Medical wants you to be better. And by better, they mean you should have no hesitation whatsoever about consuming the garbage passed off as food in the grocery stores.
Wow, I’ll bet that raising as much of my own food as possible really means I’m in need of intervention.
Just to clear up any confusion, it’s not about weight loss. Doctor Thomas Dunn is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Northern Colorado who co-authored a paper in Psychosomatics, outlining the diagnostic criteria for the disorder. “It’s different than going overboard because you want to be skinny. Rather, it’s linked to people who are trying to be as healthy as they can be.” (source: New American)
Corporations are losing money when you make healthy choices.
Gosh, do you think this could have anything to do with plummeting sales for processed food companies? There are a lot of corporations with skin in the game. An article on Natural Society by Christina Sarich noted that sales are down for the following food manufacturers (Wait – is my orthorexia nervosa showing when I say that the word “food” should never be followed by the word “manufacturer”?)
- ConAgra (Hunts, Swiss Miss, Chef Boy Ardee)
- Kraft (Oscar Mayer, Jell-O, Maxwell House, Velveeta)
- Campbell’s Soup
Of course, companies like this have a very vested interest in making you think you’re crazy for not eating their offerings. And they have big advertising dollars. Perhaps that’s why the mainstream media is FULL of articles letting you know you have an eating disorder – because their advertisers need you to think you’re nuts. And it’s a two for one deal for the media outlets – they can push treatment options that are available from their other advertisers.
For example, our good friends at CNN (who, incidentally had an ad in the sidebar for a Big Pharma medication on this article) explain:
There’s now a name for people dangerously addicted to all things healthy — a sufferer of orthorexia nervosa. Characterized by disordered eating fueled by a desire for “clean” or “healthy” foods, those diagnosed with the condition are overly pre-occupied with the nutritional makeup of what they eat. They rigidly avoid any food they deem to be “unhealthy,” or spend excessive amounts of time and money in search of the “most pure” foods…The condition is under-studied, and no one knows how widespread it is.
Articles from The Wall Street Journal and ABC News make it seem as though by refusing to consume processed foods or GMO foods, you are at risk of becoming malnourished. In the extreme examples they give, it’s obvious there is a far deeper issue than a desire to avoid junk food and eat clean. Most of us that opt for healthful, healing diets don’t obsess over things like broken egg yolks, yet we’re all grouped together by the media.
Meet the “Experts” Who Think Healthy Eating is a Sign of Mental Illness
What’s more, the people who should be able to help identify eating disorders are being professionally indoctrinated. Last year, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics received a “fact” *cough* sheet outlining the alleged benefits of processed foods from the International Food Information Council. It’s important to note that the IFIC receives funding from Cargill, Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Yum! Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, and WingStreet), General Mills, Mars, McDonald’s, Monsanto, PepsiCo, and Red Bull. You know, all of the companies that produce the recommended processed foods that will benefit your diet. Here’s a look at that handout, if you’re interested.
If you wonder why many people are so confused about what constitutes good nutrition you need look no further than the propaganda being spouted by these so-called “experts”. There is a real problem when the people sponsoring the nutrition lessons are the very purveyors of GMO crops, potato chips, soda pop, and fast food.
Many people are out there trying valiantly to make the best possible choices for their families on limited budgets, but they must combat the constant disinformation and now, scrutiny with regard to their mental health. These folks are being deliberately deceived by food manufacturers, but even worse, by professional societies like the American Medical Association, the American Heart Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
Maybe if there wasn’t so much toxic garbage out there being offered as “food”, people wouldn’t have to be so diligent about what they consume. Maybe the people with the real mental disorders are the ones pushing the chemical laden, non-food crap in a bright, cheerful box, a box that contains things which are known to cause cancer, reproductive difficulties, hormone disruption, gut disorders, and inflammation.
Maybe they should come up with a name to identify those who display enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.
Oh yeah. Wait. They did that already. There is a diagnosis for those people.
They’re called psychopaths.
And they’re the ones calling healthy eaters crazy.
Let me enable you with these resources:
Project reveals the Android apps that are the worst privacy violators
If you thought seemingly innocent apps like Angry Birds did not violate your privacy, you thought wrong. A new project reveals that many unexpected apps are guilty of breaching the privacy of many mobile users.
Mobile applications are fundamentally about making money for their creators, so if an app is free it still has to rake in the cash somehow. That fact leads to many apps relying on advertising to bring in that revenue.
The apps that collect revenue through advertising often share contact lists with third parties or even use the mobile user’s location to deliver targeted advertisements.
“These apps access information about a user that can be highly sensitive, such as location, contact lists and call logs, yet it often is difficult for the average user to understand how that information is being used or who it might be shared with,” Jason Hong, the leader of the new Privacy Grade project said in a press release. “Our privacy model measures the gap between people’s expectations of an app’s behavior and the app’s actual behavior.”
Since many mobile users are completely ignorant of this practice, the Carnegie Mellon University’s Computer Human Interaction: Mobility Privacy Security (CHIMPS) Lab created Privacy Grade.
Privacy Grade gives Android applications grades from A+ to D based on how much information the app gathers from a user’s device and how that gathering aligns with the user’s expectations.
IEEE Spectrum states that the grading model is based on the preference ratings of 725 users on 837 free Android apps.
The project clearly and simply lays out the permissions requested by a wide range of applications and what these permissions are used for. This helps users identify when apps request permission for information that allows internal app functionality versus advertising purposes or market/customer analysis.
Google’s apps, on the other hand, received high marks from Privacy Grade, with most of their applications receiving an A grade. This is somewhat surprising given the privacy breaches Google has been guilty of in the past. Furthermore, a recent report found that Americans are more concerned about data collection by Google than the NSA.
So far, the database does not include paid apps since the researchers believe they are much less likely to be seeking additional revenue from selling user data to third parties.
Additionally, Privacy Grade currently only covers Android apps but the researchers are currently considering adding apps on the iOS, Windows Mobile and Blackberry platforms if funding is available.
Do you use any of the apps covered by Privacy Grade? Are you surprised by the marks your favorite apps have received? Let us know by leaving a comment below, tweeting us or leaving a comment on our Facebook page.
Police Killings Grossly Underreported
We previously reported that Americans are 9 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.
But it turns out that our numbers were incorrect …
This isn’t surprising, given that:
“Reliable estimates of the number of justifiable homicides committed by police officers in the United States do not exist.” A study of killings by police from 1999 to 2002 in the Central Florida region found that the national databases included (in Florida) only one-fourth of the number of persons killed by police as reported in the local news media.
The Guardian reports today:
An average of 545 people killed by local and state law enforcement officers in the US went uncounted in the country’s most authoritative crime statistics every year for almost a decade, according to a report released on Tuesday.
The first-ever attempt by US record-keepers to estimate the number of uncounted “law enforcement homicides” exposed previous official tallies as capturing less than half of the real picture. The new estimate – an average of 928 people killed by police annually over eight recent years, compared to 383 in published FBI data – amounted to a more glaring admission than ever before of the government’s failure to track how many people police kill.
The revelation called into particular question the FBI practice of publishing annual totals of “justifiable homicides by law enforcement” – tallies that are widely cited in the media and elsewhere as the most accurate official count of police homicides.
As shown below, that means that you’re 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.
You’re Much More Likely to Be Killed By Brain-Eating Parasites, Texting While Driving, Toddlers, Lightning, Falling Out of Bed, Alcoholism, Food Poisoning, Choking On Food, a Financial Crash, Obesity, Medical Errors or “Autoerotic Asphyxiation” than by Terrorists
Daniel Benjamin – the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the United States Department of State from 2009 to 2012 – noted last month (at 10:22):
The total number of deaths from terrorism in recent years has been extremely small in the West. And the threat itself has been considerably reduced. Given all the headlines people don’t have that perception; but if you look at the statistics that is the case.
Time Magazine noted in 2013 that the chance of dying in a terrorist attack in the United States from 2007 to 2011, according to Richard Barrett – coordinator of the United Nations al Qaeda/Taliban Monitoring Team – was 1 in 20 million.
Let’s look at specific numbers …
The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011.* That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war.
In contrast, the American agency which tracks health-related issues – the U.S. Centers for Disease Control – rounds up the most prevalent causes of death in the United States:
Comparing the CDC numbers to terrorism deaths means:
– You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
(Keep in mind when reading this entire piece that we are consistently and substantially understating the risk of other causes of death as compared to terrorism, because we are comparing deaths from various causes within the United States against deaths from terrorism worldwide.)
A November, 2010, document from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported that, when in hospital, one in seven beneficiaries of Medicare (the government-sponsored health-care programme for those aged 65 years and older) have complications from medical errors, which contribute to about 180 000 deaths of patients per year.
That’s just Medicare beneficiaries, not the entire American public. Scientific American noted in 2009:
Preventable medical mistakes and infections are responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to an investigation by the Hearst media corporation.
But let’s use the lower – 100,000 – figure. That still means that you are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism.
Wikipedia notes that there were 32,367 automobile accidents in 2011, which means that you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack. As CNN reporter Fareed Zakaria wrote last year:
“Since 9/11, foreign-inspired terrorism has claimed about two dozen lives in the United States. (Meanwhile, more than 100,000 have been killed in gun homicides and more than 400,000 in motor-vehicle accidents.) “
President Obama agreed.
According to a 2011 CDC report, poisoning from prescription drugs is even more likely to kill you than a car crash. Indeed, the CDC stated in 2011 that – in the majority of states – your prescription meds are more likely to kill you than any other source of injury. So your meds are thousands of times more likely to kill you than Al Qaeda.
High-income countries such as the UK and US could see a 6.4% surge in deaths from heart disease, while low-income countries could experience a 26% rise in mortality rates.
Since there were 596,339 deaths from heart disease in the U.S. in 2011 (see CDC table above), that means that there are approximately 38, 165 additional deaths a year from the financial crisis … and Americans are 2,245 times more likely to die from a financial crisis that a terrorist attack.
Financial crises cause deaths in other ways, as well. For example, the poverty rate has skyrocketed in the U.S. since the 2008 crash. For example, the poverty rate in 2010 was the highest in 17 years, and more Americans numerically were in poverty as of 2011 than for more than 50 years. Poverty causes increased deaths from hunger, inability to pay for heat and shelter, and other causes. (And – as mentioned below – suicides have skyrocketed recently; many connect the increase in suicides to the downturn in the economy.)
The number of deaths by suicide has also surpassed car crashes. Around 35,000 Americans kill themselves each year (and more American soldiers die by suicide than combat; the number of veterans committing suicide is astronomical and under-reported). So you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.
The CDC notes that there were 7,638 deaths from HIV and 45 from syphilis, so you’re 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism. (That doesn’t include death by autoerotic asphyxiation … discussed below.)
The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls … most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means that you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack.
The agency in charge of workplace safety – the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration – reports that 4,609 workers were killed on the job in 2011 within the U.S. homeland. In other words, you are 271 times more likely to die from a workplace accident than terrorism.
As noted above, there were an average of 928 Americans killed by police officers in the United States each year in “justifiable homicides”. That means that you were more than 55 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist. That number does not include unjustifiable homicides.
Nearly 400 Americans die each year due to drug allergies from penicillin. More than 200 deaths occur each year due to food allergies. Nearly 100 Americans die due to insect allergies. And 10 deaths each year are due to severe reactions to latex. See this. There are many other types of allergies, but that totals 710 deaths each year from just those four types of allergies alone … making it 42 times more likely that you’ll die from an allergic reaction than from a terror attack.
Scientific American notes:
You might have toxoplasmosis, an infection caused by the microscopic parasite Toxoplasma gondii, which the CDC estimates has infected about 22.5 percent of Americans older than 12 years old
Toxoplasmosis is a brain-parasite. The CDC reports that more than 375 Americans die annually due to toxoplasmosis. In addition, 3 Americans died in 2011 after being exposed to a brain-eating amoeba. So you’re about 22 times more likely to die from a brain-eating zombie parasite than a terrorist.
The 2011 Report on Terrorism from the National Counter Terrorism Center notes that Americans are just as likely to be “crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year” as they are to be killed by terrorists.
The Jewish Daily Forward noted in May that – even including the people killed in the Boston bombing – you are more likely to be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. And see these statistics from CNN.
[The risk of being killed by terrorism] compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.
The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has just published, Background Report: 9/11, Ten Years Later [PDF]. The report notes, excluding the 9/11 atrocities, that fewer than 500 people died in the U.S. from terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2010.
Scientific American reported in 2011:
John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, and Mark Stewart, a civil engineer and authority on risk assessment at University of Newcastle in Australia … contended, “a great deal of money appears to have been misspent and would have been far more productive—saved far more lives—if it had been expended in other ways.”
Mueller and Stewart noted that, in general, government regulators around the world view fatality risks—say, from nuclear power, industrial toxins or commercial aviation—above one person per million per year as “acceptable.” Between 1970 and 2007 Mueller and Stewart asserted in a separate paper published last year in Foreign Affairs that a total of 3,292 Americans (not counting those in war zones) were killed by terrorists resulting in an annual risk of one in 3.5 million. Americans were more likely to die in an accident involving a bathtub (one in 950,000), a home appliance (one in 1.5 million), a deer (one in two million) or on a commercial airliner (one in 2.9 million). [Let’s throw a couple more fun facts into the mix … The risk of choking to death on food is 1 in 4,404, and the risk of dying by falling out of furniture (including couches, chairs and beds) is 1 in 4,238. So you’re almost a thousand times more likely to die from one of these rare causes of death than terrorism.]
The global mortality rate of death by terrorism is even lower. Worldwide, terrorism killed 13,971 people between 1975 and 2003, an annual rate of one in 12.5 million. Since 9/11 acts of terrorism carried out by Muslim militants outside of war zones have killed about 300 people per year worldwide. This tally includes attacks not only by al Qaeda but also by “imitators, enthusiasts, look-alikes and wannabes,” according to Mueller and Stewart.
Defenders of U.S. counterterrorism efforts might argue that they have kept casualties low by thwarting attacks. But investigations by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies suggest that 9/11 may have been an outlier—an aberration—rather than a harbinger of future attacks. Muslim terrorists are for the most part “short on know-how, prone to make mistakes, poor at planning” and small in number, Mueller and Stewart stated. Although still potentially dangerous, terrorists hardly represent an “existential” threat on a par with those posed by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
In fact, Mueller and Stewart suggested in Homeland Security Affairs, U.S. counterterrorism procedures may indirectly imperil more lives than they preserve: “Increased delays and added costs at U.S. airports due to new security procedures provide incentive for many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination rather than flying, and, since driving is far riskier than air travel, the extra automobile traffic generated has been estimated to result in 500 or more extra road fatalities per year.”
The funds that the U.S. spends on counterterrorism should perhaps be diverted to other more significant perils, such as industrial accidents (one in 53,000), violent crime (one in 22,000), automobile accidents (one in 8,000) and cancer (one in 540). “Overall,” Mueller and Stewart wrote, “vastly more lives could have been saved if counterterrorism funds had instead been spent on combating hazards that present unacceptable risks.” In an e-mail to me, Mueller elaborated:
“The key question, never asked of course, is what would the likelihood be if the added security measures had not been put in place? And, if the chances without the security measures might have been, say, one in 2.5 million per year, were the trillions of dollars in investment (including overseas policing which may have played a major role) worth that gain in security—to move from being unbelievably safe to being unbelievably unbelievably safe? Given that al Qaeda and al Qaeda types have managed to kill some 200 to 400 people throughout the entire world each year outside of war zones since 9/11—including in areas that are far less secure than the U.S.—there is no reason to anticipate that the measures have deterred, foiled or protected against massive casualties in the United States. If the domestic (we leave out overseas) enhanced security measures put into place after 9/11 have saved 100 lives per year in the United States, they would have done so at a cost of $1 billion per saved life. That same money, if invested in a measure that saves lives at a cost of $1 million each—like passive restraints for buses and trucks—would have saved 1,000 times more lives.”
Mueller and Stewart’s analysis is conservative, because it excludes the most lethal and expensive U.S. responses to 9/11. Al Qaeda’s attacks also provoked the U.S. into invading and occupying two countries, at an estimated cost of several trillion dollars. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 Americans so far—more than twice as many as were killed on September 11, 2001—as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.
In 2007 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that people are more likely to be killed by lightning than terrorism. “You can’t sit there and worry about everything,” Bloomberg exclaimed. “Get a life.”
Indeed, the Senior Research Scientist for the Space Science Institute (Alan W. Harris) estimates that the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack is about the same as being hit by an asteroid (and see this).
Terrorism pushes our emotional buttons. And politicians and the media tend to blow the risk of terrorism out of proportion. But as the figures above show, terrorism is a very unlikely cause of death.
The American Dream
by Michael Snyder
The Russian military and the U.S. military are going in two very different directions. Military spending in Russia is increasing by a whopping 33 percent this year alone, and the Russians are feverishly preparing as if a major war with the United States is inevitable. But despite the fact that the conflict in Ukraine has raised tensions with Russia to Cold War levels, the Obama administration is still acting as if we were living in a “post-Cold War” era. Even while the Russians are arming themselves to the teeth, the U.S. military is being gutted. In fact, the U.S. Army is in the process of being cut down to the smallest size that we have seen since the end of World War II, and the U.S. Navy is already the smallest that it has been since World War I. There is very little political debate about this gutting of our military at the moment, but someday we may look back and bitterly regret not being more prepared.
No matter what your view of U.S. foreign policy is, we should all be able to agree that the U.S. Constitution mandates that it is the job of the federal government to protect this nation. Sadly, according to one recent report the cutbacks that are happening right now have left the U.S. military only “marginally able” to defend this country…
The US military has become so depleted by cuts that it has been left only ‘marginally able’ to defend the nation.
Decreases in the number of soldiers and naval ships have led to armed forces falling short of President Obama’s national security strategy, a report by The Heritage Foundation claimed.
Yes, we are spending far more on our military than anyone else on the planet is. But a tremendous amount of that is pure waste.
When it comes to the things that really matter for national defense, corners are being cut. For example, as I mentioned above, the U.S. Army is in the process of being reduced to the smallest size that it has been since World War II…
The Quadrennial Defense Review announced last year that the Army would be cut from 570,000 soldiers to 440,000 – the fewest since World War II.
The Army historically commits 21 brigade combat teams to one war but would struggle to do this and leave reserves if there were two simultaneous conflicts, the report said.
And according to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Navy is already the smallest that is has been since World War I…
With the U.S. Navy arguably at its smallest since 1917, we don’t have many ships that are actually at sea. Only 35% of the Navy’s entire fleet is deployed, fewer than 100 ships.
But that is not all. According to Stars and Stripes, the size of the U.S. Air Force is going to shrink by about 500 planes over the next five years…
The Air Force plans to cut nearly 500 planes from its inventory over the next five years if the Defense Department’s Fiscal 2015 budget request is approved by Congress, the service announced Monday.
The reductions — which would affect the active duty, Guard and Reserve — would be implemented in 25 states and the District of Columbia, according to a diagram provided by the Air Force. Only 47 planes would be eliminated overseas at a time when officials are emphasizing the importance of maintaining a strong forward presence to deter adversaries and respond quickly to crises.
For much more on how the U.S. military is being gutted, please see my previous article entitled “The Incredible Shrinking U.S. Military“.
At the same time all of this is going on, Russia is acting as if they knew that World War III was right around the corner.
According to CNN, the Russians plan to spend more than 20 trillion rubles to modernize their military by the year 2025…
Russia has begun investing heavily in upgrades to its military capabilities. President Vladimir Putin plans to spend more than 20 trillion rubles ($700 billion) bringing equipment up to date by 2025.
The modernization program is continuing despite an economic crisis that has already forced Russia to adopt an austerity budget for next year.
Even while the U.S. military is shrinking, the Russian military is getting larger. The following infographic was published by TASS, and it shows some of the new equipment that the Russian military will be receiving by the end of this year…
In addition, the Moscow Times is reporting that the Russian navy will be getting 50 new vessels in 2015.
So why are the Russians conducting such a massive military buildup?
Certainly the civil war in Ukraine is on their minds. If there was a civil war up in Canada, the U.S. government would definitely be freaking out. So it is understandable that the Russians are deeply concerned about what is happening to their neighbor.
But this military buildup by the Russians suggests that there is something more going on.
And I think that we can get a clue by looking at how the Russian military has been behaving.
For instance, the Russian air force recently conducted a drill which simulated an attack on NATO warships in the Black Sea…
Russian fighter jets are practicing attacking NATO ships in the Black Sea in another dramatic sign that tensions over Ukraine continue to build despite a fragile ceasefire agreed last month.
“Russia’s newest Su-30 fighter jets and Su-24 attack bombers are using two NATO ships in the Black Sea to practice penetrating anti-air systems,” reports Sputnik, citing a source at the Sevastopol naval base.
Asserting that the NATO ships are conducting drills based around “repelling air attacks,” Moscow is taking the opportunity to practice “maneuvering and conducting aerial reconnaissance” outside the range of the ships in order to “practice attack scenarios”.
In addition, Russian strategic bombers have been making increasingly aggressive movements in recent months. The following is from an article that described an incident in which two Tu-95 bombers buzzed Norwegian airspace…
But on January 28 two more Tu-95 bombers, escorted by tankers and Russia’s most advanced MiG-31 fighter jets, showed up off the coast. One of them was carrying “a nuclear payload,” according to the London Sunday Express, which cited intercepted radio traffic. And last fall, a Russian Tu-22 supersonic bomber skirting Norway’s northern airspace was photographed carrying a cruise missile in launching position, according to the Barents Observer blog. Similar examples abound.
Adding to the potential for an unintended catastrophe, Russian warplanes typically lift off without filing a flight plan and cruise the busy commercial flight lanes with their transponders off, riling airline and NATO pilots alike. In recent months Russian warplanes have been engaging in Top Gun–style stunts far from home, popping up unannounced aside an SAS airliner on a flight between Copenhagen, Denmark, and Oslo and buzzing a Norwegian F-16 pilot.
And in the Pacific, two Tu-95 bombers recently buzzed Guam…
Russian strategic bombers conducted a third circumnavigation of the U.S. Pacific island of Guam last week as other bombers flew close to Alaska and Europe, defense officials said.
Two Tu-95 Bear H bombers made the flight around Guam, a key U.S. military hub in the western Pacific, on Dec. 13. No U.S. interceptor jets were dispatched to shadow the bombers.
One of the reasons this is done is to test our defenses.
They want to see how we would respond if it was the real thing.
In a future war with Russia, the key to winning will probably be to strike first. The Russians know this, and so they are putting a special emphasis on modernizing their strategic nuclear forces…
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on December 19 that the Russian strategic nuclear forces will receive more than 50 ICBMs in 2015. Putin also reaffirmed plans to modernize the fleet of Russian strategic bombers and nuclear-powered submarines.
According to the new Russian military doctrine signed by Putin Friday, Moscow reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies, as well as in the case of an attack with conventional weaponry that threatens the very existence of the state.
It is being reported that Russian Strategic Missile Forces are planning to conduct more than 100 drills in 2015. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is treating the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal as if it was an unwanted leftover from an era that is long gone.
I have written much more about this in the past, and I will not repeat all of it here. If you would like to dig even deeper into all of this, please see my previous article entitled “10 Signs That Russia Is Preparing To Fight (And Win) A Nuclear War With The United States“.
To most Americans, a war with Russia is not even a remote possibility.
But there is a much, much different mindset inside Russia these days.
During one recent military parade, a large missile was paraded through the streets with a message to Barack Obama written on the side. Roughly translated, the message says “to be personally delivered to Obama”…
The Russians are preparing for war.
The United States is not.
So who is right and who is wrong?
Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…
The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges
Does America have a date with destiny? Is that date known? This article will examine the answers to these two questions.
The Internet is filled with revelations of how the global elite want to depopulate humanity by 90%.
On August 27, 2014, I exposed the megacities concept in revealing something called the America 2050 plan.
The enslavement of America has taken center stage and it is indeed called “America 2050“. The plan for America 2050 is to herd Americans into 11 megacities consisting of six million people each totaling 66 million people. Under this plan, there are no provisions for any other population developments. After reporting in the August 27, 2014 article, I thought the target date for the implementation of the megacities plan would be the year 2050 as indicated in the title of the organization which is behind the planning of this concept (the article can be read here).
It appears that the timetable for the implementation of the megacities concept and the 300 square foot stack and pack apartments is a lot closer that the year 2050.
The CIA Front Group, Deagel, Brings Clarity to the Megacities Concept
Being a front group for the CIA, Deagel, is predicting that we are about a decade away from this hellish nightmare.
Just who is Deagel? The power and influence of the corporation that you never heard of, is staggering. This is the modern day Zapata Oil, which was a CIA front corporation run by George H. W. Bush which in turn facilitated much of the Air America “drugs for guns” program in Latin America in the 1980’s.
My sources tell me that Deagel is the same exact kind of organization as Zapata Oil. Deagel ran guns through the late Ambassador Chris Stevens and subsequently delivered them to al-Qaeda in Libya and in Syria at the time of Stevens’ death. Deagel was intimately involved in Benghazi in ways that will be revealed in a later article. Deagel is not just a gun running/drug running/child sex trafficking organization, they are also intimately connected with the business as “Open source intelligence links”. This means that Deagel and their partner (affiliations listed below) serve as marketing companies for the CIA and sell intelligence information to the highest bidder. Stratfor and Deagel provide the CIA with a minimum of two degrees of separation from nefarious operations which could taint the U.S. government and in particular, the CIA. These activities will be the topic of a future article. The focus of the remainder of this article is the destruction and depopulation of the United States.
Deagel is a group that gets their hands dirty and they play both sides of the fence. Please note the publicly available list of Deagel partners, listed below. They do business with the Russian Defense Procurement Agency, but they are largely an American contractor with ties into the U.S. Navy, the NSA and the CIA, through Stratfor. If anyone wanted to make the case that I have, the “Bastard Banksters from Basel” control both sides of the coming WW III for fun and profit, the data trail of Deagel exemplifies this point. From the following information, we get a strong indication of how the U.S. is going to be depopulated. To further examine this possibility, take a look at a partial list of Deagel partners. The following list clearly shows that Deagel is “locked in” when it comes to the power centers on this planet.
A Partial List of Deagel Partners
National Security Agency – http://www.nsa.gov/
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO – OTAN) – http://www.nato.int/
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – http://www.oecd.org/
OSCE – http://www.osce.org/
Russian Defense Procurement Agency – http://www.fsoz.gov.ru
Stratfor – http://www.stratfor.com/
The World Bank – http://www.worldbank.org/
United Nations (UN) – http://www.un.org/
In the beginning of 2014, Deagel published a projected demographic shift of every nation on the planet. The projections are noteworthy. As one of the most prolific arms dealers and sellers of intelligence information on the planet, Deagel would be in a unique position from which to make projections with regard to coming world events as well as being able to anticipate dramatic shifts in global power. Not surprisingly, Deagel has made such a projection and the news is not good for the United States. Below is a list of projected changes for the United States during the time frame covering 2014-2025.
United States of America Projected Changes from 2014-2025
Population: 316 million
Gross Domestic Product: $17 trillion
GDP per capita: $52,838
Budget: $5.8 trillion
Military Budget: $726 billion
Population: 69 million
Gross Domestic Product: $921 billion
GDP per capita: $13,328
Military Budget: $8.0 billion
Please note how the changes in U.S. population covering an 11 year period mirror what I wrote in the America 2050 article. The projected and dramatic downward shift in America’s population are nearly identical when one compares the America 2050 documents and the Deagel projections.
There is another striking projection which should alarm every American. In 2013, the U.S. military budget was $726 billion dollars. However, the projected 2025 projected budget is only $8 billion dollars. This clearly points to the fact that the CIA, through Deagel, is projecting that the United States is going to be militarily conquered within the next 10 years. The mere $8 billion dollar projected 2025 military budget speaks to a domestic martial law type of occupation force. With this kind of budget, the U.S. would not even be able to engage in regional conflicts.
The Deagel documents clearly speak to who the winners and losers of the coming global conflict will be. In the Deagel document, Russia, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and India maintain their respective populations or increase their populations by the year. The United States and Britain undergo severe population reductions.
Common sense dictates that in a global conflict, with its advanced weaponry, that the U.S. would be able to devastate the populations of the aforementioned countries. However, the Deagel projections do not indicate this. Therefore, the only thing that makes any sense would be that the U.S. will fall victim to being sold out by treasonous leadership, thus precipitating its demise. Does this statement bring anyone to mind?
The Method of America’s Demise
With everything I have uncovered over the past two years, I have concluded that America will be thrust into martial law prior to fighting in WW III. Martial law is usually preceded by a false flag. There is no shortage of false flag possibilities and choosing the manner, the time and the place is a fool’s errand. However, there are a definitive 17 elements of martial law that we can analyze in order to gauge the progress America is making with regard to to being under total martial law. The 17 elements of martial law are:
1-Mass roundup of political dissidents
2-Dusk to dawn curfews
3-Rationing of essential resources
4-The seizing of personal assets such as food and water
5-Control over all food and water
6-The prohibition of weapons of any kind including guns, knives or chemicals which can be turned into explosives
7-The confiscation of property, homes and businesses
8-Arrests without due process
9-Massive “papers please” checkpoints with intrusive searches
11-Forced conscription into various labor camps and even into the military
12-Outlawing of free speech
13-The installation of massive surveillance programs and the establishment of snitch programs
14-The total control or elimination of religion
15-Control of the media
16-Executions without due process of law
17-Total suspension of the Constitution
How many of these 17 elements are in place, or, are being put into place? I am in the midst of preparing a detailed and multi-part analysis of these 17 elements of martial law and their relative progress in America.
Dramatic Progress Toward Martial Law In the Past Five Days
I am also in the middle of dissecting and preparing an analysis of three Presidential actions which have take place in the past five days. Collectively, these actions includes the following:
1. It strongly appears that the President is preparing to assume the power to unilaterally increase taxes based upon his own volition and completely bypass Congress in the process. Much of this information is hiding in plain sight. However, there is still some gaps to fill before I will publish the findings. Yet, the case for this allegation is strong.
2. The President has taken a dramatic step forward with regard to the elimination of free speech in American and assuming control of all new agencies through the Net Neutrality Act which was implemented last Friday.
3. President Obama has announced plans to nationalize law enforcement as did Hitler, Mao and Lenin.
The conclusion which can be drawn from this article, is an article unto itself. Suffice it to say, that American is being set up to be destroyed in WW III as a result with the coming war with the BRIC nations along with some very timely and treasonous help from the inside. Further, we have major think tank organizations as well as a prominent CIA front organization publishing data and projections which reinforces all the Agenda 21 claims that have been made for 20 years. Namely, the United States is going to experience a series of major depopulation events as the landscape of this country will change forever as we will be moved into the hellish Agenda 21 projected cities of the future. The data sets that I am presently working on strongly suggests that we are much closer to these realities than many of us would have anticipated. In an almost tongue-in-cheek, but somewhat serious comment, the Mayan Calendar may have been more accurate if it had abruptly ended in 2025 instead of 2012.
The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges
Martial law occurs when the prevailing regime feels threatened by the message being offered by the loyal opposition. When normal means of censorship and marginalization fail, despotic regimes resort to martial law with all intended brutality of a violent crackdown on all of those being perceived as the “enemy”.
Seventeen Martial Law Characteristics
Most experts agree that hard core martial contains the following 17 essential elements:
1-Mass roundup and/or execution of political dissidents
2-Dusk to dawn curfews
3-Rationing of essential resources
4-The seizing of personal assets such as food and water
5-Control over all food and water
6-The prohibition of weapons of any kind including guns, knives or chemicals which can be turned into explosives
7-The confiscation of property, homes and businesses
8-Arrests without due process
9-Massive “papers please” checkpoints with intrusive searches
11-Forced conscription into various labor camps and even into the military
12-Outlawing of free speech
13-The installation of massive surveillance programs and the establishment of snitch programs
14-The total control or elimination of religion
15-Control of the media
16-Executions without due process of law
17-Total suspension of the Constitution
Just how many of these intrusive government policies are in place in the following video?
From your personal observations, how many can you name?
A full spectrum analysis of how far America has been taken down the road to martial law will be offered and will soon be released.
by Brandon Smith
We are only two months into 2015, and it has already proven to be the most volatile year for the economic environment since 2008-2009. We have seen oil markets collapsing by about 50 percent in the span of a few months (just as the Federal Reserve announced the end of QE3, indicating fiat money was used to hide falling demand), the Baltic Dry Index losing 30 percent since the beginning of the year, the Swiss currency surprise, the Greeks threatening EU exit (and now Greek citizens threatening violent protests with the new four-month can-kicking deal), and the effects of the nine-month-long West Coast port strike not yet quantified. This is not just a fleeting expression of a negative first quarter; it is a sign of things to come.
Stock markets are, of course, once again at all-time highs after a shaky start, despite nearly every single fundamental indicator flashing red. But as Zero Hedge recently pointed out in its article on artificial juicing of equities by corporations using massive stock buybacks, this is not going to last much longer, simply because the debt companies are generating is outpacing their ability to prop up the markets.
This conundrum is also visible in central bank stimulus measures. As I have related in past articles, the ability of central banks to goose the global financial system is faltering, as bailouts and low-interest-rate capital infusions now have little to no effect on overall economic performance. The fiat fuel is no longer enough; and when this becomes apparent in the mainstream, all hell will indeed break loose.
The argument that banks can prop up the system forever is now being debunked. In this series of articles, I will cover the core reasons why this is happening, starting with the basis of all economics: supply and demand.
The Baltic Dry Index has been a steadfast indicator of the REAL economy for many years. While most other indexes and measures of fiscal health are subject to direct or indirect manipulation, the BDI has no money flowing through it and, thus, offers a more honest reflection of the world around us. In the past two months, the index measuring shipping rates and international demand for raw goods has hit all-time historical lows, plummeting 57 percent over the course of the past 12 months and 30 percent for the year to date.
The dwindling lack of demand for shipping presents obvious challenges to mainstream talking heads who contend that the overall economic picture indicates recovery. That’s because if demand for raw goods has fallen so far as to produce a 57 percent rate drop over the past year, then surely demand for the consumer goods that those raw goods are used to produce must be collapsing as well. The establishment machine has used the same broken-record argument against this conclusion, despite being proven wrong over and over again: the lie that fleet size is the cause of falling shipping rates, rather than a lack of demand for ships. This is the same argument used by pundits to distract from the problems inherent in the severe drop in oil prices: that oversupply is the issue, and that demand is as good as it ever was. Forbes has even attempted to outright dismiss the 29-year low of the BDI and alternative economic analysts in the same lazily written article.
First, let’s address the issue of global demand for goods. Does the BDI represent this accurately? Well, as most of you know, the real picture on manufacturing and export numbers is nearly impossible to come by considering most, if not all indexes fail to account for monetary devaluation and inflation in costs of production. For instance, mainstream propagandists love to argue that manufacturing (like retail) generally posts at least small to modest gains every year. What they fail to mention or take into account is the added costs to the bottom line of said manufacturers and retailers, as well as the added costs to the end consumer. Such costs are often not addressed in the slightest when final numbers are tallied for the public.
In manufacturing, some numbers are outright falsified, as in the case of China, where officials are forcing plant managers to lie about output.
In my view, any decline made visible in the false numbers of the mainstream should be multiplied by a wide margin in order to approximate what is going on in the real economy. China, the largest exporter and importer in the world, continues to suffer declines in manufacturing “expansion” as it’s PMI suggests orders remain steadily stagnant.
“Official” statistics show a 3.3 percent decline in Chinese exports in January from a year earlier, while imports slumped 19.9 percent. Exports slid 12 percent on a monthly basis while imports fell 21 percent according to the Customs Administration.
In Japan, despite the falling Yen which was expected to boost overseas demand, export growth declined for last year, certainly in terms of export volume. The recent “jump” in January does nothing to offset the steady erosion of Japanese exports over the past five years and the flat demand over the past two years.
Japan’s manufacturing expansion has slowed to the slowest pace in seven months.
In Germany, the EU’s strongest economic center, industrial output has declined to the lowest levels since 2009, and factory orders have also plunged to levels not seen since 2009.
Despite the assumptions in the mainstream media that lower oil prices would result in high retails sales, this fantasy refuses to materialize. Retail sales continue the dismal trend set during the Christmas season of 2014,with the largest decline in 11 months in December, and continued declines in January.
Oil is certainly the most in-our-face undeniable indicator of imploding demand. Volatility has skyrocketed while pump prices have dropped by half in many places. One may be tempted to only see the immediate benefits of this deflation. But they would be overlooking the bigger picture of global demand. Oil is the primary driver of economic productivity. Dwindling demand for oil means dwindling productivity which means dwindling consumption which means a dwindling economy. Period.
Beyond the issue of real global demand for raw goods, the argument that the BDI is being gutted only due to an oversupply of cargo vessels also does not take into account the fact that Shipping companies often SCRAP extra ships when demand falters. I find it rather amusing that mainstream economists seem to think that dry bulk companies would continue a trend of fielding cargo ships they don’t use causing an artificial drop in freight rates. As far as I know, such companies are not in the habit of undermining their own profits if they can help it. When an oversupply of ships occurs, companies remove unused vessels either through scrap or dry dock in an attempt to drive freight rates back up to profitable levels. This often works, unless, it is DEMAND for cargo shipping that is the issue, not the supply of ships.
Ship scrapping boomed in 2013 and has not stopped since. In fact, dry bulk mover COSCO dismantled at least 17 ships in the month of January alone and has been dismantling ships consistently since at least 2013. The trend of scrapping is often glossed over by shippers as a “modernization effort”, but the fact remains that cargo companies are always removing ships from supply in order to maximize rates and profits.
Finally, global shipping giant Maersk Line now openly admits that the primary detriment to shipping rates, the reason the BDI is falling to historic lows, is because of falling demand in nearly every market; ship supply is secondary.
Does falling demand result in a lack of fleet use and thus “oversupply”? Of course. However, this chicken/egg game that establishment economists play with the BDI needs to stop. Falling demand for goods came first, the number of unused ships came second. This is the reality.
A rather cynical person might point out that all of the stats above come from the propaganda engine that is the mainstream, so why should they count? I would suggest these people consider the fact that the propaganda engine is constantly contradicting itself, and in-between the lines, we can find a certain amount of truth.
If manufacturing is in “expansion”, even minor expansion, then why are exports around the world in decline? If the Baltic Dry Index is dropping off the map because of a “supply glut of ships”, then why are other demand indicators across the board also falling, and why are major shipping agencies talking about lack of demand? You see, this is what alternative analysts mean by the “real economy”; we are talking about the disconnect within the mainstream’s own data, and we are attempting to discern what parts actually present a logical picture. The media would prefer that you look at the economy through a keyhole rather than through a pair of binoculars.
Beyond this lay the true beneficiaries of public oblivion; international corporate moguls, banking financiers, and political despots. Corporations and governments only do two things relatively well — lying and stealing. One always enables the other.
The establishment has done everything in its power to hide the most foundational of economic realities, namely the reality of dying demand. Why? Because the longer they can hide true demand, the more time they have to steal what little independent wealth remains within the system while positioning the populace for the next great con (the con of total globalization and centralization). I will cover the many advantages of an economic collapse for elites at the end of this series.
For now I will only say that the program of manipulation we have seen since 2008 is clearly changing. The fact of catastrophic demand loss is becoming apparent. Such a loss only ever precedes a wider fiscal event. The BDI does not implode without a larger malfunction under the surface of the financial system. Oil and exports and manufacturing do not crumble without the weight of a greater disaster bearing down. These things do not take place in a vacuum. They are the irradiated flash preceding the deadly fallout of a financial atom bomb.
The New American
by Jack Kenny
As Washington braced for the controversial appearance of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (shown) before a joint session of Congress to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, the online publication The Intercept on Monday published a history of Netanyahu’s previous claims that Iran was about to produce a nuclear bomb. Going back nearly a quarter of a century, The Intercept noted that in 1992, Netanyahu, then a member of the Israeli parliament, warned the Knesset that Iran was only “three to five years” away from reaching nuclear weapons capability, and that the threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.” Three years later, in his book Fighting Terrorism, he again predicted Iran was “three to five years” away from a nuclear weapon.
In a previous appearance before the U.S. Congress, back in 1996, Netanyahu warned of the “catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind,” if Iran gained possession of a nuclear bomb, adding “the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.”
In 2009, according to a U.S. State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Netanyahu, then a candidate for prime minister, told a visiting U.S. congressional delegation that Iran was “probably one or two years away” from nuclear weapons capability. Later that year, according to another cable, Netanyahu, back in office as prime minister, told another delegation of American politicians that “Iran has the capability now to make one bomb,” adding, “they could wait and make several bombs in a year or two.” In a 2010 interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Netanyahu said, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” adding, “that’s what is happening in Iran.”
Most memorably, Netanyahu appeared at the United Nations in 2012, with a poster of a cartoon bomb, drawing a line just under the wick to illustrate how close Iran was to producing a nuclear bomb. The fuse would be lit by the following spring or summer, he predicted.
All of this suggests that the Israeli prime minister has, as The Intercept headline puts it, a long history of “crying wolf” about Iran. But he is hardly alone in that regard. Predictions that Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb go back at least to 1979, when the Shah was still on the “peacock throne” and the United States, France, and West Germany were negotiating with his regime on a deal that would bring Iran 20 nuclear reactors. After the Shah was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution, the United States stopped supplying highly enriched uranium to Iran, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, at the head of the new government, condemned nuclear energy, as well as weapons and halted all nuclear projects.
Yet predictions that a nuclear threat from Iran was either imminent or but a few years away continued to abound. In 2011, the Christian Science Monitor published a timeline of those predictions, including one in 1984, made shortly after West German engineers visited the unfinished Bushehr nuclear reactor. Jane’s Defence Weekly, a highly respected source of military information, quoted West German intelligence sources as saying Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” That same year, U.S. Senator Alan Cranston said Iran was seven years away from making a nuclear weapon.
Thirty-one years later, Iran is still — or perhaps again — on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb, according to what is being said repeatedly in Congress as well as by Netanyahu and others.
The United States and allied nations have for the past several years imposed severe economic sanctions against Iran to force a scaling back of a nuclear development program that Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes, including energy production and the making of nuclear isotopes for medical use.
A National Intelligence Estimate report of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 found no evidence that Iran was engaged in a nuclear weapons program. Another NIE in 2011 came to the same conclusion. In testimony before a U.S Senate committee in on January 31, 2012, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that while Iran could weaponize its nuclear program within “months, not years” he added: “We don’t believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.” In an unclassified report published a year later, the intelligence chief said that despite the progress of its nuclear program, “we assess Iran could not divert safeguarded material and produce a weapon’s-worth of WGU [weapons-grade uranium] before this activity is discovered.” In an interview with CBS’s Charlie Rose Monday night, Clapper said only one man in Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, could make the decision to divert Iran’s nuclear program to weapons production. “At this point he has not made a decision” to make a nuclear weapon, Clapper said.
Yet some in Congress seem to think we are, or perhaps should be, on the brink of war over weapons that apparently do not now exist and might not even be in the planning stages. By inviting Netanyahu to come before the Congress and repeat his warnings about Iran, Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans are indicating that they apparently believe that negotiations between Obama and Tehran officials will result in a weakening of sanctions without getting assurances that there will be no Iran nuclear bomb. It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as Netanyahu’s speech is surely intended to undermine diplomatic efforts and build support for a hardline stance against Iran that will likely lead to conflict. And if the negotiations fail, then what? On this week’s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace repeatedly asked that question of House Majority Whip Stephen Scalise of Louisiana, as the transcript of the program shows:
Wallace: But if the talks break down, are you prepared — it’s a pretty straight-forward question, are you prepared to vote to take this country to war against Iran?
Scalise: I’m prepared to continue doing what we need to do to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for increased sanctions against Iran.
Wallace: What about war?
Scalise: I think you’ve heard that. I think what we need to do is keep the sanctions going. The sanctions were working. You want to prevent war, you talk, talk, but you also have to back it up with actions. Increased sanctions, give us a better position. It’s ultimately [to] achieve victory in this, and that is stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That has got to be a top priority of this administration.
Scalise wouldn’t say if he would vote to take the country to war against Iran, which is a pretty good indication that he would. Politicians have roundabout ways of talking about war without using that troublesome three-letter word, as President Obama demonstrated more than once when he was threatening Iran.
“Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” Obama said in his 2012 State of the Union Address. Barely a month later, he granted an interview to The Atlantic magazine in which he again said, “All options are on the table,” adding that the final option is “the military component.” Appearing at the American-Israel Political Action Committee Policy Conference on March 4, 2012, Obama gave the “military component” added emphasis, drawing enthusiastic applause when he said:
I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. (Applause.) That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. (Applause.)
Some would argue — indeed former Texas Congressman Ron Paul and others have argued — that by imposing “crippling sanctions” the United States and its allies are already waging war on Iran, even as the economic sanctions on Iraq resulted in the death of an estimated half a million children during the 1990s, something then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said was “worth it” if the sanctions would promote regime change in Iraq. And as Congress pondered President George W. Bush’s path to war with Iraq in 2002, there again was Benjamin Netanyahu, with no doubts about Saddam Hussein’s development of nuclear weapons.
“There is no question whatsoever,” he told a congressional committee, “that Saddam is seeking and is working and advancing toward the development of nuclear weapons. No question whatsoever.” Recalling Israel’s bombing of a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, Netanyahu added: “And today the United States must destroy the same regime, because a nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security of the entire world at risk. And make no mistake about it, if and once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons.”
And the rest is history — a too easily forgotten history, apparently. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq did not turn up those “weapons of mass destruction,” but it did bring about the destruction of Saddam’s regime and with it, the power vacuum in Iraq that opened the door in that country to al-Qaeda and has since given rise to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
As the leader of a sovereign nation that has had a long and enduring friendship wih the United States, Netanyahu merits and has received a respectful audience in Washington. But neither his predictions nor his prescriptions has been a reliable guide to peace and stability in the Middle East.
Shock Report: White House Immigration Details Leaked: Obama Policies Will Create A “Country Within A Country”
by Mac Slavo
The White House has finally unveiled it’s strategy with illegal immigration and according to well known radio host Mark Levin it is in its advanced stages after many years of scheming and implemntation. In the following interview Levin is joined by Sue Payne, a radio host in Baltimore, Maryland, who happened to be invited to a series of conference calls with Obama administration officials.
What you are about to hear is shocking.
As noted by Sue Payne, the administration is, in effect, establishing a new country within the borders of the United States, something confirmed by a high level Obama administration operative on the conference call.
In reality what he did was sign a memorandum that created the Task Force on New Americans which is going to implement his amnesty mill for the 5 million illegals, which I believe is going to be more than that… and on these conference calls it became clear he was looking at 13 to 15 million to give protection and move them on to citizenship.
What became clear is that once these illegals come out of the shadows so to speak, their communities that they’re living in now are going to be re-designated as “receiving communities.” And what this task force is designed to do is to create a welcoming feeling among these receiving communities to bring in these immigrants…bring them out in the open… and the receiving communities will then morph into what was established as an emerging immigrant community.
To do that, what they said was that we need to start looking at the immigrant as a seedling and for the seedling to grow the seedling needs to be in fertile soil…
Eventually the seedlings will take over the host… and the immigrants will come out of the shadows… and what I got from the meetings is that they would be pushing the citizens into the shadows… they would be taking over the country… In fact, one of the members of the task force actually said that we would be developing a “country within a country.”
The White House spokesman said that immigrants need to be aware of the benefits that they are entitled to… which led to another comment saying that this group Obama’s going to give amnesty to would not be interested in assimilating… they would navigate but not assimilate.
There were also a couple of other things that were very disturbing… one was that as soon as this decision is pushed through these immigrants need to be treated as refugees… they need to be given cash… they need medical care… they need to use credit cards to pay for any documents that they need… And also, we need to convince state and local governments to cut these people no interest loans with tax payer dollars so they can then then pay for their papers… as if we were funding our own destruction here.
The Executive Orders signed by President Obama last year are now coming to fruition. Millions of people who have illegally entered the United States will be given amnesty. New immigrants will be sent to “receiving communities” as explained by Before It’s News:
The “new Americans” are considered “seedlings” by the White House and the “receiving communities” are the “fertile ground” to nurture them, according to comments made during the meetings.
At the meetings, it was said that “immigrants need to be aware of benefits they are entitled to”.
Obama’s plan is to treat the “new Americans” as refugees as soon as amnesty is pushed through. Refugees are given an allowance, housing, food, medical care, education, and an immediate pathway to citizenship.
And where will all the money come from to feed, house, educate and provide health care?
The answer is simple. It will come from you and if President Obama has his way it will be forced upon you without congressional approval, as highlighted by Infowars just two days ago:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unitlateral executive action.
“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.
The pieces of the puzzle have now revealed the bigger picture and the ultimate goals of the Obama administration.
Moreover, it is clear that President Obama has completely trashed the founding document of the United States. First by ignoring his Constitutional duty to enforce the laws of the land by securing our borders. And second, by mandating forced taxation through executive actions that will further impoverish an already struggling American citizenry.
Creepy Tracking Tech Gone Too Far: “Police Surveillance Now Fully Automated and Integrated Into Wireless Networks”
by Mac Slavo
Welcome to 2015. We’re certainly not in Kansas anymore.
Not only is the police state here, but it is upgrading all the time.
While people are busy fighting an uphill battle with apparently rampant cases of abuse, excessive force and a misguided and failed War on Drugs, many are too far behind the times to keep up with these technologies – now being tested or used in police departments across the country.
While the use of technology in policing is nothing new, it might surprise you have far things have gone – with much of police surveillance now fully automated and integrated into wireless networks, and monitored by Homeland Security-funded fusion centers.
Reason.tv rounded up these examples of creepy, robot, privacy destroying police tactics (and it’s only just beginning):
• Smart street lights created a stir in the alternative media a few years ago, with news that Homeland Security grants were putting big brother funding on the streets quite literally. Now, they are being tested in Las Vegas. The intelligent street lights are equipped with two-way communication and monitoring devices, and may be used to record conversations on the streets, or to broadcast official messages from the authorities during an emergency, or in the midst of a crime. Apparently, they can also broadcast music. Maybe that will give them enough street cred to keep the creepy level off the radar. Paul Joseph Watson wrote:
The Intellistreets system comprises of a wireless digital infrastructure that allows street lights to be controlled remotely by means of a ubiquitous wi-fi link and a miniature computer housed inside each street light, allowing for “security, energy management, data harvesting and digital media,” according to the Illuminating Concepts website.
In terms of Homeland Security applications, each of the light poles contains a speaker system that can be used to broadcast emergency alerts, as well as a display that transmits “security levels” (presumably a similar system to the DHS’ much maligned color-coded terror alert designation), in addition to showing instructions by way of its LED video screen.
The lights also include proximity sensors that can record both pedestrian and road traffic. The video display and speaker system will also be used to transmit Minority Report-style advertising, as well as Amber Alerts and other “civic announcements”.
• Location tracking Wi-Fi is now being tested in Seattle and other locations as part of a wireless mesh network. Of course, most already know that their cell phones and computers share data with their providers, the NSA and a host of other data hungry watchers, but now the police are using boxes set up at numerous street intersections to ping and track cell phones in the area, logging location data for thousands of drivers, passengers and pedestrians that could be used to establish the whereabouts of a suspect, pursue criminals, as evidence in traffic disputes or perhaps for crowd control.
The Wi-Fi tracking devices appear as white boxes mounted on poles or street lights. The data interconnects through a wireless mesh network with existing traffic cameras, police squad vehicles, networks of cameras and other interfaces on the emerging fiber network, and a host of authorities in the region, including police, the Sheriff’s Department and the regional fusion center. Officially, the mesh network aides communication during emergency scenarios, but also functions as a roaming live-time surveillance network.
Reason.tv reports that Seattle residents been reporting wi-fi networks popping up on their cell service with the names of intersections (such as 3rd & Union) since 2013.
• Sting Ray cell phone interceptor / cell phone tower impersonator devices are now being secretly used by the FBI, local police departments and… probably other spy agencies, foreign and domestic, as well. The use of this technology remains less known than other techniques, in part because the Justice Department has pressured local law enforcement to keep hush hush about the use of this tool, even in the face of court testimony.
The best part, from a policing point of view, is the kid-in-a-candy store, fish-in-a-barrel opportunity for revealing data on everyone from suspects to innocent bystanders who may have data wanted by the authorities… now or later. No warrants need apply.
Melissa Melton writes:
According to the Associated Press, the Obama Administration has been actively advising police departments to refuse disclosure about certain cell phone surveillance technologies, including the widely used “StingRay” device, even in routine state records requests.
Evidently, the StingRay technology allows law enforcement to “trick” cell devices into sharing identifying personal and location data with them that would ordinary be sent to communications companies and require request procedures.
Instead, police are bypassing company assistance and collecting unique information on suspects, persons of interests, and – as the AP reports – they can even “sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods,” all without any court orders or oversight.
• See-through-radar, as used in such on the market technologies as the Range-R, allows police to see the location of all the people inside a building through the walls, again, without a warrant.
USA Today reports:
At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.
Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person’s house without first obtaining a search warrant.
• PoliceBots – Right now, the Knightscope K5 looks like an inept R2D2 unit, but soon people will see it as the early deployment prototype of the dangerous Robocop type units that science fiction has long warned us about.
They are scheduled to begin actual patrols in the Silicon Valley area sometime this year, and will principally be used to detect criminal activity and alert human officers… for now, of course. Later, they are supposed to be capable of crime prediction as well as prevention, but we already know that Minority Report is no-knocking at the door.
According to the Daily Mail, these bot-officers carry a number of advanced and perhaps troubling capabilities, including rapid license plate scanning and something referred to as ‘odor detection’:
The five foot tall robots have a combination of laser scanning, wheel encoders, inertial measurements, and GPS that allows fully autonomous operation and charging.
It also has odour detectors, and can even monitor air pollution as it travels around.
Using cameras they can also read up to 300 car number plates a minute, allowing them to monitor traffic.
• Drones – The use of drones is, unsurprisingly, also expanding, but the devices are become so cheap at the same time that their use is becoming accepted. Hence, police departments and law enforcement are snatching them up and making purchases that often fly under the radar of public controversy. Infinitely cheaper than helicopters and other aerial devices, drones are poised to be anywhere and everywhere that law enforcement wants eyes.
• “Eye in the Sky” – Reason.tv also included an “Eye in the Sky” HD camera mounted inside a Cessna-style aircraft that flies over a city locale for up to six hours, recording everything that takes place in the community – with options to zoom in on areas of interest in live-time and play back to review what officers weren’t focusing on.
The Atlantic reported on how the device was used secretly in Compton, California, and only revealed to the public years afterwards – kept hush hush by law enforcement to quell privacy concerns:
In a secret test of mass surveillance technology, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department sent a civilian aircraft* over Compton, California, capturing high-resolution video of everything that happened inside that 10-square-mile municipality.
Compton residents weren’t told about the spying, which happened in 2012. “We literally watched all of Compton during the times that we were flying, so we could zoom in anywhere within the city of Compton and follow cars and see people,” Ross McNutt of Persistence Surveillance Systems told the Center for Investigative Reporting, which unearthed and did the first reporting on this important story. The technology he’s trying to sell to police departments all over America can stay aloft for up to six hours. Like Google Earth, it enables police to zoom in on certain areas. And like TiVo, it permits them to rewind, so that they can look back and see what happened anywhere they weren’t watching in real time.
The question is, where does it all end?
Are there any limits to how far police or government authorities will go or can go?
The Fourth Amendment seems clear enough in its intent to protect people from unwarranted searches and seizure, but it has been all but trashed and scrapped in the wake of the paranoid War on Terrorism and unparalleled mass surveillance technologies.
The problem is that there may simply be no turning back. Expectation of privacy are now as low as a fat, bald, unemployed dude hoping for a date with a supermodel. Basically, freedom is dormant and privacy is, for the time being, now all but nonexistent.
by Wayne MADSEN
There was once a time when any criticism of any Israeli leader by an elected U.S. political leader was a taboo, an act that ensured a quick political death sentence. Those who even mildly criticized the actions of Israel or any Israeli prime minister were guaranteed a well-funded election opponent, courtesy of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
After Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu conspired with Republican U.S. House Speaker John Boehner for the Israeli prime minister to give an address to a joint session of Congress, his third — a distinction that Netanyahu shares only with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill — and without the knowledge of the Obama administration, all gloves are off. Never before in the history of the United States has a foreign leader been invited to denounce a sitting American president from the same pulpit where the American president delivers the traditional State of the Union address.
What Netanyahu called for before Congress was nothing less than total regime change in Iran. Netanyahu stressed he does not want any sort of nuclear deal with the current government in Tehran and wants sanctions increased not decreased. Netanyahu, who understands the hold that his Zionist friends who control Hollywood have over the American public, compared Iran to the «Game of Thrones», a reference to an HBO fantasy series about seven warring kingdoms. Netanyahu also said that as far as the Islamic State’s conflict with Iran was concerned, «the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.» He was referring to the United States and its current war with the Islamic State. Netanyahu mangled what every sane observer of the current state of Middle Eastern affairs say that the U.S. and Iran are natural allies against ISIL, the operative motto being «the enemy of your enemy is your friend.» Netanyahu laughingly tried to draw a comparison between the Islamic State and Iran because «Iran calls itself the Islamic Republic and ISIS calls itself the Islamic State.»
Netanyahu said Iran and ISIL are competing like the warring kingdoms in the «Game of Thrones» to see who would wear the crown. Netanyahu ignored the fact that the jihadist ISIL guerrillas claim to be Sunni while Iran is Shi’a. As far as Iran’s formal name is concerned, Netanyahu may have as well compared ISIS or ISIL to Mauritania, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, all of which use «Islamic Republic» in their names.
Netanyahu also outrageously suggested that it was more important to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon than in defeating the Islamic State. Netanyahu was relying on the same low-IQ sound-bytes that are commonplace on such propaganda networks as Fox News and on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal.
As a number of Democratic senators and representatives announced they were going to avoid Netanyahu’s speech, another move that would have normally resulted in a cacophony of dissenting shouts from the Israel Lobby, President Obama told Reuters in an exclusive interview that Netanyahu’s speech was a mistake. Obama, in response to national security adviser Susan Rice’s earlier comment that Netanyahu’s speech was «destructive to the fabric» of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, agreed that Netanyahu’s speech to Congress two weeks before an Israeli election was a «distraction», in addition to being a mistake.
Obama’s rather diplomatic language hides a seething within the White House for the partisan activities of Israeli ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, a former U.S. citizen, and Boehner. The Netanyahu visit comes after senior White House officials were anonymously quoted in the media as calling the Israeli prime minister a «coward» and a «chickenshit.»
Perhaps no other U.S. administration has had a tenser relationship with Israel since John F. Kennedy warned Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in a 1963 letter that unless American inspectors were allowed into Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility, Israel would lose American aid and find itself diplomatically isolated. In 1961, Kennedy refused to allow Ben-Gurion to visit the White House but agreed to meet him in a rather unpublicized meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York.
A CNN poll showed that American public opinion is shifting on Israel, with 63 percent of Americans polled disagreeing with Boehner’s invitation for Netanyahu to address Congress. But to the tone deaf AIPAC, whose annual conference in Washington Netanyahu addressed on the eve of his speech to Congress, they wrongly believe they have the support of the American people when they only have the support of older Jews, so-called Christian Zionists, and neoconservative war hawks who are part of the U.S. military-industrial base. Even 31 percent of American Jews, according to the CNN poll cited earlier have no affinity to the goals of Israel.
Obama and Vice President Joe Biden decided not to speak to AIPAC this year. The White House, instead, sent Susan Rice and UN ambassador Samantha Power to address the very pro-Republican and right-wing group. In preparation for his congressional speech, Netanyahu told AIPAC «For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless.” Anyone familiar with the history of the financial system of the Roman Empire or the Rothschild barons of finance and industry in Europe would not claim that the Jewish were entirely «defenseless» or «voiceless» throughout the last 2000 years.
Many Jews in the United States and elsewhere resent Netanyahu’s repeated claims to represent the entirety of the Jewish people. Before Congress, Netanyahu shamelessly tried to compare today’s Iran with Nazi Germany and ancient Persia. In reference to Persia, Netanyahu said, «Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.» Netanyahu was citing arcane Old Testament mythology contained in the pages of the Book of Esther.
Irking AIPAC even more was the fact that Secretary of State John Kerry turned down his invitation so he could meet with Iranian foreign minister Zavad Jarif in P5+1 nuclear discussions in Geneva. Kerry also pointedly warned Netanyahu against disclosing secret details of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations before the Congress. It became clear, however, that Netanyahu’s undermining of Obama and Kerry during the sensitive negotiations in Geneva, were aimed at scuttling a nuclear deal and preventing any weakening of sanctions on Iran. Netanyahu flatly told Congress that any nuclear deal by the P5+1 with Iran would «pave the way» for an Iranian nuclear weapons. Not only has the CIA dismissed any such current plans by Iran but several former Israeli intelligence officials have said the same thing: Iran has no capability of producing a nuclear weapon at the present time.
Netanyahu’s people managed to dredge up Czech president Milos Zeman, former Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, and former Canadian foreign minister John Baird to applaud Netanyahu’s comments to AIPAC. The three foreign officials, by default, also showed their disrespect to the Obama administration by attending a partisan event on the eve of an even greater partisan event.
Although such Democratic senators as Patrick Leahy, Elizabeth Warren (a much-rumored 2016 presidential candidate), Brian Schatz, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tim Kaine, and Al Franken, and veteran Democratic Representatives John Lewis, Jim McDermott, and Jim Clyburn, as well as Republican Representative Walter Jones, announced their boycott of Netanyahu’s speech, other Democrats, including Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, were present. The empty seats in the House chamber will filled by pro-Netanyahu Republican staffers who, along with the attendees the nearby AIPAC conference managed to pack into the House Visitor’s Gallery, gave Netanyahu thunderous, if not misleading, applause and shouts of support.
Not surprisingly, Netanyahu’s speech was praised by the pro-Zionist CNN and its Washington bureau chief, Wolf Blitzer, who never admits in the interest of full disclosure that he was once the public affairs spokesman for AIPAC.
Netanyahu will now face off against Israel’s political opposition in the March 17 election. Although Netanyahu may have scored cheap political points with Israel’s right-wing and even farther-right settlers, the damage he has done to the U.S.-Israeli «special relationship» will far outlast the results of the forthcoming election.
“Corporate America is using police forces as their mercenaries.”—Ray Lewis, Retired Philadelphia Police Captain
It’s one thing to know and exercise your rights when a police officer pulls you over, but what rights do you have when a private cop—entrusted with all of the powers of a government cop but not held to the same legal standards—pulls you over and subjects you to a stop-and-frisk or, worse, causes you to “disappear” into a Gitmo-esque detention center not unlike the one employed by Chicago police at Homan Square?
For that matter, how do you even begin to know who you’re dealing with, given that these private cops often wear police uniforms, carry police-grade weapons, and perform many of the same duties as public cops, including carrying out SWAT team raids, issuing tickets and firing their weapons.
This is the growing dilemma we now face as private police officers outnumber public officers (more than two to one), and the corporate elite transforms the face of policing in America into a privatized affair that operates beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment.
Mind you, it’s not as if we had many rights to speak of, anyhow.
Owing to the general complacency of the courts and legislatures, the Fourth Amendment has already been so watered down, battered and bruised as to provide little practical protection against police abuses. Indeed, as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, we’re already operating in a police state in which police have carte blanche authority to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance. Expanding on these police powers, the U.S. Supreme Court recently gave law enforcement officials tacit approval to collect DNA from any person, at any time.
However, whatever scant protection the weakened Fourth Amendment provides us dissipates in the face of privatized police, who are paid by corporations working in partnership with the government. Talk about a diabolical end run around the Constitution.
We’ve been so busy worrying about militarized police, police who shoot citizens first and ask questions later, police who shoot unarmed people, etc., that we failed to take notice of the corporate army that was being assembled under our very noses. Looks like we’ve been outfoxed, outmaneuvered and we’re about to be out of luck.
Indeed, if militarized police have become the government’s standing army, privatized police are its private army—guns for hire, if you will. This phenomenon can be seen from California to New York, and in almost every state in between. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the private security industry is undergoing a boom right now, with most of the growth coming about due to private police doing the jobs once held by public police. For instance, Foley, Minnesota, population 2600, replaced its police force with private guards
Technically, a private police force is one that is owned or controlled by a non-governmental body such as a corporation. Those who advocate for privatized services and limited government hail the shift towards private police as a step in the right direction by getting the government out of the business of policing and allow market principles to dictate an officer’s success, i.e., if an officer abuses his authority, he can easily be fired.
Read the fine print, however, and you’ll find that these private police aka guns-for-hire a.k.a. private armies a.k.a. company police officers a.k.a. secret police a.k.a. conservators of the police a.k.a. rent-a-cops don’t exactly remove the government from the equation. Instead, they merely allow them to work behind the scenes, conveniently insulated from any accusations of wrongdoing or demands for transparency. Indeed, most private police officers are either working for private security firms that are contracted by the government or are government workers moonlighting on their time off.
What began as a job detail for wealthy communities and businesses looking to discourage burglaries has snowballed into a lucrative enterprise for private corporations. Today these private police can be found wherever extra security is “needed”: at hospitals, universities, banks, shopping malls, gated communities, you name it.
As historian Heather Ann Thompson notes, “private security firms have come substantially to supplement, if not completely to replace, the publicly-funded public safety presence of troubled inner cities ranging from Oakland, to New Orleans, to small towns in states such Minnesota, to entire neighborhoods—sometimes extremely rich, sometimes desperately poor—in urban centers such as Atlanta and Baltimore.”
For example, in New Orleans, a 50-person private police squad funded by a “voluntary” hotel tax is being charged with enforcing traffic, zoning and other non-emergency laws in the French Quarter.
In Seattle, off-duty Seattle Police officers moonlighting as a private security force patrol wealthy neighborhoods “approximately six nights/days a week for five hours each shift. Officers are in uniform, carry police radios and their police firearms and drive unmarked personal vehicles.”
In California, private mercenaries—many of them ex-U.S. Special Forces, Army Rangers and other combat veterans—equipped with AR-15 rifles use unmarked helicopters to police cannabis farms and cut down private gardens without a warrant.
Yet while these private police firms enjoy the trappings of government agencies—the weaponry, the arrest and shoot authority, even the ability to ticket and frisk— they’re often poorly trained, inadequately screened, poorly regulated and heavily armed. Now if that sounds a lot like public police officers, you wouldn’t be far wrong.
First off, the label of “private” is dubious at best. Mind you, this is a far cry from a privatization of police. These are guns for hire, answerable to corporations who are already in bed with the government. They are extensions of the government without even the pretense of public accountability. One security consultant likened the relationship between public and private police to public healthcare: “It’s basically, the government provides a certain base level. If you want more than that, you pay for it yourself.”
The University of Chicago’s police department (UCPD) is a prime example of how private security firms are being entrusted with the legal status of private police forces (which sets them beyond the reach of the rule of law) and the powers of public ones. With a jurisdiction that covers a six-square-mile area and is home to 65,000 individuals, the majority of whom are not students, UCPD is one of the largest private security forces in America.
The private police agency, modeled after the tactics of NYPD chief William Bratton, criminalizes nonviolent activities such as loitering, vandalism, smoking marijuana, and dancing “recklessly” and punishes minor infractions severely in order to “discourage” violent crime. To this end, the UCPD can search, ticket, arrest, and detain anyone they choose without being required to disclose to the public its reasons for doing so. Not surprisingly, the UCPD has been accused of using racial profiling to target individuals for stop-and-frisks.
Second, these private contractors are operating beyond the reach of the law. For example, although private police in Ohio are “authorized by the state to carry handguns, use deadly force and detain, search and arrest people,” they are permitted to keep their arrest and incident reports under wraps. Moreover, the public is not permitted to “check the officers’ background or conduct records, including their use-of-force and discipline histories.” As attorney Fred Gittes remarked, “There is no accountability. They have the greatest power that society can invest in people — the power to use deadly force and make arrests. Yet, the public and public entities have no practical access to information about their behavior, eluding the ability to hold anyone accountable.”
So what happens when the government hires out its dirty deeds to contractors who aren’t quite so discriminating about abiding by constitutional safeguards, especially as they relate to searches and heavy-handed tactics? If you think police abuses are worrisome, security expert Bruce Schneier warns that “abuses of power, brutality, and illegal behavior are much more common among private security guards than real police.”
As Schneier points out, “Many of the laws that protect us from police abuse do not apply to the private sector. Constitutional safeguards that regulate police conduct, interrogation and evidence collection do not apply to private individuals. Information that is illegal for the government to collect about you can be collected by commercial data brokers, then purchased by the police. We’ve all seen policemen ‘reading people their rights’ on television cop shows. If you’re detained by a private security guard, you don’t have nearly as many rights.”
Third, more often than not, the same individuals are serving in both capacities, first on the government payroll, then moonlighting for the corporations. Not surprisingly, given the demand for private police, you’ll find that police in most cities work privately while they are off-duty. Some private officers started off as public officers, then made the switch once they saw how lucrative the field could be.
This gives rise to another interesting phenomenon, a schism, if you will, between what is permissible in the private sector versus and what is allowed in the public sector, and how it affects those who travel between both worlds. We saw this played out in St. Louis, Missouri, when an off-duty police officer, working a secondary shift for a private security firm, shot and killed a teenager.
Fourth, what few realize is that these private police agencies are actually given their police powers by state courts and legislatures, which do not require them to act in accordance with the Constitution’s strictures or be accountable to “we the people.” As legal analyst Timothy Geigner observes, “They’re hiding from public scrutiny behind the veil of incorporation, which may rank right up there among the most cynical things a government organization has ever done. It’s a move one might find in the corporate republic of some dystopian novel. I say that because it’s truly not as though the police departments in question are attempting to claim some kind of exemption within public records law. They’re just putting up a stone wall.”
It’s not as if we have much in the way of local, publicly accountable police forces now; they all answer to the militarized agencies that provide their equipment and training. These private cops simply swell the government’s ranks and serve as the private arm of the law.
In fact, the Department of Justice has been one of the most vocal advocates for the benefits that private security—which has twice the budget and manpower as their government counterparts—can provide in partnership with public police. These so-called “benefits” are outlined in the DOJ’s guidebook entitled “Operation Partnership: Practices and Trends in Law Enforcement and Private Security Collaborations,” which focuses on how both sectors can share cutting-edge technology, information, and personnel resources. Sounds cozy, doesn’t it?
As history shows, we’re not forging a new path with these private police agencies, either. In fact, we’re simply following a model established long ago, not only by Hitler and Mussolini, who relied on private guards to do their bidding, but also by the likes of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, who relied on their own private police force, the Pinkertons, who had broad authority to “harass or hurt anyone their employers deemed a threat—be they a worker trying to get a fair wage or a poor person begging near the doorstep of a mansion.”
Nevertheless as historian Heather Ann Thompson points out, “despite countless historical accounts of why private policing of public spaces is a bad idea in a democracy, ordinary Americans have raised little ruckus today when, once again, only those Americans with money are assured access to security and protection.” Thompson continues:
Worse, astonishing faith has been expressed in the much-touted proposition that private police forces, in fact, act in the best interests of the public. Where is the concern, if not the outrage, that there is virtually no regulation when it comes to private policing in America’s inner cities? Not only can individuals with little if any training police public spaces, but in various locales they are even authorized to make arrests and wield firearms. What is more, unlike public police, private security officers are not required by law to read a suspect his or her Miranda Rights and, more incredibly, they are allowed to use force, in some circumstances even deadly force, if they deem it necessary to do so.
What we’re finding ourselves faced with is a government of mercenaries, bought and paid for with our tax dollars, all the while claiming to be beyond the reach of the Constitution’s dictates.
When all is said and done, privatization in the American police state amounts to little more than the corporate elite providing cover for government wrong-doing.
Either way, the American citizen loses.
by James E. Miller
Does a warning mean anything if nobody listens?
With the precarious case of Lake Mead, doomsayers never seem to break the surface. For years, reports of the lake’s declining levels have popped up in the news. Yet residents of the surrounding area still refuse to listen. The latest report from the Interior Department is very troublesome: there is a 20% chance of water shortages for Nevada and Arizona in 2016 if the lake maintains current levels.
Lake Mead, if you are unaware, provides 90% of the water to Las Vegas. It is also a crucial water source for Los Angeles and major cities in Arizona. Thus, it’s easy to see why residents of Nevada and surrounding states have an interest in the viability of the lake to sustain itself. News of drought or weakening levels should be cause for alarm. Often times, attention is roused with reports that water may become scarce in the immediate future. But that scare usually dissipates when rain comes, essentially washing away the fear of future paucity.
There is an assumption by people living in the southwestern United States that water shortages are a naturally-caused phenomenon. A coworker of mine who hails from the region recently informed me that most Nevada citizens don’t understand the underlying forces driving the water crisis. They ignore the fact that the present situation is unsustainable. Worse yet, they don’t see the real culprit behind a continual lack of H2O: the government.
Contrary to popular belief, the current state of the American southwest isn’t the norm. Rather, it’s an artificial creation that likely wouldn’t exist without government planning. What do I mean?
Without Lake Mead, Las Vegas wouldn’t have enough of a water supply to be the country’s leading tourist trap. The same goes for cities such as Los Angeles, San Diego, and Austin. An artificial lake created by the construction of the Hoover Dam, Lake Mead has the government’s fingertips all over it. And that means its filled with the hubris of a thousand engineers who thought they could thwart nature.
Lake Mead was created almost a century ago with the creation of the Hoover Dam. The dam was originally a make-work program pushed by President Hoover and later completed by Franklin Roosevelt. It was part of many economic recovery programs meant to mitigate the spike in unemployment brought on by the Great Depression. At the time of its completion, F.D.R. called the structure (then named the Boulder Dam) a “great feat of mankind” and “the greatest dam in the world.”
Little did he anticipate. Like all government projects, the unintended consequences wrought by the Hoover Dam are legion. According to historian Michael Hiltzik, the population of the southwest swelled upon completion of the dam. “Since that dedication year, the population of the seven states of the basin has swelled by about 45 million. Much of this growth has been fueled by the dam and its precious bounties of water and electrical power.”
The promise of water attracted farmers and developers from across the nation. The phony supply of water created an insatiable demand that was never viable over the long term. As Doug French writes, “government’s damming of the Colorado River attempted to cheat Mother Nature by bringing water to the desert southwest — water that just isn’t and never was there.”
The Hoover Dam boondoggle sprung to mind when I recently watched the classic film noir Chinatown. Starring a young Jack Nicholson, Chinatown is based on the seedy dealings of water rights in Los Angeles during the 1970s. Access to water, it turns out, has always been a topic of contention in the southern California area.
The film begins with private investigator J.J. Gittes being hired to investigate the husband of Evelyn Mulwray. Said husband is the owner of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. During his investigation, Gittes stumbles upon a nefarious scheme to rob the city of much-needed water and transfer it to a newly-cultivated valley. Mulwray ends up dead for discovering the plan. Gittes struggles to put the pieces together while protecting Mulwray’s widow from danger.
Chinatown is considered a classic of American cinema because it portrays the unsavory underbelly of black market activity. Government corruption is a prominent theme, but the state is also portrayed as a positive mechanism for distributing water rights. Mulwray is regarded as a hero for transferring the responsibility of water allocation “to the people” rather than keep it in private hands. The idea that government arrogance is to blame for water misappropriation is not an explored theme of the film.
Gittes finds out the hard way that passing the ownership of water from private to public doesn’t weed out the tendency for corruption of the former. Rather, it incentivizes misuse of the public trust by putting bureaucrats in charge of one of life’s necessity. A shady deal is hatched to annex a neighboring valley into Los Angeles, while using this insider knowledge to scoop up the land at discount prices.
This scheme, while fictional, is loosely based on the California water wars of the early 20th century. A century of government meddling has turned the issue of water rights on its head, and further centralized control of waterways in local, state, and federal governments. Just as the residents of Los Angeles fought over water with local farmers, the residents of Las Vegas will soon find themselves fighting with surrounding states over what’s left of Lake Mead. None of the power players seem to care that the current population settlements of the southwestern United States cannot last. One day the water will run out. The sooner this reality is confronted, the better.
Admittedly, the ownership of water and its various bodies is a difficult topic. Rivers and tributaries don’t flow by man’s commands. They can be directed, but never fully controlled. Privatization of water rights would be a good start for restoring sane usage of natural resources. Don’t expect as much to happen though. Government control is far too entrenched in the process to be removed easily.
Forget it Jake, it’s socialism.
Via Mises Canada
The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges
Many societal interests are geared towards profiting from stealing children from their parents and ultimately directing these children into prison where they perform slave labor for many corporations in one of the most hideous practices in human history, the privatized, for profit, prison.
Schools and Their Contribution to Private Prison Profits
Zero-tolerance” policies criminalize minor infractions of school rules, while cops in school lead to students being criminalized for behavior that should be handled inside the school. Students of color are especially vulnerable to push-out trends and the discriminatory application of discipline in many of our public schools. Children should be educated, not incarcerated, but to the lobbyists for the privatized prison for profit system, they are writing legislation for your state in which the end goal is designed to put your child in prison for profit.
In part one, I pointed out how the privatized prison lobby is responsible for longer mandatory sentences and passing laws which maximize the amount of people in prison and now they are in the schools criminalizing what used to be called juvenile delinquency.
These unholy lobbyists have secured guarantees from most states which they are guaranteed that 100% of all prison beds are occupied. Since the advent of privatized prisons our collective prison population has risen from 300,000 to over 2 million prisoners and the current rates are skyrocketing.
School to Prison Pipeline: Go to School and End Up In Prison
The above graphic now applies to our children as our kids are increasingly becoming victim to what is called the School to Prison Pipeline.
Every good major league baseball team has a successful farm system of minor league teams in smaller towns and cities. This is where the majority of baseball talent develops their skills prior to coming to the parent club. The Prison Industrial Complex is run like a major league baseball team’s farm system in which young talent is developed to replace the aging veterans.
It used to be a given that unless one committed murder, juveniles under the age of 18 did not go to jail or prison. That is no longer the case. The incarceration of our youth is big business. There are almost 75,000 juveniles in prison and the rates are skyrocketing because of the school to prison pipeline in which schools are increasingly refusing to deal with even minor discipline issues and are placing juveniles in police custody.
Zero Tolerance Policies Are Responsible
As I have previously documented, the Chicago Police Department runs and maintains a FEMA camp facility in which due process is on permanent vacation. So, should it be surprising that Chicago is leading the way in pushing our children from school to prison? In Chicago, in 2010, there were 5,574 school-based arrests of juveniles in the Chicago Public School. The juvenile arrests accounted for about one of every five juvenile arrests in the entire city of Chicago for all of 2010. The incarceration rates for Chicago’s juveniles are above the national average, but they are generally in line with most other metropolitan areas in the country. There is also a general trend of disproportionate rates of minority contact within the juvenile justice system, Black youth accounted for 74% of school-based arrests, and 22.5% of youth arrested were Latino. The enrollment of Chicago schools in was 45% Black and 41% Latino. These high arrest rates for so many of our minority youth, create potential slave laborers for the Prison Industrial Complex. Once a child is adjudicated in the justice system, society usually witnesses a straight line right to prison. These precious children are having their futures robbed from them before they can even get started. What are they being arrested for? The number one reason is for fighting on school grounds.
As a child, I had fights on school grounds, but nobody tried to send me to prison. The number two reason why children end up in the justice system is for possessing small amounts of marijuana.
As a former mental health counselor, I am all too familiar with the devastation brought on by use of drugs. However, marijuana is not one of these drugs. If legalizing marijuana runs against everything you believe in, how about decriminalizing? In other words, we still make the drug illegal but nobody goes to prison for simple possession.
The federal authorities, controlled by the private corporations of the CCA and GEO, will never allow such a common sense, liberalized approach to drug enforcement. The feds even arrest medical marijuana dispensers and users. Why? Because Wall Street wants prisoners to fill its increasingly privatized and for-profit prison system. This is the major reason why America is home to 25% of the world’s prison population, despite only having 5% of the world’s population. Again, see part one for the corporations who participate and profit in the buisiness of prison slave labor which is increasingly being filled by children.
Our minority youth, in the inner cities, are being conditioned by the system that going to prison is part of the life experience. And with extremely high recidivism rates, prison slave labor will never have any shortage of participants.
The Prison Industrial Complex and their lobbyists are responsible for zero tolerance policies, mandatory sentencing and the three strikes life sentencing that is so prominent in many of our states and unless we identify these abuses and stop them, it is only going to get worse.
Remember that term, School to Prison Pipeline, because they are actively recruiting our children for the prison slave labor force.
In addition to the two primary ways (i.e. fighting and marijuana) that children end up getting trapped in this prison for profit system, there is another significant contributor to this problem, and it is brought to by your state’s version of Child Protective Services.
From Foster Care to Prison
It is often said that a nation should be judged by how it treats its must vulnerable members. From that perspective, America is a despicable nation. Please consider the following graphic which encapsulates the process on how our children are traded as commodities in order for Wall Street CEO, stockholders and friends are able to maximize their personal profits on the backs of our children. The following graphic is a story unto itself.
Of all the sources of where inmates come from, the most telling statistic that 70% of inmates were former foster children.
The CPS Factor
On The Common Sense Show, I interviewed Kristi Wills, a former Virginia CPS agent. Wills detailed how the Virginia CPS would literally steal children, without any justification, from their parents, and then these children would struggle mightily with their foster parents. Some foster parents would simply disappear with several foster children and the authorities were unconcerned as to where these children were taken. The late Georgia State Senator, Nancy Schaefer, detailed that this was how many of these children would be sex trafficked from this pool of missing kids. And we see from the above graphic, many foster children end up in prison. Wills and others report that the FBI and/or local authorities are never called to look for foster children who just disappear.
CPS is paid and average of $6,000 per child, per month, by a combination of state and local authorities as well as the Department of Human Health Services for every child removed from the home. If the child is a minority and/or has a disability, the child is worthy even more money to CPS who uses these stolen children to supplement their department budgets. And now we have clear and convincing evidence that many of these children end up in prison.
CPS profits from abducting children, the privatized prison system is a recipient of this windfall when these children eventually go to prison. When we combine the CPS pipeline to prison with the school to prison to pipeline, it is easy to conclude that our entire society is moving in the direction of preying on its children for profit.
I asked Wills to estimate the percentage of children that actually should have been removed from the home when she was part of an investigative team and she responded, “Less than 10% should have been removed from the home for their protection”. Wills went on to describe about how the CPS agents, following the removal of a child from the home, would go out to a bar and celebrate the victory. In other words, the goal of CPS is not to protect your children, but to seize your children for the profit that the HHS offers. Ultimately, many of these children are sex trafficked and/or end up in prison. Wills was ultimately fired by the Virginia CPS because she refused to lie on documents about the so-called facts which led to the unjust removal of a child from their home.
The Hunger Games
Doesn’t this system remind one of the hunger games in which two children are chosen to fight to the death in Capitol City as part of the tribute that all must pay to the elite?
If by the grace of God your children grow up and are untouched by this corrupt system which has bought its way into every statehouse and federal welfare agency with campaign contributions, we are still left with one dilemma, our conscience.
Please allow me to ask a question to those of us who see this evil and do nothing, WHO ARE WE?
Congressman Urges Protection for Power Grid: EMP Attack “Could Bring Our Civilization to a Cold, Dark Halt”
by Mac Slavo
When it comes to an EMP attack, the question remains “when” not “if” the SHTF. Few other scenarios hold as much potential for disaster and disruption to the lives of everyone in society. At a moment’s notice, 300 million Americans could be made instantly desperate – and even likely to die in the aftermath. A single event could easily be enough to take down the power grid and render inoperable all the computers and electronic tools that individuals, businesses, banks and governments all rely upon.
Arizona Congressman Trent Franks recently reintroduced a bill intended to provide better security for critical infrastructure, with particular emphasis on the threat posed to the power grid by an EMP – which Rep. Franks points out could occur either naturally from a solar flare or by way of a targeted man-made weapon.
In reintroducing the bill this week, Franks said, “The Department of Homeland Security has the specific responsibility to secure the key resources and critical infrastructure in the United States, to include power production, generation and distribution systems. Yet thirteen years after this job description was enacted, our nation’s most critical infrastructure — and the systems that more than 300 Million Americans depend upon every day for basic activities — are still vulnerable to large scale blackouts.
“Anyone who understands how critical our power grid has become in modern America to feeding our families or keeping our children warm will understand why this act is so crucially important. The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act will enhance DHS threat assessments for geomagnetic disturbances and electromagnetic pulse blackouts which will enable practical steps to protect the vital electric grid that serves America….”
The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) resulting from an extreme solar flare or a targeted nuclear blast has the power to single-handedly wipe out the electric grid, and permanently disable nearly everything hooked up to it, from computers to electronic devices and much more.
Back in September, Frank layed out the consequences of an EMP attack:
Our entire American way of life relies upon electricity and electronic technology. Our household appliances, food distribution systems, telephone and computer networks, communication devices, cars, airplanes, factories, power plants, bank ATMs, even water and sewage plants could potentially grind to a halt without it. Moreover, while much of our critical military hardware is shielded against EMP, our military relies upon our largely unsecured civilian grid for more than 90 percent of its electricity needs in this country without which it cannot affect its military mission.
According to experts, including Dr. William Graham, who was the White House science adviser during the Reagan administration, an EMP attack over the continental United States could render 70-90 percent of our population unsustainable.
Rep. Franks is urging legislation on the basis that Homeland Security is charged with protecting America, yet unable to do so. Failing to guard against an EMP means a threat to civilization itself:
“Passage of this legislation will help the United States prevent and prepare for such an event by including large-scale blackouts into existing national planning scenarios… Most importantly, it requires specific plans for protecting and recovering the electric grid and other critical infrastructure from a dangerous EMP event.”
Continuing, Franks said, “There is a moment in the life of nearly every problem when it is big enough to be seen by reasonable people and still small enough to be successfully addressed. Those of us across America live in a time when there still may be opportunity for the free world to address and mitigate the vulnerability that naturally occurring or weaponized EMP represents to the mechanisms of our civilization. This is our moment.”
However, it is unclear whether or not Frank’s legislation would be practically effective in protecting the grid, nor is it clear whether or not it will become law. A previous version of his SHIELD act passed the House but stalled in the Senate.
Franks echoed the sentiment of former CIA director James Woolsey, who warned that an EMP “could bring our civilization to a cold, dark halt.” As Forbes notes:
Congressional studies quoted by Woolsey estimate that two-thirds of the population would die of starvation, disease, exposure or violence related to social breakdown in the first twelve months alone.
And to make matters worse, we would never even know what hit us, because we would have no means to investigate, to say nothing of respond. Just darkness.
What can you do about the potential coming collapse of civilization?
“Island yourself” from the central grid… that’s former FERC chief John Wellinghoff’s advice to individuals – preppers if you will – for surviving any grid downs that could occur from an EMP, a cyber attack or other event powerful enough to interrupt the highly vulnerable primary grid.
People are beginning to understand that they need their own onsite capabilities to island themselves from the grid. That’s because the grid’s external vulnerabilities will continue to be a problem until we do have substantial amounts of distributed generation. I have a solar photovoltaic system that provides 100% of my power needs. I am looking into how I can island myself off the grid. But it is not just me, the military is moving toward micro-grids at all of their bases because they understand the vulnerability of those bases to outages.
In the longer term, Wellinghoff hopes that distributed grids will become a major component of the solution – decentralizing power production at the local and regional level so that system-wide destruction of the main grid would not interrupt local power service. Likewise, targeted attacks on hundreds or thousands or distributed grids by an enemy could occur, but would be unlikely to derail all the power at once.
These distributed grids could generate power through any practical means – conventional sources of natural gas or coal, they could use solar, wind or newer methods of renewable energy… the point is that they are independent and scaled to individual communities (or even individual homes):
The key is that they are located within that particular sub-region and can run even if the there is some cascading failure throughout the main grid. Solar is a good example. If everyone had solar panels on their respective roofs then we could adequately disperse power generation in such a way that it makes nodes practically irrelevant. It is easy to hack into a node and cause it to malfunction but it is basically impossible to hack 10 million solar power systems.
Preppers can take special note here: when major figures in government, science and national security are sounding the alarm over the threats of an EMP attack and the looming failure of the grid, it is high time to make a back up plan:
That is, make preparations to survive with no power or electricity during a short or long term disaster, make plans to protect major equipment or backups with a faraday cage, and, if possible, make or adapt plans to generate at least some electricity using off grid or ‘distributed grid’ networks.
Without picking any favorites, solar may be the most practical option for individuals at this point in time, though solar panels can be quite costly. Anything else that works is also a good option.
Nevertheless, be warned that this could literally happen at any moment. Extreme space weather may be capricious and occur without warning, while those who would benefit from sowing chaos and disaster over the civilized world – or those who seek to gain power in the aftermath of disruptions to ordinary life – could unleash an electromagnetic pulse that would effectively pull the plug without any given notice.
Are you prepared?
by KIT DANIELS
Image Credits: mac_ivan / Flickr
The Obama administration released a plan to expand federal control over state and local law enforcement.
The plan released Monday, entitled Task Force on 21st Century Policing, advocates the federalization of police agencies across the country by forcing them to adhere to stricter requirements when they receive federal funding.
“The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services [COPS] and Office of Justice Programs, should provide technical assistance and incentive funding to jurisdictions with small police agencies that take steps towards shared services, regional training, and consolidation,” one of the numerous recommendations in the plan stated.
The plan also calls for the feds to collect more law enforcement data.
“…There is a lack of uniformity in data collection throughout law enforcement, and only patchwork methods of near real-time information sharing exist,” the plan stated in a section advocating “national standards” for law enforcement technologies. “These problems are especially critical in light of the threats from terrorism and cybercrime.”
President Obama said that most of the plan’s recommendations “are directed at the 18,000 law enforcement jurisdictions that are out there.”
“I’m going to be asking Eric Holder and the Justice Department and his successor to go through all these recommendations so that we can start implementing them,” he said Monday. “I know that one area that’s going to be of great interest is whether we can expand the COPS program that in the past has been very effective, continues to be effective, but is largely underfunded — to see if we can get more incentives for local communities to apply some of the best practices and lessons that are embodied in this report.”
“But a lot of our work is going to involve local police chiefs, local elected officials, states recognizing that the moment is now for us to make these changes.”
The plan follows the same strategy laid out by Common Core: expand federal power on the state and local level by adding more conditions to federal funding.