FIRST AND FOURTH AMENDMENTS FACE SUPREME COURT RULINGS

supremecourt-

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. | The New American

As The New American reported Saturday, the Supreme Court has announced plans to publish rulings in several key constitutional cases. Every Monday in June, the schedule reports, will see the release of one or more decisions.

One of the cases of concern to civil libertarians and constitutionalists involves the Obama administration claiming the authority to search and seize cellphone records without a warrant, despite the protections against such government intrusion provided by the Fourth Amendment.

The Washington Post published the following summary of the case of U.S. v. Wurie:

In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House.” They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House.” That led them to the man’s home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.

The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.

The Appeals Court ruling doesn’t sit well with a president who considers the Constitution irrelevant and who is accustomed to the court’s collusion in the federal government’s continuing effort to revoke all civil liberties.

Of specific interest in the Wurie case is the government’s claim that a cellphone is no different from any other items a suspect might be carrying that are subject to search by law enforcement, “including notebooks, calendars, and pagers,” the Post points out.

One of these things is not like the others, however. Today, a cellphone is as much a personal computer as a telephone and most people carry things inside their smartphones that have not been placed within the scope of acceptable searches: “our e-mails, text messages, photographs, browser histories and more,” the Post explains.

Should the Obama administration receive a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court, one that holds that police do not need a specific — constitutionally qualifying — warrant to search a suspect’s cellphone, the threat to the Fourth Amendment and individual liberty is incalculable.

For example, a person arrested on a bench warrant for failing to appear for a hearing would have his entire life subject to search and seizure if he was carrying his smartphone at the time he was taken into police custody. Then, the photos, texts, social media posts, and photos stored on that phone would come under the scrutiny of government and the data could be collected and saved in order to blackmail the citizen turned suspect.

In light of the broad discretion granted to government and law enforcement by the Supreme Court in the 1979 case of Smith v. Maryland, police (and those to whom the information gleaned from the cellphone was shared) could do whatever they deem “reasonable” with regard to the information obtained from the warrantless search of the cellphone.

In the case of Smith v. Maryland, the court held that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.”

The court in that case ruled that if someone is talking to another person by way of a medium provided by a third-party (in the Smith case it was a telephone company), both parties must expect that the “intermediary” will have access to the content of the communication.

Regarding the telephone company, the court explained that when a person uses a telephone, he “voluntarily convey[s] numerical information to the telephone company and ‘expose[s]’ that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business.”

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration in its brief filed in the Wurie case references the Smith case. The government says Smith supports its position that there is a reduced expectation of privacy regarding the contents of a cellphone.

The upshot of Wurie is that it is just another piece of evidence of the president’s pursuit of a country where citizens are nothing but future suspects and where privacy and civil liberties are defined not by the Constitution, but by the federal government.

From the NSA and Homeland Security, to the U.S. Postal Service and the IRS, the wall of protection provided by the Fourth Amendment is being demolished and the government given life by the Constitution is now on the verge of patricide.

Notably, the Cato Institute predicts that the Supreme Court will find in favor of the federal government, although insisting “the justices are extremely wary of pronouncing legal rules that could be rendered obsolete or unworkable as newer technology develops.”

The last of the cases we will outline concerns one the most fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment — the right to the free exercise of religion.

Two cases challenging the contraception mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) avers that the plaintiffs’ religious freedoms are being violated by forcing them to offer free (or heavily subsidized) access to contraceptives, including those that induce abortion.

One of the individual plaintiffs challenging the Obama administration’s coercive contraceptive statute reveals the real danger to liberty posed by the provision.

“With this mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act, the government is not only violating our religious beliefs; they are also taking it upon themselves to tell us what the boundaries of those religious beliefs are,” states Father Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. “It is not up to the government to tell us when our conscience hurts; on the contrary, it’s up to us as believers to tell the government.”

The two cases whose decisions will be handed down are Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius and Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores. The legal history of those two cases was provided by The New American late last year:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, a Mennonite-owned company, must comply with the Health and Human Services mandate that compels companies to pay for drugs that may cause abortions. The ruling was handed down in a 2-1 decision asserting that the Mennonite faith of the company’s owners may not prohibit the company from complying with the mandate.

And:

In [September 2012], Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a privately held retail chain, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, opposing the HHS “preventive services” mandate, which forces the Christian-owned-and-operated business to provide, without co-pay, the “morning after pill” and “week after pill” in their health insurance plan.

People of faith now wait to see which side the Supreme Court will support: the side that believes the federal government can impose immoral mandates on the mass of citizens regardless of their religious principles, or the side that believes that the government has no authority to encroach upon one of society’s most sacrosanct rights — the right to exercise one’s religious faith free from federal dictates.

Strangely, some still argue that when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a federal act, there remains no recourse and the issue is settled once and for all.

In light of recent decisions by “conservatives” on the Supreme Court in the ObamaCare case, it is no wonder that many Americans doubt that states have a right to nullify a congressional act in the wake of a Supreme Court decision.

Thomas Jefferson had something to say in the matter. In 1804, he wrote that giving the Supreme Court power to declare unconstitutional acts of the legislature or executive “would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” He noted that “nothing in the Constitution” gives the Supreme Court that right.

In this Mexican standoff of fundamental liberty, Supreme Court, and federal government, the last man standing is the people acting in their collective political capacity as states.

Even Abraham Lincoln recognized the lack of constitutional authority for the Supreme Court’s assumption of the role of ultimate arbiter of an act’s conformity with the Constitution.

Lincoln said that if the Supreme Court were afforded the power to declare whether an act of the federal government was constitutional, “the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Renowned constitutional scholar Von Holtz explained the error in accepting the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional fidelity. “Moreover, violations of the Constitution may happen and the injured cannot, whether states or individuals, obtain justice through the court. Where the wrongs suffered are political in origin the remedies must be sought in a political way,” he wrote.

He continued, regarding this “aristocracy of the robe,” “That our national government, in any branch of it, is beyond the reach of the people; or has any sort of ‘supremacy’ except a limited measure of power granted by the supreme people is an error.”

How can anyone read these statements and honestly conclude that any branch of the federal government is intended to be the surveyor of the boundaries of its own power?

Every department of the federal government was created by the Constitution — therefore, by the states — and has no natural sovereignty. No branch can define its own authority. Such a thought is ridiculous and contrary to any theory of popular sovereignty ever proposed. If courts, Congress, or presidents had such power, it would make them judge, jury, and executioner in every case in which their own act exceeding constitutional authority is at bar.

Monday, June 2, constitutionalists will witness how far the Supreme Court is willing to go in joining the unholy alliance formed to obliterate constitutional protections of fundamental liberty.

FOURTH AMENDMENT AND FOREIGNERS: DOES IT APPLY?

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. | The New American

The National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance of foreign leaders has been well publicized. The phones of politicians from Germany to Brazil, from France to Spain, were tapped and the conversations were monitored and recorded by agents of the government of the United States.

Although President Obama has committed to “curbing” the spooks’ unwarranted and out of control surveillance of ostensibly friendly leaders, no such order has to date been issued.

None of the president’s promised “reforms,” however, addresses the problem of the “vacuuming up” of international data from a Fourth Amendment perspective. When it comes to the surveillance of non-Americans and the protections provided by law against such action, relevant provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are most often cited, not the Fourth Amendment or any other part of the Constitution.

One can assume, therefore, that neither the president nor the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies believe that the Bill of Rights covers targets residing outside the borders of the United States.

In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post, David Ignatius puts a finer point on the official denial of fundamental rights — in this case, the Fourth Amendment — to foreigners. He writes:

Just considering this question unsettles U.S. intelligence officials, who for years have responded to queries about privacy issues with a bland dismissal. “The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to foreigners,” officials will say. The dirty little secret (not so secret anymore) is that the job of spy agencies is to violate other countries’ borders and laws to collect information.

Later, Ignatius draws on the research of a legal scholar regarding the real repercussion of dividing people into various classes: those with rights and those without.

“Are there to be two classes of people in society — those who ‘deserve’ rights, and have them, and those who do not?” asks my friend Garrett Epps, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore, in discussing the Fourth Amendment in his new book, “American Epic,” which examines line by line what the Constitution actually says.

Ignoring this strictly constitutional approach, other writers who have raised the issue of the Fourth Amendment in the context of the NSA’s foreign surveillance typically arrive at a prohibition on such from a decidedly unconstitutional source.

For example, in a blog post he calls “We are all Foreigners: NSA Spying and the Rights of Others,” Georgetown Law School professor David Cole argues for an end to the overseas monitoring based on the following rationales:

First, “The right to privacy, protected in human rights treaties that the US has signed, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is not limited to the people’s leaders, but is said to be a right of all human beings.”

The agreement Cole cites is a multinational United Nations treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992, albeit with five reservations. Although the United States is a signatory to the covenant, the UN has expressed concern with the United States’ failure to comply with the terms of the treaty.

Regardless of the explicit unconstitutionality of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Cole’s reliance on UN treaties is unnecessary.

Unlike the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights referenced in that article, the U.S. Constitution was not written to set out the scope of the rights of citizens. In fact, rights are neither granted nor protected, strictly speaking, by the Constitution. The sole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of government, marking the metes and bounds of the authority of the federal government.

With this understanding, then, one comes to see that the Constitution applies only to actions of officers of the federal government and as such, not only does not “apply” to American citizens, but also does not apply to any individual anywhere not serving in a federal government capacity.

Cole’s second reason for denying to the NSA the power to monitor foreign telephone and Internet traffic is based on what one commentator called a “a global view of government, by which governments are accountable to all humans worldwide.” Cole argues:

The reality is that we are all foreigners from the standpoint of every other nation. And while at the moment the NSA may be at the forefront of technological surveillance capacity, other nations are not likely to be far behind. How would we feel if we had recently learned that France — or China — was collecting data on millions of Americans’ communications, or directly monitoring President Obama’s cell phone? If we extend no protection to other countries’ nationals, why should we expect them to respect our privacy rights? Thus, it’s in our own interest to identify some reciprocal principles to preserve privacy in the digital age.

This could be called Cole’s “Golden Rule” of surveillance (Americans shouldn’t accept their own government spying on foreigners unless they would likewise accept being spied on in the same way by the governments of those foreigners). In response to an opposing blog post written by George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, Cole likens the possible effect of such unilateral spying to “blowback.” He writes:

If we engage in practices that incur the ire of large swaths of the public in foreign countries, we are much less likely to find the cooperation we need from their governments, or from the people themselves. The people themselves are often the best sources of intelligence. But if the people come to resent the US because it is spying on them without just cause, they are much less likely to provide intelligence. And they are much more likely to object to their governments sharing information with us as well.

While these “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” arguments are worthwhile, the point of this article is whether the specific types of searching and seizing forbidden by the Fourth Amendment are applicable to citizens of other countries.

In deciding whether to make room for all people — not just Americans — under the Constitution’s umbrella of civil liberties, one need look no further than the text of the Fourth Amendment itself for the identity of those whom the Founders intended to shield from the eye and ear of an all-powerful government. The Fourth Amendment declares:

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

The people are protected, not just the American people. For the sake of reference, one need recall the statement in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” Furthermore, all men are endowed by their Creator with rights, rights they enjoy as offspring of the Almighty. Thus, as there is no man, woman, or child that is not the creation of God, there is none of them that is not a beneficiary of the rights He bestowed upon them.

Finally, in his dissenting opinion in the case of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990), Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote:

What the majority ignores, however, is the most obvious connection between Verdugo-Urquidez and the United States: he was investigated and is being prosecuted for violations of United States law and may well spend the rest of his life in a United States prison. The “sufficient connection” is supplied not by Verdugo-Urquidez, but by the Government. Respondent is entitled to the protections of the Fourth Amendment because our Government, by investigating him and attempting to hold him accountable under United States criminal laws, has treated him as a member of our community for purposes of enforcing our laws. He has become, quite literally, one of the governed.

Fundamental fairness and the ideals underlying our Bill of Rights compel the conclusion that when we impose “societal obligations,” such as the obligation to comply with our criminal laws, on foreign nationals, we in turn are obliged to respect certain correlative rights, among them the Fourth Amendment.

By concluding that respondent is not one of “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, the majority disregards basic notions of mutuality. If we expect aliens to obey our laws, aliens should be able to expect that we will obey our Constitution when we investigate, prosecute, and punish them. We have recognized this fundamental principle of mutuality since the time of the Framers.

In nearly every instance of NSA surveillance that has come to light since the first leak of documents by former subcontractor Edward Snowden, it is apparent that the federal government has not obeyed the Constitution in its treatment of either American citizens or those of another country.

AMERICANS HAVE LOST VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Washington’s Blog

How Many Constitutional Freedoms Have We Lost?

This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.  (This is an updated version of an essay we wrote in February.  Unfortunately, a lot of information has come out since then.)

Image: Bill of Rights.

First Amendment

The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Supreme Court has also interpreted the First Amendment as protecting freedom of association.

However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.

A federal judge found that the law allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a“chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this.

There are also enacted laws allowing the secret service to arrest anyone protesting near the president or other designated folks (that might explain incidents like this).

Mass spying by the NSA violates our freedom of association.

The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment. The government is using laws to crush dissent, and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny.

For example, the following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today:

And holding the following beliefs may also be considered grounds for suspected terrorism:

Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a separate system of justice in America.

And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.

Second Amendment

The 2nd Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun control and gun rights advocates obviously have very different views about whether guns are a force for violence or for good.

But even a top liberal Constitutional law expert reluctantly admits that the right to own a gun is as important a Constitutional right as freedom of speech or religion:

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.

***

It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

***

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

The gun control debate – including which weapons and magazines are banned – is still in flux …

Third Amendment

The 3rd Amendment prohibits the government forcing people to house soldiers:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

While a recent lawsuit by a Nevada family – covered by (Mother JonesFox News and Courthouse News– alleges violation of the Third Amendment, this appears to be an isolated incident and an aberration.

So we’ll count this as an Amendment which is still being honored! Score one for We the People!

Fourth Amendment

The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:

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

But the government is spying on everything we do … without any real benefit or justification.

Indeed, experts say that the type of spying being carried out by the NSA and other agencies is exactlythe kind of thing which King George imposed on the American colonists … which led to the Revolutionary War.

And many Constitutional experts – such as Jonathan Turley – think that the police went too far in Boston with lockdowns and involuntary door-to-door searches.

Fifth Amendment

The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But the American government has shredded the 5th Amendment by subjecting us to indefinite detentionand taking away our due process rights.

The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen on U.S. citizen without any due process. And see this.

As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property being taken for privatepurposes.

The percentage of prosecutions in which a defendant is denied a grand jury is difficult to gauge, as there isso much secrecy surrounding many terrorism trials.

Protection against being tried twice for the same crime after being found innocent (“double jeopardy”) seems to be intact.  Hey … that’s two Constitutional rights which are still intact!

Sixth Amendment

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an attorney:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Subjecting people to indefinite detention or assassination obviously violates the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial. In both cases, the defendants is “disposed of” without ever receiving a trial … and often without ever hearing the charges against them.

More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.

The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even assassinate people. And see this and this.

Secret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are not even allowed to read their own briefs.

Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret. And it’s about to get a lot worse.

True – when defendants are afforded a jury trial – they are provided with assistance of counsel. However, the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts and the public defenders’ offices nationwide.

Moreover, there are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. The government made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, even though fraud is themain business model adopted by Wall Street. Indeed, the biggest financial crime in world history, thelargest insider trading scandal of all time, illegal raiding of customer accounts and blatant financing of drug cartels and terrorists have all been committed recently without any real criminal prosecution or jail time.

On the other hand, government prosecutors are using the legal system to crush dissent and to silence whistleblowers.

And some of the nation’s most powerful judges have lost their independence … and are in bed with the powers-that-be.

Seventh Amendment

The 7th Amendment guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

As far as we know, this right is still being respected (that’s three rights still being followed).

However – as noted above – the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts, resulting in the wheels of justice slowing down considerably.

Eighth Amendment

The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Indefinite detention and assassination are obviously cruel and unusual punishment.

The widespread system of torture carried out in the last 10 years – with the help of other countries –violates the 8th Amendment. Many want to bring it back … or at least justify its past use.

While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not punish – he’s wrong. It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is technically a form of terrorism.

And government whistleblowers are being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out.

Ninth Amendment

The 9th Amendment provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We can debate what our inherent rights as human beings are. I believe they include the right to a level playing field, and access to non-toxic food and water. You may disagree.

But everyone agrees that the government should not actively encourage fraud and manipulation. However, the government – through its malignant, symbiotic relation with big corporations – is interfering with our aspirations for economic freedomsafe food and water (instead of arsenic-laden, genetically engineered junk), freedom from undue health hazards such as irradiation due to government support of archaic nuclear power designs, and a level playing field (as opposed to our crony capitalist system in which the little guy has no shot due to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the super-elite, and government support of white collar criminals).

By working hand-in-glove with giant corporations to defraud us into paying for a lower quality of life, the government is trampling our basic rights as human beings.

Tenth Amendment

The 10th Amendment provides that powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Two of the central principles of America’s Founding Fathers are:

(1) The government is created and empowered with the consent of the people

and

(2) Separation of powers

Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom.  We’ve become more afraid of our government than of terrorists, and believe that the government is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed“.

And the federal government is trampling the separation of powers by stepping on the toes of the states and the people. For example, former head S&L prosecutor Bill Black – now a professor of law and economics – notes:

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the resident examiners and regional staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [both] competed to weaken federal regulation and aggressively used the preemption doctrine to try to prevent state investigations of and actions against fraudulent mortgage lenders.

Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.

Conclusion: While a few of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights still exist, the vast majority are under heavy assault.

Other Constitutional Provisions … and The Declaration of Independence

In addition to the trampling of the Bill of Rights, the government has also trashed the separation of powers enshrined in the main body of the Constitution.

The government is also engaging in activities which the Founding Fathers fought against, such as taxation without representation (here and here), cronyismdeference to central banks, etc.

As thethe preamble to the Declaration of Independence shows, the American government is still carrying out many of the acts the Founding Fathers found most offensive:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. [Background]

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. [Background herehere and here]

***

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: [Background]

***

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences [Background]

***

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. [Background]

***

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. [Background herehere and here]

NDAA NULLIFICATION BILL HEADED TO FLOOR OF CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE

RELATED POST: EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA SIGNS NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2013 INTO LAW ON JANUARY 2, 2013: MARTIAL LAW COMES TO AMERICA

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. | The New American

On August 12 the California Senate Appropriations Committee sent to the floor a bill making it more difficult for residents of the Golden State to be indefinitely detained under provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Known as the California Liberty Preservation Act, AB 351 is backed by a politically diverse coalition, including Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the Tenth Amendment Center, the California American Civil Liberties Union, San Francisco Board of Supervisors president David Chiu, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors.

The bill’s primary sponsor is current gubernatorial candidate Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-33rd District). Donnelly’s bill specifically guarantees the right of citizens of California to be free from any federal law, including the NDAA, that would authorize their indefinite detention in violation of habeas corpus.

Specifically, if enacted, the bill would shield from federal assault several fundamental constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, “including the right of habeas corpus, the right to due process, the right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to be informed of criminal charges brought against him or her.”

Relying on the 10th Amendment’s reservation to the states and the people all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, the bill is a constitutionally sound expression of state sovereignty.

In a press release issued by his office after the committee approved his bill, Assemblyman Donnelly recognizes his duty to resist attempts by Washington, D.C., to deny Americans of their most basic freedoms.

“The NDAA gives the executive branch — under not only President Obama, but also every future president — unprecedented power to detain US citizens without due process. This runs counter to the very principles that make America great, and violates our nation’s commitment to the rule of law,” said Assemblyman Donnelly.

He continued, “We have a moral duty to protect Californians from the disastrous consequences made possible by NDAA. When Constitutional protections are ignored, racist hysteria allows vulnerable groups to be targeted. It was not long ago we memorialized the tragedy of Japanese American internment camps on the floor of the California State Assembly. I am grateful for today’s committee vote, which shows Californians that their representatives are serious about ensuring similar violations of freedom and human rights abuses never happen again within our State.”

While the text of the bill lays out specific ways in which the NDAA denies citizens many of the most basic constitutionally protected civil liberties, the surprising scope of the NDAA is still unfamiliar to most Americans.

President Barack Obama signed the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law on January 2, renewing the power to apprehend and detain Americans indefinitely granted in the previous year’s version.

The Fiscal Year 2014 version of the bill is currently working its way through Congress. At this time, many amendments that would have stricken some of the most pernicious provisions from the act have been defeated.

As for the most unconstitutional parts of the NDAA 2012 that remain in effect, a bit of history is in order. On December 31, 2011, with the president’s signing of that law, the writ of habeas corpus — a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta — is voidable upon the command of the president of the United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at his will.

One of the most noxious elements of the NDAA is that it places the American military at the disposal of the president for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner). The endowment of such a power to the president by the Congress is nothing less than a de facto legislative repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law forbidding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.

Furthermore, a key component of the NDAA mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021, the president is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Further, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021 described in the previous paragraph, subsequent clauses (Section 1022, for example) unlawfully give the president the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”

The universe of potential “covered persons” includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.

On the face of the bill, it would seem that Assemblyman Donnelly and the members of the Public Safety Committee are determined to protect their citizens from being seized and imprisoned under the provisions of the NDAA.

While AB 351, as well as Section 1029 of the current version of the NDAA purport to buttress the right to a trial for citizens and permanent residents, it does nothing to prevent their apprehension. Denial of habeas corpus (or a trial) comes later; it is the delirium, not the fever, in a manner of speaking.

Put simply, Californians would not need to worry about being held without charge if the president was not authorized in the same act to deploy the armed forces to round up the “suspects” and detain them indefinitely. Being apprised of the laws one is accused of having violated is important, but it’s the detention and the manner of it that must be of more immediate concern to those who are alarmed about the new world order being defined by the NDAA.

Dan Johnson, the founder of People Against the NDAA (PANDA), also recognizes the holes in the California bill that could prove large enough to allow all sorts of tyranny to pass through.

“The NDAA is much bigger than the suspension of habeas corpus,” Johnson wrote in a statement to The New American.

In that statement, Johnson discussed additional deficiencies in the California bill:

While AB351 is much stronger than other state laws passed in opposition to the NDAA, since it includes both the AUMF and any other federal law, it does not include the laws of war. In order to fix the root issue of the NDAA, and not just chop at the limbs, the Law of War must be countered in any true piece of anti-NDAA legislation.

Note: Executive Order 9066, which was used to detain 110k Japanese-Americans w/o trial, never said a thing about detention. It only allowed the law of war to be applied to a certain area, and gave the military jurisdiction over the same.

Finally, Johnson wrote:

Overall, we appreciate the effort. The very fact that California is introducing a law like this shows the willingness of the people and Assembly of California to stand up for the Constitutional rights of the people of their state.

However, this law will do nothing to protect those rights. It abdicates the responsibility of the state to stand in, not stand down, and leaves far too many loopholes.

Assemblyman Donnelly seems to understand this. In a press release he wrote, “This is not an issue of partisanship, but of freedom, which we must be vigilant to protect. Our Constitution affirms that no government is responsible for bestowing our rights; they are only entrusted with securing them.”

As Congress continues to surrender to the president all legislative, executive, and judicial power, the need for state nullification of every unconstitutional act of the federal government is urgent. Liberty-minded citizens must demand that state legislators exercise their right to restrain the federal government through application of the very powerful and very constitutional principle of nullification.

Citizens of California committed to the restoration of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of individual liberty upon which it is built should contact their state senators and encourage them to approve AB 351.

-

NULLIFICATION: THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY

WE NOW LIVE IN A POST CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA

Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com

Has the very notion that we still have the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a legal basis now laughable? Media reports have begun addressing our society as ‘post-constitutional America’, and perhaps they’re tragically correct.

-

-

In the entire history of the nation, and in what should include today, the Constitution has stood as the indisputable law of the land. And in the eyes of those who understand how true liberty and true tyranny work, it certainly still should be. But in the eyes of those who wish to dismantle it in order to further the takeover and control of the United States public, the Constitution is now nothing more than a piece of paper standing in the way of their incessant absorption of power.

HOT WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION

I’m talking about the sociopaths that head up the Department of Homeland Security, which goes way beyond simply ignoring the Constitution. The worthless, expensive, and damaging agency behind the TSA now openly challenges the Constitution’s authority and the very founding principals of the United States with its own regulations. No longer are these government agencies in a ‘cold war’ of sorts against the Constitution and civil liberties, in fact, but an openly hot one that is increasing like never before.

Specifically, I’m talking about the DHS creation of literal ‘Constitution free zones’, in which the agency stands above the Constitution in authority and declares that the Bill of Rights does not exist for over 197 million within this nation. We’re talking about searches with no suspicion or warrants that essentially burn the Fourth Amendment.

‘POST-CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA’ 

And that’s not even getting into the highly invasive TSA ‘security’ measures that include groping young boys and detaining 3-year-old little girls in wheelchairs with medical conditions on their way to Disney World. That alone is enough to add credence to the notion of a ‘post-constitutional America’, which is the phrase used in an Alternet article I discovered entitled ‘We’re in a Post-Constitutional America: Our Country Is Going Sideways in Plain Sight, and Nobody’s Saying Much About It’.

The sad reality is that the article is really quite on point, as devastating of an admission as that is. We now have whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning demonized by the discredited media for revealing the inner workings of our corrupt government, and it’s now up to foreign nations to rescue them from our own government. And unless we do something about the erosion of our liberties now, the Constitution is quickly on track to be completely erased by the very same high level politicians who seek to destroy it.

STUDENTS SUBMIT TO BAG SEARCHES BY ‘OBAMA SECURITY FORCE’

Activist Mark Dice illustrates absurdity of Americans eager to relinquish 4th amendment rights

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com

Activist Mark Dice illustrated the absurd ease with which some Americans are willing to relinquish their 4th amendment rights by performing mock ‘Obama National Civilian Security Force’ bag searches on students at San Diego State University.

-

-

-

Despite the fact that Dice is not even wearing a uniform of any kind, several of the individuals shown in the clip willingly consent to have their bag searched by a random stranger simply as a result of Dice mentioning the words “Boston bombings”.

The clip shows Dice rifling through people’s bags in order to make sure, “nobody is carrying any harmful or potentially hazardous materials,” while proclaiming himself to be part of the “Obama citizen security volunteer force.”

When one woman refuses to partake and asks Dice, “Are you serious?” he responds, “No we’re just showing what suckers people are and how they’ll obey and willingly let their 4th amendment be violated.”

“The 4th amendment is so last year,” remarks Dice as he subjects another student to a bag search.

Dice then tells another student he needs to perform a “real quick violation of your 4th amendment rights” before adding, “anybody carrying a black backpack, dark skin like yours is a potential terrorist these days.”

After one of the students makes a complaint, Dice and his cameraman are confronted by police who tell them to leave campus. However, a clip at the end of the video shows Dice being put in handcuffs after he tried to pull the same stunt on the streets of San Diego.

The video brings to mind the Milgram experiment, a series of social psychology tests conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram based around the willingness of people to submit to authority figures even in direct conflict with their conscience.

The majority of participants agreed to deliver the experiment’s final 450-volt shock to victims when ordered to do so despite them being under the false belief that doing so could easily result in the person’s death, illustrating how obedience to authority no matter how illogical is ingrained within the human psyche.

Dice’s previous videos made headlines after he was successful in getting numerous people to sign a petition to repeal both the First and Second Amendments and throw gun owners in prison.

-

CALIFORNIANS SIGN PETITION TO REPEAL THE FIRST AMENDMENT

After supporting repeal of Second Amendment, Californians target the First Amendment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 15, 2013

Following their support for repealing the Second Amendment, liberals in California evidently have a new target in their sights – the First Amendment. A video by social analyst Mark Dice shows Obama supporters signing a petition to ban free speech.

-

-

Playing the role of a big government liberal, Dice told respondents that people who disagree with Obama are racists and extremists and should have their constitutional right to speak out annulled.

“This will repeal the First Amendment so that those right-wingers can’t say hateful things about Obama. I’m tired of these people having the right to say what they want to say….you don’t have the right to disagree with Obama these days in these tough times,” Dice told one Obama supporter as he readily agreed and signed the petition.

Others were told that the petition was to “repeal the First Amendment of the Tea Party and anyone who criticizes Obama.”

“You just repealed the First Amendment,” Dice told another man who signed the petition, to which the man responded by nodding enthusiastically.

Another black man who signed the petition agreed with Dice when he said that Republicans shouldn’t be allowed free speech, responding “it’s getting pretty bad.”

When told that freedom of speech has its limits and that everyone should get behind Obama, another black lady responded, “mmmm hmmm, it only goes so far.”

Just as we witnessed in Dice’s previous video showing Californians signing a petition to repeal the right to own firearms, the most disturbing aspect of this is not that some people are in a total trance and will agree to sign anything, but that many of them actually vehemently agree with abolishing fundamental liberties.

Only two of the people in the clip – the ones who actually read the petition – refused to sign it.

-

CALIFORNIANS SIGN PETITION TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND CONFISCATE GUNS

Infowars.com
April 12, 2013

The following video is stunning.  Media critic and social analyst Mark Dice shows how people are literally in a trance as he asks them to sign a petition to repeal the Second Amendment.  As they are signing the petition, Dice, begins to talk about how only the military and police should have guns, and how after the second amendment is repealed door-to-door gun confiscation will begin.  It is this absolute zombie-like state of the American public that Obama will use to get his gun ban through.

-

CALIFORNIANS SIGN PETITION TO REPEAL THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION (TO REPEAL THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL BY JURY)

THE REAL STATE OF THE UNION

obamarip

-

by John Galt | johngaltfla.com

Instead of the traditional Republican versus Democrat debate which ensues for theatrics on cable news, I thought a more prudent analysis of the State of the Union after Obama’s first term is much more appropriate and realistic as to where our nation is going in the future. Thus I present the following commentary on the State of the Union for the United States of America by analyzing our Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and their status.

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Condition: Critical

With the repeal of the Zorinsky Amendment to the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, odds are it is only a matter of time when a national emergency is created or declared leaving the government an alleged no choice but to force mainstream and internet broadcaster to either abide by the dictates of the Federal Government regarding content and carrying the broadcasting arm of the Feds or be shut down. The newspapers are already in line and willing to force content on users without regard to accuracy or bias and television, be it cable or broadcast, is no longer a vast wasteland but a willing servant to the political and corporate elites. The silencing of the masses must occur via the seizure of mainstream radio broadcasting and the internet and with the current regime in power, there is little doubt that it is a matter of when, not if.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Condition: Critical

The assault on the right to keep and bear arms started in 2008 but has accelerated to a point where formerly mainstream pundits on conservative commentators have now openly stated that the threat of gun confiscation is now a real possibility. Law abiding citizens are now being called baby killers and mass murders for criminal events that have no relation to the reality of John Q. Public buying a pistol or rifle to protect their family. Wild ideas are being tossed up into the air randomly from tax credits for turning in firearms to mandatory liability insurance for purchasing firearms. There will be a conflict in the future which brings this issue to a full resolution, sadly it appears to be following the path of other authoritarian regimes throughout history.

3rd Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Condition: Stable

While there is no consideration or threat of quartering troops in the homes of citizens at this time, do not be surprised if this regime concocts a plan to accelerate foreclosures, be they legal or not, to provide compensation to soldiers as they return or retire with an adequate number of years of service. The administration will have to consider something after the upcoming cut in pay and benefits is implemented and conditions deteriorate for the servicemen and women worldwide.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Condition: Dead

There is very little chance that this portion of the Constitution will be saved in anyone’s lifetime who is over forty years of age.

5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Condition: Dead

Excerpt from the 5th Amendment:

… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process     of  law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The reality? Without due process a citizen’s own private thoughts NOT broadcast via the internet, but possibly intercepted via PRIVATE telephone conversations can and are being used to prosecute Americans in violation of this Amendment and the 4th. Property is seized via roadblocks, checkpoints, and via Eminent Domain without due process nor compensation. Yet the masses remain silent as the “War on Terror” continues its horrific track record as a war on freedom killing few terrorists on American soil.

6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Condition: Dead

The end of America is nigh when a President can order the interception of all personal data without a warrant and prosecuted without ever meeting his or hers accusers. The secret juries, unlawful arrests, use of emergency powers to detain citizens and deny them a speedy trial along with facing or using witnesses is only further proof that the current State of our Nation is critical heading towards dictatorship.

7th Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Condition: Dead

Truly a sad day when some small awards are won by the common man only to be defied by courts sold to the highest bidder. There are now cases reported on an almost daily basis where mega-corporations working with the political elites defeat legitimate civil court cases making a mockery of this Amendment. If anyone doubts this idea, review the General Motors and Chrysler cases where the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases under the 4th and 7th Amendment appeals nor allow for a jury trial for the plaintiffs when the U.S. Government illegally seized their property (corporate bonds and preferred stocks) without much more than a cursory hearing to advise them to shut up or else.

8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Condition: Dead

Crazy talk about this portion dying also? Hardly. Now the President or an “informed” minion can order an American citizen terminated or detained without due process.

Not so crazy now, is it?

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Condition: Serious

The Constitution was originally created to protect all of the rights of the people, be they citizens or not within the borders of this nation. However the use of other laws, regulations, and orders created by the government over the last four years, if not the past decade also, have infringed on the rights of all people within this nation and this portion of the Constitution appears doomed to the memories of history books soon to banned or restricted from the masses and reserved for the privileged few.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Condition: Critical

God help us all when this Amendment falls, which apparently Obamacare and the new regulatory provisions dreamed up by the President’s cabinet departments are intending to accelerate. The American people think that power emanates from Washington, D.C. now and have no clue that this Amendment was designed to blunt the power of Federalism and worse, authoritarianism. The evolution of the military-industrial complex has now been replaced the greater threat, the paramilitary-financial complex, a dangerous threat to every citizen’s rights and the ability of the states to defend those freedoms intended by our Founders to be protected by the individual states.

In summation, and in this author’s opinion, the condition of a free, civil, and Constitutional United States of America can be summed up in one word:

Critical.

Once it dies, some of us will look fondly back on the memories of freedom and our Founders and not the new version created in a movie studio by propagandists working at the behest of our national government.

UNITED STATES CIVIL WAR 2016; U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS ARE BEING TOLD TO PLAN TO FIGHT AMERICANS

AMERICA’S COMING GUERRILLA WAR

MAX KEISER PLANTS HIS FLAG: TOTAL GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE BY APRIL 2013; COUNTRIES WILL BEGIN TO IMPLODE ONE BY ONE; ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT IS HERE; WORLD TAX IS HERE

EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA SIGNS NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT INTO LAW ON DECEMBER 31, 2011: MARTIAL LAW COMES TO AMERICA

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. GOVERNMENT NOW ACTIVATING FEMA DETENTION CAMPS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

EXCLUSIVE: LEAKED U.S. ARMY DOCUMENTS CONFIRM PRISON CAMPS ARE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

POLICE STATE USA: NEW OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER SEIZES U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE AND CITIZENS FOR MILITARY PREPAREDNESS; PREPARING FOR MARTIAL LAW

U.S. ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS COMING – NOT A RECOVERY

.

BREAKING NEWS: RUSSIA THREATENS THE UNITED STATES WITH NUCLEAR ATTACK

.

ARMED UNITED STATES DRONES COMING TO AN AIRSPACE NEAR YOU BY 2015

.

URGENT: HILLARY CLINTON SIGNS UNITED NATIONS SMALL ARMS TREATY

.

REX 84: GOVERNMENT SILENTLY POSTIONS FOR MARTIAL LAW AS FINANCIAL COLLAPSE ARRIVES IN AMERICA

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

ALEX JONES: WHERE IS YOUR LINE IN THE SAND?

-

RED ALERT: GOVERNMENT IS PREPARING FOR A SOVIET STYLE PURGE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

-

OBAMA’S SOVIET STYLE PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA REVEALED

-

STEVE QUAYLE: OBAMA IS PREPARING FOR A TOTAL TAKEOVER OF THE UNITED STATES

-

GENERAL W.G. BOYKIN (RET.) “MARXISM IN AMERICA”

General Jerry Boykin discusses his background and training in understanding Marxist insurgencies and how current government actions parallel Marxist tactics.

-

RETIRED ARMY CAPTAIN WARNS DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ACQUISITIONS ARE A ‘BOLD THREAT OF WAR’ AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Says Americans may have to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against the Obama Administration’s “coup” against the People

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
March 24, 2013

On Saturday, retired United States Army Captain Terry M. Hestilow publicly voiced grave concerns over the Department of Homeland Security’s absurd acquisitions, posting a letter he sent to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on Facebook labeling the Obama administration’s recent appropriation of weapons a “bold threat of war” against citizens of the United States of America.

-

Captain Terry M. Hestilow, United States Army, Retired, via Facebook-

“It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America,” the decorated retired Army Captain’s letter begins.

Referring to the DHS’ solicitations for nearly two billion rounds of ammunition and recent purchase of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush protected armored personnel carriers as “a tyrannical threat against the Constitution” and a deliberate attempt to defund the Department of Defense, the retired Army Captain asked Sen. Cornyn to honor his oath to the American people and the U.S. Constitution and “to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD).”

“Significant is the fact,” Captain Hestilow writes, “that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,

‘We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]‘–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.”

“Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible,” the retired Captain’s letter continues.

Calling the DHS purchases a “glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens,” Hestilow says the actions “can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America.”

“If left unresolved,” Hestilow states, “the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution ‘against all enemies, both foreign and domestic’ are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s ‘coup’ against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.”

The former Army Captain cites Adolf Hitler’s rise to power as evidence of the outcome of allowing such an agency free rein, stating,

“One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!”

-

Retired Captain Terry M. Hestilow, via Facebook-

The post is garnering unprecedented support, according to the retired Captain. Within a day, he says it has received over 3,000 shares, in addition to lassoing in 994 new friend requests. He is also encouraging others to copy and properly amend the letter to send to their own senators and members of the U.S. House.

The retired Army Captain’s message follows another letter penned by 15 Congressmen earlier in the week to the DHS asking if the ammo purchases were part of an effort to strategically deny American people access to ammunition.

“The extraordinary level of ammunition purchases made by Homeland Security seems to have, in states such as my own, created an extreme shortage of ammunition to the point where many gun owners are unable to purchase any,” California Congressman Doug LaMalfa wrote in the letter.

Concerns that the DHS is engaged in a domestic arms buildup against the People have also been echoed by notable political figures and such mainstream publications as Forbes Magazine, who earlier this month called for a “national conversation” on the topic.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was recently portrayed by media as a “conspiracy theorist” after she posted a remark on Facebook warning that imminent financial collapse could be the reason “why the Feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

Similar concerns were also recently made public by Fox Business host Lou Dobbs when he asked NRA president Wayne LaPierre, during his March 4 broadcast, about the bizarre solicitations.

As an overwhelming number of Americans grow distressed over the curious purchases, mainstream media agencies, such as the Associated Press, Politico, Media Matters, and the Atlantic Wire, have frantically tried to tamp down speculation of a threat to civil liberties, refusing to conduct actual research into the subject and instead regurgitating superficial explanations issued by government officials.

A recent report that the DHS holds a $2 million contract with a firing range target manufacturer that produces shooting targets of armed pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners depicted in residential settings, has also not helped suppress speculation.

Despite numerous pleas to address the matter, the DHS has yet to issue a plausible explanation as to why they have apparently been building up a veritable ammunition and firearm stockpile domestically – purchasing profane amounts of riot gear, armored military vehicles, bulletproof checkpoints, and some 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles – and still refuses to answer questions from citizen journalists and multiple elected representatives.

Below is retired United States Army Captain Terry M. Hestilow’s letter to Sen. Cornyn in its entirety:

The Honorable Senator John Cornyn, State of Texas
United States Senate
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that agencies preparation for war against citizens of the United States of America.

Dear Senator Cornyn,

It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America. To date, DHS has been unwilling to provide to you, the elected representatives of the People, justification for recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems, when, in fact, the DHS has no war mission or war making authority within the limits of the United States of America.

Significant is the fact that at the same time the Obama administration is arming his DHS for war within the limits of the United States against the People of the United States in accordance with his 2008 campaign speech claiming,

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military]”–Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.

the Obama administration is deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense; the only legitimate agency of the U.S. government with a war mission.

This act of the Obama administration stands as a glaring threat of war against our nation’s citizens! This act of the Obama administration can only be understood as a tyrannical threat against the Constitution of the United States of America! If left unresolved, the peace loving citizens who have sworn to defend the United States Constitution “against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” are left no option except to prepare to defend themselves, and the U.S. Constitution, against this Administration’s “coup” against the People and the foundations of liberty fought for and defended for the past 238 years. We have no choice if we honor our oaths.

The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation. The people of Germany could not have imagined, until it was too late, the danger of allowing a tyrant this kind of power. We must not be so naïve as to think it will not happen to us as well if we remain passive toward this power grab by the Marxist Obama administration!

Finally, for more than two centuries the nation has lived in peace at home because of the protections of our legitimate military and the many appropriate state and federal law enforcement agencies, supported by Constitutional courts. We stand today at a cross-road. Will we allow this present Administration to overthrow our United States Constitution and its legal processes to amend injustices, or, will we honor our obligations to defend the Constitution against a “domestic” enemy? Our Constitution lays out the proper methods of resolving our differences; and it does not include its overthrow by a rogue agency of a Marxist leadership at home. You, sir, are our constitutionally elected agent to defend our Constitution at home. We are counting upon you. We remain aware, however, of this present threat and will not expose ourselves as an easy prey to the authors of the destruction of our nation.

I know that this letter demands much of you. We elected you because we, the citizens of the State of Texas, believe that you are up to the task at hand and will, against all threats, honor your oath and office. We are also writing to your fellow members of the House and Senate to stand in integrity with the Constitution and against this present threat by the Obama administration and his DHS.

We refuse to surrender our Constitution or our nation!

Resolved,

Captain Terry M. Hestilow
United States Army, Retired
Fort Worth, Texas
March 23, 2013

-

RETIRED NAVY CAPTAIN CHUCK NASH: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PURCHASING DRONES, TANKS, RIFLES, AND AMMO FOR WAR IN THE UNITED STATES

Published on Mar 6, 2013

-

OBAMA’S COUP D’ETAT IN AMERICA

by TERRY A. HURLBUT | From the Trenches World Report

January 31. 2013

Last year my fellow editor warned of a coup d’état in America. In case any reader has any doubt, Barack Obama and his allies have removed all doubt in the last several weeks. And in the process have made America ripe for rebellion. But if the right people stand up and lead, the results need not be as chaotic as one might suppose.

Coup d’état, Exhibit A: The Newtown Incident

The Newtown Incident needs no further description. Or does it? Did Adam Lanza steal three weapons, and use them at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, all by his lonesome? Dwight Kehoe at TPATH pointed out that the mainstream media first reported one thing, then changed their story. They first said Lanza might have had a Bushmaster AR-15 with him at the school, but left it in his automobile. Then they started saying something radically different, as if they had said it all along. One can imagine Winston Smith at the Ministry (Department?) of Truth rushing out a memo to them and obligingly destroying old copy. Except that it’s too late. Someone cobbled together some original footage and uploaded it to YouTube. You can play it below. (To any Department of Truth wannabes: don’t even think you can quash it now. The resistance, when it forms, will have copies.)

Speaking of media accountability: MSNBC charged yesterday that some heartless viewers “heckled” the father of one of the pupils who died at Sandy Hook, after he had the temerity to ask “who in this room needs an assault weapon.” The only problem was: he asked the question, and they answered him. (And did everyone miss the other father of a victim, who said guns were not the problem?)

Today, no one doubts that twenty pupils and eight adults died that day. What people dowonder about is: Did Adam Lanza act alone? Or did he have help? Or not so much help, as “handlers” who shot him, “threw down” their weapons next to his body, and vanished into the woods? Play the third embedded video. Listen carefully to the back-and-forth on the radio, beginning at the 3:13 mark. Police clearly describe at least two shooters. Not satisfied? Play the fourth video, which is the source of the third.

How is this relevant? Well, when you’re planning a coup d’état, and want popular support for it, you don’t wait for that support to “just happen.” You drum it up. And sometimes, if one episode does not “convince” the people, maybe several will. Why, then, do we now see at least one such gunfire episode a week beginning about a month after the Newtown Incident? Coincidence? Ian Fleming said this about coincidence:

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it’s enemy action.

Coup Exhibit B: Gun Control Redux

Your local sheriff might be all that stands between you and a coup d'état.

Last week, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) released her proposed “assault weapons ban” to the public. Or to be more specific, gun rights journalist David Codrea got the text and published it to Scribd.com; you may read it below.

Two problems. First, the Feinstein bill exemptsgovernment officials and their bodyguards. That’s special pleading. Second, the Feinstein bill includes handguns and shotguns. Everyone who cared to know, knew this was coming. You should also remember that in 1995, Feinstein said what she really thought of the idea ofanyone, except a law-enforcement officer or an active-duty military member, having a gun:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.

Except that she won’t turn hers in. Nor will New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s bodyguards. Not that they should. But protection of their persons is not a special privilege, available to them alone.

If you’re planning a coup d’état, it helps if the people have no guns and cannot resist you.

Coup Exhibit C: DHS Buys Ammunition

Why is the Department of Homeland Security buying millions, even billions, of rounds of ammunition? The news of these massive bullet buys does not come only from “the usual suspects.” This article, going back to September 19, 2012, came from Arutz-7. From Israel. Arutz-7 pointed out a few interesting items:

  • Many of these rounds are hollow-point rounds. They expand on impact.
  • Many other of these rounds can go through walls.
  • The Social Security Administration also bought 174,000 rounds. Why?
  • The military started preparing for riots in the streets.

And then there’s this piece in Business Insider. This article discusses a continued pattern of ammo buys by DHS and other agencies. It also discusses whether the agents are shooting up all those rounds in training. Two things:

  1. Training for all these agents would need 15 to 20 million rounds a year. DHS is buying many more rounds than that.
  2. What’s happening to the spent brass? The spent brass usually goes back to the ammo maker for recycling and re-use. Not this time. Yes, the Army is destroying some of that brass (though Congress told them to stop doing that). But not all of it. Not this many rounds. Not by a long shot (pun intended).

Again, if you’re planning a coup d’état, you need to be ready to shoot a lot of people.

And in case you don’t get that point, DHS is buying 7,000 of the same weapons they don’t want the people to have. Hypocrisy? Worse than that. It’s special pleading:

Do as I say, not as I do.

Or, put another way:

Rank has its privileges.

Rank. The Constitution does not recognize such rank. But the politicians pushing gun control clearly stand on their own rank. If they’re planning a coup, you know why.

Coup Exhibit D: Loose Talk of Scrapping the Constitution

A law professor should know better. But Georgetown University Law Professor Louis M. Seidman actually said to abolish the Constitution. (Here is the source.) That, of course, would force us to re-argue the case for our rights. Well, obviously if you’re planning a coup d’état, you want to make sure that the people have no rights, except those you grant. In other words, the people’s rights are whatever you say they are, any time you say it.

Mark Levin was afraid of a Supreme Court being the sole arbiters of the Constitution. Professor Seidman would have people get used to one man making that decision.

Coup Exhibit E: Fomenting Trouble

Actor Stephen Boyd, as Marcus Valerius Messala, new Tribune and Commander of the Garrison of Jerusalem (Ben-Hur, MGM, 1959), almost dismissively tells his predecessor:

There’s always some rabble-rouser stirring up trouble.

Well, how if the government itself were stirring up trouble? The Rev. William Owens, Jr.so accuses. He said it on the Capitol steps yesterday, in answer to the 23 executive orders (for that is what de facto President Obama called them, no matter what semantic distinction anyone might care to make) that Barack Obama signed.

Oh, what a perfect excuse! When riots break out, people cry out for someone to restore order. And the government is then ready, with its billions of rounds of ammunition, and armed with the same weapons they took from the people. That’s the perfect recipe for a coup d’état.

And what is a coup d’état? It’s what happens when a group of people take over one part of the government from within, then use that part to destroy the other parts and rule alone.

Can anyone stop it?

Yes. And what’s more, the group of people best qualified to stop it, are starting to wake up to the danger. Who are these people? Your local sheriff – if he fully knows his duty under the Constitution, and at common law.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, signaled his understanding. He flatly refuses to confiscate guns. And if he has to, he will go to war with any federal agency who tries to take guns away from his fellow lawful residents.

Twenty-eight of twenty-nine sheriffs in Utah protested Obama’s executive orders and likewise vowed to stand on the Constitution.

These are only some of the 225 sheriffs who have taken a similar stand. They belong to the new Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers’ Association that Richard Mack, former Sheriff of Graham County, Arizona (and plaintiff in Printz v. US) founded. Here is the latest list. It includes Sheriff Donald Smith of Putnam County, New York – the same county that refused to cooperate with The Journal News when they were publishing gun owners’ names and addresses. (They have since taken their map down and now admitted that forty percent of the names and addresses shouldn’t have been on it!)

So if the federal government tries a coup d’état against the Constitution, they will have these 225 sheriffs to deal with. And anyone else who has guns and refuses to hand them over.

-

MIKE ADAMS: AS AMERICA STANDS ON THE VERGE OF CIVIL WAR, MY HEART SOBS FOR HISTORY HARSHLY LEARNED

By Mike Adams | NaturalNews

January 15, 2013

Those who live in artificial cities, plugged into the fabricated media and hypnotized by television are unable to see it, but America stands today on the verge of war. Not war for an enemy in some far-off land, but war with an enemy that has cleverly occupied our soil, our structures of power and our information infrastructure. This enemy is the enemy within, and it is insidious, dangerous and voracious in its appetite for power.

This enemy devours liberty without thought. It usurps power without conscience. It manipulates minds as quietly as a python enveloping its sleeping prey. It is a sinister serpent that strangles freedom, and it is this serpent that the masses have placed into power and begged to abandon the separation of powers that have kept our Republic relatively free for over two hundred years.

Today, America stands on the verge of civil war precisely because America stands on the verge of dictatorship. A corporate-flavored variety of fascism has reared its ugly soul, where corporations and government conspire in dark rooms to rob from the American people their health, their paychecks, their voices and their rifles. The face of that fascism is unimportant because it is the same face that fascists have presented throughout history: the face of a talented orator, a handsome, even noble-looking gentleman, a man of the people who explains that his acts of power usurpation are only pursued with great reluctance and at the desperate demand of his constituents. This is the well-worn justification of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Teng, and now Barack Obama.

Such stories almost always end in blood. Those who do not respect the boundaries of power inevitably overstep them with a sense of delusional arrogance. They misconstrue, they miscalculate and they misunderstand their true place on the pages of history-to-be. Hitler believed he was creating a thousand-year era of peace and order, but instead he was remembered as a genocidal maniac. Stalin believed he would build a “great empire” of innovation, production and expansion, but he went down in history as murderous tyrant.

Barack Obama is not nearly as popular among the U.S. masses today as Adolf Hitler was to the German population in the 1930’s, and history has yet to reveal the final role Obama will deserve. But it increasingly seems to be one that thrusts tens of millions of innocent people into a bloody conflict, drenched in mass murder carried out under a campaign of “political cleansing.”

Obama’s political doublespeak and veiled hatred for any who oppose his personal views are near-perfect echoes of the mannerisms of history’s murderous tyrants. Obama is not yet a mass murderer — not unless you count unmanned drone bombings of children in other nations — but he has set the stage for it, and America today stands in front of a political tinderbox, ready to be ignited with even the slightest hint of further oppression.

True leadership is found in those who see the peace and prosperity of the nation as more important than their personal policy desires. To be a true leader is to put the future of the nation ahead of one’s self; to steer America away from a dangerous rise in hate-filled rhetoric and the endless antagonizing of patriots and constitutionalists by the media, Hollywood and politicians.

Beware, radicals on the left. Beware what you wish for… and what you unleash. Your continued insulting and “terrorist” labeling of legal firearm owners across America is only strengthening the resolve of those you would be unwise to provoke. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the military and law enforcement are on your side; they are not. The most capable defenders of American society today are also the most dedicated, sworn defenders of the American constitution and its Bill of Rights. If you press your fascist agenda too far, you will trigger an almost automatic response from every sector of society, law enforcement and the military.

And that response will drench the streets of our nation with unnecessary blood. This is why my heart sobs for history harshly learned.

-

WHY THE ELITE WANT RIOTS IN AMERICA

Civil War 2: The economic imperative for mass social unrest

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
February 11, 2013

Every indication clearly suggests that authorities in the United States are preparing for widespread civil unrest. This trend has not emerged by accident – it is part of a tried and tested method used by the banking elite to seize control of nations, strip them of their assets, and absorb them into the new world order.

There is a crucial economic imperative as to why the elite is seeking to engineer and exploit social unrest.

As respected investigative reporter Greg Palast exposed in 2001, the global banking elite, namely the World Bank and the IMF, have honed a technique that has allowed them to asset-strip numerous other countries in the past – that technique has come to be known at the “IMF riot.”

In April 2001, Palast obtained leaked World Bank documents that outlined a four step process on how to loot nations of their wealth and infrastructure, placing control of resources into the hands of the banking elite.

One of the final steps of the process, the “IMF riot,” detailed how the elite would plan for mass civil unrest ahead of time that would have the effect of scaring off investors and causing government bankruptcies.

“This economic arson has its bright side – for foreigners, who can then pick off remaining assets at fire sale prices,” writes Palast, adding, “A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers but the clear winners seem to be the western banks and US Treasury.”

In other words, the banking elite creates the very economic environment – soaring interest rates, spiraling food prices, poverty, lower standards of living – that precipitates civil unrest – and then like a vulture swoops down to devour what remains of the country’s assets on the cheap.

We have already seen this process unfold in places like Bolivia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Greece and Argentina. Next on the chopping block are Spain, Italy, Britain and France – all of which have seen widespread riots over the last two years.

As Ha-Joon Chang explains in the Guardian, the roots of Europe’s riots were sparked by “governments inflicting an old-IMF-style programme on their own populations,” namely the same programs of “austerity, privatisation and deregulation,” that caused the riots of the 80′s and 90′s in poorer countries.

Although the likes of the IMF and the World Bank have pillaged half of the globe with their economic terrorism, America remains the ultimate prize. The first step of the four step process for bankster seizure of a country – privatization of state-owned assets – is already well under way in America, with infrastructure being sold off to foreign corporations, with the aid of Goldman Sachs, at a frightening pace.

A key component of the banking elite’s insidious agenda to bring about an economic collapse in America by design also centers around the process of de-industrializing the country, eviscerating the nation’s platform for self-sufficiency and replacing it with dependence on banker bailouts. This has already been largely achieved in Europe – with just about every major economy on the continent run by Goldman Sachs-affiliated technocrats.

In the United States, 32 per cent of manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000, while 56,000 manufacturing facilities have been mothballed since 2001. The Obama administration has also declared war on the coal industry, with Obama himself promising to “bankrupt” anyone who tries to build a new coal plant. Meanwhile, China builds a new coal plant every two weeks.

Given the clear economic motive for stirring unrest in the United States, we’d expect to see preparations for domestic disorder in numerous different guises – and indeed the signs are everywhere.

National Defense Authorization Act

The Obama administration’s passage of NDAA legislation that authorizes kidnapping and indefinite detention without trial of American citizens on U.S. soil serves to create the framework for mass arrests of protesters and journalists in a time of declared national emergency.

Obama’s War on Whistleblowers

The Obama administration’s brazen and aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers for divulging government corruption in the public interest is clearly a device designed to intimidate whistleblowers from speaking out when the proverbial hits the fan.

Spying on Social Media for Signs of Unrest

The Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies are actively engaged in spying on social media as well as news websites to look for reports or comments that “reflect adversely on the U.S. government and the DHS.” The government is on the lookout for the ‘tipping point’ when heated online rhetoric spills onto the streets in the form of unrest.

Building Huge Spy Centers to Track Unrest

The NSA is building the country’s biggest spy center in the middle of the Utah desert. The purpose of the data facility is to intercept, “all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”

By creating a gigantic database of every communication imaginable, the NSA hopes to monitor and pre-empt the spread of mass civil unrest in America.

Preparing Drones for Domestic Oppression

Last week, the Justice Department re-affirmed its position that the Obama administration can use armed drones to assassinate Americans. Under the NDAA, the whole of the United States has been declared a “battlefield,” meaning that drones may soon be used to execute American citizens on U.S. soil.

A government that resorts to killing its own citizens without any legal process whatsoever is clearly a dictatorship engaged in domestic oppression. The only imaginable scenario under which this program would be justifiable was if the U.S. was under a state of martial law and the government was on the verge of collapse.

Preparing for Martial Law

The Department of Homeland Security has purchased over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the last 10 months alone. At the height of combat operations in Iraq, the U.S. Army only used 5.5 million bullets a month. Why has the DHS stockpiled enough bullets for a 30 year war if it is not preparing for some form of domestic disorder?

Preparation for martial law can be seen in numerous different guises, but perhaps the most chilling is a nationwide FEMA program which is training pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.

Characterizing the American People as the New Target of the War on Terror

The U.S. Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 dictates that the military’s “full spectrum operations” will include “operations within American borders.” Scenarios where Americans form into militia groups and become “insurrectionists” as a result of an economic collapse and have to be eliminated by the U.S. Army have already been mapped out by military planners.

A leaked U.S. Army manual also reveals plans for the military to carry out “Civil Disturbance Operations” during which troops will be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.

The Department of Homeland Security’s ‘See Something, Say Something’ program habitually portrays middle class Americans as terrorists. In addition, numerous DHS-funded reports have characterized “liberty lovers” and other constitutionalists as domestic terrorists.

Every indication presents us with the inescapable reality that the US government is preparing for mass civil unrest at some point over the next five to ten years. When we look at the recent history of nations that have suffered financial collapse, domestic disorder is clearly a key component of a deliberate agenda on behalf of the banking elite to undermine and loot economies – confiscating national sovereignty in the process.

GUNS AND AMMO PRODUCTION ARE MAXED OUT: “THIS IS A SOCIETY PREPARING FOR WAR”

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
Feb 15, 2013

President Barack Obama is, arguably, the best gun salesman ever. Over 65 million guns have been purchased since the President took office in 2009. FBI background check statistics indicate that, over the last twelve months, Americans purchased a new gun every 1.5 seconds, a figure which suggests there is much more to the recent panic buying than people just stocking up to go hunting or sports shooting.

The following guns and ammo industry report indicates that every major gun and ammunition manufacturer in the country is running at 100% capacity, with many so far behind that they’ve stopped taking new orders altogether.

Smith & Wesson-is running at Full capacity making 300+ guns/day-mainly M&P pistols. They are unable to produce any more guns to help with the shortages.

RUGER: Plans to increase from 75% to 100% in the next 90 days.

FNH: Moving from 50% production to 75% by Feb 1st and 100% by March 1. Remington-Maxed out!

Armalite: Maxed out.

DPMS: Can’t get enough parts to produce any more product.

COLT: Production runs increasing weekly…bottle necked by Bolt carrier’s.

LWRC:Making only black guns, running at full capacity…can’t get enough gun quality steel to make barrels.

Springfield Armory: Only company who can meet demand but are running 30-45 days behind.

AMMO: Every caliber is now Allocated! We are looking at a nation wide shortage of all calibers over the next 9 months. All plants are producing as much ammo as possible w/ of 1 BILLION rounds produced weekly. Most is military followed by L.E. and civilians are third in line.

MAGPUL is behind 1 MILLION mags, do not expect any large quantities of magpul anytime soon.

RELOADERS… ALL Remington, Winchester, CCI & Federal primers are going to ammo FIRST. There are no extra’s for reloading purposes… it could be 6-9 months before things get caught up. Sorry for the bleak news, but now we know what to expect in the coming months. Stay tuned, we’ll keep you posted…

Many who have exercised their Second Amendment protections are first time buyers concerned with Federal and State gun grabs being spearheaded by politicians who are using the Sandy Hook school shooting as a pretext to restrict access to personal defense rifles, larger capacity magazines, and even ammunition.

But this may only be a part of why there’s so much demand. There are millions of Americans who are genuinely concerned with not just the government taking their guns, but all of their other Constitutionally protected freedoms as well.

We understand what happens in regimes that disarm their people. We’ve seen thedemocide of the last century, which left hundreds of millions of people dead or displaced when their governments turned on them.

We are determined to prevent it from happening in the land of the free.

Manufacturers were running full-bore, but couldn’t come close to keeping up with market demand.

It wasn’t just the AR-15s, the AK-pattern rifles, the M1As, and the FALs that were sold out. It really hit me when I realized that the World War-era M1 Garands, M1 carbines, and Enfield .303s were gone, along with every last shell. Ubiquitous Mosin-Nagants—of which every gun store always seems to have 10-20—were gone. So was their ammo. Only a dust free space marked their passing. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Every weapon of military utility designed within the past 100+ years was gone.

This isn’t a society stocking up on certain guns because they fear they may be banned. This is a society preparing for war.

Source: Bob Owens via SteveQuayle.com

With over 300 million firearms in America in the hands of private citizens, the people are sending a loud and clear message to their government.

Back off. Stop encroaching on our personal liberties. Limit yourself to your Constitutionally granted powers and nothing more.

You’re not the only ones that are armed.

-

AMMO SHORTAGES: MORE THAN SIMPLE SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Bob Adelmann
New American
March 9, 2013

Awr Hawkins, a columnist for Breitbart.com, asked back in February if the present shortages of ammunition are a deliberate attempt by government agencies to so overwhelm existing manufacturers with orders for billions of rounds that it is resulting in “de facto” gun control. Hawkins asked: “What if the shortage is intentional?”

On Wednesday he raised the same question:

While many of the conspiracy theories that have been propounded to explain DHS [Department of Homeland Security] ammo purchases ought to be rejected out of hand, it seems increasingly reasonable to believe these multiple, massive ammo orders have been placed one upon the other to exasperate the already low supplies in the private market.

It continues to sound like gun control by another name.

Certainly there are those who see a conspiracy behind every tree, none more so perhaps than Mac Slavo. Writing for his inelegantly named SHTF Plan, he points out that since President Obama was first elected in 2008, Americans have purchased more than 65 million guns, which averages one new gun purchase every 1.5 seconds. Says Slavo, this “suggests there is much more … than just people stocking up to go hunting or sports shooting.” And then, without providing sources, Slavo ticks off the statistics: Smith and Wesson is running at full capacity, Ruger is ramping up production to meet demand, Armalite is “maxed out,” Colt is increasing its production runs, Springfield Armory is “running 30-45 days behind,” while Magpul “is behind 1 MILLION (his bold) mags.… Do not expect any large quantities anytime soon.”

And as far as re-loaders are concerned, Slavo says, “It could be 6-9 months before things get caught up. Sorry for the bleak news.”

Slavo apparently didn’t get the memo, however, from Hornady Manufacturing Company, the largest independent producer of bullets in the world. On February 12, the company issued a short statement on availability and provided some responses to rumors floating around the Internet:

The current political climate has caused extremely high demand on all shooting industry products, including ours. Empty retail shelves, long back orders, and exaggerated price increases on online auction sites — all fueled by rumors and conjecture — have amplified concerns about the availability of ammunition and firearms-related items.

If the information you hear doesn’t originate from Hornady Manufacturing, don’t believe it.

Here are some of rumors we’ve heard, and questions we’ve received:

•Have you stopped production, or has the government forced you to stop?

◦Not at all.

•Did you stop selling bullets so you could only make loaded ammunition?

◦Absolutely not.

•Since we can’t find your product you must be selling it all to the government.

◦Nope, less than 5% of our sales are to government entities.

•Why can’t you make more? Ramp up production? Turn on all the machines?

◦ We’ve been steadily growing our production for a long time, especially the last five years. We’ve added presses, lathes, CNC equipment, people and space. Many popular items are produced 24 hours a day.

Several hundred Hornady employees work overtime every week to produce as much as safely possible. If there is any question about that — please take a tour of the factory. You’ll be amazed at what you see.

We are producing as much as we can; much more than last year, which was a lot more than the year before, etc. No one wants to ship more during this time than we do.

We appreciate everyone’s understanding and patience. We don’t know when the situation will improve, so please bear with us a little longer. And remember, when it comes to Hornady Manufacturing, if you don’t hear it from us, please don’t believe it.

This isn’t the first time that demand for ammunition has outstripped supply. Following the election of President Obama in 2008, there was an almost immediate shortage of small arms ammunition but by September 2011, ammunition supplies for the most popular calibers — .45 ACP and .40 S&W — were back to normal.

Back in late 1973, there was a toilet paper shortage. Writers for Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show had learned of a rumor that the Navy was in danger of running out of toilet paper partly because of the 1973 oil crisis and decided to have a little fun with it. In his opening monologue on the evening of December 19, Carson asked: “Do you know what’s disappearing from supermarket shelves? Toilet paper! There’s an acute shortage of toilet paper in the United States!”

The next morning 20 million people headed to their local grocery stores and bought up as much TP as they could carry. By noon nearly every major store’s shelves were empty. Some stores tried rationing. Others just told customers when they expected their next shipment and to come back then.

For three weeks TP was in extremely short supply, so much so that Carson apologized a few days later that there was no shortage after all, that it was just a gag.

The shortage of toilet paper became a self-fulfilling prophecy, a prediction about future events that causes those events to come true. Such self-fulfilling prophecies can be found in ancient literature, and have even been “formalized” in social science. For example, sociologist Robert K. Merton codified the expression where he defined such a prophecy as,

a false definition … evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true. This … perpetuates a reign of error.

M. L. McPherson, writing for the National Association for Gun Rights, explained what is actually happening: Demand suddenly rises so quickly that it outstrips supply. Supply is slow to catch up and so the perception that shortages will last a long time and, further, that they are due to market manipulation increase over time. Whenever supply comes in, buyers sweep it up, leaving shelves empty and the impression that there are continuing shortages.

Explains McPherson, it doesn’t take much of an increase in demand to create the impression of shortages:

Here is the critical fact: before the [election of Obama], no related manufacturer had the facilities to increase production [by] more than about 40%. Moreover, even if a company did have such capacity, it could not affordably obtain raw materials to do so — companies [down line] that supply raw materials cannot increase capacity more than about 40%.

In economics this is called the supply-chain bottleneck: Somewhere down the supply chain there will be a supplier that simply cannot ramp up his production as fast as those up line would like. It becomes the slowest vessel in the convoy. During wartime a whole convoy could only move as fast as the slowest ship. So it is with a sudden increase in demand, no matter what the reason.

McPherson says it’s just reality. Manufacturers will concentrate on their most profitable lines and only pause when either 1) the market becomes saturated, or 2) something breaks and needs fixing.

Massad Ayoob, writing for Back Woods Home magazine, put the matter calmly and matter-of-factly:

[Present shortages] may mean nothing more malignant than that a large government agency wants a contractual guarantee that they’ll be able to get enough to train and qualify their people, even if their actual deliveries never come close to the top level to which that contract holds the manufacturer…

I don’t see this as a harbinger of martial law and civil war as some do. Being in law enforcement myself, I’ve seen the severe shortages that have plagued police agencies in the last several years.

But in the real world he suggests buying when there are supplies available even though eventually, once again, supply and demand will come back into balance. If nothing else, he says, if inflation runs rampant and turns hundred dollar bills into toilet paper, ammo is always worthwhile for barter.

-

-

-

IS A CIVIL WAR COMING?

-

-

For anyone who has done even a cursory study of Barack Obama’s life, they know that his radical Marxist views are not a recent phenomenon.

During his New York years, he was a frequent participant in the annual Socialist Scholars Conference held in Manhattan.

In the 1990s, he was affiliated with the Marxist New Party.

He called for an outright ban on guns in 1996.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, he funneled millions of dollars to socialist front groups like ACORN, via the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. His buddy, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, helped stuff the money in the pockets of these “public welfare” groups, often taking money from wealthy donors who believed the funds were being used to further education or stamp out poverty. This was Barack Obama’s first foray into “spreading the wealth around.”

The dirty little secret about Marxists is that the moral outrage they have about the poor, about gun violence, about war, and even about the environment (so-called “global warming,” now rebranded as “climate change”) is that these are all simply tools to set up a totalitarian government. A so-called utopia where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is not determined by the individual, but according to an elite bureaucracy.

Except totalitarian governments don’t work very well unless you have a dependent and defenseless rabble. Obama has successfully created a welfare state, with food stamp and welfare rolls soaring.  And, with Obamacare, he will put virtually the entire citizenry on the public dole.

But creating a defenseless rabble is a little more difficult in America, with the majority of Americans holding the Second Amendment as sacred.

It was easy in Russia. In October 1918, the Communist government mandated that all of its citizens register their weapons. Then it conveniently confiscated all of these “registered” weapons. (It kind of sounds like Obama’s “common sense” call for universal background checks—really a Trojan horse for a national gun registry).

But this is all a conspiracy theory, right? America could never become like Communist Russia, could it?

In 2007 and 2008 when Obama researchers such as Stanley Kurtz and Trevor Loudon unearthed Obama’s extensive radical background and warned us from the highest mountaintops to beware, most of us handed these guys tinfoil hats, figuring that if a Marxist did get into office, we had a little document called the Constitution to keep him in check and/or impeach him.

Because of a dumbed down public and two weak RINO Republicans (first McCain, then Romney), Obama was able to garner enough votes to gain the presidency twice.

We’ve had a radical Marxist sitting in the Oval Office for over four years now.

But the Constitution was still there, including the Second Amendment and the separation of powers.

And the radical connections that were unearthed in 2007 and 2008 paled in comparison to what we learned in an almost month-by-month basis in the following years.

But the Constitution was still there, including the Second Amendment and the separation of powers.

Except what if the Obama administration could disarm a large portion of the population—the so-called “progressives” who believe that guns are evil, and the dumbed down population who didn’t know any better?

And what if the only ones left who refused to give up their guns, who demanded that the Constitution be followed, and who demanded that the separation of powers doctrine be upheld (against Obama’s “I can’t wait for Congress to act!” meme)—what if the only ones left were conservatives?

And what if the Obama administration declared conservatives domestic terrorists, as they have basically done with a so-called “study,” Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States?: Those who are “reverent of individual liberty.” Those who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority.” Those who believe there is a “grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

And what if the Obama administration could outgun their conservative enemies?

The Obama administration has amassed a staggering amount of bullets (over two billion rounds), most of it the hollow point, armor piercing variety, enough to kill every American, man, woman, and child five times.

And what if the Obama administration successfully banned “assault weapons” but was able to keep assault weapons for themselves (as they have already done) calling the use of AR-15s “personal defense weapons”?

And what if the Obama administration could nullify the Second Amendment from the portion of the public that were the most extensively trained, who were traditionally the most conservative—that is, veterans?

The Obama administration has sent out thousands of letters to veterans with the following:

 A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both…

And what if the Obama administration was purchasing thousands of light armored tanks to be used against its own citizens? This, we learned over the weekend.

And what if the Obama administration ordered a fleet of “public safety” drones, able to pick up cell phone traffic, able to identify whether the target—that is, an American citizen—is armed or not with the ability to be easily outfitted with missiles?

This is something we discovered is not out of a dystopian novel but hatched by our own government, with a fleet of 30,000 drones expected by the end of Obama’s “third term.”

And what if there was a secret memo that gave the Obama administration the authority to kill any U.S. citizen at any time, anywhere, without proof, without due process, accountable to no one? Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff uncovered this last month.

So what if, unlike the Communists in Russia, the Obama administration wasn’t able to disarm its enemy—conservatives—but were able to easily outgun them, with hundreds of thousands of “personal defense weapons,” billions of rounds, tanks, and “public safety” drones?

Is a civil war coming between a totalitarian Obama administration and conservatives?

Is this some wild-eyed conspiracy theory?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

-

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS PREPARING FOR WAR AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

February 8, 2013

Source: Lee Rogers, Blacklisted News

At this point there should be very little doubt that the United States government is preparing to wage war against its own people. Earlier this week, news broke about how the Obama regime through the Department of Justice is claiming in a memorandum that they have the power to use drone strikes to kill American citizens under the guise of the so-called war on terror. In fact, the memorandum claims through the use of vague language that they have the power to kill Americans even if they do not have any sort of actionable intelligence confirming that they pose a threat. It has been proven time and time again that the war on terror is a hoax used as a tool to justify endless war and draconian anti-freedom policies domestically. The official story of nearly every alleged terror event that has transpired in the 21st century has been torn apart and criticized by many independent researchers. Not to mention, Al-Qaeda the shadowy terror organization we are constantly told that wants to kill Americans, actually originated from within American intelligence circles. We have also seen the United States, Israel and other Western governments financing and supporting Al-Qaeda type entities. Western support of Al-Qaeda linked rebel groups in both Libya and Syria is well documented and shows what a big joke the war on terror is.
.
It is no secret that the Department of Homeland Security was originally setup as a force to be used domestically against the American people. In the early 2000s, propaganda was used to sell the formation of this organization as a more effective way to protect the American people from Al-Qaeda. Over time this has been proven to be a complete and total lie considering all of their policies have been directed towards the American people instead of so-called foreign Al-Qaeda terrorists. They’ve left the border wide open, setup unconstitutional checkpoints at airports with naked body scanning devices and have even gone so far as to setup unlawful security checkpoints at bus stations, highways and train stations. In 2012 they purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition and just recently ordered another 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to their stockpile. The amount of ammunition that they have ordered is enough to wage a war for many years. Since they are not a military organization and they are based domestically here in the United States, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the ammunition is being stored in case they need to use it against the American people. This is all happening at the same time Congress is attempting to shove through several gun control laws that would restrict the average American from purchasing firearms and ammunition. Since the Obama regime and the assorted control freaks in Congress are attempting to dismantle the second amendment on every front, it is entirely hypocritical to see them purchase such a large amount of ammunition.
.
Going back to the DOJ drone memorandum, the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney actually referred to the policy as legal, ethical and wise. Essentially the Obama regime is claiming that it is lawful and ethical for them to exercise the power of judge, jury and executioner against an American citizen through a drone strike just because they say a person represents a threat. As mentioned previously, they are claiming that they don’t need to have any sort of concrete actionable intelligence. They are basically saying that they can just kill you just because they believe you represent a threat. This is the type of behavior that you would see from war criminals. In fact, numerous reports have confirmed that some of these Obama ordered drone strikes have actually killed innocent women in children proving that they are war criminals. Of course we never saw Obama or the corporate media attempt to humanize the death of the people they killed in these drone strikes in foreign countries. That’s because they’ll only humanize an event if it benefits their agenda. This is why Obama used the alleged Sandy Hook shooting incident and staged a public relations stunt with children when he signed his executive orders on gun control. Humanizing that event enabled them to push their ridiculous gun control program.
.
Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan who is widely considered to be the architect of this disgusting drone strike program has been nominated by Obama to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Apparently if you agree to participate and engage in war crimes you are elevated to positions of greater authority within the Obama regime.
.
Let’s not forget that prior to the Obama regime coming into power; the Bush 43 regime implemented U.S. Northern Command which currently claims military authority over North America. This is an institution that would absolutely be unleashed against the American people in the case of mass civil strife. There has even been a bill proposed to implement FEMA camps under the guise of National Emergency Centers in Congress. This would actually help expand the number of government run facilities that are capable of being used to house large numbers of people. Essentially, we are talking about facilities that could be used as concentration camps. Although this particular bill has yet to be officially passed, it was actually just proposed again in the U.S. House of Representatives.
.
So why is the federal government doing all of these things? The answer is actually very simple. It is no secret that the economy around the world is having severe problems. In the United States there are roughly 50 million people now on food stamps. Students graduating college find themselves in debt and can’t find a decent paying job. Inflation is running wild because of 0% interest rate policies and rampant monetization of debt from the Federal Reserve as well as out of control spending from the criminals in Washington DC. As a result, the cost of goods and services is going through the roof despite absurd claims that inflation is low. People are having an increasingly difficult time getting by and the American middle class is being systematically destroyed because of these policies. It is obvious that this economic system is unsustainable and when the day of reckoning comes, you are going to have millions of angry people out on the streets. Therefore, it is in the interest of the power structure to buy vast quantities of ammunition, set legal precedence for drone strikes against American citizens, expand the authority of the Department of Homeland Security and implement whatever gun control laws they can push through.
.
There will be a day when the economic system completely unravels and when that happens, millions of Americans who are currently obsessed with breads and circus spectacles, reality television and other junk will immediately become aware of how badly they’ve been screwed. They will direct their anger and outrage towards the federal government and this is why they are preparing for war against the American people. The chances of a civil war happening in the United States is unquestionably becoming a more likely possibility by the day especially when there is zero possibility of any real change happening in Washington DC.

-

MARK LEVIN: GOVERNMENT IS “SIMULATING THE COLLAPSE OF OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM, THE COLLAPSE OF OUR SOCIETY AND THE POTENTIAL FOR WIDESPREAD VIOLENCE”

Mac Slavo
March 8th, 2013
SHTFplan.com

Along with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, leading conservative radio host Mark Levin reaches tens of millions of listeners weekly, and what he talked about recently on his nationally syndicated show has sent shivers down the spines of many of them.

A few years ago this was fringe theory, restricted only to the sphere of alternative (conspiracy) news.

Warnings of a massive economic collapse, government stockpiling of weaponry, and the idea that Americans could be broadly classified as terrorists and then detained indefinitely or killed often fell upon deaf ears.

Today, as more information ‘leaks’ into the mainstream, it is no longer just conspiracy theory. We now have some of the most influential journalists and commentators in the country alerting Americans to the possibility that everything the government has been preparing for the last several years may soon be realized.

I’m going to tell you what I think is going on.

I don’t think domestic insurrection. Law enforcement and national security agencies, they play out multiple scenarios. They simulate multiple scenarios.

I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating.

The collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses.

I’m not talking about a recession. I’m talking about a collapse, when people are desperate, when they can’t get food or clothing, when they have no way of going from place to place, when they can’t protect themselves.

There aren’t enough police officers on the face of the earth to adequately handle a situation like that.

I suspect, that just in case our fiscal situation collapses, our monetary situation collapses, and following it the civil society collapses – that is the rule of law – that they want to be prepared.

There is no other explanation for this.

Sourced via Red Flag News

-

-

The Pentagon and military have been war-gaming large-scale economic collapse and civil unrest for nearly four years. Those within our government who understand the ramifications a massive breakdown in our systems of commerce, transportation and justice are preparing by stockpiling weapons and ammo, tens of millions of food rations, and even emergency shelters. They are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on continuity of government programs and exercises, preparing for what they know is coming.

Now why would the government be doing this if there wasn’t a reasonable chance that such events could come to pass?

We’ve urged our readers to prepare a well thought out contingency plan for the very scenarios our government is spending your hard earned tax dollars on.

The government may be stockpiling and preparing, but understand that none of these emergency supplies are reserved for you and your family. Only essential personnel involved directly with government operations will have access to these critical survival supplies.

So you’d better have your own reserves. For those who fail to prepare, it will be horrific.

-

SARAH PALIN: FEDS ARE STOCKPILING BULLETS FOR CIVIL UNREST

Former Governor warns America is “finished” if it cannot resolve debt problem

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 28, 2013

Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin has warned that the federal government is “stockpiling bullets” in preparation for “civil unrest,” adding that America is “finished” if it cannot deal with its debt problem.

Writing on her official Facebook page, Palin remarked, “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

The post achieved nearly 12,000 ‘shares,’ attracting nearly 60,000 ‘likes’ and over 4500 comments.

The Department of Homeland Security has committed to purchasing around 2 billion bullets over the course of the last year, in addition to buying 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles last September (the agency referred to them as “personal defense weapons”).

Although the mainstream media has played down the purchases as the feds merely saving money by buying in bulk, the ammo buys have contributed to shortages across the country.

However, concerns were further stoked last week when Law Enforcement Targets Inc, a DHS contractor that supplies shooting targets to the agency along with thousands of police departments, was forced to apologize for producing “non-traditional threat” targets which featured images of pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners in residential settings.

Politico published an article following Palin’s Facebook post bizarrely claiming that her concerns about the federal government purchasing ammo in large quantities had been debunked despite admitting that “government agencies are, in fact, purchasing large amounts of ammunition.” This tactic of admitting that the government is purchasing a huge number of bullets while simultaneously portraying anyone concerned about the fact as erroneous and paranoid has been adopted by other mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post, who have blithely accepted and regurgitated the government’s explanation that the bullets are merely for target practice.

The DHS has also been busy buying large supplies of body armor, leading to more shortages. Last year, the agency put out an urgent order for “riot gear” in anticipation of civil unrest. The agency has also ordered bullet-proof checkpoint booths and hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings over the course of the last 12 months.

Palin making the connection between the federal government’s arms build-up and America’s economic decline is noteworthy given how other countries have experienced domestic disorder in the aftermath of financial turmoil in recent years.

As we explained in a recent article, generating mass social dislocation has been an admitted tool used by the World Bank and the IMF to create the necessary chaos to loot major economies.

As respected investigative reporter Greg Palast exposed in 2001, the World Bank and the IMF have honed a technique that has allowed them to asset-strip numerous other countries in the past – that technique has come to be known at the “IMF riot,” a process of scaring off investors and causing government bankruptcies by fostering unrest.

-

CIVIL WAR TO ERUPT IN AMERICAN STREETS

-

THE REAL REASONS WHY THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT IS PREPARING TO FIGHT

Brandon Smith
Alt Market
March 20, 2013

Years ago while writing for Neithercorp Press I penned an article entitled “One Day Soon, We’ll All Be Homegrown Terrorists”.  In that piece I described a not so far off future in which martial law, economic collapse, and the destruction of civil liberties stood imminent.  I related my views on the propaganda rhetoric of the SPLC, and how they were using false association to tie liberty groups to any deviant organization they could think of, including racists and domestic terrorists, in order to condition the American public to react to our message with immediate contempt.

It became clear to me then that the SPLC, which had become the propaganda wing of the widely reviled Department Of Homeland Security, was helping set the stage for a paradigm shift in the U.S.  This shift would obviously include economic and social disruption, as well as political turmoil beyond anything our nation has seen for over 150 years.  But most importantly, it would pave the way for certain elements of the American populace, namely those who are awake, aware, and outspoken, to be labeled “enemy combatants” dangerous to the state.

Though posing as an anti-racist monitoring institution, the SPLC’s primary concern has never been the KKK or “White Identity”.  Rather, the SPLC’s job has been and always will be to marginalize and defame those who stand against centralized federal power, regardless of how corrupt that power has become.  They are not anti-racists, or liberals, or concerned citizens; they are STATISTS, who only care about maintaining the superiority of a government that has been bought and paid for many times over by a gaggle of international financiers with delusions of godhood.

The SPLC, of course, has so far utterly failed in their efforts to stop the rise of Constitutional activists.  By their own admission, “patriot groups” have expanded exponentially since 2008, and continue to develop freely even in the face of wildly absurd character attacks taken from the amoral (immoral) guidebook of Saul Alinsky himself.  The truth, once realized, is difficult if not impossible to stop.

Unfortunately, the establishment understands this as well…

Given a few more years, the Liberty Movement will indeed prevail in the struggle for the “infowar”.  Naysayers who claimed we were merely an ineffective and irrelevant peripheral of society are now faced with a strong and growing minority which has the power to swing state and local elections, as we did in 2012, simply by refusing to vote for oath breaking Republicans, sending the message that if the Republican party ever wants to win again, they had better run honest Constitutionalists.  Those who claimed our message was “insane conspiracy theory” must now explain the indefinite detention and rendition provisions of the NDAA, the government approved unleashing of 30,000 surveillance drones in American skies, the Obama Administration’s assassination list which includes U.S. citizens, and the push for gun registration and confiscation which is already beginning to take place in some states.

How did we know what was coming?  Was it intuition or lucky conjecture?  Neither.  All we had to do was look at the trends of the day and use logic to discern the most likely outcome.

Our concerns, which were once called “fringe”, are now going mainstream.  We were right, they were wrong.  Though, I wish we had been wrong…

Just as the public is on a shrinking timeline, so are the elites.  For every burst forward in our efforts to wake up the population to the loss of their freedoms and heritage, they must speed up their plans to gain economic and political supremacy.  The harder you pull on the ends of a frayed rope in opposite directions, the sooner it is going to snap.

Today, as never before, I believe our culture has reached the breaking point, which is why the SPLC has pushed their attacks on the Liberty Movement into overdrive with manipulative media hit pieces like this:

-

-

As well as their latest propaganda piece “The Year In Hate And Extremism”:

http://www.splcenter.org/home/2013/spring/the-year-in-hate-and-extremism

The SPLC plays the role of the frantic watchman, crying out at the approach of the Mongol hordes, but their childish and ill conceived methods continue to expose their true intentions.  Is the Liberty Movement preparing for war?  No, but we are preparing to defend ourselves.  Here are the SPLC assertions of why we are ready to fight, followed by the real reasons behind our preparations…

1)  Because Obama Is Half Black?

No.  Obama could be neon green and we couldn’t care less.  The SPLC attempts to equate the growth of “patriot groups” with the election of the first black president, while leaving out much more likely catalysts including our current economic spiral (which they often refer to as “conspiracy theory”), or the Obama Administration’s expansion and even application of numerous unconstitutional provisions, some of which were launched by the Bush Administration.

How does the SPLC explain the majority of the Liberty Movement’s staunch opposition to the Romney Campaign if all we cared about was race?  How do they reconcile the fact that we are just as critical of the Republican elite as we are of the Democrats?  What about the reality that many of our organizations (like Oath Keepers) are made up of numerous races and nationalities?

They never do.  They simply ignore this information as if it is not pertinent to the issue.  The truth is, Obama is a middle man, a mascot, an easily replaced muppet.  He is not our primary interest, and his color is meaningless.  The international banks that funded his campaign and whose members occupy numerous positions within the White House, though, ARE our primary concern.

2)  Because We Are Afraid Of An Economic Collapse That Will Never Come?

The SPLC refers to almost everything as “conspiracy theory” because they hope that the average American is too stupid to question their rhetoric.  Calling someone a “conspiracy theorist” is the modern equivalent of accusing a person of being mentally ill; the goal is to inoculate the public against anything they have to say before they say it, even if it is the unbridled truth.

The SPLC has consistently shrugged off economic concerns as “paranoia”, but they never qualify their statements.  Years ago I openly challenged Mark Potok and the whole of the SPLC to a debate on the health of the U.S. economy, and I reassert that challenge today.  If they think our concerns are unfounded and a source of paranoia, then they should be willing to defend their position.  I believe our financial system is on the fast track to collapse for quite a few reasons, including the fact that:

Our official national debt stands at $16.6 trillion.  In 2008, the national debt was around $10 Trillion, meaning, we’ve added over $6 trillion in only 5 years.  (Gee, is it possible that this has pissed Americans off more than Obama’s ethnicity?)

Real national debt including entitlement programs and future obligations is estimated between $60 Trillion and $120 Trillion.

Our official debt to GDP ratio (the amount of capital our country generates versus what it owes) stands at 102%.  Historically, when a country crosses the 100% mark in its debt to GDP, there is a marked chance of economic crisis.  If you count all of the programs and entitlements that the Federal Government doesn’t include in its “official” arithmetic, our debt to GDP ratio is actually closer to 400%.  This means an economic crisis is ASSURED.

The Labor Department, using what they call “adjusted numbers” places unemployment at 7.9%.  Real unemployment including U6 measurements (those people who are underemployed, and those people who have been unemployed for so long they no longer receive benefits and are no longer counted by the government) stands at over 20%.

In 2009, 32 million Americans were enrolled in food stamps.  Today, that number has grown to 48 million.  That’s a 50% increase in only 4 years.

The number of people on standard disability has hit a record of 9 million, and has grown every month for the past 192 months.

For the past four years I have pointed out that China, our largest foreign creditor, only needs to do two things before dumping the dollar as the world reserve currency – find a consumer market source to replace the U.S., and, spread it’s own currency around the globe to create a viable alternative to the greenback.

Today, China has announced a full blown transition into a consumer based economy and has established bilateral trade agreements with enough developing nations to easily replace the U.S. as an export market.

This past month, China announced a massive “urbanization project” in which they will sell over $6 trillion in Yuan denominated bonds worldwide.  China has also surpassed the U.S. for the first time ever as the world’s largest trade market, meaning, the Yuan will now be more sought after than the Dollar as a global trade mechanism.  The Chinese are nearly ready to dump the dollar, causing an international chain reaction that will brutally devalue our currency.

I think our economic worries are clearly reasonable…

3)  Because We Are Paranoid Over Unfounded Threats Of Martial Law?

In the calm before any great war, there is always an escalation of arms on both sides of the conflict.  Anyone who has carefully studied the history of modern warfare KNOWS an escalation when they see one.  At the same time, anyone who has studied the history of citizen disarmament knows that government restriction and confiscation of personal firearms almost always leads to genocide.  Over the past decade, we have seen blatant indications that domestic agencies of the Federal Government are in the midst of arms stockpiling, and, in the past two months, they are pushing harder than ever before to reduce the defensive capabilities of the American public.

The Department Of Homeland Security has in only a few years placed orders for ammunition totaling at least 1.6 billion rounds, and new orders indicate they may be accumulating over 2 billion rounds.  The DHS has initiated a disinformation campaign through the mainstream media claiming that this ammunition stockpile, which is to be delivered over the course of five years, is for “training purposes only”.  Here is the reality…

First, by the department’s own numbers, training and qualification exercises taking place in three facilities nationwide use a total of 15 – 20 million rounds of ammo yearly.  This means that if the DHS claims are true, they have ordered enough ammo to last a minimum of 75 years!  No government agency plans this far ahead.

Second, the DHS and most federal and state law enforcement agencies DO NOT use hollow point pistol ammo and expensive Sierra Match King hollow point sniper rounds for “training”.  Anyone who knows anything about combat simulation training knows that you use the cheapest plinking ammo you can find, and this includes the government.  The ammo purchased by the DHS is used for one thing only; killing people.

Third, if this ammo is being used only for non-threatening purposes, then why is the DHS now redacting order requests in a ploy to hide what they are purchasing?

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=311eb3ee003671285de8db1036b2b255&tab=core&tabmode=list&=

On top of this, why does the DHS need mine resistant armored vehicles?

Or bullet resistant road booths?

http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/Shelters-Direct-Builds-Bullet-Resistant-Booths-for-Homeland-Security-612684

Why is the DHS using training targets featuring children and pregnant women?  Why has the Federal Government put plans into motion to release 30,000 drones above our heads?  Why have they instituted the passage of the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA which can be used to revoke the civil rights of anyone deemed an “enemy combatant” by the executive branch, including American citizens?  Why has Obama bypassed the Treason Clause of the U.S. Constitution in order to greenlight assassinations of American citizens?  Why has Attorney General Eric Holder stated that predator drones have not been ruled out as a weapon against American citizens on American soil?  Why has a branch of the military, Northcom, been deployed domestically in the U.S.?  Who are they here to fight?

The government is telling us, right to our faces, that they plan to use extraneous force against us, and where else would this force be initiated on such a scale except during martial law?  The extensive militarization of any domestic government agency requires as a response the extensive armament of the citizenry, otherwise, there is no deterrent to tyranny.

4) Because We Refuse To Accept That The World Is Changing Without Us?

This argument is based on a series of lies, the first one being that American culture needs to “progress with the times” and shake off the dead skin of old and “unpopular” principles.  Let’s set the record straight…

Some principles, like the liberties embodied in natural law and outlined in the U.S. Constitution, NEVER become outdated.  They exist in the heart of mankind, and will remain as long as humanity remains.  They cannot be erased, and they cannot be undone.  They are inherent and eternal.

They can, however, be oppressed by those who seek to dominate the lives of others.  This is what the establishment today calls “progress”.  Their version of social order is not new, nor is it even clever.  It is archaic, and has taken many forms, including oligarchy, aristocracy, mercantilism, monarchy, totalitarianism, despotism, fascism, socialism, communism, globalism, etc., etc.  The goal is always the same; centralize as much power as possible into as few hands as possible while making the enslaved population as collectivized and dependent as possible.

The Liberty Movement is not some dying vestige of America’s past clinging to an antiquated philosophy.  We are the new wave; the messengers of an ideal of freedom that in the grand scheme of history has been around for only a blink of an eye.  Constitutional liberty IS the progress that humanity has been waiting for.  We have only been led astray by those who would sell us on our own bondage.

The SPLC and others within the establishment accuse the Liberty Movement of arming for conflict against the government.  I am here to tell them that is EXACTLY what we are doing.  We are arming because the establishment is arming against us.  Yes, we are a threat, but only to political and corporate criminals who use subversion and violence to wrest freedom from the hands of good people.  I am not afraid to openly admit it.  I and many others will fight against any measure or man that seeks to undermine the rights of the people or destroy the founding principles of this nation.

We will not allow engineered economic collapse to go unpunished.  We will not allow internationalists to subdue American sovereignty.  We will not allow national gun registration or confiscation.  We will not allow martial law to be instituted.  We will not allow American citizens to be imprisoned or assassinated without trial.  We will not allow any presidential administration, black or white, Republican or Democrat, to become a De facto dictatorship with no accountability to the public.

Regardless of what they might say about us in the future, these are the reasons why we will fight, and our pledges to resist are not empty assertions.  We will stop the course of tyranny from completing in this country and in this era, one way or another.  If this makes us “extremists”, or “terrorists”, then so be it.  I, for one, am tired of the long running game of lies and reserved rhetoric.  They know a fight is coming, and we know a fight is coming.  Let’s just admit it and be done with it.  Their greatest weakness is that they have to use deceit, propaganda, media monopoly, and false flag violence in order to convince the public that they are the “right side”.  All we have to do is continue telling the truth, and stand fast…

-

THE SPECTER OF CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES IS A REAL AND PRESENT DANGER

(Before It’s News)

From: Victoria Baer
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:37 AM
To: victoria
Subject: URGENT ALERT STAT STAT STAT: Beware Patriots – HIGH IMPORTANCE
Importance: High
Ok, all….time to be very aware and stand guard!!!

INTEL BRIEFING – 3/11/13
For dissemination throughout the Frontiersmen and to our friends

RE: Federal action against patriot groups in US

Today at 10AM there was a very large meeting at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) headquarters in Clarksburg, WV. The meeting was held in an auditorium and included everyone – from agents to the secretaries. The meeting was organized by the Director of the Biometric Identification Management Agency (BIMA), Retired Colonel Salo

Salo summarized the purchase of 24 new armored vehicles (each costing $400k) and the recent appearance of 20 mobile headquarters that are now present at the facility. The mobile units are semi-trailers with attached generators in the front; are of a shiny, mirrored-silver finish; and have no identifiable markings on them at all. There are 20 of them parked (visibly in front) at 1000 Cluster Hollow Rd, Clarksburg, WV as of today. Additionally, there are 24 armored cars (the same ones we have seen with DHS markings) parked in a different lot on this property, but they too may be visible.

The Colonel went into great detail on a list of patriot/constitutional groups. According to witnesses, this is a list that may be identical or very close to the one put out by the SPLC but had over 1000 groups on it. He explained that although groups may take advantage of the 2nd Amendment debate to garner followers now, at the heart of all these organizations is a racist core; one that poses a threat and will need to be dealt with soon. This is when he tied the armored cars and mobile command trailers to ‘the mission’.

The armored cars (those at the facility and nationwide) are to effect high-risk warrants on the ringleaders of the listed various groups with command centers being placed as necessary. The DHS and FBI are planning to move at one time against the listed groups; with SWAT teams being utilized against the more threatening ones. The colonel explained that all these groups have been successfully infiltrated and the leaders identified. He also explained that this is part of the new Internal Security Force that the president has been alluding to. In answering a question from an attendee regarding the mass purchase of ammo, he also stated that the buildup of arms and ammo was specifically for this ‘mission’.

The witness has told me that after the meeting, everyone they seen were against this. People were complaining, shaking their head in disbelief, and asking what the heck going on. According to them, NOBODY (including federal agents present) planned on going along with this and many even talked about how this will ignite a war.

The report I received can be verified through any personal contacts you may have at this center or connected to the agencies mentioned. You may also visibly inspect the lot for these trailers by driving to the location in Clarksburg. The witness was extremely bothered by the meeting and has said ‘it is coming and a hell of a lot sooner than people think’.

I used to think that mass roundups would never happen – but with this new information, I can clearly see that this is exactly what is going to happen (at least to a certain number of militia/patriot groups). And inevitably, any action this crazy will result in a reaction by others. The specter of Civil War in this country is a real and present danger folks – prepare.

-

-

HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PLANS TO DEAL WITH THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 15, 2013

According to the posting of an email in alternative media the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Justice Information Services Division (JISD) held a meeting that was attended by Retired Colonel Salo, director of the Biometric Identification Management Agency (BIMA).

Salo spoke about the recent purchases by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the armored vehicles designed to withstand a blast from an improvised explosive device (IED); as well as that the anti-government/patriot/constitutional movement is posing a viable threat to the current government. He suggested that they be monitored carefully.

The armored vehicles and mobile command centers were “tied to ‘the mission’.”

By tracking leaders of these movements with mobile command centers, the FBI and DHS will be able to shut them down with the use of SWAT teams. Another aspect of this “mission” was the collaboration of the Internal Security Force.

The ammunition purchases by DHS have served to build up the government’s armory and supplies.

The mainstream media has continued a propaganda campaign to demonize Constitutionalists by claiming that “increasingly frightening numbers, cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government. They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal.”

These patriots are demonized as “white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.”

It is clear that the latest social meme being perpetrated is that “it only takes one person to create another Oklahoma City situation.”

In 2009, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis published a report entitled “Rightwing Extremism”, wherein patriots/constitutionalists are extremists. The ideal was proposed to be the newest and most dangerous threat to the US since al-Qaeda.

Although the DHS and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) admit that they are basing this assertion on conjecture, yet still insist that “rightwing” terrorists are scheming to commit “acts of violence” and recruiting at exponential levels.

By using the “war on terror” the patriot movement can be aligned to those overseas Boogeymen that somehow cannot be caught. The document states: “The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.”

Desires to restore America to a Constitutional Republic are radicalizing US citizens and “growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.”

The cause of this radicalization is the growing numbers of Americans that are realizing that the Oklahoma City Bombing was a false flag perpetuated by the US government; combined with the foiled fake terrorist plots conducted by the FBI, the economy domestically and globally and the pervasive rejection of ideologies such as one world government.

The document states: “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

In fact they claim that: “Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.”

Indeed, the US veterans could become integral to this scheme to provoke the American public by recognizing that those individuals “possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists.”

To combat this, the DHS and I&A plan to bolster the threat that US veterans are dangerous and could snap at any moment; posing “violent capabilities.”

Placing the idea that a “lone wolf” extremist who is a US veteran involved in terrorist cells (or the patriot movement) the public will protect the current government as a social meme and assist in the creation of the next Boogeyman.

The breeding ground of rightwing extremism, according to the document, “appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children—specifically xenophobia and antidemocratic ideals. ownership and use.”

The ultimate end game is to introduce a “lone wolf” that would threaten President Barack Obama.

Local police departments must be utilized to monitor and report “threatening activity” with the recruitment of these privately –owned security firms for use by the DHS as non-federalized law enforcement.

It is encouraged that because of the issue of gun control, the patriot movement combine fear-mongering the public with “conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy.”

This breeds “antigovernment conspiracy theories” and “’end times’ prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.”

Propaganda can be installed into the patriot movement by using the “new world order conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a ‘New World Order’ would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty.”

At this point, a lone wolf could be introduced as threatening to commit an act of terrorism against the US on American soil. This patsy would be linked to a militia or constitutionalist group that could become the public focus of hatred. Using the public’s emotional reaction to the situation, the US government would successfully blame a Boogeyman when then could perhaps be linked to China or India.

This would facilitate an al-Qaeda connection and tie in the various fake terrorist cells around the world.

Outlined as the most dangerous document is the US Constitution as it keeps that militia and patriot group hoping for success. The fake heroes that can be introduced will gain acceptance by the fringe because of their “leaderless resistance” and encourage the acts of a lone wolf.

Enter a disenfranchised US veteran who “woke up” after having been discharged from recent duty who joins an extremist group. The other tool to be utilized is the internet to recruit like-minded constitutionalists for the sake of identifying persons and accessing their threat level.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PREPARING FOR A TOTAL POLICE STATE TAKEOVER

| March 24, 2013

(Thomas Dishaw) The Department of Homeland Security, better known as the liberty destroying arm of the Government, is not fiscally responsible or Constitutionally correct.

Founded in 2002 as a  response to the Governments false flag attack on 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security has quickly eroded your personal rights at an extremely alarming rate.

The TSA has single-handedly turned airports into prisons. Where else in America do you lose all of your God-given rights upon entering a building?

Not to mention the humiliating molestation you receive by  lowly TSA agents who don’t understand the implications of their actions. And since we are talking about policies, let us not forget the TSA’s “no fly, no buy” list. Getting on this list should be fairly easy if you’re a liberty loving, pro gun Constitutionalist, or if your name resembles a Middle Eastern terrorist (who was probably funded by rogue elements of the United States Government.)  Getting off the list is a whole different story and nearly impossible thanks to the abandonment of our judicial system.

The TSA is also making the transition from airports to Amtrak stationssporting events and eventually to policing the streets of America. And don’t worry, if you get out of line the DHS is working on electronic shock bracelets that will keep us slaves in check.

One of the biggest stories of the year has to be the DHS purchasing billions of rounds of ammunition. Why would our beloved and trusted Government go to the extreme of drying up the nations ammunition supply?  Are they preparing for a massive civil unrest? Are they purposely driving up the prices to punish economically challenged Americans? Its gotten so bad that prices are at all time highs and local law enforcement is having a hard time filling orders.

You know truth and transparency is not the Obama Administration’s strong point, so don’t expect any legitimate  answers in the near future. Luckily there are a few pulses of liberty left in congress who are challenging the administration’s stance of stonewalling the very important question, “Why are we buying all this ammunition?”

Since the unjust war in Iraq has wound down the empire of America needs a new enemy to fight,  and guess what…..IT’S YOU! If you’re a freedom loving American, a returning veteran, a Second Amendment supporter, a We Are Change member, part of Oath Keepers, or just a fan of columnist Devy Kidd you are now considered a threat to the fabric of America.  Don’t believe me? Watch this disgusting interview with the Southern Poverty Law Centers Mark Potok (an organization that claims to teach tolerance while attacking certain groups and people with whom they disagree.)

Paul Joseph Watson recently reported on a 12 million dollar DHS study that characterizes Americans who are:

“suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

The report also identifies the following characteristics are used to identify potential threats.

  • Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack
  • Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)
  • People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty)
  • Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
  • Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”
  • People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”


Our personal privacy is being invaded.  Its bad enough we are recorded by security cameras, traffic cameras and red light cameras on a daily basis.  Now the eyes in the sky, better known as  drones,  are the latest way the Department of Homeland Security wants  to keep us safe. The Obama Administration has stated they have authority to use drone strikes to kill US citizens.  Remember Anwar al-Awlaki?  A United States asset who visited the Pentagon  on occasion only to be double crossed and killed by a drone strike in Yemen. He was an American citizen.

The capability of the DHS’s drone fleet is something right out of a science fiction novel. They can detect guns, eavesdrop on phone conversations and kill you with a single shot.  U.S Senators  have even introduced the idea of a drone court where all drone killings will be decided on.  Thankfully Senator Rand Paul took a stance against the drone language and filibustered for 13 hours.

The police state is here. The sellout Government we have elected has incrementally taken away liberty’s without most people knowing or caring. If getting molested at the airport doesn’t upset you, nothing will.  If you don’t find the Governments massive ammunition buys a little intriguing or suspicious, something is wrong.  If you are not instantly enraged that the Government now classifies you as a terrorist and is planning to fill the sky’s with drones to spy on you then maybe you should reevaluate what it means to be an American.

-

BREAKING: HUNDREDS OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ARMORED TRUCKS ON THE MOVE IN ARIZONA

More footage of military vehicles being delivered surfaces online

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Mar 25, 2013

Footage of hundreds of armored trucks, similar to ones reportedly purchased recently by the Department Of Homeland Security has appeared online, raising more questions over their intended use.

The video was uploaded to YouTube last week by a user who stated that it was shot in the middle of the desert between Hackberry and Peach Springs, Arizona.

It shows hundreds of military style trucks loaded on to a train, presumably in the process of being delivered domestically for law enforcement or military purposes.

-

-

The video raises significant questions in the wake of reports that the Department of Homeland Security, headed by Janet Napolitano, recently purchased around 2,700 MRAP trucks that many believe are to be deployed to local law enforcement agencies around the country.

It is clear that the DHS does have fleets of armoured vehicles intended for use in the US.

Here is a demonstration video of such a vehicle by ICE agents:

Does the latest video show these same type of trucks in the process of being delivered?

The footage is the latest in a spate of similar videos to surface on the internet in recent months showing huge amounts of military equipment packed onto trains en route within the US.

As we reported today, the DHS’ mass arms build-up continues, with the report that the agency has bought another 360,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition to add to the roughly 2 billion bullets already bought over the past year.

Such stark activity with little to no background detail has prompted several Congressmen to ask the federal government for an explanation. According to some elected representatives, the DHS has refused to answer specific questions on the purchases, stating only that the ammunition is for “training purposes” over the next five years, and has been bulk ordered to save money.

As we have pointed out numerous times however, military experts have noted that hollow point bullets are unsuitable for training, and are much more expensive than full metal jackets.

Efforts by government media mouthpieces to dismiss the story have only caused it to become more viral.

The DHS has also purchased 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, as well as cementing a $2 million dollar relationship with a contractor that recently had to apologize for producing shooting targets of pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners depicted in residential settings.

The DHS has also been busy buying large supplies of body armor, leading to shortages. Last year, the agency put out an urgent order for “riot gear” in anticipation of civil unrest. The agency has also ordered bullet-proof checkpoint booths and hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings over the course of the last 12 months. None of this has been addressed by the mainstream media.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

-

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR DOUG HAGMANN, ‘DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IS PREPARING FOR A MASSIVE CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES’

Alex Jones talks with Douglas J. Hagmann, founder and director of the Northeast Intelligence Network. He is also the CEO of a private investigative agency serving a roster of Fortune 500 clients. Due to his expertise in covert surveillance and counter-terrorism, Mr. Hagmann has been used as an operational asset by the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, as well as the Pennsylvania and New York State Police agencies. Earlier this month, Doug said high-level, reliable sources told him the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for a “massive civil war” in America as a result of a collapse of the dollar and the hyperinflation that will result.

Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul | Before It’s News

In a riveting interview on TruNews Radio, Wednesday, private investigator Doug Hagmann said high-level, reliable sources told him the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for “massive civil war” in America.

“We have problems . . . The federal government is preparing for civil uprising,” he added, “so every time you hear about troop movements, every time you hear about movements of military equipment, the militarization of the police, the buying of the ammunition, all of this is . . . they (DHS) are preparing for a massive uprising.”

Hagmann goes on to say that his sources tell him the concerns of the DHS stem from a collapse of the U.S. dollar and the hyperinflation a collapse in the value of the world’s primary reserve currency implies to a nation of 311 million Americans, who, for the significant portion of the population, is armed.

Uprisings in Greece is, indeed, a problem, but an uprising of armed Americans becomes a matter of serious national security, a point addressed in a recent report by the Pentagon and highlighted as a vulnerability and threat to the U.S. during war-game exercises at the Department of Defense last year, according to one of the DoD’s war-game participants, Jim Rickards, author of Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis.

Through his sources, Hagmann confirmed Rickards’ ongoing thesis of a fear of a U.S. dollar collapse at the hands of the Chinese (U.S. treasury bond holders of approximately $1 trillion) and, possibly, the Russians (threatening to launch a gold-backed ruble as an attractive alternative to the U.S. dollar) in retaliation for aggressive U.S. foreign policy initiatives against China’s and Russia’s strategic allies Iran and Syria.

“The one source that we have I’ve known since 1979,” Hagmann continued. “He started out as a patrol officer and currently he is now working for a federal agency under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security; he’s in a position to know what policies are being initiated, what policies are being planned at this point, and he’s telling us right now—look, what you’re seeing is just the tip of the iceberg. We are preparing, we, meaning the government, we are preparing for a massive civil war in this country.”

“There’s no hyperbole here,” he added, echoing Trends Research Institute’s Founder Gerald Celente’s forecast of last year. Celente expects a collapse of the U.S. dollar and riots in America some time in 2012.

Since Celente’s ‘Civil War’ prediction of last year, executive orders NDAA and National Defense Resources Preparedness were signed into law by President Obama, which are both politically damaging actions taken by a sitting president.

And most recently, requests made by the DHS for the procurement of 450 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition only fuels speculation of an upcoming tragic event expected on American soil.

These major events, as shocking to the American people as they are, have taken place during an election year.

Escalating preparatory activities by the executive branch and DHS throughout the last decade—from the Patriot Act, to countless executive orders drafted to suspend (or strip) American civil liberties “are just the beginning” of the nightmare to come, Hagmann said.

He added, “It’s going to get so much worse toward the election, and I’m not even sure we’re going to have an election in this country. It’s going to be that bad, and this, as well, is coming from my sources. But one source in particular said, ‘look, you don’t understand how bad it is.’ This stuff is real; these people, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), they are ready to fight the American people.”

TruNews Wiles asked Hagmann: who does the DHS expect to fight, in particular? Another North versus South, the Yankees against the Confederates? Hagmann stated the situation is far worse than a struggle between any two factions within the U.S.; it’s an anticipated nationwide emergency event centered on the nation’s currency.

“What they [DHS] are expecting, and again, this is according to my sources, what they’re expecting is the un-sustainability of the American dollar,” Hagmann said. “And we know for a fact that we can no longer service our debt. There’s going to be a period of hyperinflation . . . the dollar will be worthless . . . The economic collapse will be so severe, people won’t be ready for this.”

Source: Listen to the full TruNews interview, May 2, 2012.

JOEL SKOUSEN: ARMY DOCUMENT REVEALS CITIZENS TO BE TREATED AS ENEMY COMBATANTS!

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MOVES TO DISARM VETERANS

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 22, 2013

-

-

It’s no secret that the Department of Homeland Security considers returning veterans a threat to the established order. They said as much back in 2009 when they wrote in a report exposed by Alex Jones and the alternative media: “Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists… DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.”

Following the case of veteran Brandon Raub, who was abducted and held in a psychiatric ward for Facebook posts the government considered subversive, police in Ohio seized a veteran’s guns after he was adjudged to be mentally incompetent despite the fact a Veterans Administration psychiatric evaluation determined he was not mentally ill.

“Since the veteran is active in the so-called truth movement or patriot community, it is assumed that his involvement in this field is part of the reason why he has been targeted for psychiatric evaluation,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote on August 24, 2012.

According to constitutional attorney Michael Connelly, the government is now moving to strip veterans it determines to be mentally incompetent of their Second Amendment right to own a firearm. Connelly cites a letter “sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes.”

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the VA letter states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”

This must be Barack Obama’s way of thanking our veterans for serving,” writes the Gateway Pundit. “US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both… This comes on page 2 of the VA letter.”


See page 2, page 3

Connelly explains that the letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency and is based on a determination by a bureaucrat at the VA. “In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” he writes.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

The federal government is targeting veterans because it realizes that when martial law is declared and people are rounded up for political reasons – REX 84 and other military contingency plans demonstrate that the government has long planned for such an inevitability – the military experience of veterans will be crucial to any effective resistance.

“The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway,” Connelly concludes. “He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.”

-

SHOCK REPORT: VETERANS RECEIVE LETTERS FROM VETERANS ADMINISTRATION PROHIBITING OWNERSHIP OR PURCHASE OF FIREARMS

By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.

The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.

The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.

-

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION WRITES LETTERS TO U.S. VETERANS: SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS REVOKED PER 2013 NDAA

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 22, 2013

Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Foundation, says that US veterans are now receiving letters from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regarding the disarmament of those former service men and women under the guise that they are in a questionable physical or mental condition because of their exposure to combat situations.

The letter goes on to say: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”

Without “specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency” the VA is determining that veterans are incompetent. Disregarding due process and the US Constitution, the VA has begun to disarm American citizens under their control.

In December of 2012, before President Obama signed the 2013 fiscal Year National Defenses Authorization Act (NDAA), the Senate, as part of a defense cuts proposal is an amendment to curb the rights of US veterans to access guns. Senator Tom Coburn would like for the veterans deemed “mentally incompetent” to have the Department of Veterans Affairs decide that they would have their 2nd Amendment rights revoked and not be able to purchase or possess firearms.

Coburn said to the Senate: “We’re not asking for anything big. We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”

The Coburn amendment #3109 states that in order “to protect the Second Amendment rights of veterans” they must be deemed mentally competent so they may retain their right to bear arms.

According to Chapter 55, Title 38 of the US Code (Section 5503): “In any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.”

This amendment is part of a package of additions to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Coburn said to the Senate: “We’re not asking for anything big. We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights — they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”

Senator Charles Schumer retorted: “I love our veterans; I vote for them all the time, they defend us. But if you are mentally ill, whether you’re a veteran or not, just like if you’re a felon, if you’re a veteran or not, and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

In 2011, Senator Richard Burr introduced The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act that mirrors the assertions of Coburn with respect to restricting the rights of veterans to their 2nd Amendment based on mental health.

Coburn explained that veterans returning to society may “have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution” yet downplayed the 2nd Amendment as not inherent.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence pointed out that veterans that could not “manage their own affairs” due to a “disability” and are “deemed unable to handle [their] own affairs . . . likely constitute[ed] a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs released a study that found nearly 250,000 returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and could become violent and a danger to society.

Last year, Obama signed an executive order (EO) entitled, “Improving Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families” with the supposed focus on strengthening “support for the emotional and mental health needs of our service members and their families.”

In this EO, Obama takes control over the evaluation of the mental health of our returning service men and women by providing US government controlled “effective mental health services for veterans, service members, and their families.” Obama is authorizing the coordination of the Departments of Veterans and the Department of Defense (DoD), as well as the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Defense to “transition” veterans back into “civilian life”.

Keeping in line with touting all veterans as mentally defective, substance abusers and suicidal, Obama demands that the VA and the DoD collaborate to provide proactive measures and a psychiatric pre-screen of returning service men and women to prevent erratic behavior. The DoD will “review all existing mental health and substance abuse prevention, education and outreach programs” within the military services and access their effectiveness.

During a private “roundtable” discussion at Fort Bliss in Texas, Obama met with members of the military and addressed active duty troops. The Obama administration’s focus is on identifying and “providing additional support” to soldiers who have been diagnosed with “post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries (TBI)”.

Previously, the DoD have come out publicly to state that US veterans suffering from TBI and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) are considered potentially violent and dangerous.

Doctors for the DoD claim CTE is an incurable disease soldiers may develop after having injured their brain in battle. CTE is explained as causing large bursts of anger and depression while having their vital motor skills and memory impacted; as well as being degenerative of whose effects can manifest themselves days, months or years after the initial trauma.

The DoD is tracking soldiers diagnosed with TBI/CTE because, according to the US government agency, they may display personality changes that could come on without warning and effect their ability to acclimate back into American society.

At Fort Detrick and Fort Bragg, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the US military is conducting clinical trials on 2,000 solders to create a medical screen to detect a person’s propensity toward TBI/CTE by measuring biomarkers.

The Obama administration devised a report in 2011 entitled “Strengthening Our Military Families” that focuses on the mental stability of our US service men and women. It questions whether or not their exposure to battlefield conditions, TBI/CTE, and diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PSTD) is causing them to be a potential danger to society. Hidden under bureaucracy of promising to develop governmental systems to aid veterans, the document is directed at identifying all veteran’s potential to become mentally incapacitated due to some psychiatric disorder which would cause them to become violent, depressed, aggressive and inevitably dangerous to society.

The EO also allocates the US government-sponsored use of local community mental health clinics, community health centers, substance abuse treatment facilities, and rural health clinics to assist the DoD in identifying veterans who may be suffering from mental illness and would therefore have federal agencies working with private sector health providers to ensure veterans get the psychiatric help they need in “a timely way”. Obama has ordered 15 “pilot projects” to be established to create an integrated mental health system wherein the DoD would have complete oversight. The DoD would also be at the liberty of defining the parameters of the objective need of mental healthcare of veterans.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (SVA) will employ 800 peer counselors by 2013 that will be controlled and disseminated by the DoD under directives of the SVA. Collaborative tools and monetary oversight will remain with the SVA as an estimate 1,600 mental healthcare workers is expected to be needed to deal with the issue of mentally ill veterans nationally.

A National Research Action Plan will be established by May of 2013 that will be sponsored by the US government to use biomarkers for “early diagnosis and treatment” of veterans who tested positive for a propensity toward TBI/CTE. Obama wants to integrate electronic data sharing of information about veterans and their predetermined mental status between federal agencies, academia and state-sponsored research facilities to create pharmaceutical and psychiatric answers to this supposed burgeoning problem.

The goal of the Obama administration is to devise a “comprehensive longitudinal mental health study with an emphasis on PTSD, TBI, and related injuries” to identify mental health issues in veterans and enroll veterans in a long-term plan coordinated with the Department of Veteran Affairs which will be directed by the DoD.

The creation of a Task Force to advise Obama on how to deal with mental illness and veterans will be established within 180 days of the EO. This Task Force will alone define specific goals on how to best combat veterans alleged fall into mental illness with specific regard to TBI/CTE and post-traumatic stress disorder (PSTD).

The US government’s goal is to identify these veterans and label them with a progressive, unstable and degenerative disease so that they can refer them to mental hospitals for further evaluation and/or admittance.

-

VIETNAM VET DENIED SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT

-

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 1, 2013

Jeffrey Schrader, a Vietnam War veteran, had his Second Amendment right to own a firearm stripped in 2008 by the government.

Schrader’s crime? He was arrested for participating in a fist fight and was charged with a misdemeanor in 1968.

Schrader owned and sold firearms for over forty years before the feds decided he presented a risk to society and shut down his Second Amendment.

“They contacted me and told me. The ATF officer was apologetic about it. He said, ‘I couldn’t believe this. I looked into everything trying to figure this out because it doesn’t make any sense.’ He says, ‘I’m sorry to have to tell you this but you can’t have any guns,’” Schrader told Fox 5 in Atlanta.

“You don’t have the right and they treat you just like a felon,” Schrader said.

In addition to ancient misdeamnorr charges, the government is attempting to deny veterans their Second Amendment rights if the Veterans Affairs Department decides they are mentally incompetent.

In February, we reported on letters the Department of Veteran Affairs sent to “hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes,” according to constitutional attorney Michael Connelly.

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the VA letter states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”

In 2007, HR 2640 was introduced by notorious Democrat gun grabbers Carolyn McCarthy and Patrick Leahy.

“Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away … forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, remarked after the bill was made public. “Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a ‘determination’ in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred — for life — from owning guns”

On June 13, 2007, the bill passed in the House and on December 19, 2007, the Senate version was passed.

Obama’s recommendations on “gun violence” released in January propose tightening up and expanding the “relevant records” contained in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Agencies involved in the effort include the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the Defense Department.

More veterans and plenty of other Americans deemed incompetent by the government will undoubtedly have their Second Amendment rights stripped in the near future.

-

FEINSTEIN: ALL VETS ARE MENTALLY ILL AND GOVERNMENT SHOULD PREVENT THEM FROM OWNING FIREARMS

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 7, 2013

During the Senate Judiciary meeting today to markup a potpourri of bills designed to deny the American people their rights under the Second Amendment and disarm them, Senator Dianne Feinstein opposed an amendment to her so-called assault weapons ban legislation that would allow veterans to continue buying firearms the bill would outlaw.

Feinstein basically said all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped. In response to the amendment, she said the following:

…this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was effect… and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States… that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So you know I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

The comments are included in the C-Span video below.

Thankfully, Feinstein’s bill will most certainly be dead on arrival and – for now – the American people (with the exception of Americans unfortunate enough to live in New York state) will have their Second Amendment rights spared.

Feinstein’s remark, however, reveals a deep-seated mistrust and contempt for America’s veterans. It also reveals the fear by government of the revolutionary potential of veterans, a fear dutifully expressed by the Department of Homeland Security when it said returning veterans are “right wing extremists” who may challenge the government.

Incidentally, Feinstein is way off the mark. Although PTSD is a relatively new definition, soldiers returning from combat have experienced anxiety disorders since time immemorial. It is nothing new. She is merely exploiting a modern psychology term in order to add substance to her argument that veterans are insane and as such must have their Second Amendment rights nullified.

-

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION MARKUP

-

FEINSTEIN CLAIMS IT IS LEGAL TO ‘HUNT HUMANS’

Veterans Should Not Be Exempt From Assault Weapons Ban

Infowars.com
March 9, 2013

In a ridiculous statement, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) claimed that it is currently legal in the US to “hunt humans”.

-

Feinstein also opposed an ammendment to her gun grab bill that would see military veterans exempt. Feinstein suggested that veterans may have post traumatic stress disorder and could be mentally ill, so should be prevented from purchasing high capacity firearms.

-

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: If I understand this, this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military.

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.

So, you know, I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to– if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

-

MARINE CORPS VETERANS QUESTION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ON HUGE AMMO PURCHASES

“We never trained with hollow points, why would the need all those ball rounds just for training?”

Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Mar 7, 2013

A military veteran has questioned why the Department of Homeland Security is purchasing enormous amounts of ammunition, making it clear that he believes the bullets cannot possibly be for training purposes.

Commenting on the DHS’s procurement of roughly 2 billion hollow point bullets over the course of the last year, former Marine Richard Mason told reporters with WHPTV News in Pennsylvania that he has serious concerns.

“We never trained with hollow points, we didn’t even see hollow points my entire four and a half years in the Marine Corps,” Mason said.

When questioned recently, DHS official Peggy Dixon claimed the bullets were bought in bulk to save money and were for training purposes only. However, hollow point bullets, are very expensive in ammunition terms, and it is highly unusual to use such bullets for target practice.

“Why would they need all those hollow points,” former marine Mason asked “why would they need all those ball rounds just for training?”

Record federal government purchases have coincided with national shortages of ammunition in gun stores, leading some to believe that it is a deliberate tactic to deprive gun owners, or something much worse.

To put the DHS’ ammunition solicitations in perspective, during the height of active battle operations in Iraq, US soldiers used 5.5 million rounds of ammunition a month. Extrapolating the figures, the DHS has purchased enough bullets over the last year to wage a full scale war for almost 30 years.

Last September, the DHS also purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, labeling them “Personal Defense Weapons.”

Purchases of large quantities of body armor by the DHS has also caused shortages. Last year, the agency also put out an urgent order for “riot gear” in anticipation of civil unrest. The agency has also ordered bullet-proof checkpoint booths and hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings over the course of the last 12 months.

There is also strong evidence to suggest that the DHS has recently bought around 2,700 armored military style trucks. The agency has also cemented a $2 million dollar relationship with a contractor that recently had to apologize for producing shooting targets of pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners depicted in residential settings.

Coupled with continued and sustained secrecy surrounding these purchases and contracts, many Americans are convinced that the federal government is “stockpiling” in preparation for “civil unrest.”

The DHS’ primary concern is now centered around thwarting “homegrown terrorism,” but information produced and used by the DHS to train its personnel routinely equates conservative and libertarian political ideology with domestic extremism.

A study funded by the Department of Homeland Security that was leaked last year characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists. Many other recent similar government and law enforcement publications, papers and studies have also pushed this notion.

As we explained in a recent article, generating mass social dislocation has been an admitted tool used by the World Bank and the IMF to create the necessary chaos to loot major economies.

As respected investigative reporter Greg Palast exposed in 2001, the World Bank and the IMF have honed a technique that has allowed them to asset-strip numerous other countries in the past – that technique has come to be known at the “IMF riot,” a process of scaring off investors and causing government bankruptcies by fostering unrest.

-

COLORADO DEMOCRAT: VETS SHOULD NOT HAVE MAGAZINES BECAUSE ‘SOME’ ARE MENTALLY ILL

by

MARCH 25, 2013

While debating a gun control measure in the Colorado Senate Friday, Democratic State Sen. Mary Hodge urged fellow lawmakers to reject an amendment that would let veterans, existing military members and their families own high-capacity magazines by arguing that “some” return “with significant mental health problems,” Twitchy reported Saturday.

“Yes,” she said, “these are all great and wonderful people, but some of them come back with significant mental health problems and I think we need to check through that first.”

Republican Kent Lambert, the senator who introduced the amendment, engaged Hodge in a short debate on the amendment, responding to her attack on veterans returning from combat and arguing that current law already address those with mental illness.

“Mr. Chair, I really object to this stereotypical viewpoint that all military veterans, that all military returnees have mental health problems,” he said.

“Of course our active duty military people suffer from traumas of war,” he added. “They have since the Civil War. They’ve gone through battle fatigue. They’ve gone through soldier’s disease, in the Civil War is what they called it.”

“But to stereotypically say that we’re just going to have a blanket policy in this state saying that military veterans, who if they have mentally deficient problems or if they have traumatic stress and they’ve been diagnosed they’re not eligible to get weapons anyway. It’s already part of the law,” he explained.

After Lambert made his case, Hodge countered by saying she did not say that “all” veterans had mental problems.

“I said ‘some,’” she argued.

The amendment failed to pass on a party line vote, meaning that because “some” veterans may have mental health issues, all veterans in Colorado will be banned from owning high-capacity magazines.

The vote did not sit well with a number of people.

“The (Colorado Democrats) can now add soldiers to the list of women and industry of whom they don’t trust or care about,” tweeted “Jason Meisner.”

“Do you think saying Vets are unstable will help you in CO during the next election?” asked “Chris Johnson.”

“I’m born and raised in Colorado and what was supposed to be the wild west is now a progressive cesspool,” wrote a commenter at Weasel Zippers.

“What has happened to Colorado?” asked another reader. “It’s become some strange, skewed slice of insanity.”

Five of the seven gun control measures passed the Democratic-controlled Senate. Two bills — the controversial campus concealed-carry ban and a measure that would make gun makers and retailers liable for related crimes — were tabled by their primary sponsors, KDVR reported.

A final vote is scheduled for Monday.

-

VETS ARE THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNY

by Dave Hodges –  thecommonsenseshow.com

Veterans are now receiving letters from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which are telling them that they have been deemed, without a mental status examination, to have a physical or mental condition due to their combat experience, which has rendered them to be ineligible to possess a firearm. Further, under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2), if the veteran possesses a , receives, attempts to purchase, purchases and transports a firearm they may be fined and/or imprisoned.

On December 31, 2012, when he thought nobody would be looking, President Obama signed the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Pursuant to Obama’s implementation of a police state, thousands of veterans are receiving letters from the government declaring them to be mentally infirm.  The sole basis for many of these determinations which are purporting to be diagnosing mental incompetence is solely based upon the fact that the veteran has seen combat. Further, if the veteran has been wounded or suffered a traumatic brain injury, they are considered to potentially violent, mentally infirm and therefore, ineligible to own a gun.

America, you better sit up and take notice. Our veterans are being disarmed in total and the process is emanating from executive decree through our federal bureaucracies. No judge, no jury, has declared these veterans, who received the disarmament letters within the past week, to be mentally infirm. This is a thinly veiled draconian effort to take guns out of the hands of people who know how to use them.

There can only be one reason the government is hell-bent on disarming veterans. Armed veterans would form the vanguard of any resistance movement. The globalists who have hijacked our government are attempting to take away America’s front line of civil defense by disarming the veterans.

In a civil war which arises from attempted mass incarcerations and/or mass executions carried out by the globalist forces, would certainly be contested by armed veterans. Groups of Veterans would organize the local citizenry into thousands of guerrilla units in this country in response to the tyranny being imposed by our would-be slave masters. Veterans would be capable of organizing groups capable of hit and run tactics against, for example, UN occupation forces. They would teach the rest of us in the civilian population how to use the weapons at our disposal. Veterans would no doubt employ the principles of asymmetrical warfare such as the use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) which became famous during the last Iraq War. To prevent this from happening, the globalists must psychotropically drug the veterans, and to continue to keep creating such a hellish life for veterans that our brave warriors will continue to commit suicide at the rate of 22 per day. From the globalist perspective, veterans cannot be allowed to become our 21st century version of the minutemen. Don’t you think the globalists did not learn the lessons of the British defeat at Lexington and Concord as they were attempting to disarm the colonists?

I can only think of two reasons why veterans must be removed from playing the role of a civilian defense force in defense of average Americans who do not have a seat at the table of the planned New World Order.

Reason #1: The Coming Civilian Purge

Globalist forces, under the NDAA, will begin to disappear dissenters and others deemed not to be able to be re-educated as prescribed by Obama’s early political handlers, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne. Veterans, no doubt, would resist the mass arrests that are coming under this criminal government. To those who think this is impossible, ask yourself for what legitimate motive could the government have passed the NDAA if they were not planning to mass arrest citizens without due process of law?  Did Congress and Obama just have nothing better to do last New Year’s Eve? Mass arrests of undesirables are a necessary prerequisite to the imposition of a tyrannical government.

alaska russia

Reason #2: Making the US Easier to Invade

It is probable that the United States is being set up to be invaded as evidenced by the systematic implementation of a “stand down” approach by the American military stationed at critical and sensitive areas within our country such as in Alaska.

I am receiving multiple reports from citizens in Alaska who are reporting the sightings of Russian troops in their small to mid-size towns as well as people sighting the movement of what appears to them to be the movement of Russian military equipment inside of Alaska. And before you tell me, we are just doing joint training exercises with the Russians, I would ask all readers to be cognizant that we are still on the verge of war with Iran and Russia has threatened to nuke America if it attempts to invade Iran. Additionally, two Coast Guard personnel were murdered in Kodiak, Alaska, last spring.  The official version is that this was connected to a robbery attempt. However, locals and family members believe that these two men saw something, while on guard duty, that they were not supposed to see such as the offloading of Russian military equipment. Additionally, Obama has recently ceded seven Islands to Russia. Why?

Alaskan residents have told me that they rarely see the F-22 over flights along the west coast, which is a hop, skip and a jump from Russia and now we find evidence of this fact in print. The locals see this as the US letting their guard down against a potential Russian invasion. Also, military bases in Alaska are being reduced in force, thus further serving to weaken our defenses against a potential Russian land invasion. Again, this is happening at a time when tensions between Russia and the United States over Iran are high. Also, the F-22 over flights, which have been a staple of the American defenses against possible Russian incursions since the beginning of the Cold War, have ceased. I think it is also relevant to note that the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms thugs unsuccessfully attempted to seize gun registration records in Alaska in 2012. After all, a well-armed civilian force would serve as an impediment to an invading force.

All of these factors have led me to ask the question as to whether Obama has purposefully compromised American defenses, in key areas, to make it easier for a foreign force to invade? Perhaps, he has determined that an invasion can accomplish what he is unable to accomplish in Congress. Maybe this also explains why Obama keeps sacking top US generals and admirals. Perhaps they are not on board with this planned treason.

To some who would say that this is far-fetched, I would remind the readers that Russian commandos are also “training” at Fort Carson, in Colorado Springs, doing only God knows what, since last spring. Obama is a decided communist, bred by communists, raised by communists and his political career was launched by communists. For the proof that Obama is an unmistakable communist, not just an usurper of the Constitution,but is an actual dedicated communist, read the links both here and here. Some Alaskan locals believe that the plan is to have Russia control Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Others have postulated that the occupation of the American Northwest will be shared between Russia and China. This will be covered in more detail in an upcoming article.

Of the two scenarios, I think it is likely that both scenarios are probable. The subsequent removal of veterans as a paramilitary force would serve to make this country far easier to subjugate by an internal and deadly purge or by a direct invasion. Either way, I cannot see another valid reason to disarm tens of thousands of veterans without using a legitimate form of due process.

alaska disarm citizens hitler

Historically, What Happens When Veterans Give Up Their Guns?

The disarming of veterans has happened before in the annals of history. I hearken back to the infamous Red Revolution. Recently, a Russian blogger wrote the following about the history of his own country, with regard to the Red Revolution, in an attempt to get Americans to realize that veterans should never give up their guns under any circumstances.

“Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.”

And thus, one of the most ruthless empires in the history of mankind was born. This is what is being brought to our country. The best predictor of future actions is past behavior.  If you want to know what is coming to America, investigate three historical events: (1) The (Japanese) Rape of Nanking in WWII; (2) The practices of the Russian secret police who had their own version of the NDAA; and, (3) the practices of the Markus Wolf’s East German Stasi forces, who set up the organizational structure of the Department of Homeland Security.

Veterans Do Not Comply

Veterans, America needs you. You must, under no circumstances, give up your guns. Do not comply with these illegal, non-judicial orders from the federal government. You are America’s last line of defense.  And for everybody else, given the evidence presented here, I dare you to come up with a plausible and alternative explanation on why we should allow our veterans to be disarmed. I also implore my journalistic colleagues to investigate this matter even further as we need many eyes on the situation in Alaska.

The old phrase, from the movie starring the late Jonathan Winters, The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming, is more prophetic than one might think.

-

SOLDIER X: U.S. ARMY IS BEING TOLD PREPPERS ARE TERRORISTS; REVEALS SOVIET STYLE TAKEOVER PLANS FOR AMERICAN DURING CIVIL UNREST

Referred to only as “Soldier X” under promise of anonymity, an Army National Guardsman spoke via phone with Infowars Nightly News Producer Rob Dew regarding a recent briefing his unit underwent on actions the military would take in the event that an Obama election loss sparked rioting in America’s streets.

Citing not only recent widespread threats to riot if Mitt Romney were to become the next U.S. president, but threats to actually assassinate him should he win, Soldier X’s superiors dispensed plans of how the National Guard would be responsible for “taking over” and quelling such unrest.

The soldiers were reportedly told “Doomsday preppers will be treated as terrorists.”

In addition, guns will be confiscated.

“They have a list compiled of all these doomsday preppers that have gone public and they plan to go after them first,” Soldier X said. He claimed those in charge are acting under the belief that preppers will be “the worst part” of any potential civil unrest.

Soldier X was also told that any soldiers in the ranks who are known as preppers will be deemed “defects.” He explained the label meant these soldiers would be treated as traitors. “If you don’t conform, they will get rid of you,” he added.

Unit members also warned not to associate with any fellow soldiers who are preppers.

Not only does the military reportedly plan to target preppers should mass chaos break out, but Soldier X also voiced his concerns regarding civilian gun confiscation.

Soldier X admitted, “Our worry is that Obama’s gonna do what he said he’s gonna do and he’s gonna outlaw all weapons altogether and anybody’s name who is on a weapon, they’re gonna come to your house and try to take them.”

In this breaking video, Rob Dew talks with Army National Guard whistleblower. Who was briefed by his superiors that a an Obama election loss could cause riots and the army would consider preppers terrorists and those in the guard who were preppers would be considered enemies as well. The stage has been set, please forward this information to everyone you know.

NATIONAL GUARD WHISTLEBLOWER: “DOOMDAY PREPPERS WILL BE TREATED AS TERRORISTS”

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
October 25, 2012

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

So begins the Oath of Enlistment for the U.S. military, but in an explosive interview with a National Guard whistleblower shown below, soldiers are now being advised they will be ordered to break that oath should civil unrest erupt across the country.

Referred to only as “Soldier X” under promise of anonymity, an Army National Guardsman spoke via phone with Infowars Nightly News Producer Rob Dew regarding a recent briefing his unit underwent on actions the military would take in the event that an Obama election loss sparked rioting in America’s streets.

Citing not only recent widespread threats to riot if Mitt Romney were to become the next U.S. president, but threats to actually assassinate him should he win, Soldier X’s superiors dispensed plans of how the National Guard would be responsible for “taking over” and quelling such unrest.

The soldiers were reportedly told“Doomsday preppers will be treated as terrorists.”

In addition, guns will be confiscated.

“They have a list compiled of all these doomsday preppers that have gone public and they plan to go after them first,” Soldier X said. He claimed those in charge are acting under the belief that preppers will be “the worst part” of any potential civil unrest.

Soldier X was also told that any soldiers in the ranks who are known as preppers will be deemed “defects.” He explained the label meant these soldiers would be treated as traitors. “If you don’t conform, they will get rid of you,” he added.

Unit members also warned not to associate with any fellow soldiers who are preppers.

Not only does the military reportedly plan to target preppers should mass chaos break out, but Soldier X also voiced his concerns regarding civilian gun confiscation.

Soldier X admitted, “Our worry is that Obama’s gonna do what he said he’s gonna do and he’s gonna outlaw all weapons altogether and anybody’s name who is on a weapon, they’re gonna come to your house and try to take them.”

It would not be the first time the National Guard has been used to unconstitutionally disarm law-abiding citizens, robbing them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, police and military took to the streets disarming lawful gun owners, including  those who were on dry land and had plenty of stored food and water.

Fast forward to this past summer when a leaked Army manual dated 2006 entitled, “Civil Disturbance Operations” surfaced outlining plans not only to confiscate firearms domestically during mass unrest, but to actually detain and even kill American citizens who refuse to hand over their guns. This manual works in conjunction with “FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations,” another Army manual leaked this year, which instructs troops on how to properly detain and intern Americans into re-education camps, including ways that so-called “psy-op officers” will “indoctrinate” incarcerated “political activists” into developing an “understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.”

Add these manuals to the plethora of Executive Orders Obama has signed during his term which have dismantled our Constitution piece by piece, including the martial law implementing National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order which gives the president the power to confiscate citizens’ private property in the event of any national emergency, including economic.

Add it all to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in which Obama granted powers to disappear and indefinitely detain American citizens without any due process, and it is easy to see the tyrannical big picture our government has painted.

When asked if he would go along with gun confiscation, Soldier X replied he and his fellow like-minded guardsmen planned to stand down — not answer the phone or show up to post.

“I’m sorry but I don’t believe in suicide,” he said.

Preppers are becoming regular government targets these days, most recently when a Missisippi prepper group member with a clean record was suddenly taken off his flight halfway to Japan andinformed he was on the no-fly list, an FBI terrorist watchlist, stranding him in Hawaii. Otherpreppers have been denied their Second Amendment rights without legitimate cause.

It is beyond glaringly obvious at this point the U.S. government is gearing up for mass civil unrest. Not only has the DHS sparked controversy by purchasing billions of rounds of ammo, but the department even went so far as to begin classifying further purchases, blacking out bullet figures it is using taxpayer money to buy.

In addition, while FEMA can procure a billion dollars in bulk food supplies, the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism project released a flier instructing military surplus store owners to report any customers who “make bulk purchases of items” including “meals ready to eat”.

Should society as we know it collapse following the election, it would seem the ultimate prepper and the ultimate terrorist is, indeed, the U.S. government.

-

SPLC LETTER TO HOLDER AND NAPOLITANO: PATRIOT “HATE” GROUPS POSE DOMESTIC TERROR THREAT

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 8, 2013

The Southern Poverty Law Center sent a letter earlier this week to Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano urging the government to establish a task force to investigate the supposed domestic terror threat posed by the likes of Alex Jones, We Are Change, Oath Keepers, the Constitution Party, the Tyranny Response Team and thousands of other Americans outside of the orbit of the establishment.

-

-

Chris Matthews continues the corporate media attack on the patriot movement. In the above video, Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism, includes Alex Jones in a hysterical litany of dangerous and “nutty” people engaged in free speech.

The letter sent by the president and CEO of the SPLC, J. Richard Cohen, begins by reminding Holder and Napolitano that the organization “wrote Attorney General Janet Reno about the growing threat of domestic terrorism” prior to the Oklahoma City bombing in October, 1994.

“Today, we write to express similar concerns.  In the last four years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of conspiracy-minded, antigovernment groups as well as in the number of domestic terrorist plots.” Today’s “ominous threats,” Cohen warns, come from citizens concerned about federal government attacks on the Second Amendment. “Because of the looming dangers, we urge you to establish an interagency task force to assess the adequacy of the resources devoted to responding to the growing threat of non-Islamic domestic terrorism.”

Utilizing the standard SPLC modus operandi and fear tactics, Cohen conflates a small number of racist white supremacist groups with the larger and more diverse patriot community. He also characterizes growing concern on the part of millions of Americans in response to egregious violations of the Constituion as dangerous and deems the federal government response to this “domestic terror” threat as entirely insufficient. “In light of these questions and the disturbing trends we have described in this letter, we believe it is time to take a fresh look at the issue,” he concludes.

It is hardly surprising the SPLC has decided to exploit the growing and diverse movement opposed to a raft of recently proposed unconstitutional firearms laws and label the movement extremist and akin to domestic terrorism. It is also hardly surprising that MSNBC’s Chris Matthews would have SPLC spokesman Mark Potok on his increasingly irrelevant cable television show just as Congress begins work on a number of anti-Second Amendment bills. SPLC’s domestic terror angle and timing feed right into the larger anti-Second Amendment narrative spun by the establishment media.

The Department of Homeland Security most certainly has an overriding obsession in exaggerating and demonizing political activism the establishment regards as dangerous. As revealed in its “rightwing extremism” document leaked in 2009, the DHS is drinking the SPLC kool aid. It considers returning veterans, Second Amendment advocates, and anti-immigration activists on par with white supremacists and other ultra-fringe groups (many, as we have noted, infiltrated by the FBI). The establishment attack on opposition political activists cannot succeed without this necessary process of demonization and political ostracism hyped by its media.

It remains to be seen if the effort will be successful. Following extensive coverage on the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” document eventually covered by the mainstream media, elements within the Republican party criticized Napolitano and the DHS, a reaction that resulted in an embarrassing backtrack by the agency. Because of this experience, the DHS may be reluctant to heed the SPLC call to wage a domestic war on terrorism against political groups that do not pose a threat and are wholly within their rights under the First Amendment.

Finally, the SPLC’s theatrical use of the Oklahoma City bombing is interesting considering the organization’s connection with that terrorist event. In 2004, a declassified FBI memo obtained by an Oklahoma newspaper revealed the existence of a Southern Poverty Law Center informant connected to the Elohim City operation. “References to an informant working for the SPLC at Elohim City on the eve of the Oklahoma City bombing raises serious questions as to what the SPLC might know about McVeigh’s activities during the final hours before the fuse was lit in Oklahoma City – but which the SPLC has failed to disclose publicly,” the newspaper reported.

Asked about his organization’s role in the terror attack, Morris Dees, co-founder and chief trial counsel for the SPLC, told the media: “If I told you what we were doing there, I would have to kill you.”

-

UNITED STATES ARMY PREPARES TANKS FOR WAR ON AMERICA; TRAINING MILITARY POLICE TO DRIVE TANKS ON U.S. STREETS; SIGHTINGS OF VEHICLES PROVOKES FEARS OF MARTIAL LAW

ALEX JONES ON TANKS IN THE STREETS OF THE UNITED STATES

Infowars.com
Monday, June 25, 2012

St Louis City residents have been warned to not be alarmed at the sight of U.S. Army tanks rolling down residential neighborhoods after sightings of the vehicles provoked fears of martial law.

UNITED STATES ARMY PREPARES TANKS FOR WAR ON AMERICA

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, June 22, 2012

St Louis City residents have been warned to not be alarmed at the sight of U.S. Army tanks rolling down residential neighborhoods after sightings of the vehicles provoked fears of martial law.

The exercise is part of a U.S. Army program run by military police from Fort Meade, Maryland focused around training MPs from St. Louis how to drive heavily armored tanks “on highways and on city streets.”

Sightings of the tanks prompted hundreds of residents to flood news channel KSDK’s Facebook page, with some expressing fears that martial law had arrived with others promising to “stop and salute” the tanks as they rolled by.

Reporting that he was told by the Army not to disclose the location of where the exercise was operating out of for “security reasons,” KSDK reporter Casey Nolan downplayed the exercise as “not such a big deal.”

U.S. Army Sergeant Cornelius Ivory discouraged citizens from taking video and photographs of the tanks and urged them not to get too close.

“They need to know to stay away from it,” Ivory told KSDK.

The exercise will run from June 21-28 in St. Louis, with the presence of the tanks being most noticeable in the area of the sixth district.

As we have exhaustively documented, the increasing shift towards domestic militarization of law enforcement is part of the acclimation process to get Americans comfortable with the idea of troops and tanks on the streets as a routine occurrence.

Earlier today we reported on how scores of paramilitary troops and soldiers appearing to be from the National Guard were deployed onto the streets of Hartford, Connecticut to break-up a recent annual Puerto Rican-American cultural event.

This is just the latest of scores of examples of how the military and National Guard is increasingly being deployed domestically to target the American people.

National Guard and U.S. Army troops are routinely involved in ‘urban warfare training’ drills. Usually such drills take place within the confines of military bases, however, more recently heavily armed troops are increasingly seenpatrolling residential neighborhoods and even the downtown areas of major US cities.

Such “invasions” are often reported on as nothing to worry about and even as “cool” by the mainstream media.

Back in 2008 the Washington Post reported how 20,000 U.S. troops returning from Iraq would be stationed inside America under Northcom for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011 onwards.

Northcom officials were forced to subsequently issue a denial after the Army Times initially reported that the troops would be used to deal “with civil unrest and crowd control.”

An article published in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, the mouthpiece for the influential Council on Foreign Relations, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno, advocates the army be “transitioned” into a more “flexible force” by deploying in situations normally reserved for domestic law enforcement officials. He argues that by doing so, troops will be better equipped to deal with conflict elsewhere.

Domestic deployment of troops for purposes of law enforcement is a clear violation of section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act, which states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR DOUG HAGMANN: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SOURCE: “IT’S GOING HOT!” OBAMA IS PLANNING FOR A MASSIVE OCTOBER 2012 SURPRISE

“It’s going hot.” Those were the ominous opening and closing words from Doug Hagmann’s source inside the Department of Homeland Security in two separate contacts he had with the source within the last 72 hours.

By Douglas J. Hagmann

“It’s going hot.” Those were the ominous opening and closing words from my source inside the Department of Homeland Security in two separate contacts we had within the last 72 hours. Readers to this website and listeners to my radio program know this source as “Rosebud,” a source with access to high levels within the DHS administration.

I asked my source for details. “What exactly is the plan? Can you give me specific details? How do you know about this plan ‘going hot?'”

“Okay, from what I’ve been able to learn, there have been a couple different plans or scenarios developed, ready to be implemented at a moment’s notice, but each are distinctly different in nature and timing.” stated my source. “This is done for a few reasons. Look how the weather changed the plans for [Vice-President Joe] Biden’s visit to Tampa. That’s just one example. They’ve got contingencies. They are watching the poll numbers. They are closely monitoring public sentiment. But the objective of the plan is that they want to portray Obama as a victim of racist hatred by the white gun owners, the people concerned about the Constitution, the people they consider fringe. They want to silence their critics, prove that talk show hosts are causing hatred, and that all gun owners are behind the recent shootings. That’s at the heart of the plan. But to understand just how insidious this is, you’ve got to understand the people who are behind it.”

Nero in the White House, Caligula at the DHS

My source continued, “I’ve been trying to get as much information as possible, but it’s not been easy. This is definitely a plan that has its origins at the highest levels of the White House, and seems limited to maybe a handful of the people closest to Obama. The only reason I know about this authorization order, or approval, or whatever you want to call it, is that there was a major slip up at the very upper level of DHS, and I mean the very upper level” he stated.

“Remember the news about sexual harassment, intimidation and all of the garbage that’s gone on between the people Napolitano brought in and promoted due to their ‘lifestyle’ preferences? These are some sick people, mental rapists and perverts, who she’s brought in to her innermost circle. They make Caligula look like a boy scout, at least with power and sex. Well, one of those people, close to Napolitano, was involved in a meeting where the concept and approval of a false flag was being discussed.”

“This is where they almost lost it. You’ve got to understand that this whole thing is very compartmentalized and we’re talking about a very small group of people in this meeting. This person knew some of the information, not all of it, and let some information slip to a counterpart. That counterpart, who found herself involved in a situation way over her head, talked. I won’t go any further, but that’s how I ended up learning the latest information,” said my source. “Now you should have an idea of how this slipped out. But they had a quick handle on damage control, given the circumstances behind the disclosure. Potentially embarrassing circumstances, sexual blackmail” he added. http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/6640#more-6640

DOUGLAS J. HAGMANN: DEATH RACE DAMASCUS

Infowars.com

A letter sent to Ambassador Susan Rice by four-(4) U.S. Senators, dated September 25, 2012 challenged the veracity of her public statements about the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in Libya on September 11, 2012 during her appearance on the September 16, 2012 Sunday morning talk show circuit. The letter requested a “timely response” to the question of how she could not have known by that late date that the Benghazi attack was an orchestrated attack and not a “spontaneous reaction” to an obscure video.

DOUG HAGMANN: OBAMA TO TAKEOVER THE INTERNET, PLANS MASSIVE GUN CONFISCATION IN 2013

-

UNITED NATIONS NOW SEEKS TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE INTERNET

-

DOUG HAGMANN: OBAMA TO FULLY ENGAGE GUN OWNERS WITH ARMED FEDS IN 2013

POLICE SPEAK OUT ON RED DAWN STYLE TAKEOVER OF RURAL AMERICA

DR. JAMES GARROW: THE NEW LITMUS TEST FOR MILITARY LEADERS IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL OBEY AN ORDER TO FIRE ON U.S. CITIZENS

2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

Garrow was nominated three years ago for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize and is the founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls, an organization dedicated to rescuing baby girls from “gendercide” in China. Garrow has been personally involved in “helping rescue more than 36,000 Chinese baby girls from death.” He is a public figure, not an anonymous voice on the Internet, which makes his claim all the more disturbing.

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

-

OBAMA ASKS MILITARY LEADERS IF THEY WILL FIRE ON UNITED STATES CITIZENS

Shock claim purported to come from “one of America’s foremost military heroes”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 22, 2013

2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

Garrow was nominated three years ago for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize and is the founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls, an organization dedicated to rescuing baby girls from “gendercide” in China. Garrow has been personally involved in “helping rescue more than 36,000 Chinese baby girls from death.” He is a public figure, not an anonymous voice on the Internet, which makes his claim all the more disturbing.

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny.

It also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

The survey was subsequently leaked because many of the Marines who took it were shocked by the tone of the question.

The US Military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”

Given that second amendment advocates are now being depicted as dangerous terrorists by the federal government and local law enforcement, Garrow’s claim is sure to stoke controversy given that Americans are seeing their gun rights eviscerated while the federal government itself stockpiles billions of bullets.

Last week, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King warned that any federal gun confiscation program could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of America.

-

TROOPS DEPLOYED AHEAD OF ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AND GUN CONFISCATION

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
March 5, 2013

The economic collapse, and ensuing civil unrest is coming – or so we’ve been told. Why else would Homeland Security buy up more than 2 billion bullets, purchase more than 2700 tanks and stock pile weaponry all while government white papers outline preparations for a martial law containment of society?

Ahead of the breakdown of society, Washington and the powers that control it have deployed troops across America to train for domestic operation and acclimate the public to their presence. The friendlies, engaging in benign and innocuous activities, will foster trust among the people and let down their guard when things go dark later. It is classic psyops at work.

In that context, we see an acceleration of National Guard and regular Army troops used at public sporting events, in crowd control at festivals and operating with police in law enforcement checkpoints, all in violation of Posse Comitatus. Small examples of this have been occurring regularly in Texas, with a National or State Guard presence at kite festivals, Texas Independence celebrations and other public events.

-

-

FIRST ECONOMIC COLLAPSE: THEN MARTIAL LAW

Posted on January 30 2013

MARTIAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOW A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY!

SUSPENSION OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION IS NOW A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY!

“Impossible,” you say.  Let’s look at the facts!

An October 26, 2012 Executive Order put out by the White House establishes the White House Homeland Security Partnership Council!  Involving a special “Steering Committee,” this means that your future security is in the hands of WASHINGTON BUREAUCRATS!  God help us!  This Executive Order merges Homeland Security with the private sector, which births a genuine military dictatorship!

-

-

But this is not the first time President Obama has given Executive Orders for him to have complete control!

On March 16, 2012, President Obama signed Executive Orders that gave him the power to declare MARTIAL LAW in America, under the “disguise” of defending our country against Iran.  He signed the National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) Executive Order.  In case of a matter of “national defense” (via the interpretation of Mr. Obama), he would receive ABSOLUTE POWER over all United States’ resources—and YOU!

-

EXECUTIVE ORDER NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

-

Mainstream media has not really told us about this power grab!

Sean Hannity reported: “The order essentially gives the president of the United States absolute power over any and all American resources during both times of peace and national crisis.”

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, M.D. (R-GA) reacted by telling the Associated Press, “That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.  When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”  No surprise, there!

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”

Our Founding Fathers came to America based on the truth that the rights of individuals do not come from government they come from our Creator.

Quite frankly, various Obama Executive Orders must be challenged in court on the grounds that it deviates from congressional intent or exceeds the President’s constitutional powers!

The most damaging and telltale news article comes from the Washington Times:  “He (Obama) now possesses the potential powers of a dictator.  The order is a direct assault on individual liberties, private property rights and the rule of law.  It is blatantly unconstitutional.  The executive branch is arrogating responsibilities precluded by the Constitution without even asking the permission of Congress.  The order gives Mr. Obama a blank check to erect a centralized authoritarian state.”

There are numerous Executive Orders that cross the line of your individual freedom, all under the “disguise” of national security:

·         Cyber-security

·         Nationalization of Natural Gas Production

·         Takeover of the entire communications system

·         Regulation of international law

·         Upcoming gun control confiscation

·         The list of disturbing Executive Orders goes on and on!

ltgboykin LTG William “Jerry” Boykin (Ret.), former head of our Special Forces and the CIA Deputy Director of Special Activities, puts it in very blunt terms:  “The situation in America could be such that martial law is actually warranted, and that situation in my view could occur if we had an economic collapse.”

As a law-abiding American, make sure this does NOT happen.  Please fax your Senators and Representatives right away.  Make sure the United States Constitution protects you!

Our freedoms and liberties are literally at stake!  Fax to make sure that martial law is not declared over you!

Sincerely,

Tony Adkins
Conservative-Daily

P. S. Please help to make sure that our safety and our family’s future is NOT held hostage in the hands of appointed bureaucrats!  Please fax Congress today!

  Fax Congress NOW!

-

This link will take you to a Congressional website where you can quickly and easily email your Senators, Congressmen and the President about this topic:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

-

THE STREETS OF AMERICA IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE…

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
March 22, 2013

We’ve seen it time and again over the last five years. Governments overstepping their authority and punishing their people because of the actions of elite banking conglomerates, dirty politicians and bought-off regulators.

Iceland, Greece, Ireland, Hungary, Argentina, Spain, and Portugal have all been pillaged in the name of purported recovery and stability.

Today we’re seeing it in Cyprus, where Euro Zone financiers have threatened to not only rob the populace of their personal savings, but shut off access to bank accounts indefinitely. And, as we’ve seen elsewhere, the people are having none of it.

Like the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, it took a mere 72 hours of restricted access to funds, and thus essential goods, before the people took to the streets in mass protest and rioting.

The following pictures depict what’s in store for the United States in the very near future, when our own banking system re-collapses and Americans are left with no ability to access their money or are restricted to how much cash they are able to withdraw.

When the banks close your only option will be ATM’s, most of which will be empty:

cyprus-atm1

cyprus-atm2

And within 72 hours, when the realization of the magnitude of this event takes hold, people will no longer stand in line peacefully, but rather, will storm their banks and government offices, just as they have done in Cyprus (and elsewhere).

There is one key distinction to consider between the rioting in Cyprus and what we’ll experience here in the United States.

You see, the US government and the Pentagon have been actively war-gaming this very scenario for years. They know an economic  collapse and the civil unrest that follows is an inevitable outcome of our current paradigm. Thus, they have spent the better part of this crisis training the National Guard to respond to mass riots, along with coordinated exercises that involve local law enforcement and military forces.

Vigilant Guard

There’s a reason that Department of Homeland Security has stockpiled nearly two billion rounds of ammunition.

What’s waiting for Americans when this goes down is starkly different from the response by government officials in other parts of the world.

Police Tank

A financial collapse in this country cannot be avoided. Do everything you can now to ensure you aren’t part of the mob when it happens.

-

OBAMA WOULD CALL ON MILITARY TO DISARM AMERICANS DURING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY

Army manual provides blueprint for confiscating guns of rioters and dissidents

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 2, 2013

The blueprint for how Americans would be disarmed during a declared civil emergency is contained in an Army manual that outlines a plan to confiscate firearms to prevent them falling into the hands of rioters or dissidents.

Given the imminent introduction of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s draconian gun control legislation, which would instantly criminalize millions of gun owners in the United States if passed, concerns that the Obama administration could launch a massive gun confiscation effort have never been greater.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

The document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”

“Restrictions on the sale, transfer, and possession of sensitive material such as gasoline, firearms, ammunition, and explosives will help control forces in minimizing certain forms of violence,” states the document on page 40.

The issue of gun confiscation is also covered in the manual, which makes clear that every effort will be made to prevent “rioters” and “dissidents” from having access to weapons.

“A main consideration in the conduct of civil disturbance operations is to prevent liquor, drugs, weapons, and ammunition from falling into the hands of rioters. Therefore, liquor stores, drug stores, sporting good shops, pawn shops, and hardware stores are main targets for looters and must be kept under close observation by means of foot and motorized patrols. Normally, businesses of this type must be identified in advance and included in emergency plans,” states the manual. (Emphasis added.)

The document also instructs soldiers to protect “control force personnel and civilian dignitaries in the disturbed area” from the violent behavior of “radical or extremist elements” by denying access to “armories, arsenals, hardware, and sporting good stores, pawnshops, and gunsmith establishments, or other places where weapons or ammunition are stored. To conserve manpower, consideration may be given to evacuating sensitive items, such as weapons from stores and storing them in a central facility.”

Urban warfare training drills focused on invading American towns and going door to door in gun confiscation exercises have been taking place for years. In 2009, a planned mock invasion of Arcadia, Iowa was scaled back by the Iowa National Guard after listeners to the Alex Jones Show threatened to protest the event.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police, National Guard troops, and U.S. Marshals confiscated firearms. “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns,” New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass declared as he prepared to violate the Second Amendment. The National Guard conducted warrantless house-to-house searches, targeting not just Hurricane-hit areas under the pretext of stopping violent looters, but also high and dry homes that were not even affected by the storm.

-

TROOPS ORDERED TO KILL ALL AMERICANS WHO DO NOT TURN IN GUNS

-

-

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOSS PRAISES TRAMPLING OF POSSE COMITATUS AT NATIONAL POLICE MEETING

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 29, 2013

Department of Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano addressed a joint session of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Major County Sheriffs’ Association winter meetings on Monday.

During remarks boasting about the wonderful job the federal government has done in violating and rendering irrelevant Posse Comitatus, Napolitano conflated “gun violence,” “active shooter incidents” and “violent extremism.”

From a press release on the DHS website:

Secretary Napolitano also underscored the Department’s collaboration with law enforcement on countering violent extremism. In September, the Department, in collaboration with the FBI, launched a new training resource webportal, which provides access to hundreds of countering violent extremism training materials, case studies, analytic products, and other resources. It also provides a platform for communication and information sharing about countering violent extremism among law enforcement agencies across the country.

Since the release of the DHS document on “rightwing extremism” that created a firestorm of criticism, the mega-agency has chosen its words more carefully. “Groups and individuals inspired by a range of religious, political, or other ideological beliefs have promoted and used violence against the homeland,” the Countering Violent Extremism DHS page states without naming specific groups or individuals.

In addition to the rightwing extremism document, the DHS created a “Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon” blurring the distinction between Second Amendment activists (under the catch-all phrase “Militia Extremists”) and “Sovereign Citizen Extremists,” “Racist Skinhead Extremists,” “Lone Offenders,” and oddly “Unwitting Co-optees” (the latter group is a favorite target of the FBI as it manufactures fake terrorism to bolster its mission and underwrite its existence and secure its place at the federal largess trough).

-

RED ALERT: NORTH CAROLINA POLICE LIEUTENANT WARNS OF PLANS FOR MARTIAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES STARTING IN 2013

Brandon Smith
Alt Market
Jan 2, 2013

In this broadcast of the Cybertribe News Network, a North Carolina Police Lieutenant calls in to give his first hand knowledge of preparations being made within his own department to train and prepare for martial law in the United States, possibly in the coming year.

Many similar reports are starting to trickle in from all across the country, through various independent media resources and even organizations like Oath Keepers.

The consensus is that a major economic event is expected, and that it will be used to provide cover for the institution of draconian policies being readied behind the curtain.  The exact timing of this event is not clear, but we do know the planning is being done, and that provisions are being put in place.

The following officer’s admissions are another startling indicator of just how close to the precipice we really are…

-

BREAKING UPDATE INTERVIEW WITH NORTH CAROLINA POLICE LIEUTENANT MCCOY DEFINES MARTIAL LAW HE SEES COMING IN THE UNITED STATES STARTING IN 2013

-

-

MARTIAL LAW: TUCSON CITY COUNCIL HANDS AUTHORITY OVER TO THE MILITARY

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 4, 2013

On February 20, 2013, the Tucson, Arizona City Council passed a resolution allowing the U.S. Air Force to “make appropriate decisions when balancing National Security and community needs when it comes to their existing and future military mission and assignments.”

Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona. Photo: U.S. Air Force.

In other words, the resolution allows the military to reject decisions made by the people of Tucson.

The resolution is posted on the Tucson government website (as of this writing) and further states that it “is necessary for the preservation of the peace, health and safety of the City of Tucson that this Resolution become immediately effective, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.”

In short, the Council has imposed what for all practical purposes is a declaration of martial law on the residents of Tucson.

According to the Military Law Dictionary, “Martial law is defined as the imposition of military rule over a particular region on an emergency basis” and the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is routinely denied during its tenure.

The resolution does not, however, implement full-blown martial law but rather a limited version that permits the Pentagon to decide what municipal laws it will obey when dealing with civilians.

The public was not allowed to voice its opposition and Council members were not permitted to discuss the resolution, as noted by the meeting notice and agenda posted on the city government website.

“Matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote,” the agenda states. “There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired by members of the governing body, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately.”

The Department of Defense initially made the power grab in response to civilian complaints about military flights over the city.

“This resolution will allow DM to increase by at least two-fold or more, the number of overflights of the very densely populated midtown Tucson, and allow round-the-clock overflights, and the introduction of whatever aircraft they wish, in whatever numbers they wish…. including the hearing-damaging accident-waiting-to-happen-experimental F-35!” Occupied Tucson Citizen reported.

“The use of the term ‘emergency’ is particularly despicable! In this case, it is not even stated what constitutes the so-called “emergency”, but is obviously being used to get around the fact that it was passed in great haste and secrecy, so as not to alert citizens of how they are being shafted!”

Infowars.com has moved copies of the above linked PDFs to its server due to past instances where government has removed documents:

Resolution 22006

Mayor and Council Regular Meeting Notice & Agenda

-

IS TUCSON, ARIZONA THE LATEST U.S. CITY TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW?

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 6, 2013

In the event of an emergency, the City of Tucson, Arizona has formally declared that the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (DWMAFB) would be given control if it were “necessary for the preservation of the peace, health and safety of the City of Tuscon.”

This meeting of councilmen was held in secret, withholding the public’s ability to voice their opinion of have knowledge of this resolution’s existence. At the end of this resolution it states that “this resolution become immediately effective, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.”

The resolution was adopted on February 20, 2013.

DWMAFB is located just 5 miles within downtown Tucson’s city limits. The base was established in 1925, previously known as the Tucson Municipal Airport and is considered an integral ACC installation. The crews who are stationed there have assignments in the US, the UK and Korea.

The base was involved in logistics of missions such as Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle. They provided air support and ground troops to the Bargram Air Base in Afghanistan.

In September of 2011, the base of placed on lockdown as reports of gunfire and injuries abounded. The story later changed to an alert being sounded as an armed man was identified on the base and confined in a building on the base. Russ Martin, military spokesperson and technical sergeant, explained that there were no injuries or gunfire as previously reported.

In Paragould, Arkansas beginning January 1st of 2013, the city endorsed a proposal of the local police chief to declare martial law because local crime statistics are higher than the national average combined with the fear purveying the mindset of the residents; the authorities have no choice but to impose martial law.

Police Chief Todd Stovall and Mayor Mike Gaskill combined efforts to ensure that armed police officers in protective SWAT gear would be roaming the streets stopping residents for identification and collecting information in the name of reducing crime rates.

Stovall pointed out: “[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck. If you’re out walking, we’re going to stop you, ask why you’re out walking, check for your ID. We’re going to do it to everybody. Criminals don’t like being talked to.”

In accord, Gaskill said: “[Residents] may not be doing anything but walking their dog. But they’re going to have to prove it.”

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

If residents refuse to allow themselves to be interrogated by the police, Stovall explained: “We have a right to be doing what we’re doing. We have a zero-tolerance. We are prepared to throw your hind-end in jail, OK? We’re not going to take a lot of flack. Anyone that’s out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped].”

It was made clear that with or without a formal declaration of martial law, residents who refused to prove their identity would be charged with obstructing a governmental operation.

Last month black hawk helicopters flew across the skies in Miami, Florida in a joint drill exercise between the US Military and local police. Traffic was blocked off on major streets. Military personnel claimed that the exercises were in preparation for overseas combat missions. However the sound of gunfire could be heard as locals were alarmed.

The Miami-Dade County Police Department said in a statement that this was “routine” and “designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments and meet mandatory certification requirement.”

The Department of Defense (DoD) drill that concerned residents in Coconut Grove, a city in Miami-Dade County, Florida. After midnight, simulated gunfire and explosions would be heard as military helicopters flew over skyscrapers. Local mainstream media reported: “Miami police assisted in overseeing the exercises — but they were instructed to keep quiet about the exercises until late Monday, for security reasons. The police also blocked off roads around the Grand Bay during the exercise.”

In Houston, Texas, SWAT teams and the US Military conducted a training exercise near the local airport. According to the Military, this was a multi-agency training drill.

Presidential administrative National Security Strategy documents explain how to defend the Republic within domestic borders with suggested scenarios where a group of political reactionaries commandeer a prominent area of a town or city which requires that the US Army support local law enforcement in conjunction with state officials – including local government representatives.

As outlined in the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) report, processes are defined by operational environments in regard to battle space, effects, evaluation of threats and adversaries while determining the course of action. In regard to civil situations, and to maintain intelligence and operational purposes, preparations with regard to terrain are inconsequential.

According to the RAND Corporation document, “Street Smart: Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield for Urban Operations”, the use of IPB in urban areas will alleviate some of the anticipated “analytic difficulties posed by urbanized areas.”

By training in American cities, the armed forces can realize maneuvers and special considerations that are needed to control urban infrastructure in the case of civil disturbance and insurrection. Having foreknowledge of the people living in the specified cities that are marked for control assist in the “critical operational success” of not only “knowing the enemy” but also the ability to retain a level of concealment and surprise.

Contained within the US Army Military Police training manual for Civil Disturbance Operations are outlines describing how the US military will use the arsenal at their disposal to quell domestic riots, confiscate firearms and kill Americans during times of mass civil unrest.

The explicit use of “deadly force” when confronting “dissidents” is clearly stated with the refusal of a “warning shot” and the directives toward weapons that rioters or demonstrators will experience in the name of continuity of government.

When the US Army is “called upon to operate in villages, towns, and cities their directive will be to “neutralize American citizen’s technological capabilities” using “sophisticated intelligence equipment” and advanced tactical training.

-

CITIES CONTINUE TO GET TANKS THEY DON’T NEED IN NATIONWIDE POLICE MILITARIZATION TREND

By Madison Ruppert | Editor of End the Lie

March 7, 2013

(Image credit: The Brain Toad/Flickr)

(Image credit: The Brain Toad/Flickr)

Last month I reported on how Georgia law enforcement agencies have acquired a massive arsenal of military-grade vehicles and weapons through the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, it’s far from isolated.

Many law enforcement agencies acquire military equipment through the Pentagon’s 1033 program. Police have also acquired military robots through the DoD but they have other ways to get their hands on armored surveillance vehicles and armored personnel carriers as well.

Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security gave the city of Keene, New Hampshire, with a population of less than 25,000, $285,933 to buy an armored counter-attack vehicle called a BearCat, according to Radley Balko.

Keene has had a whopping three murders since 1999 according to City Data and according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the city lied about the need for the tank-like vehicle built by Lenco Industries, Inc.

The ACLU points out that a Keene City Councilmember actually admitted that the city lied about their need for the BearCat to DHS.

“Our application talked about the danger of domestic terrorism, but that’s just something you put in the grant application to get the money,” the councilmember said, according to the ACLU. “What red-blooded American cop isn’t going to be excited about getting a toy like this? That’s what it comes down to.”

Another example of this type of completely unnecessary equipment being acquired by a law enforcement agency can be seen in Richland County, South Carolina.

With a violent crime rate down 3.7% and property crime down 3.9% compared to last year, Richland doesn’t seem to have a massive crime problem. Furthermore, many of the crimes there are related to drug use or gambling, according to the ACLU.

Yet Richland’s Sheriff’s Department for some reason has an armored personnel carrier they call “The Peacemaker.”

As was reported by Reason in 2008, the armored personnel carrier has a belt-fed .50-caliber turreted machine gun which even the US military is reluctant to use on humans.

(Image credit: mpeake/Flickr)

(Image credit: mpeake/Flickr)

How exactly a weapon usually reserved for use against armored vehicles will “save lives” is anyone’s guess.

These, like the examples in Georgia are far from isolated.

“Law enforcement agencies throughout the country have sweeping access to military equipment and to billions of dollars in federal grant money to purchase heavy weaponry designed for overseas combat missions, as well as access to anti-terrorism tactical training,” the ACLU reports.

The ACLU recently launched a new project on the militarization of policing in America in response to this growing trend.

While some may claim this type of equipment is necessary to assure the safety of officers when facing massive shootouts or similar encounters, in reality, the use is much more mundane in most cases.

“And in Maryland, the transparency law has shown that police departments in the state are using SWAT tactics in precisely the ways critics have claimed: to break into homes to serve warrants on people suspected of low-level drug crimes,” according to a March 6 article by Radley Balko. “Many times, they’re not even finding enough contraband to make an arrest. Yet there haven’t been any calls in the state to reform the way SWAT teams are used.”

The disturbing results of the militarization of police are many. In 2010 a nine-year-old girl was shot in the neck and killed by a SWAT team.

(Image credit: verifex/Flickr)

(Image credit: verifex/Flickr)

Shortly before she was killed, the SWAT team threw a flashbang grenade through the window of her home in Detroit, Michigan, immediately setting her blanket on fire.

In another incident, Iraq war veteran Jose Guerena was shot 60 times by a SWAT team when serving a search warrant as part of a multi-house drug crackdown.

Guerena he picked up his own gun (but didn’t fire it) in an attempt to defend his family after his wife saw a shadowy figure in their front yard holding a gun. Police later defended their actions after retracting their claim that Guerena shot first and declining to say if they found any drugs in his house.

According to the ACLU, their affiliates in 23 states filed over 255 public records requests on March 6 with law enforcement agencies and National Guard offices to “determine the extent to which federal funding and support has fueled the militarization of state and local police departments.”

-

JESSE VENTURA: FEMA CAMPS IN THE UNITED STATES WILL BE USED TO ROUND UP AND DETAIN CITIZENS

-

FEMA CAMP BILL RESURFACES IN CONGRESS

Published on Feb 12, 2013

In the US, natural disasters have caused the US government to declare national emergencies. Now, an old bill has resurfaced in Congress that allows the government to implement at least six military installations to house US citizens when a national emergency is declared. The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 gives the Federal Emergency Management Agency power over the camps and before the bill was shot down due to the broad language and the fears of unchecked government power, but can this bill ever pass? Bob English, civil liberties activist and blogger, sounds off on the issue.

-

FEMA CAMP BILL REINTRODUCED IN CONGRESS

February 9, 2013

Source: Lee Rogers, BlacklistedNews.com

EEUU FEMA camp.

It looks as if Representative Alcee Hastings a Democrat from Florida has decided to reintroduce his FEMA Camp bill. A few years ago I was the first person to write an article about this awful piece of legislation. Fortunately, I was successful in exposing it to a much larger group of people via the alternative media and the bill did not move forward in the legislative process. The latest iteration of this bill has been introduced as House Resolution 390 otherwise known as the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. This bill would authorize not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers to be run by FEMA under the command of the Secretary of Homeland Security.

I was extremely critical of an earlier version of the bill which was proposed in the 111th Congress as HR 645. The bill used vague language to give the Secretary of Homeland Security carte blanche power to use these facilities for anything that the Secretary felt was appropriate. In other words if the Secretary of Homeland Security felt like using them as death camps than potentially that could have been considered a lawful use of the facilities according to the language in the bill. In this new version it looks like Representative Hastings got the message and decided to remove the vague language even though the Secretary of Homeland Security would still be in charge of the proposed facilities.

One of the minimum requirements of a national emergency center as defined by the bill is that it is capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster. It basically sounds like a concentration camp. Similar types of facilities were setup by Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II to house large numbers of Japanese Americans. In other words, there is historical precedence for the federal government forcibly relocating large numbers of people into government run concentration camps. There is an increasing amount of rhetoric from the federal government and corporate media that Constitutionalists, gun owners and other liberty minded people might be considered potential terrorists. Would it really be a stretch to think that these facilities could be used to house people that they consider to be enemies?

Considering how much the federal government has lied to the American people in the past, you would be absolutely insane to set foot in one of these proposed national emergency centers. For anybody who believes this is conspiracy theory talk, you have to understand that nobody in the federal government is going to openly propose that they are building facilities to detain large numbers of Americans during a martial law scenario. If they did they’d be widely criticized and the legislation would go nowhere. Instead they are going to make it sound as if these facilities are to be used for a beneficial purpose in order to conceal what they could ultimately be used for which is why they are called national emergency centers instead of FEMA camps or concentration camp facilities. It is the same concept used by the power structure in George Orwell’s book 1984 where the government agency called the Ministry of Love is in reality the Ministry of Torture.

Not only that, but why do we need the federal government specifically establishing national emergency centers on closed military installations? These are places that were designed to control who can enter and who can leave. Interestingly enough, one of the limitations included in the new version of the bill is that it does not authorize any federal officer or employee to force an individual to enter a national emergency center or prevent an individual from leaving a national emergency center. This is funny because a member of the U.S. military is technically not considered a federal officer or employee. So even though a federal officer or employee wouldn’t be able to force a person into one of these facilities or prevent them from leaving, it does not necessarily prevent a member of the military from performing these functions. Considering that members of the military would most likely be the ones responsible for the security of such a facility, it makes the limitation entirely meaningless.

To summarize, it looks as if the new bill has been changed to deflect the most damning criticisms posed towards earlier versions but it still is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is no secret that the federal government already has facilities that can hold large numbers of people if they have the need to do so. The Bush 43 regime approved the refurbishment of the old Japanese internment camps and in the mid-2000s KBR was literally given a multi-million dollar contract to build detention facilities.

In the 1980s, Lt. Col. Oliver North was questioned during the Iran Contra hearings about his role in the development of a continuity of government plan known as Readiness Exercise 1984 or Rex 84 for short. This plan involved the implementation of martial law which included the detainment of large numbers of American citizens who the federal government deemed to be threats to national security. Subsequently, the Miami Herald on July 5th 1987 did a story on this same continuity of government plan even going into how FEMA would run these internment facilities during a declaration of martial law.

In addition to what we just covered with KBR and the refurbishment of the old Japanese internment camps, there have been many people who have identified strange government facilities around the United States that appeared to be setup for the purpose of holding large numbers of people. As a result, this bill if passed into law would simply expand upon pre-existing facilities and create a more robust FEMA camp infrastructure. Keep in mind that the bill authorizes a minimum of 6 national emergency centers but that’s just the minimum. Potentially this bill could authorize the establishment of many national emergency centers or FEMA camps and that is not acceptable.

-

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, FOREIGN TROOPS AND LOCAL POLICE ARE PREPARING FOR MARTIAL LAW IN 2013

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
January 7, 2013

Those with nothing to lose the 47% of Americans on social or subsidy programs are expected to be the ones to take to the streets and riot at the beginning of the 2nd American civil war.

Manufactured poverty has become the standard under the Communist-in-Chief, Barack Obama. This breaks the will of the populace as they are unable to feed their families as the economy suffers while the growth of the government continues. Social norms now dictate that a government handout is nothing to be ashamed of. And the road to serfdom is being paved.

Those able and willing to fight against the “change” that has “come to America” thanks to Obama would be the target of most of the violence. In many documents published by the US government and globalist think-tanks, explanation of effective urban combat has been discussed and plotted. One such document is entitled “Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain” , dating back to 2002.

Here the “characteristics” of urban centers are explained and how to successfully lock down a major US city is posed to combine the most effective course of action. From aerial attacks, to small-unit battles on the ground, the scenario of combat through intelligence, through knowledge of the terrain, and preparation is analyzed and presented so that commanders and leaders can consider all options before beginning such an endeavor.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has resumed purchasing hollow-point bullets. In December of 2012, DHS solicited for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to have 200 cases, containing 1000 rounds each, of 13-40 Cal, 180 grain, jacketed hollow-point bullets.

The US Armed Forces being given these deadly bullets are:

• Maritime Law Enforcement and Port Security Training
• US Coast Guard Maritime Law Enforcement Academy
• US Courts Probation and Pretrial Services Training Academy
• US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Training Academy
• Customs and Border Protection Field Operations Academy
• Naval Criminal Investigative Service

The Pacific Southwest Region of the US Forest Service has solicited ammunition that is supposedly needed for target practice. In this instance, the amounts of hollow point bullets, 12 gauge rifle slugs, and other accessories are smaller than the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has requested through other federal agencies.

DHS previously published a solicitation for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP. The Social Security Office has also made a ordering more MREs as a replenishment of stocked meals with a shelf life of 30 – 36 months. Because FEMA has made the solicitation, it may be assumed that these MREs are for disaster relief; however knowing how nefarious previous purchases have been, it would leave anyone feeling dubious.

In August of 2012, Major General Jerry Curry asked “who does the government intend to shoot?” Curry asserted that: “No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens.”

Last October, the US House of Representatives passed HR 6566 which is an amendment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that imbues the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.”

Elected officials assume that in such an event, funeral homes, cemeteries and mortuaries would be overwhelmed should millions of Americans suddenly die in a tragic event. There must also be allowances for survivors of such an event.

Representatives from local and state governments must coordinate with federal agencies, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations and appropriate individuals to prepare and respond to an incident wherein mass casualties occur.

The Congressional Research Service released a report that expounds on the use of military on American streets for enforcement action against civilians. This document states that the Patriot Act gives the US government permission to use military to assist law enforcement in the establishment of a terrorist infiltration, civil unrest, disaster relief and if needed as first responders. This renders Posse Comitatus useless.

According to George Foresman, former undersecretary of the DHS: “When the military is used – whether the decision is made by the president or governor – there has to be an intimate understanding of Posse Comitatus, and unfortunately, this is not the case. Frankly, this CRS report is a document that every key decision-maker or adviser should keep in their bottom desk drawer as a reference, just above their resignation letter. If they don’t, the resignation letter might be the next document they need.”

The Canadian military trained for domestic operations in locking down urban populations with the US Military in September of 2012. The supposition was that a massive revolt could break out as global civilian revolution is believed to be imminent.

In Colorado, rumors of Russian troops practicing to deal with terrorist raids and martial law scenarios have been proven correct by our US Armed Forces. Back in April 2012, Commander Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer, stated that “The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform.”

Both Russian and American airborne troops held training exercises that included tactical landing operations with specialized focus on “parachuting, operation planning, reconnaissance, assault operations and evacuations by helicopter.”

Back in May of 2012, mainstream media reported that Russian army paratroopers were in Colorado training with the 10th US Special Forces Group at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This collaboration was agreed upon more than a year ago with the purpose of joining forces in “humanitarian operations such as anti-terrorism measures and disaster relief.”

-

NEW CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT PREPARES FOR MASS CASUALTIES IN AMERICA

By Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
October 8, 2012

Last month, the US House of Representatives passed HR 6566 which is an amendment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that imbues the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.”

In the anticipated event of a “mass fatality”, coordination and planning must be forefront of FEMA with the assistance of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as referred by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (CTI). In the event that the Executive Branch or Congress declares a mass disaster caused by nature, a domestic terrorist attack, or any other man-made catastrophe, there must be a national plan to prepare for and respond to the incident.

Elected officials assume that in such an event, funeral homes, cemeteries and mortuaries would be overwhelmed should millions of Americans suddenly die in a tragic event. There must also be allowances for survivors of such an event.

Representatives from local and state governments must coordinate with federal agencies, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations and appropriate individuals to prepare and respond to an incident wherein mass casualties occur.

Recently, FEMA graduated their inaugural class of 231 FEMA Corps members trained in future disaster preparedness whether state-sponsored or natural. These intiates will be the leaders of the FEMA Center for Domestic Preparedness will be assigned specific roles across the nation from community relations to Disaster Recovery Center support.

The DHS and Simon Properties have collaborated on the See Something, Say Something campaign, but also may have a sinister agenda. DHS has created relationships with representatives with Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and National Football League.

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of DHS explains that “we’re all safer when everyone is alert and engaged” and she wants the American public to spy on each other because our continued safety is “a shared responsibility”.

The DHS has been amassing an estimated 1.8 billion rounds of hollow point bullets through their agency; as well as the Social Security Office, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and the US Forest Service and other federal agencies. These solicitations have spawned great debate as to who the US government intends to shoot.

The DHS has also recently solicited for 1,400 pounds of high density ammonium nitrate and A-5 Flake RDX that will build improvised explosive devices (IEDs) without explanation as to why they would require the exact ingredients to manufacture a fertilizer bomb.

Mainstream media reported in August that there was a reasonable supposition that radicalized extremists could threaten shopping malls. Federal and local law enforcement was on alert that Middle Eastern Islamic militants or right wing extremists could and most likely would threaten a shopping mall to instill fear in the general public.

According to a 2004 report from the DHS entitled Characteristics and Common Vulnerabilities Infrastructure Category: Shopping Malls, states that every mall in America is a “soft target” which could be used by terrorists to “cause economic damage, inflict casualties and instill fear.”

DHS specifies that among other types of security breaches, explosives (such as a car bomb or suicide bomber) tops their list of potential “threats of concern” regarding shopping malls.

FEMA coffins, purchased by the federal agency and stacked on acres of land all over the nation, have been patented as multi-functional cremation containers for dead bodies.

-

helicop

-

ATTACK HELICOPTERS LET LOOSE WITH MACHINE GUN FIRE OVER MIAMI

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 28, 2013

Military “exercises” in populated urban environments are now so routine, so commonplace, they are no longer reported by the national media and are left as “human interest” stories for local news stations.

-

-

For instance, in Miami last Thursday, units of the military industrial complex staged yet another training exercise.

“Diving Blackhawks, blank rounds of machine gun fire, strafing runs, troops rappelling from choppers, and road blockades,” writes Karen De Coster. “All over the skies of Miami at night, just a few days ago. According to this local TV clown in the video, this event was for the purposes of ‘meeting requirements,’ preparing for overseas military drills, and making sure the equipment is in check.”

In the above video, we hear the staccato of door guns pounding away as “military-style choppers” swooped a couple hundred feet above traffic on I-395 in downtown Miami.

From the local CBS disinfo ministry:

The training is designed to ensure that military personnel are able to operate in urban areas and to focus on preparations for overseas deployment. It also serves as a mandatory training certification requirement.

An “exercise” to acclimate Floridians to the presence of military troops (invariably mingled with cops also sporting combat attire and weapons) went down in April, 2011 and “frightened many residents in the area.”

-

CLASSIFIED MILITARY MARTIAL LAW DRILLS CONDUCTED IN MIAMI FLORIDA JANUARY 25, 2013

-

ARMY TRAINING EXERCISE HAPPENING ON HOUSTON’S SOUTH SIDE

January 28, 2013

-

-

HOUSTON (KTRK) — SkyEye 13 HD was over the south side where at first look, it appears there’s a massive SWAT scene happening.

People have been calling police, as well as our newsroom, saying they’re hearing gunshots in the area of Scott and Airport. It turns out, the Army says, it’s a multi-agency training drill. They’re doing it at the old Carnegie High School.

Helicopters were also involved. The Army isn’t giving any details of what the training is about.

So if you see the helicopters or hear gunfire, it’s only a drill.

-

ARMY INVADES GALVESTON, TEXAS

Infowars.com
January 31, 2013

On Wednesday the residents of Galveston, Texas, endured what folks in Houston and Miami did earlier this week – an “urban warfare” exercise conducted by the U.S. military.

“If you hear a lot of loud noises in Galveston tonight, it’s probably part of a military training exercise,” KTRK-TV in Houston reported. “According to the Galveston County Daily News, the Army is using the old jail on 17th Street for a night drill in urban warfare.”

Around 80 soldiers from the U.S. Army Special Operations Command in coordination with local law enforcement violated Posse Comitatus on Wednesday night, the Houston Chronicle reported.

“We were invited by the city of Galveston to conduct joint training exercises to enhance the effectiveness of both services in order to better protect the residents of Galveston,” Sgt. 1st Class Michael Noggle, an Army spokesman based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, told the newspaper.

How Galveston residents alarmed by noisy military maneuvers are “better protected” by the mini-invasion was not explained. Is it possible the Pentagon and the bureaucrats who “invited” the Army are worried about al-Qaeda’s navy showing up at the Port of Galveston?

“The purpose of the realistic urban training is to give our Special Operators an opportunity to hone their skills in a controlled, but unfamiliar, realistic urban environment that cannot be replicated with the bare-boned facades found on military installation ranges,” he wrote in an email.

As we have noted on numerous occasions, these increasingly frequent military exercises in coordination with local cops and officialdom are less about training in urban settings “that cannot be replicated with the bare-boned facades found on military installation ranges” then they are about acclimating citizens to the prospect of combat soldiers in their midst.

Incidentally, KTRK-TV reported that “the Army and Houston police apologized for not giving advance warning of a joint training exercise in southeast Houston” earlier in the week.

-

U.S. MILITARY IS GEARING UP FOR CONFLICT

-

MARINES TO INVADE SOUTH CAROLINA

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 4, 2013

Marines and sailors will invade Jasper County, South Carolina, this week, The Island Packet reported on Sunday.

The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit will train in the town of Ridgeland, the county seat, in preparation for “deployment to Mediterranean and African shores,” 2nd Lt. Gerard R. Farao told the newspaper.

The training will be coordinated with local, county and state agencies and officials, including the Ridgeland police and fire departments, a Marine Corps news release states.

Residents are warned “training could take place at any time” this week in the town and they will “likely see and hear military vehicles and possibly see aircraft” along with soldiers in uniform carrying weapons.

“Some exercises will take place at night. Residents might hear ‘popping’ sounds as Marines fire blanks. The blanks do not pose a hazard for residents, Farao said,” the Beaufort Gazette reports. “Although there is no danger, Farao said residents should stay away if they see training under way or uniformed personnel.”

Military training exercises simulating urban combat are now routine across the country. Last week we reported on exercises in Miami, Houston and Galveston, Texas. Over the past year, the Pentagon has conducted training exercises – often without warning and to the surprise and concern of civilians – in Massachusetts, Los Angeles, South Florida, South Dakota, Minneapolis, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.

The Pentagon insists these exercises are necessary for urban combat situations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the months ahead, Africa, where it insists al-Qaeda is active.

However, the exercises have a more immediate and important function – to acclimate civilians at home to the presence of combat soldiers working in concert with militarized police with the blessing of local officials (and often with funding provided by the federal government).

The founders understood that standing armies pose a serious threat to liberty. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” said James Madison. He also warned that no “nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen,” warned Madison’s vice president, Elbridge Gerry. He added that standing armies are “the bane of liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson lamented that a provision against standing armies was not included in the Constitution. “Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace,” he said in 1801. “The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force,” he wrote to Chandler Price.

Far too many Americans understand the great danger a standing army – and one that actively trains with local police, often at the behest of “an overgrown Executive” – is to the preservation of liberty.

-

BRAZEN MILITARY DRILLS TO TOUR AMERICA IN 2013

-

HOW COPS BECAME SOLDIERS: THE MILITARIZATION OF THE POLICE FORCE

Michael Arria
motherboard.vice.com
March 4, 2013

In 2007, journalist Radley Balko told a House subcommittee that one criminologist detected a 1,500% increase in the use of SWAT teams over the last two decades. That’s reflective of a larger trend, fueled by the wars on drugs and terror, of police forces becoming heavily militarized.

Balko, an investigative reporter for the Huffington Post and author of the definitive report on paramilitary policing in the United States, has a forthcoming book on the topic,Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police ForcesHe was kind enough to answer some questions about how our police turned into soldiers as well as the challenges of large-scale reform.

Motherboard: When did the shift towards militarized police forces begin in America? Is it as simple as saying it began with the War on Drugs or can we detect gradual signs of change when we look back at previous policies?

There’s certainly a lot of overlap between the war on drugs and police militarization. But if we go back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were two trends developing simultaneously. The first was the development and spread of SWAT teams. Darryl Gates started the first SWAT team in L.A. in 1969. By 1975, there were 500 of them across the country. They were largely a reaction to riots, violent protest groups like the Black Panthers and Symbionese Liberation Army, and a couple mass shooting incidents, like the Texas clock tower massacre in 1966.

At the same time, Nixon was declaring an “all-out war on drugs.” He was pushing policies like the no-knock raid, dehumanizing drug users and dealers, and sending federal agents to storm private homes on raids that were really more about headlines and photo-ops than diminishing the supply of illicit drugs.

But for the first decade or so after Gates invented them, SWAT teams were largely only used in emergency situations. There usually needed to be an immediate, deadly threat to send the SWAT guys. It wasn’t until the early 1980s under Reagan that the two trends converged, and we started to see SWAT teams used on an almost daily basis — mostly to serve drug warrants.

During the police clashes with Occupy protestors, there seemed to be a focus on isolated incidents of violence, as opposed to an overall examination of how this kind of policing exacerbates situations. What conclusions did your research lead you to on this topic?

I actually think that the Occupy protests gave the broader militarization issue more attention than it’s had in a very long time. For 25 years, the primary “beneficiaries” of police militarization have been poor people in high-crime areas — people who generally haven’t had the power or platform to speak up. The Occupy protesters were largely affluent, white, and deft at using cell phones and social media to document and publicize incidents of excessive force.

We’re also seeing interest in this issue from new quarters as SWAT teams have fallen victim to mission creep in recent years and begun raiding poker games, bars, and even people suspected of white collar crimes. So far, the only state that has passed any meaningful reform legislation in reaction to a SWAT raid gone wrong is Maryland, which passed a transparency bill after the mistaken raid on Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo.

I suppose that may be the “it needs to get worse before it will get better” good news, here. As governments at all levels continue to expand the list of crimes for which they’re willing to send the SWAT team, we’ll inevitably see these tactics used against more people with more clout and stature to push for reform. It’s an unfortunate bit of realpolitik, but it’s undoubtedly true.

Deborah Blum has written that we refer to oleoresin capsicum as “pepper spray” because “that makes it sound so much more benign than it really is, like something just a grade or so above what we might mix up in a home kitchen.” How did the use of these kinds of weapons become so commonplace? 

I think part of the reason is that it has happened gradually. We got here by way of a number of political decisions and policies passed over 40 years. There was never a single law or policy that militarized our police departments — so there was never really a public debate over whether this was a good or bad thing.

But there were other contributors. For about a generation, politicians from both parties were tripping over themselves to see who could come up with the tougher anti-crime policies. We’re finally seeing some push-back on issues like incarceration, the drug war, and over-criminalization. But not on police. No politician wants to look anti-cop. Conservatives want to look tough on crime. Liberals love to throw money at police departments. So for now, rolling back police militarization is still a non-starter in Congress and state legislatures.

It won’t be long before we see pro-militarization lobbying and pressure groups. Say hello to the police-industrial complex.

The other problem is that political factions decry police militarization when it’s used against them, but tend to fall somewhere between indifferent and gleeful when it’s used against people they don’t like. Conservatives, remember, were furious over Waco, Ruby Ridge, and a host of BATF abuses against gun owners in the 1990s — and rightly so. Liberals mocked them for it.

Liberals were furious at the aggressive response to the occupy protests — and rightly so. And conservatives mocked them. Liberals are rightly angry about militarized immigration raids — conservatives don’t much care. Conservatives were mad about the heavy-handed raid on the Gibson Guitar factory. Liberals blew it off. Just a few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow resurrected the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents in a segment about gun control — and was dismissive of people who thought the government’s actions were excessive. Of course, Maddow was also fuming about the treatment of Occupy protesters.

Until partisans are willing to denounce excessive force when it’s used against people whose politics offend them — or at least refrain from endorsing it — it’s hard to see how there will ever be a consensus for reform.

How did 9/11 alter the domestic relationship between the military and police?

It really just accelerated a process that had already been in motion for 20 years. The main effect of 9/11 on domestic policing is the DHS grant program, which writes huge checks to local police departments across the country to purchase machine guns, helicopters, tanks, and armored personnel carriers. The Pentagon had already been giving away the same weapons and equipment for about a decade, but the DHS grants make that program look tiny.

But probably of more concern is the ancillary effect of those grants. DHS grants are lucrative enough that many defense contractors are now turning their attention to police agencies — and some companies have sprung up solely to sell military-grade weaponry to police agencies who get those grants. That means we’re now building a new industry whose sole function is to militarize domestic police departments. Which means it won’t be long before we see pro-militarization lobbying and pressure groups with lots of (taxpayer) money to spend to fight reform. That’s a corner it will be difficult to un-turn. We’re probably there already. Say hello to the police-industrial complex.

Is police reform a battle that will have to be won legally? From the outside looking in, much of this seems to violate The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Are there other ways to change these policies? Can you envision a blueprint?

It won’t be won legally. The Supreme Court has been gutting the Fourth Amendment in the name of the drug war since the early 1980s, and I don’t think there’s any reason to think the current Court will change any of that. The Posse Comitatus Act is often misunderstood. Technically, it only prohibits federal marshals (and, arguably, local sheriffs and police chiefs) from enlisting active-duty soldiers for domestic law enforcement. The president or Congress could still pass a law or executive order tomorrow ordering U.S. troops to, say, begin enforcing the drug laws, and it wouldn’t violate the Constitution or the Posse Comitatus Act. The only barrier would be selling the idea to the public.

That said, I think the current state of police militarization probably violates the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act, and probably more pertinent, the spirit and sentiment behind the Third Amendment. (Yes — the one no one ever talks about.) When the country was founded, there were no organized police departments, and wouldn’t be for another 50 to60 years. Public order was maintained through private means, in worst cases by calling up the militia.

The Founders were quite wary of standing armies and the threat they pose to liberty. They ultimately concluded — reluctantly — that the country needed an army for national defense. But they most feared the idea of troops patrolling city streets — a fear colored by much of human history, and more immediately by the the antagonism between British troops and residents of Boston in the years leading up to the American Revolution. The Founders could never have envisioned police as they exist today. And I think it’s safe to say they’d have been absolutely appalled at the idea of a team of police, dressed and armed like soldiers, breaking into private homes in the middle of the night for the purpose of preventing the use of mind-altering drugs.

The Founders would have been appalled at the idea of a team of police, dressed and armed like soldiers, breaking into private homes in the middle of the night.

As for change, the good news is that I think the public is finally waking up to this problem. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed more skepticism, for example, in the comment sections to stories about SWAT raids. I’ve also noticed more skepticism in much of the media coverage of these raids. And again, I think the fact that these tactics are now being used against people who have the means and status to speak out is drawing new attention to police militarization, and causing more people to question the wisdom of all of this. But again, there are some major political hurdles in the way of reform.

The gear and weapons and tanks are a problem. But I think a much deeper problem is the effect all of this war talk and battle rhetoric has had on policing as a profession. In much of the country today, police officers are psychologically isolated from the communities they serve. It’s all about us vs. them. There are lots of reasons for that, which I describe in the book but are too involved to get into here. But it’s really destructive.

I make a number of specific suggestions in the book about how to change that mindset — most of which came from interviews with long-time cops and former police chiefs. But generally speaking, cops should be a part of the communities in which they work. They should walk beats. They should know the names of the school principals, 7-11 managers, and Boys and Girls Club and community center staffers. When your only interaction with the community is antagonistic — responding to calls, conducting stop & frisks, questioning people — your relationship with the community will be antagonistic. Cops are public servants. Their job is to keep the peace while protecting and observing our constitutional rights. Somewhere in the process constantly declaring war on things, we’ve lost sight of that.

For 30 years, politicians and public officials have been arming, training, and dressing cops as if they’re fighting a war. They’ve been dehumanizing drug offenders and criminal suspects as the enemy. And of course they’ve explicitly and repeatedly told them they’re fighting a war. It shouldn’t be all that surprising that a lot of cops have started to believe it.

-

FEMA FEDERALIZING POLICE FOR DOMESTIC WAR

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
March 22, 2013

A media photo from FEMA’s Center for Domestic Preparedness website.

It is a heavily documented fact the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has bought 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (much of which is outlawed by the Geneva Convention and includes a startling amount specialized for snipers), fully automatic assault rifles, heavily armored assault vehicles with gun ports, and scores of riot gear.

As DHS is a domestic operation, it would almost seem the organization is prepping for a war against the American people, and it now has 30 years worth of ammunition with which to do so.

To further back up that hypothesis, on FEMA’s Center for Domestic Preparedness site, a listing for Program J, known as “Field Force Operations,” details how DHS has been training state and local law enforcement “to prepare for and successfully mitigate threat incidents involving civil disorder” should “National Special Security Events” or NSSEs occur.

The site continues,

“Activities included in this course are mass arrest procedures, team tactics, demonstrator tactics, crowd dynamics and mob behavior, use of riot control agents and less lethal munitions, and the employment of personal protective equipment (PPE).”

Some of the training’s “critical skill sets” include how to:

“Understand how the First, Fourth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution relate to civil action/disorder; express the considerations and processes for conducting mass arrests during civil action/disorder; act as a member of an arrest team and remove an arrestee using both two- and four-officer carry techniques; and select for use, based on the liabilities and limitations of each, the best riot control agents and less lethal munitions.”

The three-day course takes place at Homeland Security’s Center for Domestic Preparedness at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

The class is coupled with another, “Field Force Extrication Tactics,” which provides students with “knowledge and skills regarding the tools and information necessary to extricate an individual safely from a protester device.” This course is not limited only to law enforcement, but emergency management, health, fire, EMTs, and public safety communications personnel among others. One issue discussed is, “Distinguishing the roles and responsibilities of the extrication team from other law enforcement assets.” Teams here are also referred to as “Civil Disobedience Teams” or CDTs.

A description on the Texas Department of Public Safety site claims one of the Field Force Extrication Tactics course objectives is “To identify and protect protester rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment while still conducting extrication procedures.” [emphasis added]

Registration for the initial Field Force Operations course is limited only to state and local law enforcement, and includes a four-step process with a medical screening form. Participants must, “have the ability to march 100 yards, lift 185 pounds with assistance, kneel on one knee, run 20 yards intermittently, stand for long periods of time (approximately 3 hours), shout commands, and don, properly seal, and doff an air purifying respirator.”

While these courses have been available for several years now, it puts all of these bulk weapons, ammo and riot gear purchases into much clearer perspective in regard to exactly what DHS is gearing up and training our law enforcement for: mass arrests of the American people.

In fact, many of the descriptions of these courses seem eerily similar to a leaked Army manual Infowars reported on last summer for “civil disturbance operations.” As Paul Joseph Watson wrote, the document “outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.”

This training works hand-in-hand with the Army’s Internment and Resettlement Operations manual which discusses how political dissidents will develop an “appreciation of U.S. policies” after they are reeducated by “PSYOP officers” and detained in American prison camps commonly known as FEMA camps.

Why is DHS training with shooting targets of pregnant women?

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, our Second Amendment right to bear arms is under constant, heavy attack. Homeland Security has led the charge for years, portraying American gun owners and political enemies of the state as terrorists.

Add that to the fact that DHS has paid $2 million for “training aids” to a supplier of “non-traditional” shooting targets  — actual shooting targets of pregnant women in nurseries, elderly people, and little kids referred to as “no more hesitation” targets — and this situation has gotten way beyond out of hand.

DHS has also announced its idea of public safety includes unleashing spy drones on the public. Recently released government documents also show DHS has customized predator drones for domestic use to track cell phones and identify whether or not a citizen is carrying a gun.

While the documented pieces of this disturbing puzzle continue to paint a terrifying picture, the mainstream media would instead have us believe that it’s all just a conspiracy theory, that all these DHS purchase orders officially posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website  are merely figments of our imaginations.

But Infowars has continuously covered Homeland Security’s neverending gear up against the American people. How much more evidence is needed for people to wake up to this blaring, in-our-face police state takeover?

If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might just be a duck. If an organization releases reports on how ducks are terrorists, develops duck-related trainings to mass arrest ducks in the interest of national security, and makes purchase orders for billions of duck-subduing and duck hunting items, it is reasonably safe to conclude there is an objective here concerning the total subjugation of ducks.

-

REALISTIC URBAN TRAINING IS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONDUCTING DESENSITIZING EXERCISES

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
Feb 13, 2013

Just a couple years ago we reported that the U.S. military was involved in war gaming scenarios that included training for such things as large scale economic collapse and civil unrest. Photos from the training exercises showed simulated situations that included protesters holding up “We Need Food Now” signs. It was a clear sign that the government is preparing for just such an event, and that they were training military personnel to respond in the capacity of a domestic police force.

The warnings we and others issued were ignored by most of the population and dismissed by many as nothing more than conspiracy theory and fear mongering.

A few years on, the military continues to step up exercises focused on urban deployment and as recently as last month held live exercises in heavily populated US metropolitan areas.

Residents of Miami and Houston were treated to troop mobilizations, machine gun fire, and gunships flying over their cities. After concerned callers reported the activities to local news stations, the media quickly moved to calm fears of a terrorist attack or invasion. They smiled while they did it and shrugged off the unprecedented displays as just your average, everyday military exercise.

Except, of course, the US military, up until recently, has never openly trained in U.S. cities, and especially not in scores of cities with training spread over such a short period of time.

Which begs the question, why are the military and local law enforcement holding realistic urban training exercises on the streets of America when they could do it at any of the hundreds of training facilities around the world?

Via: The Daily CruxBurning Platform

I was once stationed at Camp Lejuene, NC.  As a Navy Corpsman, I helped care for Marines.  I tell you this because inevitably there will be those that assume I hold some anti-military motive.

At no time during my time there were “realistic urban training” exercises conducted in towns and cities.  This is a recent development.

The training has been coordinated with local, county and state agencies and officials, including the Ridgeland police and fire departments, according to a Marine Corps news release.

Although there is no danger, Farao said residents should stay away if they see training under way or uniformed personnel.

Realistic Urban Training is happening all over the U.S.

In Miami, Florida on January 26, 2013, Army Backhawk helicopters swooped through the city at night, firing door-guns and chasing make-believe bad guys like something out of an action movie.  The fired blanks echoed off of the buildings, scaring many residents into taking cover.  The local news reported excitedly about the exercise, stating it was only a drill and for residents not to be concerned. However, there was no journalistic follow up asking hard questions.  Such as, who authorized an exercise without informing the public?  Why conduct this type of training in a populated U.S. city and put citizens at risk?  Isn’t this a violation of Posse Comitatus?  No hard follow up questions were asked, and to my knowledge, have not been since.

Not even when the same exercise occurred in Houston, Texas on January 29, 2013.   The U.S. Army along with other agencies took over the Carnegie Vanguard High School in Houston on Monday. Alarmed residents called police and complained about gunshots and helicopters.  No details were provided about the training.  Watch the KTRK-TV Houston report and hear how alarmed residents responded after hearing gunshots and seeing military helicopters flying over their homes.

According to Sgt. 1st Class Michael Noggle, an Army spokesman based at Fort Bragg, N.C., “We were invited by the city of Galveston to conduct joint training exercises to enhance the effectiveness of both services in order to better protect the residents of Galveston.”

He went on to say in an email that “The purpose of the realistic urban training is to give our Special Operators an opportunity to hone their skills in a controlled, but unfamiliar, realistic urban environment that cannot be replicated with the bare-boned facades found on military installation ranges.”

I’ve highlighted a few examples, but there are more.  In a search I came upon these others.  Los Angeles, CA,  Plainville and Worchester, Massachusetts.  As reported in the other stories, residents were unaware of the drills until helicopters swooped over their neighborhoods. And here’s more: Minneapolis, MN, and this in East Saint Louis, MO.  There are many more, but these links provide a foundation for further research.

I spoke with a high-ranking, military source in DHS.

Preferring to remain unnamed for obvious reasons, he told me, “DHS and DOD are conducting desensitizing exercises all across the U.S.,” he paused, then added, “we’re being prepared for mass civil unrest in major U.S. cities.  DOD will be expected to help – when we’re requested.”

I asked if there was a timeline for expecting civil unrest in our cities and why should we expect it to begin with.

I was told that there were many reasons, but that the continued devaluation of our currency, the predicted history-setting prices for gasoline this summer and the continued gun control debate are forming a perfect storm of civil discontent.  When this storm hits, it will most assuredly produce mass casualties.  When does DHS expect this to happen?

This summer.

From a high-ranking source deep within DHS, who has strong DOD ties, we are being told that joint DOD-local law enforcement exercises are to desensitize us to military occupation.  When asked if there was any concern about violating Posse Comitatus, he stated “no concern at all,” and added, “That’s been a non-issue for a long time.”

Source: The Allegiant

We are hearing similar reports from DHS, DOD, and law enforcement sources known by numerous investigators and reporters in alternative media. Many of the sources have requested to remain anonymous, prompting skeptics to call it bunk. However, it’s hard to believe that there is nothing to this. Furthermore, if you were privy to details that your government was about to implement a massive police state and past whistle blowers were imprisoned and had their lives destroyed, would you be willing to share your name and put your family in harm’s way?

As noted by Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones in a recent report at Infowars.com, there is a strong possibility that whatever the US government is preparing for has been orchestrated by the elite, who hope to benefit in the form of money, resources and power, something we’ve seen throughout history:

Every indication clearly suggests that authorities in the United States are preparing for widespread civil unrest. This trend has not emerged by accident – it is part of a tried and tested method used by the banking elite to seize control of nations, strip them of their assets, and absorb them into the new world order.

There is a crucial economic imperative as to why the elite is seeking to engineer and exploit social unrest.

One of the final steps of the process, the “IMF riot,” detailed how the elite would plan for mass civil unrest ahead of time that would have the effect of scaring off investors and causing government bankruptcies.

“This economic arson has its bright side – for foreigners, who can then pick off remaining assets at fire sale prices,” writes Palast, adding, “A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers but the clear winners seem to be the western banks and US Treasury.”

In other words, the banking elite creates the very economic environment – soaring interest rates, spiraling food prices, poverty, lower standards of living – that precipitates civil unrest – and then like a vulture swoops down to devour what remains of the country’s assets on the cheap.

We have already seen this process unfold in places like Bolivia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Greece and Argentina. Next on the chopping block are Spain, Italy, Britain and France – all of which have seen widespread riots over the last two years.

Given the clear economic motive for stirring unrest in the United States, we’d expect to see preparations for domestic disorder in numerous different guises – and indeed the signs are everywhere.

Full Infowars Report

Most Americans cannot possibly fathom an America where the economy has collapsed, the dollar is valueless, and food is so expensive that it can’t be had by the majority of the populace.

They can’t imagine any situation that would require the deployment of military soldiers into their towns and cities.

They are clueless to the existence of the National Defense Authorization Act which legalizes the indefinite detention of terror suspects. They think the Patriot Act is legislation that applies only to Al Queda. They don’t know, nor do they care, that President Obama has signed numerous Executive Orders designed for continuity of government operations and martial law.

None of them realize that the President himself is now creating kill lists and justifications for why American citizens can be targeted by military drone strikes without charge or trial.

For these people, with their heads buried in the sand, America today is the same as it has always been.

When their idealistic paradigm of stable 9-5 employment, ample retirement funds, weekend barbecues, and Constitutional protections comes to end, what do you think they are going to do?

What will they do should stock markets melt down, the US dollar crashes or the economy collapses to Great Depression levels?

They will panic. They will riot in the streets. They will turn violent. Their whole world will be turned upside down and devolve into violence and bloodshed.

The government knows this. Homeland security knows this. The military knows this. Any student of history knows this.

We are now being desensitized to the response should it ever come to pass.

-

MILITARY TRAINING DRILLS RESUME IN PREPARATION FOR MARTIAL LAW

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
January 29, 2013

230209top

Competitive Outcomes , an organization training young military recruits from the JROTC, ROTC, cadet programs, foreign militaries and police and fire departments are conducting customized drill training exercises, seminars and providing manuals in 2013 in Marietta, Georgia; Los Angeles and San Diego, California. They work with the US Navy, armed and unarmed divisions of ROTC and JROTC; as well as the Air Force.

Recently black hawk helicopters flew across the skies in Miami, Florida in a joint drill exercise between the US Military and local police. Traffic was blocked off on major streets. Military personnel claimed that the exercises were in preparation for overseas combat missions. However the sound of gunfire could be heard as locals were alarmed.

The Miami-Dade County Police Department said in a statement that this was “routine” and “designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments and meet mandatory certification requirement.”

In Houston, Texas, SWAT teams and the US Military conducted a training exercise near the local airport. According to the Military, this was a multi-agency training drill.

Helicopters were circling Carnegie High School near Houston.

The House of Representative have raised the pay scale for Military, National Guard and Reservists by 1.7% in 2013.

According to the State of Washington 2013-2015 Training and Exercise Plan document explains a “strategic plan [that] combines enhanced planning” with “new equipment purchases, innovative training and realistic exercises to strengthen Washington’s emergency prevention and response capabilities.”

This plan coordinates local police departments with the US Military in an effort to “assess core capabilities in order to define objectives” regarding training exercises. These drills are administered by the Washington Military Department’s Emergency management Division (EMD). Collaboration with local and state agencies, as well as private sector partners supports an agenda to bind those agencies together to receive funds from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the guise of protecting the general public, property, and the economy of the US government.

Presidential administrative National Security Strategy documents explain how to defend the Republic within domestic borders with suggested scenarios where a group of political reactionaries commandeer a prominent area of a town or city which requires that the US Army support local law enforcement in conjunction with state officials – including local government representatives.

As outlined in the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) report, processes are defined by operational environments in regard to battle space, effects, evaluation of threats and adversaries while determining the course of action. In regard to civil situations, and to maintain intelligence and operational purposes, preparations with regard to terrain are inconsequential.

According to the RAND Corporation document, Street Smart: Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield for Urban Operations, the use of IPB in urban areas will alleviate some of the anticipated “analytic difficulties posed by urbanized areas.”

By training in American cities, the armed forces can realize maneuvers and special considerations that are needed to control urban infrastructure in the case of civil disturbance and insurrection. Having foreknowledge of the people living in the specified cities that are marked for control assist in the “critical operational success” of not only “knowing the enemy” but also the ability to retain a level of concealment and surprise.

When the US Army is “called upon to operate in villages, towns, and cities their directive will be to “neutralize American citizen’s technological capabilities” using “sophisticated intelligence equipment” and advanced tactical training.

Contained within the US Army Military Police training manual for Civil Disturbance Operations are outlines describing how the US military will use the arsenal at their disposal to quell domestic riots, confiscate firearms and kill Americans during times of mass civil unrest.

The explicit use of “deadly force” when confronting “dissidents” is clearly stated with the refusal of a “warning shot” and the directives toward weapons that rioters or demonstrators will experience in the name of continuity of government.

In 2012, the US Special Operations Command (USSOC) has conducted “training exercises” over Minneapolis. In a twofold effort, the US Armed Forces are acclimating the American public to seeing military everywhere, as well as being able to train their soldiers in real time on US streets in a manipulative effort to circumvent Posse Comitatus.

Both the local police department and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) collaborated, according to authorities to decide on training exercise times and locations although the general public was unaware of these war games until they were evident in their local skies.

The Department of Defense (DoD) drill that concerned residents in Coconut Grove, a city in Miami-Dade County, Florida. After midnight, simulated gunfire and explosions would be heard as military helicopters flew over skyscrapers. Local mainstream media reported: “Miami police assisted in overseeing the exercises — but they were instructed to keep quiet about the exercises until late Monday, for security reasons. The police also blocked off roads around the Grand Bay during the exercise.”

In Plainville and Worchester, Massachusetts, surprised citizens witnessed “military helicopters descended on the vacant Wood School [in] the late hours of the night in a scene that might have appeared to simulate the United States’ Special Forces attack on Osama bin Laden’s compound last year.” Many locals had their homes swooped down upon by black helicopters in an obvious display of military dominance over the general public.

Residents saw helicopters landing near Worcester Memorial Auditorium in Lincoln Square. Local newspapers were flooded with “telephone calls and e-mails . . . curious about what was happening.”

The local police claim they were unaware of the drills.

Law-enforcement battalions, consisting of specialized military police officers (SMP), are being set up to work with local police while remaining part of the Marine Corp.

SMPs would be deployed to assist in any event of civil disturbance, handling of detainees, use biometrics to identify suspects and conduct forensic work. Their assistance is not limited to conducting DUIs and writing speeding tickets in an effort to re-brand the Marine Corps as being more involved with average work now allocated to local law enforcement.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IS MILITARIZING LOCAL POLICE TO CREATE FEDERALIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ACROSS AMERICA

554161_10151077458139117_945066420_n

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 4, 2013

In 2011 the consolidation of police departments to regional agencies became commonplace as budget cuts and funding was blamed for the cause of this merging of local forces into one encompassing police enforcement apparatus.

Under the creation of the Unified Police Department (UPD) in Salt Lake City, Utah jurisdictions and municipalities previously controlled by the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office was reallocated to UPD. This became the new police department and eventually the standard for other police departments across the nation.

The UPD dissolved the Sheriff’s Office and installed a completely compromised police force that was essentially a hired security firm that could be manipulated by federal agencies or acclimated into a national police force in the future.

Two years ago Eric Cantor, Congressional Majority Leader, introduced a bill into the House of Representatives that encouraged private sector “police companies” to replace law enforcement on the State and local level by coercing a new police protection insurance that would tack on a fee to citizens for the use of “police protection”.

Cantor justified this move as justified for having citizens pay for the police to be called to scenes as a “communal service” that is contractual just as any other service or good is paid for. As a customer, the citizen would tell 911 dispatch their insurance information for payment purposes to be billed after the police were deployed to the scene, or services were rendered.

Turning local police departments into private security firms that provide services to the public was the scheme behind privatizing law enforcement.

militarized-police-puppetgov

Under state government contract, private security firms preform law enforcement services. With legislative bodies on both the state and Congressional level supporting this change, private corporations enter into contractual agreements with city councils to provide armed security patrol. Just as a rent-a-cop is hired to secure private property, local police departments are masked rent-a-cops that were hired by local government to secure their city.

This fact has been hidden from public scrutiny and has added to the blending of social perception of what the police are and what they do so that police services are able to function without question. At the same time, citizens are expected to pay fees for these “services” that were once inherent to life in a structured town or city.

In early 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report entitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission” which outlined in part on how to redirect efforts of the federal government from international terrorism toward home-grown terrorists and build a DHS-controlled police force agency that would control all cities and towns through the use of local police departments.

DHS maintains that “the threat grows more localized” which necessitates the militarization of local police in major cities in the US and the training of staff from local agencies to make sure that oversight is restricted to the federal government.

The creation and implementation of fusion centers in urban areas was to “serve as focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between the federal government and state, local, tribal, territorial (SLTT) and private sector partners.”

Private corporations have been parading as public servants policing cities and towns across America without the knowledge of the average citizen for quite some time. Just as the Department of Defense (DoD) hires private security firms such as DynCorp and Blackwater to stabilize populations of nations in foreign countries, the same ideology has been applied to American cities hidden in plain sight.

In states such as Florida , Minnesota , California , Louisiana and Massachusetts private security firms have replaced local police departments. Although they wear the same badges, these security firms are not there to uphold peace or enforce the laws and city ordinances. Just like any other corporation, they seek out opportunities to collect revenue for the benefit of the city that hired them.

images

Knowing that these private armed guards are employees of private security firms hired by the city explains the laundry list of police abuses toward citizens without punitive action. Police officers are routinely placed on “administrative leave with pay” during an investigation with Internal Affairs (which is another term for Human Resources).

Last year Delaware was the scene of the introduction of legislation that would take away the power of the office of Sheriff because the seat is an election position and beyond the control of private security firms. The bill, HB 290, was created out of retaliation for an outspoken Constitutional Sheriff. According to the legislation: “‘Police officer’ as used in this code shall not include sheriffs and sheriff deputies,” and that it “is the intent of the General Assembly to specifically state the sheriffs and their deputies do not have any arrest authority.”

Although this bill was stricken from the legislative docket, the Delaware Supreme Court stated that sheriffs and deputies are constitutionally enabled and empowered to authority of arrest.

The militarization of local police departments is not difficult to understand once it is known that these armed guards are employees of private security firms. This private public partnership (PPP) between city officials and those corporations contracted to preform services can easily be assimilated into the enhancement of DHS police state authority over townships and metropolitan cities within the US.

The very idea of the Office of Sheriff is the antithesis of this scheme to implement a national police state. And for this very reason every Sheriff should be supported and their authority preserved as one of the last bastions of Constitutional protection citizens may have to rely upon.

-

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REPOSITIONING HOMELAND SECURITY AMMUNITION CONTAINERS

Posted by Jim Hoft

January 30, 2013

ammo box
The containers (like those pictured) are usually painted olive drab and are unmarked except for indistinguishable numbers/letters probably for inventory, routing, etc.

Reader Don sent this in recently:

Jim – I passed a convoy of olive drab unmarked 40 foot tractor trailers each with four 10 yard ammo bunker boxes chained to them and unmarked armored Hum-Vee’s heading north on I-95 in Brevard County, Florida this past Thursday morning. The “govt” is positioning these ammo storage boxes, I have been told, in strategic places in population centers around the country. They are usually painted olive drab and are unmarked except for indistinguishable numbers/letters probably for inventory, routing, etc.

Obma’s Homeland Security Department has purchased 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition – that is not a typo — during the last six months.
atk ammo
ATK is one company that won a contract with the Department of Homeland Security to provide 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition in 2012.

Previously it was reported that people around the US have begun reporting the site of strange, new, heavily-armed FEMA fighting vehicles this past year.

fema truck

One set of images made available by Rense.com shows trailer after trailer carrying these new DHS and FEMA armored fighting vehicles, complete with machine gun slots. They’re labeled with the usual backward American flag and the title, ‘Homeland Security’. Below that and the DHS logo, it also reads, ‘Immigration & Customs Enforcement’. Joining those markings, the black vehicles with white lettering also display ‘POLICE/RESCUE’ on one side and ‘Special Response Team’ on the other.

Whiteout Press reported on the government ammunition purchases back in October 2012.

As we detailed in the August 28 Whiteout Press article ‘History of DHS Ammunition Purchases’, federal emergency management agencies are looking more and more like a military army every day.

The federal government’s procurement website actually lists DHS’ requests for bids to supply it with ammunition and military weaponry. All of the orders listed in the above article, including the orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition, are publicly available at http://www.fbo.gov.

One look at a chart of DHS ammunition purchases over the past decade reveals a drastic spike in orders of bullets recently, totaling in the billions of rounds. Other charts available online show a similar drastic spike in the purchases of accompanying weaponry by the Department of Homeland Security.

What is the US federal government preparing for? And why does it feel it needs an army of brainwashed youth, millions of guns, thousands of armored fighting vehicles and literally billions of rounds of ammunition, just to provide relief to the American people during a natul disaster? Any historian will tell you it sounds more like the arming of the Hitler Youth than an army of first responders fighting forest fires and hurricanes.

Look for the Homeland Security ammunition containers coming soon to your community.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO LEASE $10 MILLION FIREARMS FACILITY

Federal agency has purchased around 2 billion bullets over last year

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 26, 2013

While the second amendment is under assault from gun control legislation across the country, the Department of Homeland Security is gearing up to use some of the roughly 2 billion rounds of ammunition it has purchased over the last year, by leasing a $10 million dollar firearms facility in Boston.

“The Department of Homeland Security, Office of Procurement Operations, Federal Protective Service Acquisition Division, East Consolidated Contracting Group has a requirement for a firearms facility within 25-miles of the Boston, Massachusetts area for use by the Federal Protective Service, Region 1 (New England),” states a solicitation posted on FedBizOpps.

The proposed contract will consist of a 12 month initial base period followed by two 12 month renewal options and further 6 month option, a total of 3 and a half years. The cost of leasing the facility is listed as $10 million dollars.

Further details about the firearms facility are unavailable because the documents for the solicitation are listed as “sensitive/secure” and only authorized companies are allowed to view the attached PDF file.

As the DHS attracts increased media attention over its acquisition of massive amounts of ammunition, the agency is becoming increasingly less transparent and preventing the public from seeing details of its purchase activity.

As we reported last year, in some solicitations the agency has redacted information pertaining to the amount of bullets purchased by blacking out figures in PDF files.

Whether the facility in Boston will be used for target practice, the storage of firearms and ammunition or both is unknown, but it is sure to provoke more questions about why Homeland Security appears to be gearing up for domestic disorder as it rapidly expands while the American people are having their right to bear arms eviscerated.

The DHS has committed to purchasing roughly 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last year, enough to fight a near 30 year war given that U.S. troops at the height of combat operations in Iraq only expended around 5.5 million bullets a month.

Last September, the DHS also purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, labeling them “Personal Defense Weapons.”

Whether or not the DHS will purchase more shooting targets for use in its new Boston facility from Law Enforcement Targets Inc. remains to be seen. The company, which previously received $2 million dollars in contracts from the DHS, was forced to apologize last week after producing “no hesitation” threat targets of pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners in residential settings.

-

OBAMA DHS PURCHASES 2,700 LIGHT-ARMORED TANKS TO GO WITH THEIR 1.6 BILLION BULLET STOCKPILE

Jim Hoft
thegatewaypundit.com
March 4, 2013

According to one estimate, since last year the Department of Homeland Security has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm.

DHS also purchased 2,700 Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicles (MRAP).

Modern Survival Blog reported:

The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.

Although I’ve seen and read several online blurbs about this vehicle of late, I decided to dig slightly deeper and discover more about the vehicle itself.

The new DHS sanctioned ‘Street Sweeper’ (my own slang due to the gun ports) is built by Navistar Defense (NavistarDefense.com), a division within the Navistar organization. Under the Navistar umbrella are several other companies including International Trucks, IC Bus (they make school buses), Monaco RV (recreational vehicles), WorkHorse (they make chassis), MaxxForce (diesel engines), and Navistar Financial (the money arm of the company).

DHS even released a video on their newly purchased MRAPs.

Via Pat Dollard:

-

-

The MRAP featured in this video is was in Albuquerque, New Mexico for Law Enforcement Day which was held at a local area Target Store. This MRAP is stationed in El Paso, Texas at The Homeland Security Investigations Office. MRAP is a Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicle.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PURCHASES ARMORED VEHICLES THAT CAN WITHSTAND BALLISTIC ARMS FIRE

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 5, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security has solicited for 2,717 Mine Resistant Protected vehicles from Navistar Defense. The MaxxPro Dash DXM “is built to withstand ballistic arms fire, mine blasts, IEDs, and other emerging threats.”

This vehicle can “deflect IED blasts away from the vehicle” and is recommended for combat conditions such as seen in Afghanistan.

Navistar Defense designs “a new military vehicle” that is developed to protect the lives of service men and women.

Interestingly DHS is commissioning vehicles that can withstand the blast from and improvised explosive device (IED).
In September of last year, DHS placed a solicitation by way of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) for 700 pounds of High Density Ammonium Nitrate and 700 pounds of A-5 Flake RDX. With the delivery date scheduled for August 31, 2012, could DHS be planning a false flag attack involving a planted home-made bomb?

In the solicitation, the DHS did not specify information that a corporation seeking to reply with a bid would need. In addition, DHS is requesting that high density ammonium nitrate and RDX (the required booster) be delivered to an undisclosed government facility in downtown Atlantic City, NJ.

When creating a “makeshift terrorist bomb” ammonium nitrate is an integral ingredient. The DHS was given oversight of procurement of ammonium nitrate after Congress requested they “regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium nitrate facility…to prevent the misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.”

In May of 2012, the Global Campaign Against Improvised Explosive Devices (GCAIED) wrote a letter to Obama with the signatures of 23 members of Capitol Hill to bring “consensus” against the threat of IEDs. With intelligence gathered by the National Counterterrorism Center’s Worldwide Incident Tracking System, there is a doubling of IEDs being manufactured annually by civilians. The GCAIED claimed that IEDs will be used to attack civilian populations with the intention to disrupt daily routines, healthcare and the November elections (which never happened).

The most recent solicitation DHS made for 240,000 hollow point bullets has made quite a stir in the alternative media.

Last August, The Pacific Southwest Region of the US Forest Service has solicited ammunition that is supposedly needed for target practice. In this instance, the amounts of hollow point bullets, 12 gauge rifle slugs, and other accessories are smaller than DHS has requested through other federal agencies.

DHS previously ordered more than 63,000,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point bullets (JHP).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a solicitation for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP.

The Social Security Office has also made a solicitation for 174,000 rounds of .357 hollow point bullets.

Is the DHS arming a private army with hollow point bullets with the intent to shoot at US Armed Forces, US veterans and civilians?

Major General Jerry Curry, who is a decorated combat veteran, Army Aviator, paratrooper and Ranger, has asked the question: “Who does the government intend to shoot?” In an op-ed piece, Curry brings up the strange purchases of hollow point bullets the Department of Homeland security has made recently. Through other federal agencies like the Social Security Office (SSO) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the DHS have ordered several thousand hollow point bullets as well.

Curry states: “No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.”

The Geneva Convention outlaws hollow point bullets on the battle field because of their deadly nature. Curry asks if DHS intends to shoot “nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?”

Last October, the US House of Representatives introduced HR 6566 which is an amendment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that imbues the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.”

In the anticipated event of a “mass fatality”, coordination and planning must be forefront of FEMA with the assistance of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as referred by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (CTI). In the event that the Executive Branch or Congress declares a mass disaster caused by nature, a domestic terrorist attack, or any other man-made catastrophe, there must be a national plan to prepare for and respond to the incident.

Elected officials assume that in such an event, funeral homes, cemeteries and mortuaries would be overwhelmed should millions of Americans suddenly die in a tragic event. There must also be allowances for survivors of such an event.

Representatives from local and state governments must coordinate with federal agencies, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations and appropriate individuals to prepare and respond to an incident wherein mass casualties occur.

-

HANDCUFFS 2.0: RESTRAINTS OF THE FUTURE WILL HAVE BUILT-IN SHOCKS AND SEDATION

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Reason.com
March 4, 2013

Ever wondered why handcuff technology hasn’t progressed much in the last 50 years? Wonder no more: In late November, the website Patent Bolt noticed an application filed by a company called Scottsdale Inventions for an “Apparatus and System For Augmented Detainee Restraint.”

This handy new device can be “configured to administer electrical shocks when certain predetermined conditions occur” as well as being activated by remote control. The patent application compares this function to the workings of a stun gun or Taser.

What’s more, the cuffs could potentially be configured to administer “a liquid, a gas, a dye, an irritant, a medication, a sedative, a transdermal medication or transdermal enhancers such as dimethyl sulfoxide, a chemical restraint, a paralytic, a medication prescribed to the detainee, and combinations thereof” without directly involving human law enforcement officials.

The cuffs could also be programmed to work like an electric dog collar, shocking a detainee if he ventures outside a pre-determined zone. But don’t worry. Before the cuffs do their thing a little warning light will flash and the cuffs will beep.

The application includes a photo of a prototype, which suggests these cuffs are well past concept stage and could soon be available to a cop near you.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SIGNS $4.5 MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT WITH HECKLER & KOCH

Redacted sections of document remain visible

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 5, 2013

Amidst concerns that the agency is engaged in a domestic arms race against the American people, the Department of Homeland Security has signed a new $4.5 million dollar contract with weapons manufacturer Heckler & Koch.

Heckler & Koch. Image: YouTube

A synopsis posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website yesterday announces the DHS’ intention to ink a five year deal with the Virginia-based firearms maker to provide gun replacement parts for the Federal Protective Service, ICE, Customs and Border Protection, “and other DHS agencies as needed.”

Although the document (PDF) is supposed to be redacted, the relevant sections have not been blacked out correctly and the figures are visible (see screenshot here).

The total value of the contract is $4.5 million, spread out across five annual payments of $900,000 dollars.

Although the number of DHS agents who carry Heckler & Koch firearms is blacked out, the document states that the need to source replacement parts is to ensure reliability and “to minimize officer safety concern and to protect the American public.”

The document also notes that the DHS surveyed the “retail” market for weapons parts but failed to identify retailers that were able to, “stock sufficient quantities of parts needed to fulfill the quantities of parts anticipated to be ordered.”

The DHS has purchased weapons from Heckler & Koch numerous times in the past, including an April 2012 deal worth $143,000 for the company to provide submachine guns.

As we reported last week, the DHS is now censoring more information relating to its firearms purchases, including a $1.5 million contract with firearms manufacturer Remington.

Having committed to purchasing roughly 2 billion bullets over the course of the last year, it was also recently revealed that the DHS has retrofitted 2,717 “Navistar Defense” armored vehicles for domestic use.

Last September, the agency also purchased 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, labeling them “personal defense weapons”.

Homeland Security’s rush to purchase large quantities of ammunition, guns, riot gear, armored vehicles and other related items is seen by some as part of an “arms build-up” in preparation for civil unrest in the aftermath of an economic collapse or another emergency that causes widespread social dislocation.

The mainstream media has failed to investigate the issue, instead regurgitating glib statements from DHS officials that the huge ammo buys are merely to save money by buying in bulk or that they are for training purposes only, despite the fact that many of the bullets purchased – hollow point rounds – are more expensive and not usually used for target practice.

Last week, former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin was ridiculed for warning that the federal government is “stockpiling bullets” in preparation for “civil unrest.”

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SPENDS $4.5 MILLION ON GUN PARTS FROM SIG SAUER

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 12, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security have not only been purchasing billions of rounds of ammunition, riot gear, armored vehicles, MREs and other supplies that could be used during a martial law scenario, but they are now contracting Sig Sauer, a gun manufacturer, to provide gun parts.

In a solicitation dated March 7th of 2013, for the next 5 years Sig Sauer “and all its authorized distributors” will provide DHS with common gun parts that would break easily, such as “springs, slides and other moving parts.”

It is estimated that this procurement will cost $4,500,000 over the 5 year contract.

Through the necessity to train more individuals, DHS has demonstrated through solicitations that their desire to monopolize the gun manufacturing industry is foremost to securing an advantage over a yet identified combatant.

In January, reports of ammunition shortages began to surface. As DHS stockpiles in what appears to be preparations for . . . something, police departments nationwide began facing ammunition shortages with back orders scheduled without a set date of delivery.

Police Chief Terry Sult of the Sandy Springs Police Department in South Carolina said: “It affects our ability to be prepared. It affects the potential safety of the officers, because they’re not as proficient as they should be.”

Media reports said that this shortage was caused by citizens purchasing guns and ammunition at astronomical rates in recent weeks. Police departments are concerned about having to enact plans for rationing their ammunition.

It has been observed that Americans are purchasing guns at an astronomical number in response to the Sandy Hook shooting and the plans of the Obama administration to revoke the 2nd Amendment. Magazines for AR-15 guns are on back order with manufacturers.

Hormady Manufacturing Co., the largest bullet manufacturer across the globe, released a statement last month explaining that “the current political climate has caused extremely high demand on all shooting industry products, including ours. Empty retail shelves, long back orders, and exaggerated price increases on online auction sites — all fueled by rumors and conjecture — have amplified concerns about the availability of ammunition and firearms-related items.”

The ammunition shortage is a push-and-pull of stocking shelves that are immediately emptied, then retailers restock those shelves only to have them emptied again in a short amount of time. This does not allow that the supply meet the demand and gives a constant perception that there is a shortage.

Explaining this self-serving prophecy is the fact that manufacturers did not have the need to increase facilities or production prior to the sudden rocketing sales of guns and ammunition just before the re-selection of our Communist-in-Chief, Barack Obama.

The most recent solicitation DHS made for 240,000 hollow point bullets has made quite a stir in the alternative media.

Last August, The Pacific Southwest Region of the US Forest Service has solicited ammunition that is supposedly needed for target practice. In this instance, the amounts of hollow point bullets, 12 gauge rifle slugs, and other accessories are smaller than DHS has requested through other federal agencies.

DHS previously ordered more than 63,000,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point bullets (JHP).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a solicitation for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP.

The Social Security Office has also made a solicitation for 174,000 rounds of .357 hollow point bullets.

DHS just solicited for 2,717 Mine Resistant Protected vehicles from Navistar Defense. The MaxxPro Dash DXM “is built to withstand ballistic arms fire, mine blasts, IEDs, and other emerging threats.”

This vehicle can “deflect IED blasts away from the vehicle” and is recommended for combat conditions such as seen in Afghanistan.

While DHS stockpiles these protective vehicles, they have previously placed a solicitation by way of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) for 700 pounds of High Density Ammonium Nitrate and 700 pounds of A-5 Flake RDX. With the delivery date scheduled for August 31, 2012.

Meanwhile at the University of Rhode Island, Jimmie Carol Oxley who is a chemist and professor while also funded by the DHS conducts experimental projects with her students to analyze IEDs from manufacturing to various “terrorist scenarios” that these diverse explosives could be used for.

Oxley has worked with many governmental agencies, such as the FBI, NSF, and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC); as well as written over 80 papers on “energetic materials (explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics). She has worked on law enforcement issues [with the FBI simulating the World Trade Center bombing (1993), with FEL examining large fertilizer bombs, and with ATF studying the behavior of pipe bombs]; however, her main research interest is hazard analysis of energetic materials.”

On a 2,200 acre site, Oxley and her students take IEDs constructed in the lab and detonate them to “see what happens.” They use chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide to study how chemical additives can reduce or exacerbate the effects of a home-made bomb. Most of Oxley’s students go on to work for the DHS specializing in criminal and terrorist investigations.

In September of 2012 Illinios hosted the Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct a presentation on IEDs. This demonstration is an extension of the FBI’s National Improvised Explosive Familiarization (NIEF) initiative “designed to raise awareness of the use of common chemicals to produce IEDs.”

The Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association (IFCA) are an organization that assists and represents “the crop production supply and service industry while promoting the sound stewardship and utilization of agricultural inputs.”

The Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association (IFCA) are an organization that assists and represents “the crop production supply and service industry while promoting the sound stewardship and utilization of agricultural inputs.”

The NIEF was created in 2007. They are “an intelligence-driven and a threat-focused national security and law enforcement organization” that becomes involved with local and state law enforcement with regard to terrorist and intelligence threats.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CENSORS INFORMATION ABOUT FIREARMS PURCHASE

Controversy surrounding arms build-up grows

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 1, 2013

Amidst continuing controversy over the Department of Homeland Security’s purchase of large quantities of guns and ammunition, the federal agency is getting more secretive about its activity by censoring information about a no-bid contract with Remington for firearms parts.

Despite the fact that documents pertaining to government activity are only supposed to be redacted for national security reasons or if authorized by Congress, a new entry posted on the FedBizOpps website pertaining to the DHS’ plans for a $1.5 million contract with firearms manufacturer Remington contains numerous blacked-out sections.

The document is an explanation of why the DHS has entered into a contract on a basis “other than full and open competition,” in other words a no bid contract. The contract with Remington Arms Company for firearms replacement parts is set to run for five years at a cost not to exceed $1.5 million dollars.

The first censored portion of the document blacks out the precise year by year amount in dollars that the DHS plans to purchase from Remington.

The second censored section blacks out the number of Remington firearms that have been serviced and maintained by the ICE National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit (NFTTU).

The third censored section relates to how the Remington firearms are distributed at state and local levels.

The fourth censored section pertains to the government’s reluctance to purchase a “complete firearms replacement system,” instead of using Remington firearms.

This isn’t the first time the DHS has redacted information related to firearms or bullet purchases.

In August last year, the federal agency classified portions of a document to conceal references to the amount of 223 62 and 223 64 grain ammunition being purchased in another no-bid contract.

The no-bid contract was justified due to an “unusual and compelling urgency” to acquire the bullets, noting that there is a shortage of bullets which is threatening a situation which could cause “substantial safety issues for the government” should law enforcement officials not be adequately armed.

Concerns have been raised about why the DHS is buying ammunition in such large quantities – with the agency committing to purchase roughly 2 billion bullets over the course of the last year, enough to wage a near 30 year war. In September last year, the DHS also bought 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, labeling them “personal defense weapons”.

Earlier this week, former Governor Sarah Palin raised the subject, warning that the federal government is “stockpiling bullets” in preparation for “civil unrest.”

She was attacked by a raft of leftist websites which claimed the issue had been “debunked,” although the debunking consisted of nothing more than regurgitating DHS statements which claimed the bullets were merely for target practice or that they were bought in bulk to save money.

The so-called “debunking” also failed to answer why most of the ammunition consisted of hollow point bullets, which are expensive and highly unusual to use for target practice.

Apparently, the mainstream media has failed to grasp that concerns about government activity cannot be “debunked” by merely repeating glib statements issued by government officials.

-

MARTIAL LAW IS THE GOAL

Daniel Detwiler
teapartyorg.ning.com
February 1, 2013

With everything happening to this country of ours it is getting harder and harder to maintain a cool head and not jump to conclusions but if we sit back and view the last four years as well as what’s happening now an image is starting to appear of what might possibly be our future.

During President Obama’s first term he laid the ground work. President Obama issued over 144 executive orders, many dealing with martial law. As the Supreme Court already opinioned when looking at President Lincolns use of martial law, “Martial law … destroys every guarantee of the Constitution.”. This means when martial law is declared we as Americans have no rights at all.

During President Obama’s first term he wrote Executive Orders granting the government the power to take over all communications media, electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. He also wrote an Executive Order where the government can take over all modes of transportation and control of the highways and sea ports. That means Obama can confiscate your horse, your donkeys, your bicycle or even your riding lawn mower. All forms of transportation. Executive orders signed by Obama also include railroads, inland water ways, public storage facilities, airports and airplanes including commercial planes can all be taken over by the government.

Think that’s bad, well it gets worse, much worse.

Executive Orders have also been signed allowing the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. To take over all health education and welfare functions. To allow the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations, AND grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute Industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

If that doesn’t scare you then look at this. An Executive order has also been signed which allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

Now why that last part that congress cannot review the action for six months? To understand why President Obama wanted that executive order lets look at what martial law is. Martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is “under martial law,” we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The president is the commander in chief of the military and as such in full control of the martial law. Seeing how the constitution is suspended during martial law and the President is in control the only ones able to stop martial law is the congress. In effect that Executive order that says Congress cannot review the action for six months in effect give the President full unchallenged control for six months.

A little tidbit to add to martial law here is that our constitution Article 1, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The concept of the of Habeas Corpus is that a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ means the government would have to provide a person to a court to show just reason for holding them. With the suspension of the writ the government can detain and hold a person indefinitely.

In a nut shell a President can declare martial law, would have six months of free reign to do as he pleases while rounding up any congressional opposition to his martial law and detaining them indefinitely and doing this totally legally.

In order for a president to declare martial law he must have a valid reason to do so. For that lets look at our present situation. Today we have a president whom has openly declared war on the second amendment to our constitution. This is causing a great deal of civil unrest in the nation. Being told that their actions are unconstitutional doesn’t slow the President down at all, in fact it emboldens him to push even harder. To top that off our President is also pushing us to the fiscal cliff of ruin. When asked about the out of control spending our President replies that we do not have a spending problem. Top that off with our government printing money as fast as possible as well as demanding unrestricted borrowing powers we can see we will be heading to a financial meltdown very soon. A financial meltdown coupled with civil unrest over constitutional violations would be the catalyst for open revolt and exactly what would be needed in order to openly declare martial law. Then we all are doomed.

-

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LEAKS MEMO LEGALIZING KILLING AMERICANS

By David Swanson | Global Research
February 05, 2013

With a few tweaks and a more creative title — like “Murder With Your Hands Clean” — this memo could sell a lot of copies.

And why not?  Either there’s a whistleblower in the Department of So-Called Justice about to be charged with espionage, and NBC is about to face the same persecution as WikiLeaks, or this is one of those “good” leaks that the White House wanted made public in an underhanded manner — perhaps as an imagined boost to morality-challenged CIA director nominee John Brennan who faces his Senate Rejection Hearing on Thursday.

The memo, which is thought to be a summary of a longer one, says the United States can murder a U.S. citizen abroad (abroad but somehow “outside the area of active hostilities” even though killing him or her seems rather active and hostile) if three conditions are met:

“1. an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;”

The memo goes on to base its claims on the supposed powers of the President, not of some random official.  Who is such an official?  Who decides whether he or she is informed?  What if two of them disagree?  What if he or she disagrees with the President? or the Congress? or the Supreme Court? or the U.S. public? or the United Nations? or the International Criminal Court? What then?  One solution is to redefine the terms so that everyone has to agree.   “Imminent” is defined in this memo to mean nothing at all.  “The United States” clearly means anywhere U.S. troops may be.

“2. capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible;”

And if a high-level official claims it’s infeasible, who can challenge that?

“3. the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”

When a U.S. drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, no one had shown either of them to meet the above qualifications.

When a U.S. drone strike targeted and killed 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, no one had shown him to meet the above qualifications; I don’t think anyone has made such a claim to this day.  And what about his cousin who died for the crime of being with him at the wrong time?

The sociopaths who wrote this memo have “legalized” the drone-killing of Americans with the exception of all the Americans known thus far to have been murdered by our government with the use of drones.

-

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT REVEALS MEMO REVEALING THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO CONDUCT DRONE STRIKES ON AMERICAN CITIZENS

Published on Feb 5, 2013

On Tuesday, a confidential Justice Department memo was released revealing the legal justification for the US government to conduct drone strikes on American citizens abroad. The portion of the memo that has been getting a lot of attention is that the government does not need evidence to justify a deadly attack. NBC first got its hands on the white paper and now a group of 11 bipartisan senators are demanding answers from the Obama administration. Stephen Miles, coalition coordinator for Win without War, gives us his take on the secret drone memo.

-

This link will take you to a Congressional website where you can quickly and easily email your Senators, Congressmen and the President:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

-

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS RESERVE THE RIGHT TO KILL UNITED STATES CITIZENS

Published on Feb 6, 2013

A confidential Justice Department memo reveals that drone strikes are now approved by the White House. The most controversial part of the memo says that the US government doesn’t need clear evidence to justify a deadly attack on American citizens. Scott Horton of Harper’s magazine joins us for more.

-

RELATED POST: EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA SIGNS NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2013 INTO LAW ON JANUARY 2, 2013: MARTIAL LAW COMES TO AMERICA

ARMED UNITED STATES DRONES COMING TO AN AIRSPACE NEAR YOU BY 2015

-

RAY MCGOVERN: ‘U.S. EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS, INDEFENSIBLE’

Published on Feb 6, 2013

A former CIA analyst tells Press TV that the United States drone strikes to kill people all over the world, even its citizens inside the US, are indefensible.

-

BEN SWANN: PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RULES FOR ASSASSINATING U.S. CITIZENS

-

JOHN BRENNAN: THE NEXUS OF TORTURE AND DRONE ASSASSINATIONS

Infowars.com
Feb 8, 2013

This week confirmation hearings began for John Brennan nominated by Obama for Director of the CIA. In the run up to the hearing, several articles have been leaked this week offering more details about the kill lists that Brennan created for the Obama Administration as well as details about torture and “extraordinary rendition” that Brennan defended. We look at how the administration, the courts and the Congress have viewed these activities.

-

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: IT’S LEGAL TO USE DRONE STRIKES ON AMERICANS

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
February 5, 2013

NBC news has produced a chilling, confidential Department of Justice (DOJ) white paper outlining the supposed legality of extrajudicial drone strikes on U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism even without intelligence to show involvement in a plot to attack America.

While admitting that U.S. citizens are still afforded constitutional protections such as due process when they travel abroad, the 16-page report claims, “The U.S. citizenship of a leader of al-Qa’ida or its associated forces, however, does not give that person constitutional immunity from attack” [emphasis added]. Continuing, “The Due Process Clause would not prohibit a lethal operation of the sort contemplated here.”

As it has with thousands of men, women, and children in the Middle East, our federal government apparently thinks it’s somehow allowed to use drones to openly murder Americans outside the law of our land.

The memo also claims, “This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a U.S. citizen.” Regardless of its extraordinary nature, such lethal drone operations would be “justified as an act of national self-defense.”

According to the DOJ, a lethal strike against an American citizen is okay if he or she is a suspected al-Qa’ida leader on foreign soil and the following three conditions are met:

1) an informed, high level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;

2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and

3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

The paper does not discuss considerations of drone strikes on Americans suspected of high-level terrorism on domestic soil.

Although this is the first time this deadly assertion has been spelled out in black and white, the U.S. government has already killed multiple U.S. citizens with drone strikes. Born in Denver, Colorado, Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son was an American citizen when he was murdered in a strike in Yemen. According to family member accounts, the teenager was not even involved in the suspected terrorist activities for which his father (also a U.S. citizen)  was killed in another U.S. drone strike a week earlier.

Neither al-Awlaki nor his son were afforded due process before they were killed.

Even the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which allows for the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism without a guaranteed trial, at least pretends to consider the Authorization for Use of Military Force’s inability to deny an American their constitutional rights.

The New York Times reported on Obama’s “secret kill list” at length last spring, noting the list included several U.S. citizens and two teens, “including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.” The article outlines how the president deems himself judge, jury, and executioner of those on the list.

Despite multiple Freedom of Information Act requests placed by the ACLU and others, the government has yet to release any information on its extrajudicial drone killings, what requirements must be met to be added to the list, or how the president goes about choosing the next suspect to die by drone.

Even as it amps up the drone war in Yemen, reports have come out just this month that the U.S. is now mulling over expanding drone strikes to Mali, a region that admittedly houses secret U.S. drone bases. Former Rand Corporation head Bruce Hoffman felt most Americans would not consider this action to be controversial because it isn’t “boots on the ground,” a position illustrating just how much unmanned aerial vehicles have further dehumanized American wars.

It’s time more Americans admitted these unconstitutional drone strikes are more than just controversial; they are murder. How can the DOJ “ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans” as its mission statement claims it must when it is calling for the outright extrajudicial slaying of American citizens?

The American system of criminal justice is supposedly based on the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty. Now, not only are we guilty until proven innocent, but apparently, proof is no longer required.

-

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER: PRESIDENT CAN ORDER ASSASSINATION OF AMERICANS ON U.S. SOIL

By Washington’s Blog | Global Research
March 06, 2013

Because America Is a Battlefield In The Eyes of the GovernmentAttorney general Eric Holder wrote the following to Senator Rand Paul yesterday:

On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the Administration’s views about whether “the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.

-

ERIC HOLDER: DRONE STRIKES AGAINST AMERICANS ON U.S. SOIL ARE LEGAL

Joel Gehrke, Commentary Writer, The Washington Examiner

March 5, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Holder noted that Paul’s question was “entirely hypothetical [and] unlikely to occur,” but cited the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as the type of incidents that might provoke such a response.

“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority,” he concluded.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, an attorney and Judiciary Committee member, told The Washington Examiner last month that the drone policy so far outlined by the administration is too vague.

“That has the potential to swallow the rule,” Lee said after the drone program white paper was leaked. “If you’re going to regard somebody as presenting an imminent threat of an attack on the U.S. simply because you have concluded that they are an ‘operational leader’ or they are involved in planning an attack in one way or another, you find yourself giving way to much discretion to the government.”

Lee said that the White House should release the formal legal analysis underpinning the drone program. “We know that in some instances where the government has released its legal analysis, it gets it wrong,” he said.

-

YES, YOUR GOVERNMENT CAN USE ARMED DRONES AGAINST YOU

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
March 5, 2013

Despite reassurances following the Christopher Dorner manhunt that lethal drones won’t be used to target American citizens on U.S. soil, a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul states otherwise.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” the letter partially posted by Mother Jones states.

Sen. Paul’s concerns that the government may use armed drones to target American citizens was the main reason he threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan to head up the CIA.

When Brennan referred Sen. Paul to the Department of Justice, this is the response he got from Holder:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening,” Sen. Paul said in a statement on his Senate website Tuesday. “It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

-

-

The Department of Homeland Security faced criticism following an unsubstantiated report that surveillance drones were being used to aid the manhunt for suspected cop killer Christopher Dorner in California earlier this year.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection were quick to issue a response denying their use of drones – in attempts to quell public outrage – and shortly thereafter, the Federal Aviation Administration reassured the public that lethal drones would never be used.

Many, however, were dismissive or oblivious of the fact that government surveillance drones have already been used to spy on members of the public.

In 2011, police in Grand Forks, North Dakota called in a favor from their buddies at the DHS to use one of their drones to monitor the Brossart family farm after six cows had reportedly wandered onto their property.

Drones are also routinely used to survey agricultural conditions and enforce environmental laws throughout the country.

Last June, the EPA responded to a letter from Nebraska’s congressional delegation saying they “would use such flights in appropriate instances to protect people and the environment from violations of the Clean Water Act,” a fact they later denied following intense media scrutiny.

Indeed, the FAA has already secured authorization to have anywhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 drones criss-crossing the skies by 2020.

Public sentiment towards drone use in America has shifted greatly in response to rumors of alleged drone use in the Dorner manhunt. Also, last month a 16-page Justice Department memo concerning legal drone assassinations of American citizens was leaked fueling further concerns that drones can and will be used to hunt and target American civilians.

“Just six months ago, a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National Constitution Center found that more Americans supported than opposed the use of surveillance drones by domestic law enforcement agencies,” writer and editor for PrisonPlanet.com Steve Watson wrote recently.

“Now, in the latest poll, 57 percent of respondents say it is unconstitutional to order the killing of Americans overseas. Even more — 59 percent — believe that the federal government abuses its power when it comes to targeted strikes.”

Moreover, “47 percent of respondents to the latest poll said they believe they have a right to destroy a UAV if it flies over their house without their permission.”

Drone strikes have killed American citizens in the past, as was the case in Yemen with Anwar Awlaki and his son 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

-

SENATOR RAND PAUL’S THIRD LETTER TO THE CIA: CAN YOU KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS WITH DRONES IN THE UNITED STATES?

A Lightning War for Liberty

Feb 28, 2013

This letter is a few days old, but is very important for every American to be aware of. Essentially, Rand Paul is threatening to filibuster Barack Obama’s nominee for the CIA, John Brennan, due to his refusal to answer a simple question:

Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

This should not be a complicated question to answer, yet it seems Obama, Brennan and pretty much every other little power consumed bureaucrat is incapable of doing so.  Below is Rand Paul’s letter reprinted in full (my emphasis added).

February 20, 2013

John O. Brennan

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Brennan,

In consideration of your nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), I have repeatedly requested that you provide answers to several questions clarifying your role in the approval of lethal force against terrorism suspects, particularly those who are U.S. citizens. Your past actions in this regard, as well as your view of the limitations to which you are subject, are of critical importance in assessing your qualifications to lead the CIA. If it is not clear that you will honor the limits placed upon the Executive Branch by the Constitution, then the Senate should not confirm you to lead the CIA.

During your confirmation process in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), committee members have quite appropriately made requests similar to questions I raised in my previous letter to you-that you expound on your views on the limits of executive power in using lethal force against U.S. citizens, especially when operating on U.S. soil. In fact, the Chairman of the SSCI, Sen. Feinstein, specifically asked you in post-hearing questions for the record whether the Administration could carry out drone strikes inside the United States. In your response, you emphasized that the Administration “has not carried out” such strikes and “has no intention of doing so.” I do not find this response sufficient.

The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored.

Just last week, President Obama also avoided this question when posed to him directly. Instead of addressing the question of whether the Administration could kill a U.S. citizen on American soil, he used a similar line that “there has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil.” The evasive replies to this valid question from the Administration have only confused the issue further without getting us any closer to an actual answer.

For that reason, I once again request you answer the following question: Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

I believe the only acceptable answer to this is no.

Until you directly and clearly answer, I plan to use every procedural option at my disposal to delay your confirmation and bring added scrutiny to this issue and the Administration’s policies on the use of lethal force. The American people are rightfully concerned, and they deserve a frank and open discussion on these policies.

Sincerely,
Rand Paul, M.D.

United States Senator

-

RAND PAUL: ‘I WILL NOT LET OBAMA ‘SHRED THE CONSTITUTION’

March 6, 2013

By Joel Gehrke, Commentary Writer, The Washington Examiner

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.,  is staging an active filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination to be CIA director, a move prompted by Attorney General Eric Holder’s admission that it could be constitutional to carry out a drone strike on an American in the United States.

Paul said that all presidents must honor the Fifth Amendment. “No American should ever be killed in their house without  warrant and some kind of aggressive behavior by them,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “To be bombed in your sleep? There’s nothing American about that . . . [Obama] says trust him  because he hasn’t done it yet. He says he doesn’t intend to do so, but he might. Mr. President, that’s not good enough . . . so I’ve come here to speak for as long as I can to draw attention to something that I find to really be very disturbing.”

“I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution,” Paul added.”No person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process,” he said, quoting the Fifth Amendment.

Holder wrote a letter to Paul this week acknowledging that the administration believes a drone strike on U.S. soil could be constitutional.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder wrote.

The Kentucky lawmaker conceded that terrorism presents a complicated national security issue.”There was a man named Awlaki,” Paul noted. “He was treasonous. I have no sympathy for his death. I still would have tried him in a federal court for treason and he could have been executed.”

But then he turned to Awlaki’s son, a 16-year-old born in Colorado who was killed in a drone strike while in Yemen. “Here’s the real problem: when the president’s spokesman was asked about Awlaki’s son, do you know what his response was?” Paul asked, referring to former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who made the comment after leaving the White House. “He said he should have chosen a more responsible father.”

Paul cited the chaos of post-war Germany, which ultimately led to Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, to argue for the importance of Obama respecting the Fifth Amendment rather than undermining the rule of law, as Paul believes the drone program does.

“The point isn’t that anyone in our country is Hitler,” Paul said, repeating that he is not comparing anyone to Hitler. “But what I am saying that is in a democracy you could somehow elect someone who is very evil . . . When a democracy gets it wrong, you want the law to be in place.”

-

-

RAND PAUL: DRONES COULD BE TARGETED AT AMERICANS EATING DINNER AT HOME

Privacy group petitioning government on drone capability to identify armed individuals, intercept cell phones

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
March 6, 2013

Senator Rand Paul lashed out at the Obama administration last night following suggestions by Attorney General Eric Holder that the president is within his rights to assassinate Americans on American soil using drone strikes, without oversight.

“The thing about the drone strike program is, we’re not talking about someone’s actively attacking America, we’re not talking about planes flying into the World Trade Center.” Paul said in a Fox News interview.

“What we’re talking about is you’re eating dinner in your house. you’re eating at a cafe or you’re walking down the road. That’s when these drone strikes can occur.” Paul added, calling the development “particularly disturbing”.

“If you’re an American and you’re accused of a crime, one of the basic principles, one of the protections we’ve always had is, you get a trial… You don’t get convicted without a trial.” the Senator added.

“Listen to what his [Obama's] response is.” Paul urged. “His response is, we haven’t killed any Americans yet. We don’t intend to, but we might. And that’s pretty disturbing.”

-

-

Paul was speaking in reaction to Eric Holder’s response to his own letter asking if Americans could be targeted with drones.

Holder wrote that it was “possible,” for President Obama to “authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” citing the 9/11 terror attacks as an example.

In a further statement today, Holder told Congress that the federal government has “no intention” of using drones to strike at targets within the U.S., saying it’s easier to capture people here so that tool is not as important.

“The use of drones is from my perspective something that is entirely, entirely hypothetical,” he said.

Senator Paul has called for a pledge from the White House that drone strikes will not be used in America regardless of the circumstances.

“We’re talking about someone eating at a cafe in Boston, or New York, and a Hellfire missile comes raining in on them,” Paul said during a previous appearance on Fox News. “There should be an easy answer from the administration on this. They should say, ‘Absolutely no, we will not kill Americans in America without an accusation, a trial and a jury.’”

“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” Paul wrote in a further statement on his website.

Meanwhile, where domestic drone use for surveillance is concerned, advocacy group the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) issued a statement on its website announcing that it is officially petitioning U.S. Customs and Border Protection over revelations that unmanned Predator drones under the agency’s operation can listen in on electronic communications.

EPIC noted that documents it recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the agency’s drones will be equipped with technology for signals interception and human identification.

The 2010 DHS “performance specification” document EPIC has uncovered states that “communication relay and interception” are preferable operations to use drones for, rather than relying on “sensors mounted in airships, aerostats, towers, and manned aircraft”. The document states that the capability has not yet been tested in the field.

According to the document, the drones are to have a “signals interception receiver,” that would be capable of intercepting cell phone and radio communications transmissions.

The Homeland Security design requirements also specify that the Predator B drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not”.

-

HOLDER’S LETTER TO RAND PAUL: ‘NO,’ THE U.S. CAN’T USE DRONE TO KILL CITIZEN NOT ENGAGED IN COMBAT ON U.S. SOIL

By DANIEL HALPER | The Weekly StandardMar 7, 2013

Eric Holder responds to Rand Paul’s filibuster with this letter:

Dear Senator Paul:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

Sincerely,

Eric Holder

Here’s an image of that letter:

UPDATE: Apparently, the White House and Justice Department failed to send the letter to the person who asked the question–Rand Paul.

-

ALERT: AUMF AUTHORIZES OBAMA TO USE KILLER DRONES AGAINST AMERICANS

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 8, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder has further clarified his comments to Senator Rand Paul in the letter he wrote a few days ago. When Holder spoke about the “extraordinary circumstances” in which President Obama could authorize “lethal force” be used on Americans in the US, he meant that Obama was empowered by the “2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (AUMF) to assign military to patrol American streets as a matter of routine.

AUMF was a collaboration of the Congress and the US Armed Forces to battle against the attacks on 9/11. According to the text, the AUMF empowers the president when “acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad”, threatens national security and foreign policy with “grave acts of violence” then “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts” with the use of military force.

-

OBAMAPD

-

EXCLUSIVE: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MEMO REVEALS LEGAL CASE FOR DRONE STRIKES ON AMERICANS

By Michael Isikoff National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches.  It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says,  an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American  has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”  It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration  officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s  Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly — or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations.

Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators — led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote  a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country,  it said, “It is vitally important … for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how  the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”

The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a  lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act.  McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,”  said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.”

In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.”

In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March,  he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.

“The Constitution does not  require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,”  he said.

But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified  if “capture is not feasible.” But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible “if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation.” The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was  mentioned in the white paper.

The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as   a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.

It  also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly,  the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”

-

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MEMO SANCTIONS STATE ASSASSINATIONS OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS

By Bill Van Auken
6 February 2013

A confidential Justice Department white paper on the legality of “lethal operations” against US citizens made public Monday night argues that virtually unlimited power is placed in the hands of the American president to order the assassination of perceived enemies of the state anywhere around the globe.

While spelling out certain conditions that would purportedly make the targeted killing of an American citizen legal—such as the target being an “operational leader of Al Qaeda or an associated force” who poses an imminent threat of violent attack and whose capture is not feasible—the paper goes on to provide arguments that essentially render these conditions meaningless and non-restrictive.

As if that were not enough, the term “associated force” is defined so broadly that a member of virtually any armed movement deemed hostile to US interests can be targeted. Moreover the paper specifically states that while the conditions it presents are “sufficient” to make such a state killing legal, the absence of one or all of them does not mean that an assassination would be illegal.

“This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful, nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a US citizen lawful in other circumstance, including an operation against … a US citizen who is not a senior operational leader of such [Al Qaeda] forces.” it states.

In other words, the document leaves the selection of assassination victims—including non-Al Qaeda opponents of US imperialism—to the discretion of the president and his military and intelligence operatives.

The document, first reported by Michael Isikoff of NBC News, was prepared by the Obama administration as a summary of a legal memo issued by the Justice Department’s OLC. It was given last summer to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees on condition that its contents be kept secret from the American public.

The memo upon which the white paper is based was prepared to provide a pseudo-legal justification for the Obama administration’s order to assassinate New Mexico-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in a September 2011 drone strike. Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen, was murdered in the same missile attack, and al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, born in Colorado, was assassinated two weeks later in another drone strike in Yemen.

Questioned repeatedly about the white paper at a White House press briefing Tuesday afternoon, Obama spokesman Jay Carney offered a prepared defense of the entire drone killing program, which by conservative estimates has claimed the lives of nearly 5,000 men, women and children around the globe. Carney insisted that the drone killings “are legal, they are ethical and they are wise.”

US Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the Obama administration only takes “these kinds of actions when there is an imminent threat, when capture is not feasible and when we are confident that we’re doing so in a way that is consistent with federal and international law.”

Neither Carney nor Holder directly addressed the leaked document or dealt in any detail with the legal sophistry it advances to justify the assassination of American citizens.

“This is a chilling document,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said of the white paper Tuesday. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

The Obama administration has gone to enormous lengths to keep documents relating to the drone killing program from the American public. Lawsuits brought by the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act to force release of these documents were dismissed last month by a federal judge in Manhattan who complained in her ruling that laws and legal precedents dealing with national security and state secrets “effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for its conclusion a secret.”

The release of the white paper coincided with a demand by 11 US senators—eight Democrats and three Republicans—for the administration to provide Congress with all legal opinions supporting “the President’s authority to deliberately kill American citizens.”

It also comes just days before John Brennan, Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser and nominee for director of the Central Intelligence Agency, is to appear at a Thursday confirmation hearing convened by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Brennan has served as the architect and director of the administration’s drone killing program, and he became its first public defender. Under his leadership, the killing campaign has become systematized under a program known as “disposition matrix,” while procedures governing assassinations have been codified in a “rule book.”

While Brennan’s confirmation is generally regarded as assured, the hearing is expected to feature questions about the assassination campaign as well as his defense of extraordinary rendition and torture while serving a top official at the CIA under the Bush administration. Four years ago, Democratic opposition over this record forced Obama to drop his bid to make Brennan CIA director when he first entered the White House. The acceptance of Brennan now is an unmistakable measure of the shift to the right by the Democratic Party and the entire political establishment.

In both its criminal content and its pseudo-legalistic tone, the white paper resembles nothing so much as the so-called “torture memos” that were drafted under Bush and released by the Obama administration in April 2009 in what it claimed at the time was the inauguration of a new era of “transparency and openness.”

The administration has defended those responsible for torture and other crimes ever since, while establishing the tightest reign of secrecy in American history. As the summary of the assassination memo make clear, the criminality that existed under Bush has escalated sharply under his successor.

The conditions that the white paper sets for declaring a targeted assassination lawful are predicated on the proposed victim being a “senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or an associated force.” The paper simply presumes that the target is such a leader, without explaining how that designation is decided. The implication is that unidentified “high-level officials” of the US government, in other words, Obama, Brennan and their aides, make such determinations on their sole discretion, without the target of state murder having any knowledge of the proceeding, let alone an opportunity to rebut the charge.

In the case of al-Awlaki, no evidence was ever presented that he played an “operational” role in al-Qaeda, and experts on Yemen dispute this description. What is clear from the rest of the conditions, however, is that once the US president or his underlings make such a designation—without presenting charges, much less proving them—assassination is “lawful” according to the Justice Department.

Cast aside are the most fundamental democratic rights enshrined in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, first among them the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “No person shall … be deprived of life … without due process of law.” The paper essentially reduces “due process” to the discussions now taking place in the so-called “terror Tuesday” sessions at the White House, where Obama and his military and intelligence aides secretly pick victims to be killed by Hellfire missiles.

As for the supposed “conditions” that the paper purports would make an assassination legal, all of them are fraudulent. First it states that a targeted individual must present “an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States.” This determination, the paper explains, “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” Having to produce such evidence, it argues, “would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself.”

The condition of “imminent,” the white paper continues, is determined not by known crimes past, present or future attributed to the individual targeted for assassination, but rather by the classification of the targeted victim as a “senior operational leader” and the “limited window of opportunity” that the US military and intelligence apparatus has to murder this individual. Under this “broader concept of imminence,” preemptive killing is permitted once the president or an “informed high-level official” has fingered someone as an enemy of the state.

The supposed condition of capture of the targeted individual being infeasible is likewise an empty shell. The white paper includes in this definition the problem of a capture not being possible during the “window of opportunity,” refusal of the country where the targeted individual is to allow a capture operation and “undue risk to US personnel” of attempting such a capture. In short, wherever assassination is deemed expedient, it is “lawful.”

The white paper argues that Authorization of the Use of Military Force passed by Congress in September 2001 justifies assassinations and drone strikes anywhere on the planet. It recycles the claims made by the Bush administration that the entire world is a battlefield in the war on terror.

Among the sources cited in support of this contention are speeches given by Nixon administration officials in defense of the 1970 invasion of Cambodia. That Nixon’s Cambodia policy was subsequently an article in his impeachment apparently doesn’t faze Obama and his underlings.

The document asserts that there “exists no appropriate judicial forum” to consider whether presidentially ordered assassinations of US citizens raises constitutional issues. Any court review, either before or after the killings, it states, would improperly interfere with “specific tactical judgment” of the president and “officials responsible for operations.”

The rest of the paper consists largely of assertions that the extra-judicial executions of US citizens by means of drone strikes violate neither the US Constitution, nor the US ban on assassinations, nor international law and cannot be construed as war crimes. Much like the torture memos drafted a decade ago, these claims are meant to reassure those following the criminal orders of the White House.

What is spelled out here is a presidency which has arrogated to itself the “right” to act as judge, jury and executioner in carrying out secret assassinations of American citizens as well many thousands of other human beings around the globe. The overturning of any limitations on this power of life and death lays the groundwork for a police-state dictatorship.

-

LEAKED DOCUMENT OUTLINES LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR TARGETED ASSASSINATION OF AMERICANS

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 5, 2013

A leaked internal memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel for the Obama administration entitled, “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force” explains the White House’s justification for conducting targeted killings. The Obama administration claims that this document does not exist, yet the 16-page white paper originating with the Department of Justice (DoJ) has been given to select members of the Senate.

This document outlines in detail the legal reasoning used by the Obama administration for carrying out targeted assassinations of American citizens with suspected ties to al-Qaeda. No proof is necessary for any American to be put on this list; simply the federal government’s suspicions are sufficed.

Broken down into a three-part “test” to justify targeted assassinations, the white paper states:

  1. An informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted American poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States
  2. Capture is infeasible
  3. The operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of force

Obama-administration-hiding-info-on-targeted-killings-of-Americans-senator

The white paper includes redefinitions and expansions of self-defense and imminent attack with the ideology of a “broader concept of imminence” without the necessity of actual intelligence to support those assumptions. If the American is thought to be a threat to the US, they could become eligible of these targeted assassinations.

Language such as “informed, high-level” US government official could independently determine that a US citizen was “recently” involved with al-Qaeda in undetermined “activities” and be found without proof to be a sure threat by committing a possible attack on the US.

This briefing paper was extracted from another document that surfaced in 2011 and states that due process is not applicable in cases where a US citizen is placed on the White House kill list. The document explains that “judicial enforcement of such orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.”

Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, remarked that the paper was “a profoundly disturbing document. “It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances. It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority — the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement.”

In May of 2012, Obama gave his chief of counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, a promotion. Brennan has been designated as the one person in the Obama administration who is in charge of choosing who will be assassinated.

Brennan, who was a CIA official during the Bush administration, recently remarked that drone killings were moral, ethical and just.

Brennan will work with the State Department and the Pentagon (along with various federal agencies) in creating target lists; deciding who lives and who dies. Brennan’s recommendation will be delivered directly to Obama for final consideration.

How the process will be enacted is a classified matter; however advocacy groups are alarmed and are demanding that the Obama administration make use of the legal process in the US before ordering people killed by drones.

imagesCA1F3T5W

Al-Qaeda being the go-to fake terrorist group was created by the US government in the 1980s.

In February of 2012, in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Hillary Clinton, former US Secretary of State, admitted that the US trained the MEK in Afghanistan when the US was engaged in using the terrorist faction against the Russians. The MEK became the CIA-controlled faction known as al-Qaeda. Clinton said: “When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan we had this brilliant idea that we were gonna come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahideen, equip them with stinger missiles, and everything else and go after the Soviets in Afghanistan.” This is the creation of al-Qaeda.

Clinton goes on to say: “We were successful. We said ‘great’; and we left Afghanistan . . . Leaving these trained people who were fanatical in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Leaving them well armed and creating a mess at the time we didn’t recognize. When you look back today, the people we are fighting today, we were supporting in the fight against the Soviets.”

Here in the US, there is a push to resurrect the idea of “sleeper agents” tied to extremists Islamic militants in the US that could be “awakened”. This assertion has no basis in fact, however the globalist think-tank The RAND Corporation, surmise that between 2009 and 9/11, “the U.S. government reported forty-six incidents of “domestic radicalization and recruitment to jihadist terrorism.” RAND went on to claim that Americans are playing a high level operational role in al-Qaeda and aligned groups.

Globalists point to al-Qaeda as the origination of radicalization as evidenced with Anwar al-Awlaki who was purported to have opportunities to spread violent Islamic ideology in the US. The use of social media sites and evangelical preachers could cause a boon in terrorist groups as explained by counterterrorism experts.

Independent studies find that the incidents of Islamic radicalization have significantly dropped since 9/11 and terrorism has fallen to only 20 cases reported in 2011. Charles Kurzman, author of the report for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, explained that Muslim Americans are “a miniscule threat to public safety.”

-

TARGETED KILLINGS: THE WHITE PAPER THAT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO KILL A U.S. CITIZEN WHO IS NOT ON THE BATTLEFIELD”

By Marjorie Cohn | Global Research
February 08, 2013

By Dennis Bernstein

B:  We continue our discussion of the revelations around a memo coming out of the Justice Department that the administration plans to keep up these assassinations and expand the program.  Joining us to take a legal look at this is Marjorie Cohn, Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former President of the National Lawyers Guild.  She is also the editor of “The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse.”  Welcome back to Flashpoints, Marjorie.  You say the White Paper runs afoul of international and US law.  Please explain.

MC:  The White Paper allows the government to kill a US citizen who is not on the battlefield, if some high government official who is supposedly informed about the situation thinks that the target is a senior Al Queda leader who poses an imminent threat of a violent attack against the United States.  So how do they define “imminence”? Well, it doesn’t require any clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.  So it completely dilutes this whole idea of imminent threat.  Under well-established principles of international law and the UN Charter, one country can use military force against another only in self-defense.  But under the Caroline case, which is the gold standard here, the “necessity for self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

That means we are going to be attacked right away and we can use force.  But the very nebulous test that the White Paper lays out even allows the targeted killing of somebody who is considered to be a “continuing” threat, whatever that means.  The most disturbing part of it says that US citizens can be killed even when there is no “clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”  So we have a global battlefield, where if there is someone, anywhere, who might be associated with Al Qaeda, according to a high government official, then Obama can authorize (it’s not even clear Obama himself has to authorize these targeted killings, these drone attacks) on Terror Tuesday (thanks to the New York Times expose several months ago) who he is going to kill after consulting with John Brennan.  John Brennan, of course, is his counter-terrorism guru who is up for confirmation to be CIA Director.  Very incestuous.  John Brennan has said that targeted killings constitute lawful self-defense.

One of the most disturbing things here is the amassing of executive power with no review by the courts, no checks and balances.  So the courts will have no opportunity to interpret what “imminence” means, or what “continuing” threat means.

The White Paper cites John Yoo, who claims that courts have no role to play in what the President does in this so-called War on Terror where the whole world is a battlefield.  I say so-called War on Terror because terrorism is a tactic.  It’s not an enemy.  You don’t declare war on a tactic.  And the White Paper refers Yoo’s statement that judicial review constitutes “judicial encroachment” on the judgments by the President and his National Security advisors as to when and how to use force.

The White Paper cites Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which says the President has the authority to hold US citizens caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan as enemy combatants.  But in Hamdi, the Supreme Court stated that a US citizen who is being detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to due process.  Due process means an arrest and a fair trial.  It doesn’t mean just taking him out with a drone.  Also, there’s another interesting passage in this White Paper.  It says “judicial enforcement [a court reviewing these kill orders of the executive] of such orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisors as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.”

Inherently predictive.  Does that mean that the court can’t review decisions made with a crystal ball because it’s too mushy?  I don’t know.  Certainly courts are competent to make emergency decisions under FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  The FISA Court meets in secret and authorizes wiretaps requested by the executive branch.  Courts can do this.  Courts can act in emergencies to review and check and balance what the executive is doing.  That’s what our Constitution is all about.

DB: Congress is looking for some original documents about what’s going on here.  The White Paper is sort of a restatement of National Security documents that we probably haven’t been able to see yet. What about the Geneva Conventions?  It sort of throws that in the garbage.

MC:  Well, it does because the Geneva Conventions define willful killing as a grave breach.  And grave breaches are punishable as war crimes.  So this also violates the Geneva Conventions.  Although the White Paper says that they are going to follow the well-established principle of proportionality – proportionality means that an attack cannot be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage – I don’t see how they can actually put that into practice because the force is going to be excessive.  When you see how they are using drones, they are taking out convoys, and they are killing civilians, large numbers of civilians.

There’s another principle of international law called distinction, which requires that the attack be directed only at legitimate military targets.  We know from the New York Times expose that the kill list that Brennan brings to Obama to decide who he is going to take out without a trial – basically execute – can be used even if they don’t have a name, or if they are present in an area where there are suspicious “patterns of behavior.”  These are known as signature strikes.

That means that bombs are dropped on unidentified people who are in an area where suspicious activity is taking place.  That goes even beyond targeted killings.  Targeted killings are considered to be illegal.  The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, expressed grave concerns about these targeted killings, saying that they may constitute war crimes.  He called on the Obama administration to explain how its drone strikes comport with international law and to specify the bases for the decisions to kill rather than capture particular individuals.

The White Paper says that one of the requirements before they can take someone out is that capture is “infeasible.”  As you go on and read this memo, infeasible begins to look like inconvenient.  We have these very mushy terms, with no clear standards that comply with international law.  Yet there is no oversight by any court, and Congress has no role either.  So we don’t have checks and balances.  Even the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed a few days after 9/11 doesn’t authorize this.  The AUMF allows the President to use force against groups and countries that had supported the 9/11 attacks.  But when the Bush administration asked Congress for open-ended military authority “to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States,”  Congress specifically rejected that open-ended military authority.  Congress has not authorized this, and it’s not clear whether Congress would authorize it.  There are several congresspersons who are trying to get a hold of the actual documents that you have referred to, beyond this White Paper, which is the tip of the iceberg.

DB:  That includes Ron Wyden who is on the Intelligence Committee and can’t get a hold of this.  When one looks at this Obama policy and compares it to Bush, essentially Obama has chosen well, we’ll do a little less torture, or skip the torture, and we’ll just kill them.

MC: Obama has expanded these drone attacks far beyond what the Bush administration was doing.  There are many thorny issues, such as indefinite detention, how detainees are treated, and under what circumstances they can be released.  The Obama administration evidently feels that it’s cleaner and easier just to kill them.  Then you don’t have to worry about bad publicity from housing them at Guantanamo, not giving them a fair trial, holding them indefinitely.  This goes beyond the torture policy.  Now I don’t want to say that killing with drones is worse than the illegal and outrageous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that  the Bush administration began, in which thousands and thousands and thousands of people have been killed or seriously maimed.  So I wouldn’t say that Obama is worse than Bush.  But certainly Obama is following in the tradition of the Bush administration and John Yoo’s expansive view of executive power where whatever the President does is unreviewable.

DB:  I would say they continue the process of destroying the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the necessary checks and balances that restrain war, that the people depend on.  We are out of time.  Marjorie, thanks for being with us on Flashpoints.

-

THE POLICE STATE IMPLICATIONS OF OBAMA’S ASSASSINATION PROGRAM

7 February 2013

The Obama administration’s recently-leaked “white paper” on the assassination of US citizens, and the actions carried out on the basis of the arguments it advances, must be taken as a dire warning to the working class in the United States and around the world. The democratic rights of the people are in grave peril. The American ruling class, steeped in lawlessness and violence, is moving toward dictatorship.

The administration’s frontal assault on democratic rights and constitutional protections—asserting the “right” of the president to unilaterally and secretly order the state murder of American citizens—is undeniably grounds for impeachment. The crimes of Richard Nixon, who nearly 40 years ago resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment and removal from office, pale in comparison to Obama’s assertion of unconstrained executive powers.

The pseudo-legal arguments of the Justice Department memo, recalling the Bush administration’s infamous torture memoranda, boil down to the following:

The president and the military-intelligence apparatus, based solely on their own internal deliberations, have the power to assassinate any US citizen who they decide is a leading member of Al Qaeda or its “associated forces.” This power has no geographic boundaries. Nor can it be limited by any form of congressional or judicial oversight. The White House and its military/intelligence advisers are judge, jury and executioner.

The entire document is an exercise in doubletalk and sophistry. While it asserts, for example, that those selected for elimination have to pose an “imminent threat of violent attack,” it proceeds to define “imminent” to mean its opposite. The government needs no proof that any specific action is planned or that something is to take place in the immediate future.

In the end, nothing remains of core democratic rights. The principle of due process—with roots going back to the 13th Century and enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution’s assertion that no individual can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”—is dispensed with.

The justifications for this assertion of dictatorial powers—national security and the requirements of war (in this case, the global “war on terror”)—are the same as those invoked by every military and fascist regime, from Hitler to Pinochet.

Yet these developments have provoked no significant opposition from within the political or media establishment.

The response of the New York Times, the main newspaper of American liberalism, is particularly significant. In an editorial published Wednesday, the Times regrets the undisguised character of the administration’s contempt for constitutional restraints and proposes measures to give the killing operation, including of American citizens, a legalistic gloss. It suggests the creation of a “special [i.e., secret] court to handle this sort of sensitive discussion, like the one it created to review wiretapping.” In other words, a star chamber to rubber-stamp state murders in similar fashion as the secret FISA court sanctions unlimited domestic spying.

The Times does not call for a halt to program of extra-judicial assassinations, nor does it suggest that Obama and his accomplices be held to account.

In a section of the Times published online, entitled “Room for Debate,” the newspaper presents various opinions on the assassination doctrine, most of which are in favor. Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law (and former clerk for US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) proclaims the legal arguments in the white paper “exhaustive.”

Gregory McNeal of Pepperdine University (and former top adviser to the Guantanamo Bay military commissions under the Bush administration) insists that “wartime targeting decisions are entrusted to political branches, not unelected and unaccountable judges.”

Criticisms of the program presented by the Times are muted. Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union worries that the executive should not be entrusted alone to carry out such actions because they can “make mistakes.”

Such is the official “debate.”

The acceptance and support by the American liberal establishment of presidential assassinations, including of American citizens, is the outcome of a decades-long evolution ever further to the right. As the Democratic Party has abandoned any commitment to social reform, it has accepted and promoted attacks on basic democratic rights—from the cover-up of the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s; to the attempted right-wing coup, in the form of the Starr investigation and Clinton impeachment, in the 1990s; to the theft of the 2000 elections; to the raft of police state measures implemented in the aftermath of 9/11 and the launching of wars based on lies of the 2000s.

Now, in the form of the Obama administration, the Democratic Party and the upper-middle class liberal milieu that forms its personnel and periphery is carrying out criminal policies both at home and abroad that go beyond even those implemented by the Bush administration.

This is not to be explained by the “war on terror” and the campaign against Al Qaeda. Behind these ideological pretexts lie profound and political and social processes.

The policy of extra-judicial assassination of American citizens underscores the inextricable connection between militarism abroad and the destruction of democracy within the United States. In response to its declining economic position, the American ruling elite has sought to leverage its overriding military power to maintain its position of global domination. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in particular, the US has launched one war after another, now accompanied by a campaign of drone assassinations.

The decline of American capitalism has at the same time been accompanied by a further concentration of wealth in the hands of an increasingly parasitic financial aristocracy, a process that has only accelerated since the onset of the world economic crisis in 2008.

The ruling class is well aware that the unending attack on jobs, wages and social programs is generating mass opposition. The erection of the framework of a police state is directed against the inevitable eruption of society.

-

CROSS TALK: OBAMA THE DRONE MASTER

Published on Feb 8, 2013

Is ‘death by drone’ justifiable? Or even effective? Is Washington’s use of drones legal under international — and now also national – law? What of the issue of blowback — is this being taken seriously? And in sending out drones, what other message is the US sending out to the world? CrossTalking with David Swanson and Noel Sharkey.

-

PRESIDENT OBAMA: ASSASSIN IN CHIEF?

By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson | The American Thinker

February 7, 2013

Exercising a power that no prior president ever thought he possessed — a power that no prior president is known to have exercised — President Obama admitted that he ordered the execution of American citizens, not on a battlefield, based on his belief that they were involved in terrorist activities.  It is known that at least three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year old boy, were killed on the president’s order in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011.

As the worldwide drone program ramps up, there have been increasing calls for the president to reveal the basis for his claimed authority.  Only a few weeks ago, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon denied both the ACLU’s and New York Times‘ requests under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain any and all legal documents prepared in support of the president’s claim of unilateral powers.  While Judge McMahon was concerned that the documents “implicate serious issues about the limits on the power of the Executive Branch under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and about whether we are indeed a nation of laws not of men,” she felt constrained by precedent to withhold them.  Now, a bipartisan group of 11 senators has written a letter to president Obama asking for “any and all legal opinions” that describe the basis for his claimed authority to “deliberately kill American citizens.”

However, not until the Senate began gathering information for hearings on John Brennan’s confirmation as CIA director, to begin February 7, has public attention finally been focused on this remarkable presidential usurpation of power.

On the night of February 4, the walls of secrecy were breached when NBC News released a leaked U.S. Justice Department White Paper entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”  Now we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis.  It is deeply flawed — based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.  Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution’s Third Article — those specifically designed to prohibit the president from serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

The white paper does not seek to delimit the federal power to kill citizens, but simply sets out a category of “targeted killing” of American citizens off the battlefield on foreign soil which it deems to be clearly authorized.  Moreover, this power is not vested exclusively in the president, or even the secretary of defense, or even officials within the Department of Defense — rather, it can be relied on by other senior officials of unspecified rank elsewhere in government.

According to the white paper, there are only three requirements to order a killing.  First, “an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”  Second, capture is “infeasible.”  And third, the ” operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles.”  Indeed, from the white paper, it is not clear why killings of U.S. citizens on American soil would be judged by a different standard.

Mimicking a judicial opinion, the White Paper employs pragmatic tests developed by the courts to supplant the plain meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process and Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure texts.  Balancing away the constitutionally protected interests of the citizen in life, liberty, and property against the more important “‘realities’ of the conflict and the weight of the government’s interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack,” the Justice Department lawyers have produced a document worthy of the King Council’s Court of Star Chamber — concluding that the U.S. Constitution would not require the government to provide notice of charges, or a right to be heard, “before using lethal force” on a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist activity against his country.  How very convenient.  The Obama administration lawyers appear to have forgotten that the Star Chamber was abolished by the English Parliament in 1641 in order to restore the rule of law adjudicated by an independent judiciary, terminating the rule of men administered by the king’s courtiers.

Also, conspicuously missing from the Justice Department’s constitutional analysis is any recognition that the Founders already balanced the life, liberty, and property interests of an American citizen suspected of “levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort,” and provided them the specific procedural protections in Article III of  the Constitution.  When a U.S. citizen is suspected of treason, the constitutional remedy is not to invent new crimes subject to the summary execution at the pleasure of the president and his attorneys.  In Federalist No. 43, James Madison proclaimed that the Treason Clause would protect citizens “from new-fangled and artificial treasons … by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it[.]”  To that end, the Constitution does not permit the Obama lawyers to invent an elastically defined offense of “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” in substitution for the constitutionally concrete definition of “levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Moreover, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requires trial in “open court” — not in some secret “war room” in an undisclosed location.  That same section of Article III requires proof by “the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession” — not by a unilateral “determin[ation] that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of an attack against the United States.”  Finally, as is true of “all crimes,” Article III, Section 2 requires “trial … by jury” on a charge of treason, not trial by some unidentified “high-level official of the U.S. government[,]” no matter how well-“informed” he may be.  In short, the Constitution provides that an American citizen must be tried and punished according to the judicial process provided for the crime of treason, not according to some newfangled and artificial executive “process” fashioned by nameless collection of lawyers.

These nameless lawyers have also ignored the Justice Department’s own venerable precedents.  The White Paper relies on the “laws of war” — but laws of war do not control here.  On August 21, 1798, U.S. Attorney General Charles Lee — serving under President John Adams — directed to the U.S. secretary of state an official opinion in which he determined that in the undeclared state of war between France and the United States, “France is our enemy; and to aid, assist, and abet that nation in her maritime warfare, will be treason in a citizen[, who] may be tried and punished according to our laws[, not like a French subject, who must be] treated according to the laws of war.”

It is a measure of how far we have fallen as a nation — not only that President Obama asserts and exercises such a terrible power, but that only 11 U.S. senators would be willing to affix their names to a letter to ask the Obama administration to provide its legal reasoning.  If John Brennan is confirmed as CIA director, and the killings of U.S. citizens continue based on this whitewash of a white paper, then the U.S. Senate will have yielded up to the president without even a fight the power to kill citizens without judicial due process — a power that has been unknown in the English-speaking world for at least 370 years.

-

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY: DRONE STRIKES ARE ‘LEGAL,’ ‘ETHICAL,’ AND ‘WISE’

BY:
February 5, 2013

White House press secretary said Tuesday the administration’s use of drones is “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise,” at a press briefing following remarks by President Obama.

“These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise,” Carney said.

NBC News reported late Monday on an unclassified Department of Justice white paper on the use of drones against American citizens, like al Qaeda operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.

-

-

OBAMA PLANS TO USE MILITARY DRONES AGAINST AMERICAN JOURNALISTS, FREEDOM ACTIVISTS AND CRITICS OF GOVERNMENT

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

February 11, 2013

(NaturalNews) President Obama plans to use military drones in the skies over the United States to assassinate journalists, patriots and critics of his administration. That’s the inescapable conclusion from the emerging pattern of evidence now publicly available — keep reading for details.

Front and center in this pattern of evidence is the 16-page memo that was just released by Obama’s lawyers in the Department of Justice. This memo puts forth a “legal justification” for the President to order the drone assassination of any American citizen he names — anytime, anywhere, for any reason. This new power claimed by the President has no basis in federal law or the Constitution. It is an invented power of absolute tyranny that puts the power to decide who lives and who dies in the hands of one man. This document essentially legalizes the President acting as a serial murderer.

It is claimed that the purpose of this new power to simply name any American the President doesn’t like and immediately have them struck by a Hellfire missile launched from a drone is designed to “protect America.” Yet the 16-page memo that claims to justify all this was intentionally written to include Americans on U.S. soil as potential targets.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano explained just a few days ago on Fox News:

“This 16-page white paper is written so vaguely that the logic from it could… permit the President to kill Americans here in the United States.”

That’s the whole point, actually. If Americans on U.S. soil were to be excluded from such drone assassinations, such language would have been made readily apparent in the memo. But no such language is found in the memo. In fact, the tone of the document quite clearly states that the President has the authority to order drone killings of U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, under any circumstances.

This legal manipulation even has U.S. Senators worried. Democrat Senator Patrick J Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley sent a letter to Obama on Friday, stating, “The deliberate killing of a United States citizen pursuant to a targeted operation authorized or aided by our government raises significant constitutional and legal concerns.”

That’s the understatement of the year.

U.S. Senators are trying to create an “oversight committee” so that a few of them are part of the illegal, unconstitutional decision process of which Americans the U.S. government should murder next. As Kurt Nimmo reports with InfoWars.com:

Feinstein has proposed “legislation to ensure that drone strikes are carried out in a manner consistent with our values, and the proposal to create an analogue of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the conduct of such strikes,” in other words a secret tribunal that will hand down kill orders for Americans the government believes are “suspected militants.”

If drones are to be unleashed under the values of Feinstein — an outright traitor to the nation and a serial violator of the U.S. Constitution — then God help us all. Remember, Feinstein is the Senator who has already said she wants all Americans to turn all their guns in. She literally wants the entire U.S. civilian population disarmed so that government has all the weapons, including drones which Feinstein wants flying over U.S. cities, ready to strike named American citizens at any moment.

The American “battlefield” doctrine and the NDAA

In defending the drone assassination powers of the President, you might hear language used that says drones will “only be used on the battlefield.” That seems to imply they will only be used in the Middle East, right?

Wrong. The USA has been legally defined as the new “battlefield” by the NDAA. That’s the National Defense Authorization Act which also allows for the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, without legal representation and even without them ever being charged.

The USA is the new “battlefield,” and when you combine the NDAA and the DOJ’s new drone killing justification memo, you now have the claimed legal framework for any American on U.S. soil to be arrested, detained, tortured or blown to bits without warning and without even a single shred of evidence being presented against him.

Yes, this is America today. Right now. You are living under a military dictatorship and most of you don’t even realize it yet. Even liberals and progressives are starting to wake up to Obama’s tyranny, by the way. On Democracy Now, Daniel Ellsberg recently described Obama’s actions as a “systematic assault on the Constitution.”

Who are the terrorists?

Of course, anyone who raises these points will be immediately dismissed with the claim that all this new power in the hands of the President will only be used “against terrorists.”

Okay, then who are the terrorists, exactly? It turns out they are YOU!

As Judge Napolitano recently explained:

The [Janet Napolitano DHS] memorandum said that people who are pro-life, people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, returning veterans, people who think the government is too big and the IRS is too powerful, could be characterized as domestic terrorists. That could characterize two-thirds of the country. (Click here to see related video.)

Another DHS report named as terrorists anyone who opposes illegal immigration, abortion or federal taxes.

The pieces of the puzzle

So now it all becomes clear:

1) The NDAA legalized the federal government arresting, detaining and torturing American citizens if they were classified as “terrorists.”

2) The DOJ drone-killing memo legalized the President murdering anyone he names by simply claiming they might be associated with “terrorists.”

3) The DHS announces that anyone who isn’t an absolutely Big Government boot-licker and Obama worshipper IS A TERRORIST.

And there you have it: The full circle of justification to use military drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Simply call them terrorists, and the rest of the legal framework backs you up.

I repeat: All that is necessary to justify the murder of American citizens without trial is labeling them “terrorists” even with no evidence to support such a claim. The drone killings require no evidence. They only require the signature of one man.

Who is likely on the drone strike target list in the USA

So who is most likely to be assassinated by President Obama once drone strikes are fully unleashed in the USA?

• Journalists.
• Political opponents.
• Anti-government protesters. (One Hellfire missile takes ‘em all out.)
• Online activists.
• Veterans.
• Gun owners and gun shops.
• Constitutionalists and libertarians.

Drone strikes are completely silent because the Hellfire missiles arrive faster than the speed of sound. You don’t even hear the missile until after the explosion. The blast radius of a Hellfire missile is 15 – 20 meters, and everything inside that radius is completely obliterated. This is more than enough to destroy entire homes, apartments and office buildings, not to mention vehicles and even light bunkers.

World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah actually voiced his concern about Obama being reelected, saying that he believed Obama would “kill journalists” if he won a second term. Farah is not being paranoid. He’s right on the money with where this is going. Click here to read his article published right before the 2012 election.

Drones are weapons of tyranny

In the history of America, rifles are the weapons of liberty, and in any war limited to just rifles and similar weapons, the People will always achieve victory over tyranny.

But tyrannies tend to rise up when specialized, highly-complex weapons come onto the scene, creating an imbalance of military power that suppresses the People. Drones are that new weapon: There is virtually no citizen defense against drones, and drones can strike targets anyone in the country with zero warning. You do not get called to appear in court, you do not get arrested, and you do not receive a warning. You’re simply murdered by the U.S. President without warning and without a trial. That’s the new America.

The cover story: Drone strikes that actually take out the homes of Obama’s political enemies can even be explained away as “bombings” using conventional explosives. A convenient cover story can keep drones out of the news, even while drone strikes are taking out journalists, activists and critics of the criminal Obama regime.

You might wonder, then, what is the strategy for defending against drones? It all comes down to men with rifles raiding drone airfields and taking them over. Once again, rifles become the single most important tool of resistance in the face of tyranny, which is exactly why the government is right now desperately seeking to register and confiscate all rifles in the hands of U.S. citizens. The MQ-1C Warrior drone has an operational range of 675 miles, meaning that drone airfields must be relatively close to intended targets. The airfields are the weak link, and this is what Americans must take back if drone mass murder is unleashed against American citizens (by any president, now or in the future).

There are also some high-tech defenses against drones. Iran appears to have hacked a drone by feeding it false GPS signals, guiding it to land on an Iranian runway where it was then taken into custody by the government there. This sort of GPS hacking appears to be relatively simple to accomplish, but the technique has never been proven in an actual military conflict.

Another defense against drones is to stay on the move. Don’t hole up in fixed locations for long periods of time. Drone strikes are only effective if the intended target’s location is known with certainty. In a resistance war against a tyrannical government, resistance forces will of course remain very mobile and unpredictable in their locations and movements. This will cause the government to waste lots of Hellfire missiles blowing up empty houses and likely killing the wrong people.

Every drone strike against U.S. targets will, of course, enrage the population even further, resulting in yet another mass wave of recruitment into the resistance. The more Americans Obama (or another president) kills with drones, the more powerful the resistance becomes. This spiral continues until there is either a violent armed overthrow of the government or the entire resistance movement is mass murdered by the government itself. In the case of the latter, that’s how we end up with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other dictatorial tyrants who assume power in the aftermath of blood running in the streets.

Stop being so naive — this is happening NOW!

If you think any of this seems outlandish, you aren’t paying attention. The 16-page drone assassination memo has already been published. The NDAA is federal law. The DHS memos are real. All of us who question government, who own firearms, and who believe in the Bill of Rights have already been named terrorists.

The stage is being set to wage an all-out war with the American people. That’s the reason DHS has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. It’s the reason DHS is buying 7,000 full-auto assault rifles. All these weapons and ammo are for exclusive use inside the United States of America, on U.S. soil.

This is why thousands of bulletproof roadside checkpoints have been purchased by DHS. It’s why steel cable dividers are being installed on highways, so that you can’t turn around when approaching a TSA checkpoint. This is why talk of shooting gun owners is openly tolerated and even encouraged in the mainstream media and on social networks.

We are witnessing a full-on ramping up toward total war with the American people. This war will be caused (false-flagged) by the government itself, and it will be waged on U.S. soil, using drone assassinations, nationwide gun confiscation, FEMA camps and of course a declaration of Martial Law to justify it all.

The end game is a complete takeover of America by socialist / communist / fascist forces and the outright abolition of liberties and firearms in the hands of citizens. America is scheduled for termination, and people like Obama have been placed in power precisely because he can fool enough people for a sufficient amount of time to get this plan underway without popular resistance. Obama is seductive and hypnotic, so his followers will think he’s helping America even while he’s actually destroying it by design.

Drones are terminators in the sky, controlled by one man — a tyrant who sits in the Oval Office and respects no boundaries of either the Constitution or federal law. He makes law up as he goes along, betraying his oath of office and violating the very tenants of justice upon which this country was founded.

Obama is a traitor to America and a danger to us all. For the sake of America’s future, he must be impeached, thrown out of office and replaced with a President who actually upholds the Constitution and respects the laws of the land.

-

SENATORS ASK OBAMA FOR LEGAL BASIS FOR TARGETED KILLINGS OF AMERICANS

US senators have requested the legal justification for the killings of US citizens suspected of terrorism by the Obama administration. Meanwhile a ‘chilling’ leaked memo showed that the government sees little need for constraint on the issue.

A group of 11 senators on Monday wrote a letter to President Barack Obama, asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the practice of targeting US citizens suspected of being terrorist leaders with lethal force, particularly drone airstrikes. The request comes as the administration seeks Senate approval for John Brennan, Obama’s nomination for CIA chief.

“As the Senate considers a number of nominees for senior national security positions, we ask that you ensure that Congress is provided with the secret legal opinions outlining your authority to authorize the killing of Americans in the course of counterterrorism operations,” the letter’s opening paragraph reads.

Brennan, who is deputy national security advisor to the president, is to face questioning from the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 7. As the Obama administration carries on many of the Bush-era policies that exist in something of a legal gray area, lawmakers want to be sure they have all the information possible in order to “avoid an unnecessary confrontation that could affect the Senate’s consideration of nominees for national security positions.”

And in case the White House attempts to block the release of the documents by appealing to some legal “privilege,” the legislators continue, “We would encourage you to simply waive whatever privilege might apply, if you would like to make it clear that you are not setting a precedent that applies to other categories of documents.”

The legislators are not alone in their desire to see the secret justification for targeted killing of Americans by the US administration. The New York Times and the ACLU have filed a lawsuit seeking access to the Justice Department memos on the issue under the Freedom of Information Act.

Previously a number of US officials, including Brannon, Attorney General Eric Holder and others, have argued in public speeches in favor of drone killings of Americans who pose an imminent threat to the country. But apparently in practice the administration has a broader view on what constitutes the imminence of a threat.

NBC News published on Tuesday a copy of a 16-page memo detailing legal reasoning of the killings, which was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June on condition that it would not be discussed publicly.

The white paper argues that the US is operating lawfully in kill “senior operational leaders of Al-Qaeda or an associated force” even if a person happens to be a US citizen and is not known to be planning an attack on America.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

It is sufficient that an “informed, high-level” official of the US government determines that the target of the killing has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities” the document says. It gives no definitions of “recently” or “activities”.

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, called the white paper “a chilling document” that “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

“Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated,” he told NBC News.

Obama had attempted to nominate Brennan for the post in 2009, at the start of his first term, but Brennan withdrew his name from consideration after facing claims that he supported former President George W. Bush’s torture program. Brennan was described as a “supporter of the ‘dark side’ policies,” with critics claiming his appointment “would dishearten and alienate those who opposed torture under the Bush administration,” read a letter sent to Obama in 2008.

-

CONGRESS CONSIDERS PUTTING LIMITS ON DRONE STRIKES

By LARA JAKES | Associated Press

Feb 6, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Uncomfortable with the Obama administration’s use of deadly drones, a growing number in Congress is looking to limit America’s authority to kill suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens. The Democratic-led outcry was emboldened by the revelation in a newly surfaced Justice Department memo that shows drones can strike against a wider range of threats, with less evidence, than previously believed.

The drone program, which has been used from Pakistan across the Middle East and into North Africa to find and kill an unknown number of suspected terrorists, is expected to be a top topic of debate when the Senate Intelligence Committee grills John Brennan, the White House’s pick for CIA chief, at a hearing Thursday.

The White House on Tuesday defended its lethal drone program by citing the very laws that some in Congress once believed were appropriate in the years immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks but now think may be too broad.

“It has to be in the agenda of this Congress to reconsider the scope of action of drones and use of deadly force by the United States around the world because the original authorization of use of force, I think, is being strained to its limits,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a recent interview.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said Tuesday that “it deserves a serious look at how we make the decisions in government to take out, kill, eliminate, whatever word you want to use, not just American citizens but other citizens as well.”

Hoyer added: “We ought to carefully review our policies as a country.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee likely will hold hearings on U.S. drone policy, an aide said Tuesday, and Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, both have quietly expressed concerns about the deadly operations. And earlier this week, a group of 11 Democratic and Republican senators urged President Barack Obama to release a classified Justice Department legal opinion justifying when U.S. counterterror missions, including drone strikes, can be used to kill American citizens abroad.

Without those documents, it’s impossible for Congress and the public to decide “whether this authority has been properly defined, and whether the president’s power to deliberately kill Americans is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards,” the senators wrote.

It was a repeated request after receiving last June an unclassified Justice Department memo, which fell short of giving the senators all the information they requested.

First detailed publicly by NBC News late Monday, the memo for the first time outlines the Obama administration’s decision to kill al-Qaida terror suspects without any evidence that specific and imminent plots are being planned against the United States.

“The threat posed by al-Qaida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat,” concluded the document.

The memo was immediately decried by civil liberties groups as “flawed” and “profoundly disturbing” — especially in light of 2011 U.S. drone strikes in Yemen that killed three American citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old-son and Samir Khan. Al-Awlaki was linked to the planning and execution of several attacks targeting U.S. and Western interests, including the attempt to down a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and the plot to bomb cargo planes in 2010. His son was killed in a separate strike on a suspected al-Qaida den. Khan was an al-Qaida propagandist.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, echoing comments Brennan made in a speech last April, called the strikes legal, ethical and wise and said they are covered by a law that Congress approved allowing the use of military force against al-Qaida.

“And certainly, under that authority, the president acts in the United States’ interest to protect the United States and its citizens from al-Qaida,” Carney said Tuesday.

“It is a matter of fact that Congress authorized the use of military force against al-Qaida,” Carney said. “It is a matter of fact that al-Qaida is in a state of war against us and that senior leaders, operational leaders of al-Qaida are continually plotting to attack the United States, plotting to kill American citizens as they did most horrifically on September 11th of 2001.”

Three days after 9/11, Congress approved a law authorizing the military to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against al-Qaida and other groups believed to be helping or harboring the global terror network, including the use of drone strikes. In the decade since the attacks, U.S. intelligence officials say, al-Qaida has splintered into a number of affiliates and allied sympathizers. That means the current laws could allow military force against thousands of extremists across the Mideast and North Africa who have limited or no ability to strike the United States.

Currently, both the CIA and the U.S. military are authorized to remotely pilot unmanned, missile-carrying drones against terror suspects. It’s unknown exactly how many strikes have been carried out, but experts say that drone attacks in Pakistan are conducted by the CIA, while those in Yemen and Somalia, for example, are by military forces.

The drones have strained diplomacy between the U.S. and the nations where the strikes are carried out, as civilians have been killed alongside the targeted terrorists, even though most nations have given Washington at least tacit agreement to carry out the attacks.

A Middle Eastern diplomat said that in Yemen, for example, an uptick of U.S. drone strikes last month have killed dozens of people and upset the local public, leading some leaders in Sanaa to reconsider how often they should be used. The diplomat spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity to avoid political retribution from the Obama administration.

The Pentagon is also considering basing surveillance drones in Niger to monitor on burgeoning extremist violence in North Africa, but it’s not clear if they will be armed. Scaling back the use of drones also would hamper war plans in Afghanistan after combat troops are scheduled to withdraw in 2014. Drones represent a major thrust of the post-troops campaign to help the limited number of special forces units that remain there keep the Taliban from regrouping.

Brennan, who currently serves as the White House counterterrorism czar, has signaled he is prepared to turn the CIA from carrying out lethal drone strikes and hand over those missions to the U.S. military. Sen. Ron Wyden, a senior Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence panel, declared himself unsatisfied Tuesday with the Justice memo and said he will press Brennan at the confirmation hearing about the administration’s current policy.

The drone debate puts Obama — himself a former civil rights lawyer — in the awkward position of carrying out lethal attacks in secret and bucking his political allies in the Democratic Party. Democratic lawmakers were incensed by the refusal of the Republican administration of President George W. Bush to hand over classified Justice Department opinions justifying the use of waterboarding, the harsh interrogation tactic that critics call a form of torture. Obama repudiated those methods — and released those opinions — when he took office in 2009. The use of drones proved to have no political cost to Obama in his re-election campaign.

House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., defended the use of deadly drones, calling it “a lawful act of national self-defense.”

“When an individual has joined al-Qaida — the organization responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans — and actively plots future attacks against U.S. citizens, soldiers, and interests around the world, the U.S. government has both the authority and the obligation to defend the country against that threat,” Rogers said in a statement.

But Rep. Keith Ellison, said the new Justice memo could spur lawmakers into taking a fresh look at deadly drones, and what he called an outdated policy guiding them.

“We are sort of running on the steam that we acquired right after our country was attacked in the most horrific act of terror in U.S. history,” said Ellison, D-Minn. “We have learned much since 9/11, and now it’s time to take a more sober look at where we should be with use of force.”

-

OBAMA AGREES TO HAND OVER CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ABOUT HIS POLICY OF ORDERING TARGETED KILLINGS OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS

Published on Feb 7, 2013

Yielding to an angry congress, President Barack Obama has agreed to hand over classified documents, which he says justify his policy of ordering targeted killings of suspected terrorists. U.S. lawmakers have been demanding the files for years, but the President had staunchly refused. Recently however, some senators hinted they would block his nominee for CIA chief from taking office. John Brennan – the man behind the U.S. drone programme – is to face the Senate at his confirmation hearing on Thursday. And, as RT’s Gayane Chichakyan reports, his confirmation might broaden the horizons, for America’s drone fleets.

-

HISHAM JABER: OBAMA CONTINUES TO EXPAND DRONE WARS

Published on Feb 8, 2013

A political analyst tells Press TV that drone strikes have become one of the policies of the soft war so the assassination program by drones will continue and will not stop.

The comments came after John Brennan, the Obama administration’s nominee to head the CIA, defended the United States controversial assassination drone program at a US Senate hearing. Brennan defended the legality of the attacks, saying they protect American lives and prevent potential terror attacks.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Hisham Jaber, director of the Center for Middle East Studies, to further discuss the issue.

-

CIA NOMINEE BRENNAN: AMERICANS MISUNDERSTAND TARGETED KILLINGS BY DRONES

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 8, 2013

John Brennan is President Obama’s nominee for director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was once affectionately called Assassination Czar for his role in targeted assassinations with the use of drones for the Obama administration, has defended the policy by saying that Americans misinterpret that the US government “take[s] strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We only take such action as a last resort to save lives when there’s no other alternative” to avert a threat to the nation.”

At the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing this week, Brennan was all but given approval with Senator Dianne Feinstein saying that he is “a fine and strong leader.”

Protesters appeared at the hearing to voice their disdain for Brennan, yet he continued to spout that Americans “really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government, and the care that we take, and the agony that we go through” to ensure that innocent bystanders or civilians aren’t hit in targeted killings. “People are reacting to a lot of falsehoods that are out there.”

-

-

Brennan assured the Committee that if a person were killed “by mistake” during a targeted assassination, the Obama administration would acknowledge that fact immediately and publically.

Claiming “optimize[d] transparency” with regard to targeted assassinations, Brennan claimed that it is always carried out in the name of national security.
During Obama’s first term as President, Brennan held the position of Chief Counter-Terrorism adviser. While 4 Americans have been murdered by the targeted assassination program (one intentional and three claimed to be accidental), Brennan failed to given transparency to the Committee about the program by neglecting to define by what criteria an individual is placed on the secret kill-list.

Brennan worked for the CIA in Saudi Arabia and has established “enormous sway over the intelligence community.” His work with the Saudi Arabian government for the approval of drones in their skies have led to the murder of many individuals that were “identified” as al-Qaeda operatives.

photo

A leaked document from the Department of Justice (DoJ) revealed guidelines of the Obama administration’s legal reasoning for conducting targeted assassinations. The document asserts that the government may lawfully kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” decides that the target is a high-ranking Qaeda figure or affiliate who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and that capturing him is not feasible.

Without the definitive threat of attack that could be construed as inevitable, the power of executive order is all that is needed to have a targeted assassination initiated.

The white paper includes redefinitions and expansions of self-defense and imminent attack with the ideology of a “broader concept of imminence” without the necessity of actual intelligence to support those assumptions. If the American is thought to be a threat to the US, they could become eligible of these targeted assassinations.

The document also states that Congress would be circumvented while Congressional committee’s intelligence could be considered classified legal advice which would justify the killing.

It has been estimated that 3,000 to 4,500 people have been murdered by drone attacks, with over 200 children becoming “casualties”.

This briefing paper was extracted from another document that surfaced in 2011 and states that due process is not applicable in cases where a US citizen is placed on the White House kill list. The document explains that “judicial enforcement of such orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.”

READ: Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or an Associated Force

Obama acquiesced to demands by Congress to see the memo on targeted assassinations so that his nomination of Brennan would go smoothly. Two intelligence committees are to receive the document from the DoJ; however its content must be reserved to its intended recipients for the sake of “national security”.

Americans are supportive of drone usage, yet are concerned about the innocent casualties involved while questioning the intention of the US government with regard to who they intend to kill. The knowledge that drones are used in targeted assassinations makes Americans nervous about the US international standing. There is also concern about who would be on the secret kill-list and the criteria of how an individual is singled out for such a fate.

In fact, the romance of drone attacks is that soldiers are not lost in combat; while this disassociated form of killing could turn against those other Americans who are dissenters of the federal government, protesting US policy and be an effective tool against any legitimate citizen uprising.

The Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus (CUSC) or “drone caucus” is a 60 member committee consisting of members of the House of Representatives. They have been instrumental in the overt pressure that Capitol Hill has endured from drone manufacturers in support of making drone technology a more prominent part of the US government’s armed forces response.

The CUSC is focused on educating educate “members of Congress and the public on the strategic, tactical, and scientific value of unmanned systems; actively support further development and acquisition of more systems, and to more effectively engage the civilian aviation community on unmanned system use and safety.”
Their supporters include:

• The Department of Homeland Security
• NASA
• The Federal Aviation Administration
• Private sector corporations
• Drone manufacturers

Jennifer Lynch, EFF staff attorney, remarked that drones “could be revealing deeply personal details’ about American citizens.”

Lynch went on to state: “Drones give the government and other unmanned aircraft operators a powerful new surveillance tool to gather extensive and intrusive data on Americans’ movements and activities. As the government begins to make policy decisions about the use of these aircraft, the public needs to know more about how and why these drones are being used to surveill United States citizens. The use of drones in American airspace could dramatically increase the physical tracking of citizens – tracking that can reveal deeply personal details about our private lives. We’re asking the DOT to follow the law and respond to our FOIA request so we can learn more about who is flying the drones and why.”

The advent of drone use under Obama’s watch may be indicative of a movement toward using this technology to become a sort of counter-terrorism Air Force wherein the US government predetermines the targets and murdering Americans is justified under provisions within the NDAA.

Easing the use of drones into the social meme as normal and necessary, is bringing the ideals of a surveillance society to the forefront of American psyche without alarming the masses. As we become used to the idea of being watched, we will fight the invasion of our privacy less and less. Eventually, through incremental steps, it will become second nature.

-

THE POWER TO ASSASSINATE A COMPLIANT AND SUBMISSIVE PEOPLE

by Jacob G. Hornberger | Hornberger’s Blog

February 25, 2013

President Obama’s nomination of John Brennan is being held up over Brennan’s refusal to state whether the president’s power to assassinate Americans (and others) extends to American soil. The controversy is summed up in a great article by Glenn Greenwald.

The fact that Brennan could not bring himself to immediately say that the president doesn’t have the power to assassinate Americans (and others) right here within the United States is revealing. He undoubtedly knows that the president does claim to wield such power and that the president just doesn’t want to alarm Americans by informing them that he now wields the power to assassinate anyone he wants, including Americans here in the United States.

I can’t see how there’s any room for doubt here. Ever since President Bush claimed extraordinary powers after the 9/11 attacks, we here at The Future of Freedom Foundation have been pointing out that the powers were not limited to foreigners or to foreign lands. When U.S. forces, both military and CIA, were kidnapping people, torturing them, and incarcerating them without trial, we kept emphasizing that such powers were not limited to foreigners. By following the logic employed by Bush and his associates, it was clear that those extraordinary powers extended to Americans as well, both abroad and here at home.

But all too many Americans comforted themselves by thinking that those extraordinary powers applied only to foreigners and that the powers were necessary to keep them “safe.” Therefore, they endorsed what was going on with much enthusiasm, simply blocking out of their minds that they were also endorsing the most revolutionary change in the relationship between the federal government and the American citizenry in U.S. history.

Then came the case of Jose Padilla. He was an American who was accused of conspiracy to commit terrorism. Rather than have him indicted and then prosecute him in federal court, the feds whisked him away to a military dungeon, where the Pentagon tortured him and threatened to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his life as an “enemy combatant”  in the “war on terrorism.”

We took a leading role in opposing that extraordinary exercise of military supremacy over the American citizenry. We continually pointed out that what they did to Padilla, if upheld, they could then do to all other Americans. But because Padilla was not the most sympathetic character in the world, all too many Americans were happy over what the feds were doing to him, blocking out of their minds that the feds could now do the same thing to all other Americans.

And sure enough, the federal courts, in the fear-ridden environment of post-9/11, upheld what the president and the Pentagon did to Padilla, which means that they can now do the same to every American — and some 12 years after the 9/11 attacks!

And now we have the president’s assassination program, in which the president, along with his military and CIA, now wield the power to assassinate anyone they want, no questions asked. They’ve already killed countless foreigners as well as at least three Americans, including a 16-year-old boy. They do it all in secret and are not required to answer any questions as to who they have assassinated or why. Their power to kill people is omnipotent.

Do they claim the power to assassinate Americans right here at home? How can there be any doubt about it? From the very beginning, they simply converted a standard federal crime — terrorism — into an act of war. They called it “the war on terrorism,” and said that this war was just like World Wars I and II. They said that in war, they have the right to take captives, torture them, and execute illegal enemy combatants, and also to assassinate the enemy.

They also said that this war would go on forever or for at least the lifetimes of everyone living today, given that there were so many terrorists in the world. As part of that war, the president, the military, and the CIA would have to assume extraordinary powers, they said, ones that were inherent to the most extreme dictatorships in history.

Significantly, they repeatedly emphasized that in this war, the battlefield wasn’t limited to the Middle East or surrounding regions. Instead, in this war the entire world constituted the battlefield. That, of course, included the United States.

Thus, it didn’t take a rocket scientist to draw the logical conclusion — whatever extraordinary powers were being exercised against foreign “enemy combatants” in the “war on terrorism” could be applied against people right here on American soil, including Americans.

Of course, as we have also been pointing out since 9/11, the entire matter is just one great big sham and fraud. They took a federal criminal offense — terrorism — and used it a ruse to claim that America was now “at war” and then claimed extreme dictatorial powers in the process. It would be no different if the president used another federal war — the “war on drugs” — as a ruse to assume extraordinary dictatorial powers, such as the power to kidnap, torture, execute, and assassinate suspected drug users and dealers.

Our American ancestors tried their best to prevent this dictatorial nonsense. That’s why they used the Constitution to bring into existence a government of limited, enumerated powers. Notice that the dictatorial powers claimed by Bush and Obama are not among those enumerated powers. To make sure that federal officials got the point, our ancestors demanded the enactment of four separate amendments to the Constitution — the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. Those amendments stated that with respect to federal crimes, people would be guaranteed the protections of criminal indictments, due process of law, trial by jury, freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and other protections.

And there is another important thing to note about those four amendments. Notice that the protections and guarantees apply to people in general, not just to Americans. That’s because our ancestors understood that justice requires that the rules apply to everyone equally, not one set of rules for foreigners and another set of rules for Americans. Thus, under our system of justice, President Obama has no right to be assassinating anyone or torturing anyone or incarcerating anyone without due process of law and trial by jury.

And it must be emphasized: terrorism is, in fact, a federal crime. That’s why they ultimately made Padilla a criminal defendant. That’s why terrorism is listed in the U.S. Code as a criminal offense. That’s why they have terrorism cases in federal court all the time. The truth is that there is no real war and there has never been one, any more than there has been a real war in the “war on drugs.” After all, how is the enemy supposed to surrender in this “war”? Where are the transport ships bringing invading troops to America? Where are the supply lines?

And let’s not forget something else of equal importance — the only reason that people are killing U.S. troops over there is because they’re over there interfering with the affairs of other countries. That’s what the killing is all about on both sides —not because people are trying to conquer America and enslave Americans but simply because they want the U.S. government, especially the U.S. military and CIA, out of their countries. And the more the Pentagon and the CIA continue to kill people in the process, the more they generate an endless supply of terrorists, which they then use to perpetuate their dictatorial powers. As I have long pointed out, the U.S. government is the greatest terrorist-producing machine in history.

It’s all been a sham, a fraud, and a ruse to enable the U.S. national-security state to adopt the same powers of dictatorship that it has long supported and trained, such as Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile, the military dictatorships in Guatemala, the Shah’s dictatorship in Iran, Mubarak’s dictatorship in Egypt, and many more.

But Brennan shouldn’t been concerned about alarming Americans about Obama’s power to assassinate them on American soil. As we have learned since 9/11, the American people are among the most compliant, cooperative, and submissive people on the planet. All the feds have to do is say that they are doing it to keep them safe, and except for libertarians and (a few liberals and conservatives), unfortunately all too many Americans continue to fall for anything and agree to anything the government wants to do to them.

-

DRONES, MEDIA PROPAGANDA AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COVER-UP

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 8, 2013

By 2015 it is expected that universities and colleges will take over military-authorized jobs flying drones, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Degrees in piloting unmanned aircraft are included in select colleges as well as offering education as trained remote pilots. The FAA states that 358 public institutions (and 14 universities and colleges) have permits from their agency to conduct drone flights.

The Air Force participates in this educational program with a focus on civilians being trained in using drones. The applications are that livestock, oil pipelines, animal poachers and tracking criminals will be the function of these drone missions.

Local police departments (LPDs) in Florida want to retain the right to use drones for “crowd control”. Senator Joe Negron, sponsor of SB 92 said he would vote against it if this exception were included. Negron stated: “The exception would have allowed King George to use drones against the Boston Tea Party if the unmanned aircraft had existed in the 18th century.”

The bill restricts the use of drones for LPDs with 3 exceptions; such as terrorism.

State Senate Representative Lance Gooden in Texas has introduced a bill to outlaw the use of drones by citizens of the state; as well as state and federal law enforcement.

Gooden wants to prohibit LPDs from spying on random citizens. Those who are victimized by LPDs use of drones would have legal recourse to sue that individual or department for monetary damages.

Exceptions to this bill allow drones to be flown over the Rio Grande for drug and illegal immigrant interdiction programs, to be used by law enforcement agents with a valid search or arrest warrant or the catch all supposition that with “probable cause to believe that a person has committed a felony.”

Gooden stated: “Do we want out local police departments laying off officers and simply parking drones over our homes to keep an eye on all of us? These drones are going to get so cheap that soon you’ll be able to buy your own drone at Best Buy,” Gooden said. “You could park it a foot above the ground in your neighbor’s back yard and film into their house. If someone wanted to film your children out playing by the pool and put that video on the Internet, as creepy as that sounds.”

After succumbing to pressure from the Obama administration to keep the use of drones in American skies out of mainstream media (MSM), outlets like the Washington Post (WP) and the New York Times (NYT) have come forth to publish articles about Obama’s new program for targeted assassinations against American citizens with the use of drones.

MSM claim that for the sake of national security they have withheld this information from the public. Dr. Jack Lule, professor of journalism and communication at Lehigh University, explains: “The decision not to publish is a shameful one. The national security standard has to be very high, perhaps imminent danger. The fact that we are even having a conversation about whether it was a national security issue should have sent alarm bells off to the editors. I think the real reason was that the administration did not want to embarrass the Saudis – and for the US news media to be complicit in that is craven.”

The NYT, for the sake of saving face, stated that they are in the process of obtaining a copy of the memo wherein the Obama administration discussed their assassination program that resulted in the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen in a foreign country. Knowledge of the location of the base used by the federal government with regard to drone missions was also omitted by the NYT.

nytimesbldg

The writer of the NYT article claimed: “We have two partners’ participation in the secrecy of the drone program, the government and the news media. If we are looking to open it up to scrutiny, where do we go? It happened at the top ranks of the media, too. We look to digital media, but they do not have the contacts and the resources to look at this. They should have been leading the pack in calling for less secrecy. For them to give up that post is terrible.”

The WP has a long history of collaboration with the federal government on dissemination of information to the public. When given approval by the US government to discuss issues in public, WP will do so only at the expressed discretion that the information they bring forth has been properly monitored by federal agencies.

Use of claiming national security to keep information from the public is a cover to disassociate the fact that the MSM outlet cover-up for the Obama administration and this is the antithesis of the purpose of the new media.

In 2012, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by House Representatives Mac Thomberry and Adam Smith called the “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012″ stated that this would “[modify] a Cold War-era law that hampers diplomatic, defense, and other agencies’ ability to communicate in the 21st century.

Thomberry went on to say: “We continue to face a multitude of threats and we need to be able to counter them in a multitude of ways. Communication is among the most important,” Rep. Thornberry said in a statement. “This outdated law ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible and transparent way. Congress has a responsibility to fix the situation.”

Smith confirmed that the original Act was formulated to combat communism in the 1940s yet with a new revival it would be an “effective strategic communication and public diplomacy should be front-and-center as we work to roll back al-Qaeda’s and other violent extremists’ influence among disaffected populations. An essential part of our efforts must be a coordinated, comprehensive, adequately resourced plan to counter their radical messages and undermine their recruitment abilities. To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums – especially online.”

The Obama administration, through the Department of Justice(DoJ) are attempting to create a legal explanation for their targeted assassinations of US citizens without proof of terroristic activities.

Armed with a secret kill-list and several US citizens already murdered by the US government.

Al-Awlaki, it was shown, had been detained by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and released between 2006 – 2007; as well as the FBI admitting that they detained him and released him in 2002.

Al-Awlaki was good enough to have dinner at the Pentagon, yet called a dangerous terrorist that necessitated assassination by drone attacks.

-

GOVERNMENT WANTS TO EXPAND ASSASSINATION PROGRAM TO COVER “ASSOCIATES OF ASSOCIATES” OF AL QAEDA

Washington’s Blog
March 8, 2013

The U.S. government already claims the power to assassinate, indefinitely detain or torture anyone in Al Qaeda or “associated forces”:

In the name of “fighting Al Qaeda or associated forces” or those who “support” those bad guys, the U.S. government has authorized:

Now, the government wants to allow targeting of “associates of associates” of Al Qaeda.

As the Washington Post reported yesterday:

A new generation of al-Qaeda offshoots is forcing the Obama administration to examine whether the legal basis for its targeted killing program can be extended to militant groups with little or no connection to the organization responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. officials said.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force, a joint resolution passed by Congress three days after the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has served as the legal foundation for U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda over the past decade …that have killed thousands of people.

***

The authorization law has already been expanded by federal courts beyond its original scope to apply to “associated forces” of al-Qaeda. But officials said legal advisers at the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are now weighing whether the law can be stretched to cover what one former official called “associates of associates.”

***

Officials said they have not ruled out seeking an updated authorization from Congress or relying on the president’s constitutional powers to protect the country. But they said those are unappealing alternatives.

***

The debate comes as the administration seeks to turn counterterrorism policies adopted as emergency measures after the 2001 attacks into more permanent procedures that can sustain the campaign against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, as well as other current and future threats.

***

“You can’t end the war if you keep adding people to the enemy who are not actually part of the original enemy,” said a person who participated in the administration’s deliberations on the issue. [Indeed, endless war is a feature, not a bug, of government policy.]

***

He said extending the AUMF to groups more loosely tied to al-Qaeda would be “a major interpretive leap” that could eliminate the need for a link between the targeted organization and core al-Qaeda.

***

Still, the administration has taken recent steps — including building a drone base in the African country of Niger — that have moved the United States closer to being able to launch lethal strikes if regional allies are unable to contain emerging threats.

In other words, the government wants to play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon with our life and liberty.

-

THE RISE OF THE DRONES

-

DARPA SHOWS OFF 1.8 GIGAPIXEL SURVEILLANCE DRONE THAT SPY ON PEOPLE FROM 20,000 FEET

Kurzweilai.net
January 30, 2013

DARPA and the US Army have taken the wraps off ARGUS-IS, a 1.8-gigapixel video surveillance platform that can resolve details as small as six inches from an altitude of 20,000 feet (6km), ExtremeTech reports.

ARGUS is by far the highest-resolution surveillance platform in the world, and probably the highest-resolution camera in the world, period.

ARGUS, which would be attached to some kind of unmanned UAV (such as the Predator) and flown at an altitude of around 20,000 feet, can observe an area of 25 square kilometers (10sqmi) at any one time. If ARGUS was hovering over New York City, it could observe half of Manhattan. Two ARGUS-equipped drones, and the US could keep an eye on the entirety of Manhattan, 24/7.

-

MICRO-AIR VEHICLES: TERRIFYING BUG-SIZED LETHAL DRONES DEVELOPED BY THE U.S. AIR FORCE

Published on Feb 20, 2013

Looks like we have the makings of a new arms race at hand. The winner will develop the tiniest lethal drone capable of blending into a crowded cityscape.

“The Air Force has nonetheless already constructed a “micro-aviary” at Wright-Patterson for flight-testing small drones. It’s a cavernous chamber—35 feet high and covering almost 4,000 square feet—with padded walls.

Micro-aviary researchers, much of whose work is classified, decline to let me witness a flight test. But they do show me an animated video starring micro-UAVs that resemble winged, multi-legged bugs.

The drones swarm through alleys, crawl across windowsills, and perch on power lines. One of them sneaks up on a scowling man holding a gun and shoots him in the head.”

-

U.S. AIR FORCE DEVELOPS INSECT-LIKE DRONES FOR COVERT AND TARGETED OPERATIONS

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 20, 2013

Drones are being developed smaller and smaller to be able to fly like bugs in swarms, crawl like spiders and covertly survey targets or preform assassinations without detection.

Under the Air Vehicles Directorate branch of the US Air Force, research is being conducted to perfect remote-controlled micro air vehicles (MAVs) that are expected to “become a vital element in the ever-changing war-fighting environment and will help ensure success on the battlefield of the future.”

The future of war will include these “’unobtrusive, pervasive, and lethal” MAVs that can be dropped from an airborne plane into combat situations. The MAVs can be used for specific individual targeted assassinations or monitor a predetermined radius.

On Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, these drones are being developed that will be capable of having data imputed in real-time to facilitate decision-making with the expectation of providing an overall picture for the remote controllers.

These drones were designed to mimic insect flight patterns. Using high-frequency wings to hover over targets and being able to perch to save battery life, the drone is limited. However, technology is being developed to allow the drones to syphon electricity from wires and other power sources to be able to continue operations for days or weeks.

According to the video: “Small size and agile flight will allow MAVs to covertly enter locations inaccessible by traditional means of aerial surveillance.”

In June of 2011, the US military admitted to having drone technology so sophisticated that it could be the size of a bug.

In what is referred to as the “microaviary” on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, drone are in development and design to replicate the flight patterns of moths, hawks and other air-borne creatures of the natural world.

Greg Parker, aerospace engineer, explains: “We’re looking at how you hide in plain sight” for the purpose of carrying out espionage or kill missions.
Cessna-sized Predatory drones, used to carry out unmanned attacks, are known round the world. The US Pentagon has an estimated 7,000 areil drones in their arsenal.

In 2011, the Pentagon requested $5 billion for drones from Congress by the year 2030. Their investigative technology is moving toward “spy flies” equipped with sensors and mircocameras to detect enemies and nuclear weapons.

Parker is using helicopter technology to allow his computer driven drone “dragonflies” become precise intelligence gathering weapons. “To have a computer do it 100 per cent of the time, and to do it with winds, and to do it when it doesn’t really know where the vehicle is, those are the kinds of technologies that we’re trying to develop.”

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has unveiled hummingbird drones that can fly at speeds of 11 miles per hour.aceng7

DARPA is also inserting computer chips into moth pupae in the hopes of hatching “cyborg moths”.

Within DARPA is the Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems project (HIMEM), whose aim is to develop shutterbugs – insects with cameras attached to their very nervous system that can be controlled remotely. Under HIMEM, there are researchers working on cyborg beetles.

Other institutions are hard at work for the US government, developing more insect technology. The California Institute of Technology has created a “mircobat ornithopter” that flies and fits comfortably in the palm of your hand.

A team at Harvard University has successfully built a housefly-like robot with synthetic wings that buzz at 120 beats per second.

Back in 2007, at the International Symposium on Flying Insects and Robots, Japanese researchers unveiled a radio-controlled hawk-moth.

While the US military would have the American public believe that these new “fly drones” are used for overseas missions, insect drones have been spotted surveilling streets right here in the US.

It is believed that these insect-like drones are high-tech surveillance tools used by the Department of Homeland Security.

The US government is experimenting with different types of micro-surveillance capabilities, such as cultivating insects with computer chips in them in the hopes of breeding software directly into their bodies to control flight patterns remotely.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been working on this technology since the 1970s. Known as the “inscetothopter”, it was developed by the Office of Research and Development for the CIA. It appears to be a dragonfly; however it contains a tiny gasoline engine to control its four wings. It was subsequently classified as a failure because it could not maintain flight against natural wind patterns.

The Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has created a butterfly shaped drone that is the smallest built thus far. It can hover in mid-flight, just as a helicopter and take pictures with its 0.15 gram camera and memory card.

The “butterfly” imitates nature so well, that birds and other insects are convinced it is real and not man-made.

-

NEW DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DRONES ARE SPECIALLY EQUIPPED TO SEE IF HUMAN TARGET IS ARMED

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 4, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is requiring that Predator B drones be equip with surveillance capabilities that can determine if a human target is armed or not.

Through a solicitation posted in 2005, DHS initiated the process of obtaining drones to be specially equipped to become encompassing surveillance tools to use against the American people.

These specific drones are used to monitor US southern and northern borders; yet are now being utilizes by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the Secret Service (SS), the Texas Rangers, and local law enforcement to identify citizens carrying firearms and tracking them through cell phone use.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GAAS) explain that DHS specified that these drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not”; including “signals interception” technology that can syphon communications in frequency ranges used by cell phones, as well as “direction finding” technology that can pin-point the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.

GAAS provide “tactical reconnaissance radars, and surveillance systems” to the US government. Their CLAW and LYNX technology collaborate “multi-mode radar” and “sensor payload control and image analysis software “to enhance surveillance and intelligence gathering that can be downloaded into “ultra-wideband data links for government applications.”

These drones are “capable of intercepting electronic communications . . . [and] the capacity to recognize and identify a person on the ground.”

Previously, DHS asserted that the use of drones in American skies were for assurance of public safety. In collaboration with corporations specializing in surveillance, DHS has made outward requests for drone manufacturers to have their products used for spying on Americans – and get paid for it.

The DHS has teamed up with the World Surveillance Group, Inc., to develop technologies specializing in “chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive (collectively, CBRNE), command, control, computers, communication, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C5ISR), and unmanned aerial systems (UAS).” The federal agency also put out a solicitation for “participation in the Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety (RAPS) project from the small unmanned aerial systems (SUAS) for transition to its customers” to use drones in American skies for more than the expressed purpose of spying on US citizens to secure their safety.

Drone testing are slated over head at Fort Sill Army Base in Oklahoma. According to the Borders and Maritime Security Division of the DHS, they “will conduct flight testing and evaluation of airborne sensors and small unmanned aerial systems,” the request reads, and now invites vendors to submit drones to be tested “under a wide variety of simulated but realistic and relevant real-world operation scenarios.”

The US Navy is in the midst of planning the Point Mugu UAV installation which will be a drone base. The Navy released an environmental impact report that outlined how the logistics of constructing the base would affect the environment.

The Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton, the elite of robotic surveillance, will be used to monitor the Pacific Ocean on daily missions for 24/7 eyes in the skies.

In July of 2012, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of DHS relayed to a House Committee meeting that drones would be useful for public safety or a disaster scenario. There is also the specific testing of a Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety that would be used for encompassing surveillance. Napolitano said: “With respect to Science and Technology, that directorate, we do have a funded project, I think it’s in California, looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disaster, such as a forest fire, and how they could give us better information.”

A leaked document from the Department of Justice (DoJ) revealed guidelines of the Obama administration’s legal reasoning for conducting targeted assassinations. The document asserts that the government may lawfully kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” decides that the target is a high-ranking Qaeda figure or affiliate who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and that capturing him is not feasible.

Without the definitive threat of attack that could be construed as inevitable, the power of executive order is all that is needed to have a targeted assassination initiated.

The white paper includes redefinitions and expansions of self-defense and imminent attack with the ideology of a “broader concept of imminence” without the necessity of actual intelligence to support those assumptions. If the American is thought to be a threat to the US, they could become eligible of these targeted assassinations.

The document also states that Congress would be circumvented while Congressional committee’s intelligence could be considered classified legal advice which would justify the killing.

The Obama administration, through the DoJ, are attempting to create a legal explanation for their targeted assassinations of US citizens without proof of terroristic activities.

Armed with a secret kill-list and several US citizens already murdered by the US government.

John Brennan, Presidential nominee for director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was once affectionately called Assassination Czar for his role in targeted assassinations with the use of drones for the Obama administration, has defended the policy by saying that Americans misinterpret that the US government “take[s] strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We only take such action as a last resort to save lives when there’s no other alternative” to avert a threat to the nation.”

Brennan assured the Committee that if a person were killed “by mistake” during a targeted assassination, the Obama administration would acknowledge that fact immediately and publically.

Claiming “optimize[d] transparency” with regard to targeted assassinations, Brennan claimed that it is always carried out in the name of national security.

During Obama’s first term as President, Brennan held the position of Chief Counter-Terrorism adviser. While 4 Americans have been murdered by the targeted assassination program (one intentional and three claimed to be accidental), Brennan failed to given transparency to the Committee about the program by neglecting to define by what criteria an individual is placed on the secret kill-list.

Brennan worked for the CIA in Saudi Arabia and has established “enormous sway over the intelligence community.” His work with the Saudi Arabian government for the approval of drones in their skies have led to the murder of many individuals that were “identified” as al-Qaeda operatives.

-

HOMELAND SECURITY DRONES DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY CIVILIANS CARRYING GUNS

by Wynton Hall | Breitbart

March 5, 2013

Recently uncovered government documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) unmanned Predator B drone fleet has been custom designed to identify civilians carrying guns and track cell phone signals.

“I am very concerned that this technology will be used against law-abiding American firearms owners,” said founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, Alan Gottlieb. “This could violate Fourth Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security’s drone requirements through a Freedom of Information Act request; CNET uncovered an unredacted copy.

Homeland Security design requirements specify that its Predator B drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not” and must be equipped with “interception” systems capable of reading cell phone signals.

The first known domestic use of a drone to arrest a U.S. citizen occurred last year in the small town of Lakota, North Dakota when rancher Rodney Brossart was arrested for refusing to return six of his neighbor’s cows that had wandered on to his property. Critics say the fact that domestic drones are being used in such minor matters raises serious concerns about civil liberties and government overreach.

“That drone is not just picking up information on what’s happening at that specific scene, it’s picking up everything else that’s going on,” says drone expert and Brookings Institution senior fellow Peter Singer. “Basically it’s recording footage from a lot of different people that it didn’t have their approval to record footage.”

Others, like progressive author Naomi Wolf, have warned that domestic drones may soon be weaponized. The military version of the Predator B drone carries 100-pound Hellfire missiles, but the Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says the 10 drones in its domestic fleet are unarmed.

Last month, NBC News uncovered a confidential 16-page Justice Department memo that concluded the U.S. government may execute a drone strike on an American citizen it believes to be a “senior operational leader” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force.”

The Obama Administration defended the use of drones to kill Americans thought to be working with terrorists.  “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney.

-

FAA RELEASES NEW DRONE LIST-IS YOUR TOWN ON THE MAP?

Jennifer Lynch
EFF.org
February 8, 2013

-

dronemap

-

View EFF’s updated Map of Domestic Drone Authorizations in a larger window. (Clicking this link will serve content from Google.)

The Federal Aviation Administration has finally released a new drone authorization list. This list, released in response to EFF’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, includes law enforcement agencies and universities across the country, and—for the first time—an Indian tribal agency. In all, the list includes more than 20 new entities over the FAA’s original list, bringing to 81 the total number of public entities that have applied for FAA drone authorizations through October 2012.

Some of these new drone license applicants include:

• The State Department
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
• Barona Band of Mission Indians Risk Management Office (near San Diego, California)
• Canyon County Sheriff’s Office (Idaho)
• Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office (Northwest Oregon)
• Grand Forks Sheriff’s Department (North Dakota)
• King County Sheriff’s Office (covering Seattle, Washington)

And several new entities in Ohio, including:

• Medina County Sheriff’s Office
• Ohio Department of Transportation
• Sinclair Community College
• Lorain County Community College

The list comes amid extensive controversy over a newly-released memo documenting the CIA’s policy on the targeted killing of American citizens and on the heels of news that Charlottesville, Virginia has just become one of the first cities in the country to ban drones. This new list should contribute to the debate over whether using domestic drones for surveillance is consistent with the Constitution and with American values.

As we’ve written in the past, drone use in the United States implicates serious privacy and civil liberties concerns. Although drones can be used for neutral, or even for positive purposes, drones are also capable of highly advanced and, in some cases, almost constant surveillance, and they can amass large amounts of data. Even the smallest drones can carry a host of surveillance equipment, from video cameras and thermal imaging to GPS tracking and cellphone eavesdropping tools. They can also be equipped with advanced forms of radar detection, license plate cameras, and facial recognition. And, as recent reporting from PBS and Slate shows, surveillance tools, like the military’s development of gigapixel technology capable of “tracking people and vehicles across an entire city,” are improving rapidly.

EFF hopes this list will spur more people to ask their local law enforcement agencies about their drone programs. EFF has partnered with MuckRock to make it easier to ask for and disseminate this information. We also encourage people to ask hard questions of government officials about who is funding drone development in their communities and what policies the government will demand agencies follow if they fly drones. We need greater transparency and citizen push-back to protect Americans from privacy-invasive domestic drone use.

-

FAA TO CREATE SIX DRONE TEST SITES IN THE UNITED STATES

MAJOR STEP TOWARD OPENING AMERICAN SKIES TO UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

JOAN LOWY | Associated Press
February 15, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major step toward opening U.S. skies to thousands of unmanned drones, federal officials Thursday solicited proposals to create six drone test sites around the country.

The Federal Aviation Administration also posted online a draft plan for protecting people’s privacy from the eyes in the sky. The plan would require each test site to follow federal and state laws and make a privacy policy publicly available.

Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a “surveillance society” in which the movements of Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.

The military has come to rely heavily on drones overseas. Now there is tremendous demand to use drones in the U.S. for all kinds of tasks that are too dirty, dull or dangerous for manned aircraft. Drones also are often cheaper than manned aircraft. The biggest market is expected to be state and local police departments.

The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S. airspace that’s currently limited to manned aircraft.

The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by 2015, but the agency is behind schedule, and it’s doubtful it will meet the deadline, the Transportation Department’s inspector general said in a report last year.

The test sites are planned to evaluate what requirements are needed to ensure the drones don’t collide with planes or endanger people or property on the ground. Remotely controlled drones don’t have a pilot who can see other aircraft the way an onboard plane or helicopter pilot can.

There’s also concern that links between drones and their on-the-ground operators can be broken or hacked, causing the operator to lose control of the drone. Military drones use encrypted GPS signals for navigation, which protects them from hacking, but the GPS signals used by civilian drones don’t have that protection.

“Our focus is on maintaining and improving the safety and efficiency of the world’s largest aviation system,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. “This research will give us valuable information about how best to ensure the safe introduction of this advanced technology into our nation’s skies.”

The test sites are also expected to boost the local economy of the communities where they are located. About two dozen government-industry partnerships have been formed over the past year to compete for the sites.

“Today’s announcement by the FAA is an important milestone on the path toward unlocking the potential of unmanned aircraft and creating thousands of American jobs,” said Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.

“States across the country have been eager to receive this FAA designation because they recognize the incredible economic and job creation potential it would bring with it,” he said in a statement.

Industry experts predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don’t pose a safety hazard to other aircraft. Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves. Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows. Film companies want to use drones to help make movies. Journalists are exploring drones’ newsgathering potential.

The FAA forecasts an estimated 10,000 civilian drones will be in use in the U.S. within five years.

The Defense Department says the demand for drones and their expanding missions requires routine and unfettered access to domestic airspace, including around airports and cities, for military testing and training. Currently, the military tests drones in specially designated swaths of airspace in mostly remote parts of the country where they are likely to encounter relatively few other aircraft.

The Customs and Border Patrol uses drones along the U.S.-Mexico border. And the FAA has granted several hundred permits to universities, police departments and other government agencies to use small, low-flying drones. For example, the sheriff’s department in Montgomery County, Texas, has a 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone intended to supplement its SWAT team.

The sheriff’s department hasn’t armed its drone, although the ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun. The prospect of armed drones patrolling U.S. skies has alarmed some lawmakers and their constituents. More than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress and state legislatures to curb drone use and protect privacy.

President Barack Obama was asked Thursday about concerns that the administrations believes it’s legal to strike American citizens abroad with drones and whether that’s allowed against citizens in the U.S. If not, how would he create a legal framework to help citizens know drone strikes can’t be used against them?

“There’s never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil,” the president said, speaking during an online chat sponsored by Google in which he was promoting his policy initiatives.

“We respect and have a whole bunch of safeguards in terms of how we conduct counterterrorism operations outside of the United States. The rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States, in part because our capacity, for example, to capture terrorists in the United States are very different than in the foothills or mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

He said he would work with Congress to make sure the American public understands “what the constraints are, what the legal parameters are, and that’s something that I take very seriously.”

Earlier this week, an FAA official told a meeting of potential test site bidders that aviation regulations prohibit dropping anything from aircraft, which could be interpreted to bar arming civilian drones, according to an industry official present at the meeting who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

-

AIR FORCE REMOVES RPA AIRSTRIKE NUMBER FROM SUMMARY

By Brian Everstine and Aaron Mehta – Staff writers | Air Force Times
March 8, 2013

As scrutiny and debate over the use of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the American military increased last month, the Air Force reversed a policy of sharing the number of airstrikes launched from RPAs in Afghanistan and quietly scrubbed those statistics from previous releases kept on their website.

Last October, Air Force Central Command started tallying weapons releases from RPAs, broken down into monthly updates. At the time, AFCENT spokeswoman Capt. Kim Bender said the numbers would be put out every month as part of a service effort to “provide more detailed information on RPA ops in Afghanistan.”

The Air Force maintained that policy for the statistics reports for November, December and January. But the February numbers, released March 7, contained empty space where the box of RPA statistics had previously been.

Additionally, monthly reports hosted on the Air Force website have had the RPA data removed — and recently.

Those files still contained the RPA data as of Feb. 16, according to archived web pages accessed via Archive.org. Metadata included in the new, RPA-less versions of the reports show the files were all created Feb. 22.

Defense Department spokesman Cmdr. Bill Speaks said the department was not involved in the decision to remove the statistics. AFCENT did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

The data removal coincided with increased scrutiny on RPA policy caused by President Barack Obama’s nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA. Brennan faced opposition in the Senate over the use of RPAs and his defense of their legality in his role as Obama’s deputy national security adviser.

On Feb. 20, two days before the metadata indicates the scrubbed files were created, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sent a letter to Brennan saying that he would filibuster the nomination over concerns about using RPA strikes inside the U.S., a threat he carried out for over 12 hours on March 6 (Brennan was confirmed the next day).

That same day, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told a crowd in South Carolina that strikes by American RPAs have killed 4,700 people.

“Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of al-Qaida,” Graham was quoted by the Patch website as saying.

-

OBAMA: NO MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DRONE KILLINGS WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC

Daily Caller
February 7, 2013

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Thursday that the Obama administration will not be releasing any more information about the controversial use of drones to kill American citizens.

Carney’s remarks, via the White House’s transcript of the off-camera press gaggle:

“This is not an open-ended process. This is a specific and unique accommodation in this circumstance. The fact is, when it comes to public disclosure, we have been — not with the kind of attention that’s been given it this week — but we have been publicly discussing these matters at the highest levels of government for the very reason that I’ve given, which is the President understands that these are core issues about how we conduct ourselves in war, how the President of the United States — any President — balances his constitutional obligation to protect America and American citizens, and his obligation to do so in a manner that is lawful under the Constitution and reflects our values.

“The President takes these issues very seriously, and he believes that the conversation about this is valid and that the questions about it are legitimate. And that’s why he has been leading this process internally to — as has John Brennan, by the way — to provide public information as much as possible, mindful of the fact that we are talking about here very sensitive matters, and that these kinds of things — they’re classification — information is classified for very legitimate reasons that go right to our national security interest.
“But within that, there is an effort underway to provide Congress information — those who have oversight over these matters — classified information as well as unclassified with the white paper and the public information as much as possible.”
Those comments by Carney follow the White House’s Wednesday evening decision to send Congress “classified legal advice” about the rationale for using drones against Americans, reported the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama has directed the Justice Department to give Congress’ intelligence committees access to classified legal advice providing the government’s rationale for drone strikes against American citizens working with al-Qaeda abroad, a senior administration official and Democratic lawmakers said Wednesday.  A drumbeat of demands to see the document has swelled on Capitol Hill in recent days as the Senate Intelligence Committee prepares to hold a confirmation hearing for John Brennan, who helped manage the drone program, to be CIA director.

-

OBAMA DEFENDS DRONE ASSASSINATIONS IN STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

By Barry Grey
13 February 2013

The most significant point in President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night was a passing and euphemistically worded reference to his program of extra-judicial drone assassinations. “Where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans,” he declared.

Every congressman, senator, cabinet member, Supreme Court justice and general in the House chamber knew that with that statement Obama was defending his asserted power to secretly order the assassination of anyone in any part of the world, including American citizens. The president went on to make clear he was intent on making state murder a permanent and completely institutionalized government function.

His administration, he said, had worked “tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework” to guide such operations. He went on to indicate he might be open to suggestions for giving the assassination program a fig leaf of “transparency” and legality, pledging to “engage with Congress to ensure… our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances…”

That such a statement could be made before a joint session of Congress, to the general approbation of those in attendance, underscores the crucial aspect of the real state of the American union that received no mention in Obama’s address or any of the media commentary—the catastrophic state of American democracy.

The speech came just over a week after the publication of a Justice Department white paper laying out a pseudo-legal justification for Obama’s claim to the power, unchecked by judicial or congressional oversight, to order the assassination of American citizens. This assertion, already acted on in the drone missile murder of three Americans, abrogates democratic principles that go back hundreds of years and renders the Bill of Rights and its guarantee of due process a dead letter.

The US government now claims the type of unchecked powers previously associated with fascist regimes and military juntas. The white paper follows the enactment of military funding bills that sanction indefinite military detention of accused terrorists and their alleged supporters, including US citizens.

Tuesday’s State of the Union address will soon be followed by Congress’ stamp of approval on this sweeping assault on democratic rights, with the Senate’s confirmation of Obama’s pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, currently the chief White House counterterrorism adviser and overseer of the administration’s drone assassination program.

The real question, completely evaded in Obama’s demagogic and dishonest speech, is what in the state of the American union gives rise to the accelerating movement toward police state forms of rule.

The speech itself was an attempt to use left-sounding rhetoric to give a “progressive” gloss to a reactionary, anti-working class program. Obama began with the lying claim that war is a thing of the past and the economic crisis is over. (“After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home… Together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis…”).

Presenting himself as the defender of the great American “middle class”—a complete abstraction designed to conceal the existence of a working class—Obama declared that the task of government is to work “on behalf of the many, and not just the few.” This is a principle that bears no relation either to the conditions that exist in the US or the policies Obama has pursued and will continue to pursue.

In fact, in very the next breath, Obama boasted of having already slashed $2.5 trillion from the deficit, “mostly through spending cuts,” and proposed to cut hundreds of billions more from the social entitlement programs—Medicare and Social Security—upon which tens of millions of elderly Americans depend. Using Republican proposals for even deeper cuts as a foil, he proposed to accompany this unprecedented attack on social programs with the elimination of unspecified tax loopholes for the wealthy, supposedly resulting in “everybody doing their fair share.”

The rest of his laundry list of token proposals to help the middle class was of the same character. He proposed, for example, to make America a “magnet for new jobs and manufacturing.” He hailed the return of manufacturing by Caterpillar, Ford, Intel and Apple to American shores, neglecting to mention that US corporate “in-shoring” was based on massive cuts in workers’ wages and benefits.

Obama made much of a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour. This would, in fact, leave a family of three existing on a minimum wage paycheck below the absurdly low official poverty threshold.

On foreign policy, Obama proclaimed that the Afghanistan war would be over by the end of 2014. He then invoked 9/11 and the “war on terror,” praised US military interventions in Libya, Yemen and Somalia and US support for the French invasion of Mali, threatened North Korea and Iran, and reiterated Washington’s policy of regime-change in Syria.

There was absolutely nothing in the speech that reflected the actual state of American society. Far from the crisis being over, more than four years after the Wall Street crash of 2008, unemployment—which Obama barely mentioned—remains at near-Depression levels. Poverty, hunger and homelessness continue to increase.

Workers’ wages continue to decline, while corporate profits and CEO pay reach record heights. Under Obama, the chasm between rich and poor has grown wider.

Two statistics provide a sense of the scale of social inequality in America. During Obama’s first term, 93 percent of all income gains went to the richest 1 percent of Americans, and over the period 2007-2010, US median net worth declined by 38.8 percent.

Such staggering and growing levels of social inequality are incompatible with democratic forms of rule. The Wall Street aristocracy whose interests Obama serves intends to widen the gap further by intensifying the assault on wages and working conditions and dismantling what remains of the social reforms of the 1930s and 1960s.

This will only heighten class tensions, already reaching the boiling point. The American ruling class is not blind to the buildup of working class opposition—not only in the US, but internationally—to the policies of austerity and war. It is in anticipation of social upheavals in the US on a scale not seen since the 1930s that the Obama administration and the entire political establishment are putting into place the framework for mass repression and dictatorial rule.

-

GUIDELINES FOR KILLING U.S. CITIZENS STIRS OUTRAGE

Published on Feb 11, 2013

Since the recent leaking of a secretive white paper that explains the White House’s policy on extrajudicial executions, the issue of unmanned drones has flooded the mainstream media. According to the document, the president can order a drone strike on American citizens with no evidence or justification of a crime or connection to terrorists. But why after a decade of the drone program is it getting much more attention? Stanley Cohen, an international human rights lawyer, sounds off on the topic.

-

SPECIAL COURT TO APPROVE OF KILLING AMERICANS WITH DRONES

Published on Feb 12, 2013

The issue of drones and extrajudicial killings has become so mainstream that even former-Defense Secretary Robert Gates is speaking out about ways to make the program more palatable. Over the weekend, he came out in support of making a special independent court be responsible for evaluating the necessity of any given drone strike. Meanwhile, lawmakers and civilians alike are demanding more oversight for the drone program, almost ten years after it started. Marcy Wheeler, an investigative reporter at Emptywheel.net, joins us for more on the issue.

-

The Sixth Amendment – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

-

CONGRESS PREPARES TO KILL THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WITH SECRET DRONE COURT

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 11, 2013

Obama and Congress continue the process of trashing centuries of English common law dating back to the Magna Carta.

In response to Obama’s imperial killing machines – his fleet of roaming drones – a gaggle of senators, led by the gun-grabber Dianne Feinstein, is poised to kill off Sir William Blackstone’s “palladium of English liberty,” the Sixth Amendment.

Feinstein has proposed “legislation to ensure that drone strikes are carried out in a manner consistent with our values, and the proposal to create an analogue of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the conduct of such strikes,” in other words a secret tribunal that will hand down kill orders for Americans the government believes are “suspected militants.”

Maine independent Senator Angus King imagined a scenario where Obama’s imperial courtiers would go behind the closed doors of a drone court and “in a confidential and top-secret way, make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant, and at least that would be … some check on the activities of the executive.”

The Constitution spells out the right to trial by jury numerous times – in the Sixth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment and in the original Constitution in Article 3, Section 2. English common law and the Magna Carta of 1215 (Article 39) did away with trials by ordeal and by the 1600s the idea that juries served as a protection against the unrestrained power of kings was universally accepted. All 13 of the original states included in their constitutions the Right to Trial by Jury clauses. The Virginia Bill of Rights of 1788 held “ancient trial by jury” to be “one of the greatest securities to the rights of the people.”

“I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Thomas Paine. “By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus,” he told Alexander Donald in 1788. He wrote to James Madison the previous year that “trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations.”

The wisdom of Jefferson, Madison, and the founders is now dead – apparently irrevocably. On Friday, Senator King got the ball rolling when he sent a letter to Feinstein and Republican intelligence committee vice-chairman Saxby Chambliss asking that the Constitution be ignored and they work with him on legislation to create a secret and unanswerable court which could provide “judicial review” of proposals to target drone attacks against citizens of the United States.

Barry’s handlers consider the idea of a secret court issuing kill orders of Americans as a trade-off after Democrats and Republicans on the Senate and House Judiciary committees sent him letters requesting that their respective committees be given access to Justice Department documents justifying drone strikes. The administration tried to placate critics by allowing hand-picked members of congressional intelligence committees to examine documents the night before Brennan went before a confirmation hearing as Barry’s pick to lord over the CIA.

Reuters reported that the ACLU and civil libertarians “would … likely have problems with” the idea that the government can issue death warrants in secret. Geoffrey Robertson, a prominent British human rights lawyer, denounced the horrific concept of “execution without trial” and “international killing (which) … violates the right to life.”

In Congress, however, the concept of trial by jury, held sacred by our forefathers, is little more than a momentary bargaining chip to be traded in as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights continue to be trashed and more than 800 years of common law is systematically dismantled in deference to a forever war against a manufactured al-Qaeda continues.

-

-

THE GROWING TYRANNY OF THE POLITICAL ELITE

By Jeffrey Folks | The American Thinker

Recently, the White House released a photo of the president shooting skeet.  But where’s the snap of him fishing for bass?  Apparently the White House felt compelled to portray Obama as a marksman in light of the widespread pushback over the administration’s gun control agenda but felt no urgency to defend the prospect of the EPA’s potential regulation of lead in fishing weights.  Yet the agency seriously entertained just such a ban last year.  What’s next?  The lead in barbells?

For hundreds of years, human beings have used lead for many purposes, and life on earth has not exactly come to an end.  Now we are told that the lead used in hunting and fishing is harming animals and fish, and it may just have to stop.  The scary thing is that one individual, an appointed bureaucrat directing the Environmental Protection Agency, has the power to impose such a ban.

The pattern is familiar with this administration.  A small cadre of elite administrators, czars, judges, or politicians — often just one person — thinks it (or he or she) has the right to decide what’s best for 320 million Americans. Without adequate information, debate, or cost analysis, regulations are written and imposed, and no one, not even the people’s representatives in the House of Representatives, has the right to influence them.

Political elites have always existed in America, and during the past 100 years they have gravitated toward the Democratic Party.  FDR’s “brain trust,” which included Guy Tugwell and Hugh Johnson, was just one example.  But perhaps no administration in our history has been controlled by elites to the extent that the Obama presidency has.  With academics like Cass Sunstein and crony capitalists like those backing green energy projects calling the shots, the elite have stepped in, determined to rule in place of the public will.

What is now happening was predicted — and celebrated — over forty years ago by Robert L. Heilbroner, one of the darlings of the New Left.  In The Limits of American Capitalism, Heilbroner laid out a plan by which the innately conservative leanings of the American people could be quashed and replaced by the centralized control of a political elite.  Heilbroner’s book concludes with a chilling vision of the way forward.  What he advocates is, in effect, a socialist totalitarian state, where the government controls every aspect of human life.  In the name of reform, this statist system would regulate if not nationalize all major industries — but it would also go farther than that.

What Heilbroner envisaged was the rise of a ruling elite centralized in government, media, and the universities.  This group of decision-makers would operate “on behalf of” the public and on the basis of “scientific principles” of social control.  As Heilbroner writes, “[n]ot alone economic affairs … but the numbers and location of the population, its genetic quality, the manner of social domestication of children, the choice of lifework — even the duration of life itself — are all apt to become subjects for scientific investigation and control” (The Limits of American Capitalism, New York, 1966, pp. 129-130).

Heilbroner’s books were bestsellers in the 1960s, widely read and admired by liberals everywhere.  They were, in effect, neo-Keynesian, pro-statist instruction manuals studied by the likes of Bill Ayers and Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s tutors in state control and regulation.

Heibroner’s books popularized the liberal premise that the political elite has the right and obligation to make fundamental decisions on behalf of the mass of citizens.  In doing so, Heilbroner understood, the elite must find ways to subvert the naturally conservative inclinations of the people — especially those lumpen-headed businessmen whom Heilbroner so despised.  Decision-making must be shifted from individuals and elected representatives to bureaucrats and judges appointed by leftist politicians.  Public opinion must be shaped and molded by elitist academics and journalists.  The will of the state must be imposed, by violence if necessary.  This was the future of America, according to Robert L. Heilbroner, and it is the vision of America adopted by those young activists in the 1960s and 1970s who now constitute the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Heilbroner believed that it would take hundreds of years to overturn democracy in America, in part because of the nation’s widespread support of capitalism and the country’s pesky tradition of individual rights.  He noted, however, that the process could be speeded up in the event of a severe economic crisis.  Another great national depression or prolonged recession would make it possible for government to enact a series of “reforms” that would shift control from the private sector to government.  Government would then control not just major sectors of the economy, but the personal lives of all citizens.  Their incomes, their health care, their educations, their home mortgages, their communications and entertainment, their access to news and information would all fall under the control of the political elite.  At that point, Heilbroner believed, utopia would be at hand.

Everything that Heilbroner predicted is now coming to pass.  Attorney General Holder has waged a virtual war against Arizona’s attempt to defend itself against unchecked immigration.  Congress has created an office of consumer affairs with broad powers to regulate financial transactions. A European-style bureaucrat has been appointed to direct the rationing of medical services.  And the EPA believes that it has the authority not just to police hunting and fishing supplies, but to regulate carbon dioxide, a natural product of the act of breathing.

The preferred modus operandi, in fact, is to appoint a single individual with the power to control some large part of American life.  So much power has now been concentrated in the hands of a handful of appointees, most of them reporting directly to the president, that it is now doubtful whether America can still be considered a democratic nation.  Government has become the enemy of the people, because it is now in the hands of left-wing elitists who are opposed to traditional American values and who have only contempt for the democratic process.

Fortunately, Americans are becoming more aware of the concentration of power within the new political elite and more skeptical of the elite’s ability to govern.  While the president’s job approval rating has for the moment risen following his election victory, a growing number of Americans “strongly disapprove” of his performance.  An even larger percentage finds that Congress, with leaders like Democrat Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, is incapable of governing.

What’s needed is to make 2014 another 2010 and throw the rascals out — all of them who support Obama’s unconstitutional “recess” appointments and agency power grabs.

-

-

HOW MANY RIGHTS HAVE AMERICANS REALLY LOST?

by WashingtonsBlog
February 21, 2013

In the classic history of Nazi Germany, They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer writes :

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

The German citizens were boiling frogs … the water heating up so gradually that they didn’t realize they had to jump out of the pot to safety.

Because the exact same thing is happening to Americans (fear of terror makes people stupid no matter what country they live in), let’s remember exactly what we’ve lost in recent years …

How Many Constitutional Freedoms Do We Still Have?

First AmendmentThe 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.

A federal judge found that the law allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a “chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this.

There are also enacted laws allowing the secret service to arrest anyone protesting near the president or other designated folks (that might explain incidents like this).

The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment.   The government is using laws to crush dissent, and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny.

For example, the following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today:

And holding the following beliefs may also be considered grounds for suspected terrorism:

Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a separate system of justice in America.

And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.

Second Amendment

The 2nd Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun control and gun rights advocates obviously have very different views about whether guns are a force for violence or for good.

But even a top liberal Constitutional law expert reluctantly admits  that the right to own a gun is as important a Constitutional right as freedom of speech or religion:

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.

***

It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

***

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

The gun control debate – including which weapons and magazines are banned – is still in flux …

Third Amendment

The 3rd Amendment prohibits the government forcing people to house soldiers:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Hey … we’re still honoring one of the Amendments! Score one for We the People!

Fourth Amendment

The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:

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

But the government is flying drones over the American homeland to spy on us.

Senator Rand Paul correctly notes:

The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy.

Paul introduced a bill to “protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones.”

Emptywheel notes in a post entitled “The OTHER Assault on the Fourth Amendment in the NDAA? Drones at Your Airport?”:

http://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Picture-7.png

***

As the map above makes clear–taken from this 2010 report–DOD [the Department of Defense] plans to have drones all over the country by 2015.

Many police departments are also using drones to spy on us. As the Hill reported:

At least 13 state and local police agencies around the country have used drones in the field or in training, according to the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry trade group. The Federal Aviation Administration has predicted that by the end of the decade, 30,000 commercial and government drones could be flying over U.S. skies.

***

“Drones should only be used if subject to a powerful framework that regulates their use in order to avoid abuse and invasions of privacy,” Chris Calabrese, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said during a congressional forum in Texas last month.

He argued police should only fly drones over private property if they have a warrant, information collected with drones should be promptly destroyed when it’s no longer needed and domestic drones should not carry any weapons.

He argued that drones pose a more serious threat to privacy than helicopters because they are cheaper to use and can hover in the sky for longer periods of time.

A congressional report earlier this year predicted that drones could soon be equipped with technologies to identify faces or track people based on their height, age, gender and skin color.

Even without drones, Americans are the most spied on people in world history:

The American government is collecting and storing virtually every phone call, purchases, email,  text message, internet searches, social media communications, health information,  employment history, travel and student records, and virtually all other information of every American. [And see this.]

Some also claim that the government is also using facial recognition software and surveillance cameras to track where everyone is going.  Moreover, cell towers track where your phone is at any moment, and the major cell carriers, including Verizon and AT&T, responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations and other data in 2011. (And – given that your smartphone routinely sends your location information back to Apple or Google – it would be child’s play for the government to track your location that way.)    Your iPhone, or other brand of smartphone is spying on virtually everything you do  (ProPublica notes: “That’s No Phone. That’s My Tracker“).

As the top spy chief at the U.S. National Security Agency explained this week, the American government is collecting some 100 billion 1,000-character emails per day, and 20 trillion communications of all types per year.

He says that the government has collected all of the communications of congressional leaders, generals and everyone else in the U.S. for the last 10 years.

He further explains that he set up the NSA’s system so that all of the information would automatically be encrypted, so that the government had to obtain a search warrant based upon probably cause before a particular suspect’s communications could be decrypted.  [He specifically did this to comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.] But the NSA now collects all data in an unencrypted form, so that no probable cause is needed to view any citizen’s information.  He says that it is actually cheaper and easier to store the data in an encrypted format: so the government’s current system is being done for political – not practical – purposes.

He says that if anyone gets on the government’s “enemies list”, then the stored information will be used to target them. Specifically, he notes that if the government decides it doesn’t like someone, it analyzes all of the data it has collected on that person and his or her associates over the last 10 years to build a case against him.

-
-

Wired reports:

Transit authorities in cities across the country are quietly installing microphone-enabled surveillance systems on public buses that would give them the ability to record and store private conversations….

The systems are being installed in San Francisco, Baltimore, and other cities with funding from the Department of Homeland Security in some cases ….

The IP audio-video systems can be accessed remotely via a built-in web server (.pdf), and can be combined with GPS data to track the movement of buses and passengers throughout the city.

***

The systems use cables or WiFi to pair audio conversations with camera images in order to produce synchronous recordings. Audio and video can be monitored in real-time, but are also stored onboard in blackbox-like devices, generally for 30 days, for later retrieval. Four to six cameras with mics are generally installed throughout a bus, including one near the driver and one on the exterior of the bus.

***

Privacy and security expert Ashkan Soltani told the Daily that the audio could easily be coupled with facial recognition systems or audio recognition technology to identify passengers caught on the recordings.

RT notes:

Street lights that can spy installed in some American cities

America welcomes a new brand of smart street lightning systems: energy-efficient, long-lasting, complete with LED screens to show ads. They can also spy on citizens in a way George Orwell would not have imagined in his worst nightmare.

­With a price tag of $3,000+ apiece, according to an ABC report, the street lights are now being rolled out in Detroit, Chicago and Pittsburgh, and may soon mushroom all across the country.

Part of the Intellistreets systems made by the company Illuminating Concepts, they have a number of “homeland security applications” attached.

Each has a microprocessor “essentially similar to an iPhone,” capable of wireless communication. Each can capture images and count people for the police through a digital camera, record conversations of passers-by and even give voice commands thanks to a built-in speaker.

Ron Harwood, president and founder of Illuminating Concepts, says he eyed the creation of such a system after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Hurricane Katrina disaster. He is “working with Homeland Security” to deliver his dream of making people “more informed and safer.”

Fox news notes that the government is insisting that “black boxes” be installed in cars to track your location.

The TSA has moved way past airports, trains and sports stadiums, and is deploying mobile scanners to spy on people all over the place.  This means that traveling within the United States is no longer a private affair.  (And they’re probably bluffing, but the Department of Homeland Security claims they will soon be able to know your adrenaline level, what you ate for breakfast and what you’re thinking … from 164 feet away.)

And Verizon has applied for a patent that would allow your television to track what you are doing, who you are with, what objects you’re holding, and what type of mood you’re in.  Given Verizon and other major carriers responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations and other data in 2011, such information would not be kept private.  (And some folks could be spying on you through your tv using existing technology.)

Of course, widespread spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this). So the whole “post-9/11 reality” argument falls flat.

And the spying isn’t being done to keep us safe … but to crush dissent and to smear people who uncover unflattering this about the government … and to help the too big to fail businesses compete against smaller businesses (and here).

In addition, the ACLU published a map in 2006 showing that nearly two-thirds of the American public – 197.4 million people – live within a “constitution-free zone” within 100 miles of land and coastal borders:

The ACLU explained:

  • Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
  • The border, however, has always been an exception.  There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply.  For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
  • But what is “the border”?  According to the government, it  is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
  • As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
  • Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship.  Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders.  They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
  • However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose.  On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.
  • The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets.

Computer World reports today:

Border agents don’t need probable cause and they don’t need a stinking warrant since they don’t need to prove any reasonable suspicion first. Nor, sadly, do two out of three people have First Amendment protection; it is as if DHS has voided those Constitutional amendments and protections they provide to nearly 200 million Americans.

***

Don’t be silly by thinking this means only if you are physically trying to cross the international border. As we saw when discussing the DEA using license plate readers and data-mining to track Americans movements, the U.S. “border” stretches out 100 miles beyond the true border. Godfather Politics added:

But wait, it gets even better!  If you live anywhere in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey or Rhode Island, DHS says the search zones encompass the entire state.

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have a “longstanding constitutional and statutory authority permitting suspicionless and warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent.” This applies to electronic devices, according to the recent CLCR “Border Searches of Electronic Devices” executive summary [PDF]:

Fourth Amendment

The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and longstanding, and courts have not treated searches of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects.  We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment.  We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits.  However, we do think that recording more information about why searches are performed would help managers and leadership supervise the use of border search authority, and this is what we recommended; CBP has agreed and has implemented this change beginning in FY2012.

First Amendment

Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be required before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid chilling First Amendment rights.  However, we conclude that the laptop border searches allowed under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate travelers’ First Amendment rights.

The ACLU said, Wait one darn minute! Hello, what happened to the Constitution? Where is the rest of CLCR report on the “policy of combing through and sometimes confiscating travelers’ laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices—even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing?” DHS maintains it is not violating our constitutional rights, so the ACLU said:

If it’s true that our rights are safe and that DHS is doing all the things it needs to do to safeguard them, then why won’t it show us the results of its assessment? And why would it be legitimate to keep a report about the impact of a policy on the public’s rights hidden from the very public being affected?

***

As ChristianPost wrote, “Your constitutional rights have been repealed in ten states. No, this isn’t a joke. It is not exaggeration or hyperbole. If you are in ten states in the United States, your some of your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been made null and void.”

The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the entire DHS report about suspicionless and warrantless “border” searches of electronic devices. ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said “We hope to establish that the Department of Homeland Security can’t simply assert that its practices are legitimate without showing us the evidence, and to make it clear that the government’s own analyses of how our fundamental rights apply to new technologies should be openly accessible to the public for review and debate.”

Meanwhile, the EFF has tips to protect yourself and your devices against border searches. If you think you know all about it, then you might try testing your knowledge with a defending privacy at the U.S. border quiz.

Wired pointed out in 2008 that the courts have routinely upheld such constitution-free zones:

Federal agents at the border do not need any reason to search through travelers’ laptops, cell phones or digital cameras for evidence of crimes, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, extending the government’s power to look through belongings like suitcases at the border to electronics.

***

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, finding that the so-called border exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches applied not just to suitcases and papers, but also to electronics.

***

Travelers should be aware that anything on their mobile devices can be searched by government agents, who may also seize the devices and keep them for weeks or months. When in doubt, think about whether online storage or encryption might be tools you should use to prevent the feds from rummaging through your journal, your company’s confidential business plans or naked pictures of you and your-of-age partner in adult fun.

Fifth Amendment

The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But the American government has shredded the 5th Amendment by subjecting us to indefinite detention and taking away our due process rights.

The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen on U.S. citizen without any due process. And see this.

As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property being taken for private purposes.

The percentage of prosecutions in which a defendant is denied a  grand jury is difficult to gauge, as there is so much secrecy surrounding many terrorism trials.

Protection against being tried twice for the same crime after being found innocent (“double jeopardy”) seems to be intact.

Sixth Amendment

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an attorney:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Subjecting people to indefinite detention or assassination obviously violates the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial.  In both cases, the defendants is “disposed of” without ever receiving a trial … and often without ever hearing the charges against them.

More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.

The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even assassinate people.  And see this and this.

Secret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are not even allowed to read their own briefs.

Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret.  And it’s about to get a lot worse.

True – when defendants are afforded a jury trial – they are provided with assistance of counsel. However, the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts and the public defenders’ offices nationwide.

Moreover, there are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else.   The government made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, even though fraud is the main business model adopted by Wall Street.  Indeed, the biggest financial crime in world history, the largest insider trading scandal of all time, illegal raiding of customer accounts and blatant financing of drug cartels and terrorists have all been committed recently without any real criminal prosecution or jail time.

On the other hand, government prosecutors are using the legal system to  crush dissent and to silence whistleblowers.

And some of the nation’s most powerful judges have lost their independence  … and are in bed with the powers-that-be.

Seventh Amendment

The 7th Amendment guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

As far as we know, this right is still being respected.  However – as noted above – the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts, resulting in the wheels of justice slowing down considerably.

Eighth Amendment

The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Indefinite detention and assassination are obviously cruel and unusual punishment.

The widespread system of torture carried out in the last 10 years – with the help of other countriesviolates the 8th Amendment.  Many want to bring it back … or at least justify its past use.

While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not punish – he’s wrong.  It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is technically a form of terrorism.

And government whistleblowers are being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out.

Ninth Amendment

The 9th Amendment provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We can debate what our inherent rights as human beings are.  I believe they include the right to a level playing field, and access to safe food and water.  You may disagree.

But everyone agrees that the government should not actively encourage fraud and manipulation.  However, the government – through its malignant, symbiotic relation with big corporations – is interfering with our aspirations for economic freedom, safe food and water (instead of arsenic-laden, genetically engineered junk), freedom from undue health hazards such as irradiation due to government support of archaic nuclear power designs, and a level playing field (as opposed to our crony capitalist system in which the little guy has no shot due to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the super-elite, and government support of white collar criminals).

By working hand-in-glove with giant corporations to defraud us into paying for a lower quality of life, the government is trampling our basic rights as human beings.

Tenth Amendment

The 10th Amendment provides that powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Two of the central principles of America’s Founding Fathers are:

(1) The government is created and empowered with the consent of the people

and

(2) Separation of powers

Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom … and that it is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed”.

And the federal government is trampling the separation of powers by stepping on the toes of the states and the people.  For example, former head S&L prosecutor Bill Black – now a professor of law and economics – notes:

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the resident examiners and regional staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [both]  competed to weaken federal regulation and aggressively used the preemption doctrine to try to prevent state investigations of and actions against fraudulent mortgage lenders.

Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.

Conclusion: While a few of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights still exist, the overall scorecard of the government’s respect for our freedom: a failing grade.

-

NO SUSPICION NECESSARY: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CAN STILL SEIZE BELONGINGS WITHOUT REASON

RT
Feb 9, 2013

The Fourth Amendment no longer means what you once thought it did: A new report reveals that the government has shrugged off concerns over the alleged constitutional infringements of its own citizens near international crossings.

An internal review of the US Department of Homeland Security’s procedures regarding the suspicionless search-and-seizure of phones and laptops near the nation’s border has reaffirmed the agency’s ability to bypass Fourth Amendment-protected rights [.pdf].

In a two page executive summary published quietly last month to the official DHS website, the agency explains that a civil rights and civil liberties impact assessment of the office’s little-known power to collect personal electronics near international crossings has passed an auditor’s interpretation of what does and doesn’t violate the US Constitution.

Since 2009, the DHS has been legally permitted to seize and review the contents of personal electronic devices, including mobile phones, portable computers and data discs, even without being able to cite any reasonable suspicion that those articles were involved in a crime.

When the initiative was introduced in August 2009 by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, she defended the policy change. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” the secretary said, adding, “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

In that Aug. 09 announcement, Sec. Napolitano ensured the American public that they had nothing to worry about and that an impact assessment would be conducted within 120 days to eliminate any fears. More than two years later, however, the DHS-led study has only now been released in part, and its findings do little to alleviate the concerns of civil liberty advocates who have held their breath since the early days of the Obama administration, waiting anxiously to hear about the legality of a directive that applies to both Customs and Border Protection agents and officers with theImmigration and Customs Enforcement working under the DHS.

“We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment,” reads the assessment, written by Tamara Kessler of the department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” she adds.

Elsewhere in her report, Kessler dismisses concerns that legalized searches that require Americans to submit their electronic devices without reason would scare citizens from exercising their ability to speak and act freely.

“Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be required before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid chilling First Amendment rights. However, we conclude that the laptop border searches allowed under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate travelers’ First Amendment rights,” Tessler insists.

David Kravets, a reporter for Wired’s Danger Room, writes of the review, “The memo highlights the friction between today’s reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects — juxtaposed against the government’s stated quest for national security.”

Commenting on Wired’s report, American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Catherine Crump voices concern over how DHS agents can essentially bypass the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search-and-seizure. With few exceptions, the government is not permitted to search the belongings of a person without a reasonable suspicion of a crime. Near the nation’s borders, though, that requirement is removed entirely.

“There should be a reasonable, articulate reason why the search of our electronic devices could lead to evidence of a crime,” Crump tells Wired. “That’s a low threshold.”

Katie Haas of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program adds in a blog post this week, “the reality is that

allowing government agents to search through all of a traveler’s data without reasonable suspicion is completely incompatible with our fundamental rights. Those rights, she says, are “implicated when the government can rummage through our computers and cell phones for no reason other than that we happen to have traveled abroad.”

“Suspicionless searches also open the door to profiling based on perceived or actual race, ethnicity, or religion,” Haas adds, “And our First Amendment rights to free speech and free association are inhibited when agents at the border can target us for searches based on our exercise of those rights.”

In response to the stripped-down executive summary posted by DHS, the ACLU’s main office has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the government in hopes of obtaining more information on when and why Americans might lose their Fourth Amendment-protected rights. The ACLU seeks the assessment in its entirety and all data, analyses and records gathered during the course of preparing the report.

Where exactly the government can seize personal items without reason is something that has already been determined, though. Last March, the US Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling that legally permitted the use of suspicionless roadblocks not necessarily close to the country’s borders. Back in 2006, the ACLU determined that roughly two-thirds of the entire US population lives within 100 miles of the country’s border, making approximately 200 million Americans in places like Buffalo, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle subject to warrantless and suspicionless searches.

“It is a classic example of law enforcement powers expanding far beyond their proper boundaries – in this case, literally,” ACLU’s Caroline Fredrickson told Wired for an earlier report.

Sec. Napolitano and the DHS have been sued at least once over allegations that the seizure of personal electronic belonging to a US citizen near an international border violated the Constitution of the country. David House, a founding member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, says his laptop and other devices were confiscated without reason while returning to the US from Mexico in November 2010. According to legal filings, House was grilled about his association with Manning, an accused Army whistleblower arrested six months earlier, and WikiLeaks, the website Manning is alleged to have supplied with hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables.

-

IT’S OFFICIAL, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS DEAD

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 28, 2013

Tuesday’s ruling pitches the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure into the dustbin of history. Photo: Library of Congress.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court disemboweled the Fourth Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that citizens cannot challenge government wiretapping laws, in particular the unconstitutional Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and, more recently, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

According to Justice Samuel Alito, millions of Americans can no longer expect the government to uphold the Constitution and prevent the NSA from conducting dragnet surveillance.

The government established so-called “sovereign immunity” last August when the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco dismissed Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama following a December 2010 court case ruling the NSA’s warrantless wiretap program was illegal.

FISA is a near perfect scheme for the government. It allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to rubber-stamp surveillance requests of supposed terrorists (the Justice Department claims there are over a million terrorists in America). The feds are not obliged to identify a target and they can conduct surveillance a week before making a FISA Court request. Surveillance can continue in the unlikely event that a request is denied and an appeal is set in motion.

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act. It allows federal agents to write their own search warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment and does away with the FISA-issued search warrant requirement, itself blatantly unconstitutional.

“FISA gives the government unchecked authority to snoop on all Americans who communicate with any foreign person, in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment,” Andrew Napolitano wrote in December. “The right to privacy is a natural human right. Its enshrinement in the Constitution has largely kept America from becoming East Germany.”

Alito’s argument rests on the fact that FISA is a secret court. “Yet respondents have no actual knowledge of the Government’s §1881a targeting practices. Instead, respondents merely speculate and make assumptions about whether their communications with their foreign contacts will be acquired under §1881a,” he wrote.

Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented the ruling.

Tuesday’s ruling pitches the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure into the dustbin of history. It means we are one step closer to becoming East Germany where the Stasi conducted dragnet surveillance with impunity.

Stasi, however, was old school. The modern high-tech surveillance state is infinitely more effective and will be used to monitor the political attitudes of all Americans in dragnet fashion and ferret out for persecution – and elimination – those who pose a threat to the status quo.

-

U.S. SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO LET AMERICANS CHALLENGE FISA EAVESDROPPING LAW

Published on Feb 26, 2013

The US Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Americans cannot challenge a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 in federal court. Under amendments made to the bill in 2008, the government is allowed to warrantlessly eavesdrop on Americans’ foreign communications, and although the Supreme Court ruled FISA couldn’t be challenged, they didn’t address the constitutionality of the legislation. Ginger McCall, director of Open Government Program for EPIC, joins us to talk about some of the unanswered questions of the law.

-

LIMITLESS SURVEILLANCE AND THE DEATH OF PRIVACY: INSIDE THE FISA/ECHELON SPY GRID – ANNIE MACHON

Published on Feb 25, 2013

While the public was preparing to ring in the New Year, the US Senate was busy passing the FISA Amendments Act extension to continue the US warrantless spying program in the name of the war on terror. As critics like MI5 whistleblower Annie Machon point out, however, the Anglophone world has already had these powers for decades under the Echelon system. This is the GRTV Feature Interview with your host James Corbett and our special guest, Annie Machon.

-

U.S. SUPREME COURT DISMISSES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING SECRET WIRETAPS

By John Burton
28 February 2013

The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Tuesday that a group of United States-based attorneys, journalists and human rights activists, along with their affiliated organizations, cannot sue to establish the unconstitutionality of a 2008 amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The decision had nothing to do with the merits of the claim. Rather, the lawsuit was thrown out of court because the plaintiffs could not prove that the interception of their phone calls and emails was “certainly impending,” a legal standard never before imposed to deny someone the right to sue.

At the core of the majority decision, authored by Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and joined by the other three extreme right-wing justices—Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas—along with the so-called “swing” voter, Justice Anthony A. Kennedy, is an obvious “Catch-22.” Because the law authorizes secret wiretaps, there is no way to prove who might be a victim, but only victims have legal “standing” to file lawsuits, and therefore nobody can bring a case for judicial review of the law’s constitutionality.

Clapper v. Amnesty International reverses a lower court ruling that said the lawsuit should go forward, in the process narrowing the doctrine of “standing” such that virtually all secret government activity can now be ruled immune from court challenges. In doing so, the Supreme Court majority adopted the positions urged by Obama administration lawyers in their briefs and at oral argument last October. (See, “Obama administration asserts unchecked powers”)

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids warrantless eavesdropping. Congress enacted FISA in 1978 following Watergate-era exposures of widespread and unchecked government spying on United States citizens engaged in constitutionally protected political and cultural activities. FISA limits wiretaps to the acquisition of “foreign intelligence information” by targeting a “foreign government or agent” outside the United States. With a nod to the Fourth Amendment, FISA requires federal agents to obtain a warrant for the specific target and facility from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in Washington, DC, the proceedings of which are kept secret.

In 2008, Congress, with the support of key Democrats, amended FISA to eliminate the requirements that the target must be a specified “foreign power or an agent of a foreign power” and that the warrant application must identify the precise facility where the electronic surveillance is to take place. In effect, the 2008 FISA amendment authorizes “roving wiretaps” of communications between places in the United States and foreign countries that are essentially warrantless.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit less than an hour after then-president George Bush signed the FISA amendment into law, asking the federal district court in New York to declare the measure unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement.

The plaintiffs described themselves as persons and organizations who communicate by telephone and e-mail with people the government “believes or believed to be associated with terrorist organizations,” with “people located in geographic areas that are a special focus” of so-called “counterterrorism” efforts, and with “activists who oppose governments supported by the United States.”

To establish standing under the law as it then existed, the plaintiffs alleged a series of specific injuries flowing from the FISA amendment, such as the fact that the threat of secret wiretapping interferes with lawyers locating and interviewing witnesses or advising clients in confidence, journalists cultivating confidential sources to obtain information for news reports, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International interacting with foreign contacts. The threat of surveillance compelled some plaintiffs to travel abroad for in-person conversations, and others to undertake “costly and burdensome measures” to protect the confidentiality of sensitive communications.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes New York City, ruled that the plaintiffs’ allegations establish “an objectively reasonable likelihood that their communications will be intercepted” and therefore gave them standing to challenge the FISA amendment’s constitutionality. The Supreme Court majority reversed this ruling.

Alito’s majority opinion dramatically raised the bar for determining legal standing, ruling that the plaintiffs had to demonstrate “the threatened injury must be certainly impending ” (the italics are Alito’s), resurrecting a phrase from a long-forgotten 1923 opinion that actually found that the plaintiff in the case had standing on the basis that “one does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief.”

The “certainly impending” language has never previously been used by the Supreme Court to deny a plaintiff standing in any case, much less one challenging the constitutionality of a clandestine government program where the evidence to meet such a standard is, by definition, unavailable.

Alito went on, at considerable length, to discount the plaintiffs’ claims that their communications would likely be intercepted as “highly speculative” and “relying on a highly attenuated chain of possibilities.” Alito seemed to taunt the plaintiffs for the absence of “any evidence that their communications have been monitored” under a secret program put into effect the day their lawsuit was filed, calling it “a failure that substantially undermines their standing theory.”

“Simply put,” Alito wrote, the plaintiffs “can only speculate as to how the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will exercise their discretion in determining which communications to target,” and “even if [the plaintiffs] could demonstrate that the targeting of their foreign contacts is imminent, [they] can only speculate as to whether the Government will seek to use [FISA] surveillance (rather than other methods) to do so.”

In other words, the spy program’s secrecy—which is what chills the plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights in the first place—is precisely what prevents anyone from seeking review of its constitutionality.

Alito next demeaned the plaintiffs’ claims that the threat of surveillance forced them to travel and to undertake other expensive precautions to protect the confidentiality of their communications as “self-inflicted injuries” that, somehow, “are not fairly traceable” to the secret wiretapping program.

Finally, Alito wrote that even if “no one would have standing is not a reason to find standing,” meaning that the Supreme Court could insulate the secret wiretapping program from all court challenges. Underscoring his contempt for the basic democratic right of people to challenge governmental action in court, Alito concluded that “any dissatisfaction” the plaintiffs had with the new law or the secret rulings of the FISA court “is irrelevant to our standing analysis.”

Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by the other three moderate justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, pointing out the many Supreme Court precedents which give the plaintiffs standing to bring suit. The dissent explicitly declined to address the constitutionality of the FISA amendment itself, however.

Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and the lawyer for the plaintiffs, issued a statement calling the ruling “disturbing” because it denies “meaningful judicial review and leaves Americans’ privacy rights to the mercy of the political branches.”

“More than a decade after 9/11,” Jaffer added, “we still have no judicial ruling on the lawfulness of torture, of extraordinary rendition, of targeted killings or of the warrantless wiretapping program. These programs were all contested in the public sphere, but they have not been contested in the courts.”

In contrast, the spokesperson for the Department of Justice praised the majority decision, stating that the government was “obviously pleased” with the denial of standing to the plaintiffs.

Equally obvious is the fact that the Obama administration—to no less a degree than the administration of George Bush—is developing increasingly authoritarian forms of rule in conjunction with the Supreme Court.

-

U.S. SUPREME COURT: NO LEGITIMATE PROOF GOVERNMENT USES FISA TO SPY ON AMERICANS

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 27, 2013

In May of 2012 human rights activists, journalists and a collection of lawyers brought a complaint to the US Supreme Court (SC) to legally challenge the US government over their encompassing use of electronic surveillance.

In Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, advocates assert that this 2008 law encroaches upon the 4th Amendment that protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The US government attempted to have the original ruling over turned by “standing” to challenge the law; however a US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit turned down the government’s request.

The SC ruled this week they cannot comment on the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) after being prompted by citizens and activists that challenged the legislation.

In a 5-4 vote, the SC decided that those who brought the complaint (lawyers, journalists and organizations) cannot sue the US government to have FISA overturned or amended because the complaint did not prove emphatically that the US government is actively conducting surveillance on citizens for the purpose of identifying potential terrorists and intelligence targets.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the decision, stated that past Justices “have been reluctant to endorse standing theories that require guesswork”; however this ruling marks the first time the SC has defined ideology with regard to justifying Big Brother laws.

Justices in accord were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Alito explained that those who brought the complaint “have set forth no specific facts demonstrating that the communications of their foreign contacts will be targeted.”

FISA gives the US government authority to conduct surveillance operations for expressed purposes of identifying terroristic potential and due to this stratagem “’respondents’ allegations are necessarily conjectural. Simply put, respondents can only speculate as to how the attorney general and the Director of National Intelligence will exercise their discretion in determining which communications to target.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing in dissent, explained that the lawsuit had merit because “the government has a strong motive to listen to conversations of the kind described. We need only assume that the government is doing its job (to find out about, and combat terrorism) in order to conclude that there is a high probability that the government will intercept at least some electronic communication to which at least some of the plaintiffs are party. The majority is wrong when it describes the harm threatened plaintiffs as speculative.”

Dissenting Justices were Breyer; as well as Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

During the Bush administration, in 2005, “warrantless wiretapping” with the justification of intercepting international phone conversations (as well as emails and other digital communications) to monitor potential terrorist plots became common place.

Three years later, Congress responded to this unconstitutional practice by broadening the US Attorney General and director of National Security’s power to monitor communications within America.

Congress decreed that as long as the party being surveyed were believed to be foreigners located outside of the US, the surveillance was acceptable.

At the end of 2012, the Senate approved to renew the FISA program whereby the US government is authorized to spy on emails and phone calls of suspected terrorists (allegedly not American citizens) without court-ordered warrants.

The Congress supports the use of FISA for another 5 years. To appease the general public, Congress added an amendment to FISA that requires the government to reveal whether or not American citizens were surveilled during operations or perhaps mixed-up in foreign intelligence interceptions. However, this amendment was disregarded and voted down.

Both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Obama administration stressed that total secrecy must be maintained for the sake of national security. Using al-Qaeda as the excuse for FISA, House Representative Lamar Smith championed the renewal with other House members in tow.

House Representatives Dan Lungren and Trey Gowdy said that FISA is “critical to the protection of the American people” and “intelligence is the lifeblood of our ability to defend ourselves.”

Senator Patrick Leahy was responsible for a drafted replacement for the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that was meant to replace the 180 – day rule within the ECPA that gives law enforcement agencies the freedom to simply subpoena (i.e. request) a warrant to gain lawful access to private citizen’s emails older than 6 months. The subpoena would be sufficed in lieu of obtaining an actual warrant. As of now, a police department can claim – without being subject to proof – that a particular email is an imperative to an investigation and can gain access to that information without having to seek judicial means.

The change to the ECPA was never made. Instead, Leahy rewrote the bill to say that law enforcement no longer needed a warrant at all and could access any electronic information required to conduct their investigation by simply claiming its relevance.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has expanded its surveillance powers through support of the Congress. FISA is just the icing on the cake. According to the National Security Investigations and Prosecutions report for 2012: “an authorization targeting ‘al Qaeda’ — which is a non-U.S. person located abroad—could allow the government to wiretap any telephone that it believes will yield information from or about al Qaeda, either because the telephone is registered to a person whom the government believes is affiliated with al Qaeda, or because the government believes that the person communicates with others who are affiliated with al Qaeda, regardless of the location of the telephone.”

Justification for the continued use of FISA is that these intrusions into American’s private communications are searching for the US government-sponsored terrorist faction known as al-Qaeda.

David Kris, former top anti-terrorism attorney at the Justice Department, asserts that: “. . . an authorization targeting ‘al Qaeda’ – which is a non-U.S. person located abroad – could allow the government to wiretap any telephone that it believes will yield information from or about al Qaeda, either because the telephone is registered to a person whom the government believes is affiliated with al Qaeda, or because the government believes that the person communicates with others who are affiliated with al Qaeda, regardless of the location of the telephone.”

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SETS UP ‘CONSTITUTION FREE’ ZONES AROUND THE UNITED STATES BORDER

Published on Feb 11, 2013

According to the US Department of Homeland Security, anyone who is within a 100 mile radius of the US border is subject to the search and seizure of any and all electronic devices for no apparent reason. These zones known as “Constitution free” zones have many privacy advocates speaking out against the new policy and fear that this new procedure is a violation of civil liberties for American citizens. Kevin Gosztola, blogger for FireDogLake, sounds off on the latest from the DHS.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IS USING POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO GATHER INTEL ON CITIZENS AND LABEL THEM EXTREMIST THREATS

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 11, 2013

According to the White House Blog website, the Obama administration is working to “counter online radicalization” by “violent extremist groups” such as “al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents, violent supremacist groups, and violent ‘sovereign citizens’.”

The White House claims that “these groups use the Internet to disseminate propaganda, identify and groom potential recruits, and supplement their real-world recruitment” with “resources to propagate messages of violence and division.” Through the exploitation of “popular media, music videos and online video games”, allegedly there are “countless opportunities “to draw targets into private exchanges” and provide “violent extremists with access to new audiences and instruments for radicalization.”

The US government stated they will combat these extremist groups by “raising awareness about the threat and providing communities with practical information and tools for staying safe online.” They are solidifying their relationships with private sector corporations involved in technology to implement “policies, technologies, and tools that can help counter violent extremism online.”

The 2011 document entitled “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” outlines how a “comprehensive strategy” to counter the influence of al-Qaeda is being championed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with digital information sharing and coordinating intelligence with local law enforcement to thwart terrorist plots and “save many American lives”.

Using propaganda, under the guise of “local partners in their grassroots efforts to prevent violent extremism” the federal government is building a network with local law enforcement against the threat of radicalization online and in the real-world.

The document names plots devised by neo-Nazis, anti-Semitic hate groups, racial supremacists, international and domestic terrorists inspired by al-Qaeda as a threat to the US. The federal government is utilizing local police departments to build a “local level . . . resilience against violent extremism.”

america_today

DHS trains local police officers at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides funding to local police departments to send their officers to FLETC to receive militarized education in tactical operations.

FLETC has locations in Georgia, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Washington DC. This federal militarization of local police extends to international policing agencies which “develops, coordinates, manages, and delivers international training and technical assistance that promotes the rule of law and supports U.S. foreign policy.”

Another report the White House is using to justify the demonization of US citizens as radical extremists is entitled “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States”. This report, published in December of 2011, further reinforces the role of local police departments to ‘address community needs and concerns, including protecting rights and public safety.”

The federal government acquires platforms to infiltrate communities they have identified as potentially under threat of violent extremist groups. Across the nation, senior officials are deployed with the assistance of fake grassroots propaganda to partner with “Governor-appointed Homeland Security Advisors, Major Cities Chiefs, Mayors’ Offices, and local partners.”

Training of local police department officers to paramilitarize and integrate them into military tactical operations is the key to combating localized extremism.
Over the last few years the DHS have been indoctrinating local police departments into “non-Federal law enforcement agencies” as outlined in the DHS directive from the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement (SLLE).

DHS is successful in their relationship with local police departments all across the nation because they are contracted private security firms (or hired armed guards) that are placed in a city or town to secure the population and generate revenue for the local government.

In early 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report entitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission” which outlined in part on how to redirect efforts of the federal government from international terrorism toward home-grown terrorists and build a DHS-controlled police force agency that would control all cities and towns through the use of local police departments.

DHS maintains that “the threat grows more localized” which necessitates the militarization of local police in major cities in the US and the training of staff from local agencies to make sure that oversight is restricted to the federal government.

Countering online extremism is a task allocated to the DHS who have identified “behaviors, tactics, and other indicators that could point to potential terrorist activity.” DHS will host conferences for local police departments and federal partners to attend that will provide education on countering extremism.

Other “training initiatives” include “hundreds of thousands of front line officers” who are the ground-force infantry needed by DHS to “prevent” extremist activities.

The “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign is specifically designed to target local communities to turn ordinary citizens into a Stasi for the federal government with the local police department allocated as their first line of intelligence gathering.

Intelligence on citizens who are supposed to be extremists is gathered from multiple avenues such as:

• Local government
• Local law enforcement
• Parent/Teacher Associations
• School district officials
• Influential members of local communities
• Religious leaders

These collaborations provide “critical information” and real-time “ assessments of [any] threat” to local communities and incorporate this information into training programs and federal initiatives.

-

OBAMA WORKING TO SILENCE FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA

-

The First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-

-

WORKING TO COUNTER ONLINE RADICALIZATION TO VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

Quintan Wiktorowicz | The White House
February 05, 2013

The American public increasingly relies on the Internet for socializing, business transactions, gathering information, entertainment, and creating and sharing content. The rapid growth of the Internet has brought opportunities but also risks, and the Federal Government is committed to empowering members of the public to protect themselves against the full range of online threats, including online radicalization to violence.

Violent extremist groups ─ like al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents, violent supremacist groups, and violent “sovereign citizens” ─ are leveraging online tools and resources to propagate messages of violence and division. These groups use the Internet to disseminate propaganda, identify and groom potential recruits, and supplement their real-world recruitment efforts.  Some members and supporters of these groups visit mainstream fora to see whether individuals might be recruited or encouraged to commit acts of violence, look for opportunities to draw targets into private exchanges, and exploit popular media like music videos and online video games.  Although the Internet offers countless opportunities for Americans to connect, it has also provided violent extremists with access to new audiences and instruments for radicalization.

As a starting point to prevent online radicalization to violence in the homeland, the Federal Government initially will focus on raising awareness about the threat and providing communities with practical information and tools for staying safe online. In this process, we will work closely with the technology industry to consider policies, technologies, and tools that can help counter violent extremism online. Companies already have developed voluntary measures to promote Internet safety ─ such as fraud warnings, identity protection, and Internet safety tips ─ and we will collaborate with industry to explore how we might counter online violent extremism without interfering with lawful Internet use or the privacy and civil liberties of individual users.

This approach is consistent with Internet safety principles that have helped keep communities safe from a range of online threats, such as cyber bullies, scammers, gangs, and sexual predators. While each of these threats is unique, experience has shown that a well-informed public, armed with tools and resources to stay safe online, is critical to protecting communities. Pursuing such an approach is also consistent with the community-based framework we outlined in Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States and the Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.

A New Interagency Working Group

To more effectively organize our efforts, the Administration is establishing a new Interagency Working Group to Counter Online Radicalization to Violence, chaired by the National Security Staff at the White House and involving specialists in countering violent extremism, Internet safety experts, and civil liberties and privacy practitioners from across the United States Government. This Working Group will be responsible for developing plans to implement an Internet safety approach to address online violent extremism, coordinating the Federal Government’s activities and assessing our progress against these plans, and identifying additional activities to pursue for countering online radicalization to violence.

Raising Awareness through Existing Initiatives

In the coming months, the Working Group will coordinate with Federal departments and agencies to raise awareness and disseminate tools for staying safe from online violent extremism primarily through three means.

First, information about online violent extremism will be incorporated into existing Federal Government Internet safety initiatives.  Internet safety initiatives at the Department of Education, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies provide platforms that already reach millions of Americans, and relevant departments and agencies will work to add materials related to online radicalization.

The primary government platform for raising awareness about Internet safety is OnGuard Online, managed by the Federal Trade Commission and involving 16 departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Education.  OnGuard Online─ in addition to other Federal Government Internet safety platforms like Stop.Think.Connect and Safe Online Surfing─ will begin including information about online violent extremism.  This information also will be posted on the Countering Violent Extremism homepage on the Department of Homeland Security’s website and updated to reflect new best practices and research.

Second, the Federal Government will work with local organizations throughout the country to disseminate information about the threat.  One reason for the success of Federal Government Internet safety awareness efforts is that they work closely with local organizations — such as school districts, Parent Teacher Associations, local government, and law enforcement — to communicate to communities.  Law enforcement is a particularly important partner in raising awareness about radicalization to violence and is already developing materials with support from the Department of Justice. Law enforcement departments and agencies have established Internet safety programs and relationships with community members and local organizations that can reach multiple audiences with critical information about the threat of online violent extremism and recruitment. Departments and agencies will provide the latest assessments of this threat to our local partners and encourage them to incorporate this information into their programs and initiatives.

Third, departments and agencies will use our preexisting engagement with communities to provide information about Internet safety and details about how violent extremists are using the Internet to target and exploit communities.  U.S. Attorneys throughout the country, who historically have engaged with communities on a range of public safety issues, are coordinating these Federal engagement efforts at the local level, with support from other departments and agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education.  U.S. Attorneys and others involved in community engagement will seek to incorporate information about Internet radicalization to violence into their efforts, as appropriate.  At the same time, the Federal Government will engage with State, local, and tribal government and law enforcement officials to learn from their experiences in addressing online threats, including violent extremism.

Going Forward

As the Federal Government implements this effort in the coming months, we will continue to investigate and prosecute those who use the Internet to recruit others to plan or carry out acts of violence, while ensuring that we also continue to uphold individual privacy and civil liberties.  Preventing online radicalization to violence requires both proactive solutions to reduce the likelihood that violent extremists affect their target audiences as well as ensuring that laws are rigorously enforced.

-

FACT SHEET: Working to Counter Online Radicalization to Violence in the United States

A Starting Point: This is a starting point to tackle the threat of violent extremist use of the Internet. Adopting an Internet safety approach and related tools is key, but the Interagency Working Group to Counter Online Radicalization to Violence will be charged with considering
additional efforts, as appropriate.

.
Protecting Freedom of Speech: It is important that we continue to protect civil liberties and privacy as we implement an Internet safety approach and that we do not restrict speech. Our focus is on providing communities with information for staying safe online from individuals who
are trying to encourage others to commit acts of violence. Our concern with protecting civil liberties and privacy informed the development of our policy and will guide the efforts of the Working Group.

.
Addressing the Threat: Violent extremists use the Internet to recruit and radicalize Americans to commit acts of violence. We have seen attacks over the last several years in which consumption of propaganda over, and communication through, the Internet played a role in the
radicalization of the attacker. The Federal Government will work to make communities more resilient to these messages of hate by raising awareness and providing tools. Informed and resilient communities are our Nation’s first and best line of defense against terrorism.
Resources and Implementation: The resources necessary for implementing this policy will be determined by the Working Group. However, the goal is to integrate these efforts into ongoing Federal, state, and local Internet safety programs. For example, the OnGuard Online website
hosted by the Federal Trade Commission will begin including information about violent extremist use of the Internet in their existing Internet safety materials. Implementation will be coordinated by the Working Group, which will be chaired by the White House National Security
Staff. Relevant departments and agencies will participate in the Working Group and collaborate to implement this policy.

.
Collaborating with Industry: The Federal Government will collaborate with industry to explore how we might counter online violent extremism while protecting lawful Internet use and the civil liberties and privacy of individual users. Many companies have developed voluntary
measures to promote Internet safety (such as fraud warnings, identity protection, and Internet safety tips), and we look forward to hearing their views about how we might apply similar measures to counter online radicalization to violence.

-

WILL OBAMA TAKE CONTROL OF THE INTERNET?

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
New American
Feb 13, 2013

As early as Wednesday, President Obama could issue an executive order granting the federal government expansive and unprecedented power over one of the few remaining outposts of uncensored information — the Internet.

Various news agencies are reporting that a cybersecurity executive order has been drafted and will be issued by the president this week. A story on NextWeb indicates that the president will address the issue (and announce the executive order) in Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

Bloomberg adds credibility to the speculation, quoting “two former White House officials briefed on the administration’s plans” who corroborate the Wednesday release date for the executive order.

The Wall Street Journal reports that unnamed White House officials disclosed that the order will indeed be issued Wednesday and that it “would create a federal-government led group to work with the private sector to create and implement voluntary standards for companies running critical infrastructure. It would also take additional measures to improve information sharing and bolster cybersecurity through current regulatory authorities.”

Voluntary is a word — like so many others — that doesn’t have the same meaning in Washington, D.C., as it does in the rest of the country.

Given the the federal government’s penchant for vague language, however, it is likely that despite the denial of compulsory cooperation with the government there will be a loophole just large enough to force through a requirement of corporate cooperation with the intelligence agencies of the Obama administration.

According to information obtained by The New American, the executive order will resemble in almost every detail a cybersecurity bill that will be introduced to Congress on Wednesday.

That bill, as reported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), will empower the “National Security Agency (NSA) and the military to collect your private internet records.” All in the name of national security, of course.

The measure that will be offered in the House of Representatives on Wednesday will be nothing less than a resurrection of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), that was passed by the House in April of last year.

According to The Hill, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and ranking member Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) will re-introduce an unamended CISPA this week during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

That bill, H.R. 3523, established an exemption to all privacy laws allowing companies to transmit private user/subscriber information with other companies and with the government for the purpose of protecting cybersecurity. In exchange for their compliance with the “voluntary” delivery of users’ private data to the NSA and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the federal government will shield participating companies for any liability stemming from challenges to the government’s use of the electronic communication of its customers.

The AP reported last October that “selected employees at critical infrastructure companies would receive security clearances allowing them to receive the information.”

CISPA is yet another example of the cooperation between industry and government that threatens to squeeze the life out of the Constitution and place every actual and virtual activity of every American under the constant surveillance of government.

There is a curb on that power, however. CISPA mandates that the government may use the information it obtains only for “lawful purposes,” defined in the bill as preventing anything that could potentially threaten the nation’s national or Internet security.

There is no time limit on this power and the only oversight will be an annual audit by the inspector general of the federal intelligence community.

Despite these extraordinary and chilling abridgments of the Fourth Amendment, there is broad bipartisan support for CISPA, despite its unpopularity outside the Beltway. As The New American reported after the House passage last year, “Passage in the House was assured with more than 70 percent of those supported by the Tea Party voting for it.”

When the measure moved to the Senate it was voted down and President Obama threatened to veto it. That could be, of course, because the White House preferred to set the boundaries of the authority to monitor the traffic on the Internet.

President Obama has consistently added one document after another to his bulging dossier of dictatorship.

As early as last fall, President Obama began work on the fiat that will, according to a draft of the executive order obtained by the Associated Press, order “U.S. spy agencies to share the latest intelligence about cyberthreats with companies operating electric grids, water plants, railroads and other vital industries to help protect them from electronic attacks.”

For some time, government officials have insisted that Iran is planning a cyberattack on the electronic communications infrastructure of the United States. The AP reports that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that the U.S. armed forces are “ready to retaliate” should Iran — or any other country — attempt an attack on U.S. cybersecurity.

Those reports as well as recent allegations of Chinese cyberattacks against the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and theWashington Post, and attacks by Anonymous on the Federal Reserve’s cyberstructure have given the president the threats of a “cyber 9/11” that he needs to justify his issuing of an edict with all the unconstitutional assaults on civil liberty of a “cyber Patriot Act.”

President Obama’s administration has been prepping members of Congress for some time on their irrelevance in the upcoming electronic information monitoring scheme.

In a hearing held last September before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified that assuming control of the nation’s Internet infrastructure is a DHS responsibility.

“DHS is the Federal government’s lead agency for securing civilian government computer systems and works with our industry and Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government partners to secure critical infrastructure and information systems,” she informed senators.

Napolitano’s report on the role of DHS squares with the information revealed in the seven-page version of the executive order obtained last year by the AP. According to the report of their findings:

The draft order would put the Department of Homeland Security in charge of organizing an information-sharing network that rapidly distributes sanitized summaries of top-secret intelligence reports about known cyberthreats that identify a specific target. With these warnings, known as tear lines, the owners and operators of essential U.S. businesses would be better able to block potential attackers from gaining access to their computer systems.

The president’s de facto re-routing of all Internet traffic through federal intelligence officers deputizes more than just DHS as cybertraffic cops. The AP reports that “the Pentagon, the National Security Agency (NSA), the director of national intelligence, and the Justice Department” will all cooperate in the surveillance — again, the same agencies whose powers were either created or expanded in the Patriot Act.

Despite the anticipated similarities between CISPA, the Patriot Act, and President Obama’s forthcoming cybersecurity executive order, there is one very significant difference. Legislation can be repealed. Constituents can unite and threaten the reelection hopes of lawmakers who vote for such a bill.

An executive order, on the other hand, is unassailable, and the president — particularly one in his final term — is beyond accountability for the edicts he hands down and for the irreparable harm they might do to civil liberties and to the Constitution that protects them.

-

CISPA CYBER BILL RESURRECTED IN CONGRESS, AGAIN

Published on Feb 13, 2013

During President Obama’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, the commander-in-chief touched on the subject of cybersecurity. Obama announced that he has signed an executive order to strengthen America’s cyber infrastructure, and on Wednesday Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, along with other members of Congress resubmitted the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Protection Act, the bill known as CISPA that failed to reach the Senate during the last Capitol Hill session. So will Obama sign it into law this time around? RT’s Bob English joins us with more on the new push for CISPA.

-

HELP STOP CISPA!

Published on Feb 14, 2013

Abby Martin takes a deeper look at CISPA, and the implications it has in doing away with our 4th amendment rights online.

-

300,000 SIGN ANTI-CISPA PETITION, AGAIN

-

EXCLUSIVE: WHITE HOUSE RELEASES EXECUTIVE ORDER IMPROVING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE CYBERSECURITY

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 12, 2013

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- – – – – – -

IMPROVING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE CYBERSECURITY

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Repeated cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure demonstrate the need for improved cybersecurity. The cyber threat to critical infrastructure continues to grow and represents one of the most serious national security challenges we must confront. The national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of the Nation’s critical infrastructure in the face of such threats. It is the policy of the United States to enhance the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure and to maintain a cyber environment that encourages efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity while promoting safety, security, business confidentiality, privacy, and civil liberties. We can achieve these goals through a partnership with the owners and operators of critical infrastructure to improve cybersecurity information sharing and collaboratively develop and implement risk-based standards.

Sec. 2. Critical Infrastructure. As used in this order, the term critical infrastructure means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.

Sec. 3. Policy Coordination. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions and programs described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System), or any successor.

Sec. 4. Cybersecurity Information Sharing. (a) It is the policy of the United States Government to increase the volume, timeliness, and quality of cyber threat information shared with U.S. private sector entities so that these entities may better protect and defend themselves against cyber threats. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Secretary”), and the Director of National Intelligence shall each issue instructions consistent with their authorities and with the requirements of section 12(c) of this order to ensure the timely production of unclassified reports of cyber threats to the U.S. homeland that identify a specific targeted entity. The instructions shall address the need to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, operations, and investigations.

(b) The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a process that rapidly disseminates the reports produced pursuant to section 4(a) of this order to the targeted entity. Such process shall also, consistent with the need to protect national security information, include the dissemination of classified reports to critical infrastructure entities authorized to receive them. The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a system for tracking the production, dissemination, and disposition of these reports.

(c) To assist the owners and operators of critical infrastructure in protecting their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or harm, the Secretary, consistent with 6 U.S.C. 143 and in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, shall, within 120 days of the date of this order, establish procedures to expand the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program to all critical infrastructure sectors. This voluntary information sharing program will provide classified cyber threat and technical information from the Government to eligible critical infrastructure companies or commercial service providers that offer security services to critical infrastructure.

(d) The Secretary, as the Executive Agent for the Classified National Security Information Program created under Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010 (Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities), shall expedite the processing of security clearances to appropriate personnel employed by critical infrastructure owners and operators, prioritizing the critical infrastructure identified in section 9 of this order.

(e) In order to maximize the utility of cyber threat information sharing with the private sector, the Secretary shall expand the use of programs that bring private sector subject-matter experts into Federal service on a temporary basis. These subject matter experts should provide advice regarding the content, structure, and types of information most useful to critical infrastructure owners and operators in reducing and mitigating cyber risks.

Sec. 5. Privacy and Civil Liberties Protections. (a) Agencies shall coordinate their activities under this order with their senior agency officials for privacy and civil liberties and ensure that privacy and civil liberties protections are incorporated into such activities. Such protections shall be based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles and other privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks as they apply to each agency’s activities.

(b) The Chief Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall assess the privacy and civil liberties risks of the functions and programs undertaken by DHS as called for in this order and shall recommend to the Secretary ways to minimize or mitigate such risks, in a publicly available report, to be released within 1 year of the date of this order. Senior agency privacy and civil liberties officials for other agencies engaged in activities under this order shall conduct assessments of their agency activities and provide those assessments to DHS for consideration and inclusion in the report. The report shall be reviewed on an annual basis and revised as necessary. The report may contain a classified annex if necessary. Assessments shall include evaluation of activities against the Fair Information Practice Principles and other applicable privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks. Agencies shall consider the assessments and recommendations of the report in implementing privacy and civil liberties protections for agency activities.

(c) In producing the report required under subsection (b) of this section, the Chief Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of DHS shall consult with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

(d) Information submitted voluntarily in accordance with 6 U.S.C. 133 by private entities under this order shall be protected from disclosure to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Sec. 6. Consultative Process. The Secretary shall establish a consultative process to coordinate improvements to the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. As part of the consultative process, the Secretary shall engage and consider the advice, on matters set forth in this order, of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council; Sector Coordinating Councils; critical infrastructure owners and operators; Sector-Specific Agencies; other relevant agencies; independent regulatory agencies; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; universities; and outside experts.

Sec. 7. Baseline Framework to Reduce Cyber Risk to Critical Infrastructure. (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (the “Director”) to lead the development of a framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure (the “Cybersecurity Framework”). The Cybersecurity Framework shall include a set of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks. The Cybersecurity Framework shall incorporate voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices to the fullest extent possible. The Cybersecurity Framework shall be consistent with voluntary international standards when such international standards will advance the objectives of this order, and shall meet the requirements of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), and OMB Circular A-119, as revised.

(b) The Cybersecurity Framework shall provide a prioritized, flexible, repeatable, performance-based, and cost-effective approach, including information security measures and controls, to help owners and operators of critical infrastructure identify, assess, and manage cyber risk. The Cybersecurity Framework shall focus on identifying cross-sector security standards and guidelines applicable to critical infrastructure. The Cybersecurity Framework will also identify areas for improvement that should be addressed through future collaboration with particular sectors and standards-developing organizations. To enable technical innovation and account for organizational differences, the Cybersecurity Framework will provide guidance that is technology neutral and that enables critical infrastructure sectors to benefit from a competitive market for products and services that meet the standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes developed to address cyber risks. The Cybersecurity Framework shall include guidance for measuring the performance of an entity in implementing the Cybersecurity Framework.

(c) The Cybersecurity Framework shall include methodologies to identify and mitigate impacts of the Cybersecurity Framework and associated information security measures or controls on business confidentiality, and to protect individual privacy and civil liberties.

(d) In developing the Cybersecurity Framework, the Director shall engage in an open public review and comment process. The Director shall also consult with the Secretary, the National Security Agency, Sector-Specific Agencies and other interested agencies including OMB, owners and operators of critical infrastructure, and other stakeholders through the consultative process established in section 6 of this order. The Secretary, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other relevant agencies shall provide threat and vulnerability information and technical expertise to inform the development of the Cybersecurity Framework. The Secretary shall provide performance goals for the Cybersecurity Framework informed by work under section 9 of this order.

(e) Within 240 days of the date of this order, the Director shall publish a preliminary version of the Cybersecurity Framework (the “preliminary Framework”). Within 1 year of the date of this order, and after coordination with the Secretary to ensure suitability under section 8 of this order, the Director shall publish a final version of the Cybersecurity Framework (the “final Framework”).

(f) Consistent with statutory responsibilities, the Director will ensure the Cybersecurity Framework and related guidance is reviewed and updated as necessary, taking into consideration technological changes, changes in cyber risks, operational feedback from owners and operators of critical infrastructure, experience from the implementation of section 8 of this order, and any other relevant factors.

Sec. 8. Voluntary Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Program. (a) The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall establish a voluntary program to support the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and any other interested entities (the “Program”).

(b) Sector-Specific Agencies, in consultation with the Secretary and other interested agencies, shall coordinate with the Sector Coordinating Councils to review the Cybersecurity Framework and, if necessary, develop implementation guidance or supplemental materials to address sector-specific risks and operating environments.

(c) Sector-Specific Agencies shall report annually to the President, through the Secretary, on the extent to which owners and operators notified under section 9 of this order are participating in the Program.

(d) The Secretary shall coordinate establishment of a set of incentives designed to promote participation in the Program. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary and the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce each shall make recommendations separately to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, that shall include analysis of the benefits and relative effectiveness of such incentives, and whether the incentives would require legislation or can be provided under existing law and authorities to participants in the Program.

(e) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Secretary and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, shall make recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, on the feasibility, security benefits, and relative merits of incorporating security standards into acquisition planning and contract administration. The report shall address what steps can be taken to harmonize and make consistent existing procurement requirements related to cybersecurity.

Sec. 9. Identification of Critical Infrastructure at Greatest Risk. (a) Within 150 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall use a risk-based approach to identify critical infrastructure where a cybersecurity incident could reasonably result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security. In identifying critical infrastructure for this purpose, the Secretary shall use the consultative process established in section 6 of this order and draw upon the expertise of Sector-Specific Agencies. The Secretary shall apply consistent, objective criteria in identifying such critical infrastructure. The Secretary shall not identify any commercial information technology products or consumer information technology services under this section. The Secretary shall review and update the list of identified critical infrastructure under this section on an annual basis, and provide such list to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs.

(b) Heads of Sector-Specific Agencies and other relevant agencies shall provide the Secretary with information necessary to carry out the responsibilities under this section. The Secretary shall develop a process for other relevant stakeholders to submit information to assist in making the identifications required in subsection (a) of this section.

(c) The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall confidentially notify owners and operators of critical infrastructure identified under subsection (a) of this section that they have been so identified, and ensure identified owners and operators are provided the basis for the determination. The Secretary shall establish a process through which owners and operators of critical infrastructure may submit relevant information and request reconsideration of identifications under subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 10. Adoption of Framework. (a) Agencies with responsibility for regulating the security of critical infrastructure shall engage in a consultative process with DHS, OMB, and the National Security Staff to review the preliminary Cybersecurity Framework and determine if current cybersecurity regulatory requirements are sufficient given current and projected risks. In making such determination, these agencies shall consider the identification of critical infrastructure required under section 9 of this order. Within 90 days of the publication of the preliminary Framework, these agencies shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Director of OMB, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, that states whether or not the agency has clear authority to establish requirements based upon the Cybersecurity Framework to sufficiently address current and projected cyber risks to critical infrastructure, the existing authorities identified, and any additional authority required.

(b) If current regulatory requirements are deemed to be insufficient, within 90 days of publication of the final Framework, agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section shall propose prioritized, risk-based, efficient, and coordinated actions, consistent with Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive Order 13609 of May 1, 2012 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), to mitigate cyber risk.

(c) Within 2 years after publication of the final Framework, consistent with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens), agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section shall, in consultation with owners and operators of critical infrastructure, report to OMB on any critical infrastructure subject to ineffective, conflicting, or excessively burdensome cybersecurity requirements. This report shall describe efforts made by agencies, and make recommendations for further actions, to minimize or eliminate such requirements.

(d) The Secretary shall coordinate the provision of technical assistance to agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section on the development of their cybersecurity workforce and programs.

(e) Independent regulatory agencies with responsibility for regulating the security of critical infrastructure are encouraged to engage in a consultative process with the Secretary, relevant Sector-Specific Agencies, and other affected parties to consider prioritized actions to mitigate cyber risks for critical infrastructure consistent with their authorities.

Sec. 11. Definitions. (a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(b) “Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council” means the council established by DHS under 6 U.S.C. 451 to facilitate effective interaction and coordination of critical infrastructure protection activities among the Federal Government; the private sector; and State, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

(c) “Fair Information Practice Principles” means the eight principles set forth in Appendix A of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.

(d) “Independent regulatory agency” has the meaning given the term in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

(e) “Sector Coordinating Council” means a private sector coordinating council composed of representatives of owners and operators within a particular sector of critical infrastructure established by the National Infrastructure Protection Plan or any successor.

(f) “Sector-Specific Agency” has the meaning given the term in Presidential Policy Directive-21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience), or any successor.

Sec. 12. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. Nothing in this order shall be construed to provide an agency with authority for regulating the security of critical infrastructure in addition to or to a greater extent than the authority the agency has under existing law. Nothing in this order shall be construed to alter or limit any authority or responsibility of an agency under existing law.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) All actions taken pursuant to this order shall be consistent with requirements and authorities to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources and methods. Nothing in this order shall be interpreted to supersede measures established under authority of law to protect the security and integrity of specific activities and associations that are in direct support of intelligence and law enforcement operations.

(d) This order shall be implemented consistent with U.S. international obligations.

(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

-

PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS CYBERSECURITY EXECUTIVE ORDER TO CONTROL AND PREVENT CYBER ATTACKS

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 14, 2013

Just two days ago, President Obama signed executive order (EO) “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” which outlines “the need for improved cybersecurity” because of “repeated cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure.”

Cyber-attacks pose “one of the most serious national security challenges” according to the EO. Obama is seeking to strengthen “national and economic security” by enhancing “the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure and to maintain a cyber-environment that encourages efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity while promoting safety, security, business confidentiality, privacy, and civil liberties.”

This EO binds “the owners and operators of critical infrastructure” in a partnership with the federal government “to improve cybersecurity information sharing and collaboratively develop and implement risk-based standards.”

Through the Presidential Policy Directive-1 (PPD1), the Organization of the National Security Council System (NSCS) will be empowered to communicate with various agencies within the federal government to design programs and establish functions as outlined in “periodic in-progress reviews” to ensure cybersecurity.

Private sector corporations will be expected to provide the federal government with information about cyber threats. With notification provided to Eric Holder, the US Attorney General and James Clapper the director of National Intelligence (NI) instructions on how to deal with cyber threats will be disseminated; along with unclassified reports in an effort to protect “the US homeland”.

These instructions will be given to law enforcement agencies to outline how to protect intelligence, methods approved by the federal government, operations and specified investigators to be used for these purposes.

This EO also expands the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS) program that partners with the Department of Defense (DoD), the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Corporations can voluntarily apply for the DIB and purchase services on security for networks. Corporations who provide contact information for the federal government regarding DIB are AT&T and CenturyLink.

The sharing of information from the private sector to the federal government will exponentially increase under the guise of cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure.

Civil liberties are “protected” unless the federal government finds a necessity for information on US citizens. What is protected under civil liberties will be decided by the Chief Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of DHS.

DHS will consult with “the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council; Sector Coordinating Councils; critical infrastructure owners and operators; Sector-Specific Agencies; other relevant agencies; independent regulatory agencies; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; universities; and outside experts” to advise on cybersecurity.

The director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop “framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure” called “Cybersecurity Framework” (CSF) that will “include a set of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks.”

The CSF will be based on “voluntary international standards” and “shall incorporate voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices.” By creating an integrated network cross-sectioned with private and federal networks, the CSF will identify threats, manage cyber risks, instill applicable guidelines and advise on improvements for the future through collaboration with specified organizations and corporations.

The DHS and National Security staff will oversee the CSF.

In the State of the Union address, Obama laid out his intentions for cybersecurity as described in the EO above that restricts the free-flow of information on the internet.

Through Big Brother controls established in the EO, surveillance on online activities will increase at the whim of the federal government with the catch-all of protecting national and cyber security as justification for all actions taken therein.

Real-time sharing of digital information on US citizens between the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies will become the norm as the recommendations of interagency heads decide what will happen.

Obama admonished Congress to plan to re-introduce the controversial CISPA information-sharing bill. CISPA empowers Facebook, Google and other corporations to hand over information concerning US citizens through incentives (or bribes).

In April of 2012, Obama threatened to veto CISPA with a public declaration that “the Obama administration opposes CISPA. The president has called for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. There is absolutely a need for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. [But] part of what has been communicated to congressional committees is that we want legislation to come with necessary protections for individuals.”

The EO has outlined the “framework” for more construction with regard to restrictions on the internet in the name of cybersecurity. Intelligence sharing is immediately applicable through private corporations to combat cyber-attacks and cyber threats for the protection of national security, the economy and other nations that have become reliant on the US for financial support.

Although what constitutes a “cyberthreat” or cyber-attack” has not been clearly defines by the EO, it is obvious that the work of Anonymous and other hacker groups have facilitated the need for such a measure.

Operation Last Resort culminated in the hacking of the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the US Sentencing Commission (USSC); as well as the publication of information on the internet that was syphoned from the Federal Reserve Bank.

However, knowing that these groups are funded by the CIA and actually have members of the CIA in their group changes the meaning of these measures to eradicate them. They become a false flag operation that will only end in the restriction of American liberties.

Considering that the US government has been making ample attempts to control or shut down the internet, it appears the logical conclusion that these groups are working toward that end.

-

OBAMA’S WEB SECURITY EXECUTIVE ORDER A BYPASS TO SPY ON CIVILIANS

Published on Feb 13, 2013

Barack Obama has signed an executive order on cybersecurity aimed at boosting the defense of critical US infrastructure, while also avoiding the criticism over compromising civil liberties that its legislative predecessors suffered from.

-

OBAMA PLACED EMBARGO ON PRESS OVER SECRET CYBER SECURITY EXECUTIVE ORDER

President drilled reporters not to cover secret order

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Feb 13, 2013

Buzz Feed reported today that Obama secretly signed a long awaited executive order on Cyber Security, then issued an embargo to all news organisations NOT to cover the developments.

The report states:

Shortly before 4:20 p.m. Tuesday, the White House emailed reporters that President Obama had signed a highly anticipated Executive Order aimed at protecting cyber security.

The order — setting up new programs aimed at stopping online espionage and terrorism — was already the law of the land, signed by the president. But it was also secret.

The document was “embargoed until delivery of the President’s in the State of the Union address” — despite the fact it had already been signed.

The report states that  there was a “background briefing on the move”, involving members of the press.

Explaining that the embargo was not legally binding , Buzz Feed says it chose to break it and report the story because they “thought it appropriate to report on the unusual delay”.

Buzz Feed also revealed that in an email sent out regarding the development, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor attempted to explain the secrecy behind the executive order.

“We wanted to release the EO early on an embargoed basis because the subject matter is complicated and we knew you guys would have questions. It seemed more helpful for the press corps than sending it concurrent with the speech.” the email said.

Vietor added “this isn’t unprecedented. Take for example sanctions Executive Orders. They are signed one day, go into effect at midnight but are not released until the next day.”

The secrecy over the executive order sets a precedent, given that it is usually only employed where classified information is concerned.

The White House synopsis on the Executive order reads:

According to a White House synopsis the Executive Order includes:

New information sharing programs to provide both classified and unclassified threat and attack information to U.S. companies. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to produce unclassified reports of threats to U.S. companies and requires the reports to be shared in a timely manner. The Order also expands the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program, enabling near real time sharing of cyber threat information to assist participating critical infrastructure companies in their cyber protection efforts.

The development of a Cybersecurity Framework. The Executive Order directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to lead the development of a framework of cybersecurity practices to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure. NIST will work collaboratively with industry to develop the framework, relying on existing international standards, practices, and procedures that have proven to be effective. To enable technical innovation, the Cybersecurity Framework will provide guidance that is technology neutral and that enables critical infrastructure sectors to benefit from a competitive market for products and service

Includes strong privacy and civil liberties protections based on the Fair Information Practice Principles. Agencies are required to incorporate privacy and civil liberties safeguards in their activities under this order. Those safeguards will be based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPS) and other applicable privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks. Agencies will conduct regular assessments of privacy and civil liberties impacts of their activities and such assessments will be made public.

Establishes a voluntary program to promote the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework. The Department of Homeland Security will work with Sector-Specific Agencies like the Department of Energy and the Sector Coordinating Councils that represent industry to develop a program to assist companies with implementing the Cybersecurity Framework and to identify incentives for adoption.

Calls for a review of existing cybersecurity regulation. Regulatory agencies will use the Cybersecurity Framework to assess their cybersecurity regulations, determine if existing requirements are sufficient, and whether any existing regulations can be eliminated as no longer effective. If the existing regulations are ineffective or insufficient, agencies will propose new, cost-effective regulations based upon the Cybersecurity Framework and in consultation with their regulated companies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to leverage the Cybersecurity Framework to consider prioritized actions to mitigate cyber risks for critical infrastructure consistent with their authorities.

-

TECH GURU WARNS OF INTERNET DISASTER

Scientist Danny Hillis calls for ‘Internet Plan B’ in times of emergency

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 28, 2013

Inventor and scientist Danny Hillis warns that the Internet has “expanded it way beyond its limits,” and is set for a “disaster,” calling for an ‘Internet Plan B’ that would operate in times of emergency.

Hillis is the founder of Thinking Machines Corporation, which developed the Connection Machine, a series of supercomputers designed by Hillis while he was working at MIT.

Speaking to Wired’s Michael V. Copeland at the TED 2013 conference currently taking place in Long Beach, Hillis argues that because so many interconnected systems are now reliant on the world wide web, “We’re setting ourselves up for disaster, like we did with the financial system.”

Pointing to examples like the Stuxnet virus, US military data being routed through China, and the threat of a massive denial of service attack targeting the entire web, Hillis advocates building a second backbone that would kick in like a back-up generator “when the internet is in trouble.”

What Hillis imagines is a second network that could come online in case of emergency. It would use different protocols from the existing internet, and would be kept separate as much as possible (“Hygiene would be required,” Hillis says.) So when the internet goes down, police stations, hospitals and airports could still function.

In the face of the billions of dollars that companies and governments face to lose if their swath of the internet is taken over by bad guys, to say nothing of the chaos that would occur with a wholesale shutdown of the internet, the few hundred million dollars it would cost to build Hillis’ Plan B seems like money well spent.

As we have documented for the best part of a decade, Internet Plan B, or Internet 2, would be a perfect excuse for authorities to replace the current Wild West-style Internet system with a newly regulated, censored structure under which everyone would require permission and approval to operate a website.

Of course, this would be a routine procedure for monied corporations, prominent individuals and offshoots of the establishment itself, but could serve to strangle independent voices that have helped mould the Internet into what it represents today – the final bastion of true free speech.

Citing threats posed to cybersecurity, governments could agree to kill off the old world wide web in favor of a highly controlled Internet which would bar terrorists, criminals, subversives and anyone deemed a security risk by the state from getting online – a no fly list for cyberspace.

Internet ID cards or licenses would be issued to individuals who have proven themselves to be well behaved citizens – those have not used the web for illegal downloads, hacking, or God forbid – criticizing officialdom. The Great Firewall of China would be implemented globally – killing off all those annoying alternative media websites and blogs and allowing the mainstream media to reclaim its audience share.

The problem with Hillis’ argument is that many of the threats he cites as a justification for creating a new government-controlled ‘hygienic’ Internet 2 were created by the same military-industrial complex that would benefit from the new system.

As we have documented, the last five major computer viruses – Stuxnet, Flame, SP, SPE and IP – were all most likely the work of US and Israeli intelligence services.

Hillis and his peers should be more sophisticated about denigrating the old Internet and calling for a new “emergency” Internet 2 given that this would represent a perfect opportunity for those who have not hidden their agenda to destroy free speech on the world wide web in moving us closer to a draconian, onerous Chinese-style Internet.

-

RIGHTS GROUP SUES BIG SIS OVER INTERNET KILL SWITCH

DHS could execute communications shutdown for entire cities

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
March 1, 2013

A privacy rights group has brought a lawsuit to gain more detailed information on the federal government’s ability to shut off the internet in the event of a national crisis.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, in response to a failure by the agency to release any documents pertaining to the “Emergency Wireless Protocols,” (Standard Operating Procedure 303 or “SOP 303″).

SOP 303 outlines exactly how the DHS would carry out a complete communications shutdown in the event of what it deemed an emergency situation.

EPIC explains in its complaint that the DHS has publicly stated that under SOP 303 an agency component “will function as the focal point for coordinating any actions leading up to and following the termination of private wireless network connections, both within a localized area, such as a tunnel or bridge, and within an entire metropolitan area.”

The DHS, led by ‘Big Sis’ Janet Napolitano, said recently that it was “unable to locate or identify any responsive records” on the matter.

The issue is directly related to the much feared Obama Internet ‘kill switch’, a tangible government policy that was eventually purportedly dropped from cybersecurity legislation making its way through the Congress.

“Public apprehension about the possibility of handing the White House a ‘kill switch’ for the Internet has dogged the cybersecurity debate, fueled by a proposal that would have codified emergency powers for the president in the event of a catastrophic attack,” reported the Hill last year.

Indeed, cybersecurity advocate Joe Lieberman ominously pushed for the ‘kill switch’ provision to be included in the bill by citing the Chinese system of Internet policing as a model to which the United States should aspire. As we have documented, China routinely censors the Internet and cuts off access in order to hide evidence of government corruption and to cover up atrocities committed by the state.

Lieberman then pushed Obama to sign a cybersecurity executive order that would act as an Internet kill switch, granting the president vast power over private networks during a “national cyberemergency.”

Earlier this month, Obama secretly signed an executive order on Cyber Security, then issued an embargo to all news organisations NOT to cover the developments.

In recent days Janet Napolitano has described cybersecurity as a “core mission area” for the DHS. The federal agency was intimately involved in drawing up the Obama cybersecurity executive order.

Although language allowing the President to flip a figurative kill switch to shut down parts of the Internet is seemingly gone, the White House still claims that it already retains such powers under the law that created the Federal Communications Commission in 1934. This law states that if a “state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency” exists, the president may “authorize the use or control of any…station or device.”

-

RIOT SURVEILLANCE SOFTWARE TRACKS MOVEMENTS ONLINE AND PREDICTS FUTURE BEHAVIOR

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 12, 2013

Raytheon “is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world.” The corporation provides “state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; and command, control, communications and intelligence systems, as well as a broad range of mission support services.”

The latest surveillance tool developed by Raytheon is called Rapid Information Overlay Technology (RIOT) which is “capable of tracking people’s movements and predicting future behavior by mining data from social networking websites.”

Jared Adams, spokesman for Raytheon’s intelligence and information systems department, stated: “RIOT is a big data analytics system design we are working on with industry, national labs and commercial partners to help turn massive amounts of data into useable information to help meet our nation’s rapidly changing security needs. Its innovative privacy features are the most robust that we’re aware of, enabling the sharing and analysis of data without personally identifiable information [such as social security numbers, bank or other financial account information] being disclosed.”

In 2010, as part of a research initiative, RIOT was being tested by the US government and industry partners to create a national security system that would analyze “trillions of entities” on the internet.

Steve Hawkins, vice president of information security solutions at Raytheon said: “Analytics is the key to outmaneuvering our adversaries in the face of the staggering volume, variety and velocity of information in cyberspace.”

RIOT will create a profile on any individual based on information inputted into social media sites and could be used to anticipate how that particular person will act in the future.

Using location analysis of photographs posted by users, Brian Urch, principle investigator for Raytheon, says that a precise longitude and latitude can be deciphered because those coordinates are embedded by smartphones within “exif header data.”

By displaying a spider diagram, an individual’s associations and “relationships” that are connected to through information provided by Facebook and Twitter, data is mined by RIOT and translated into graph form for easy tracking.

Because social media sites are not forth-coming about what data they share with federal government and law enforcement agencies, Ginger McCall, attorney for the Electronic Privacy Information Center explains: “Users may be posting information that they believe will be viewed only by their friends, but instead, it is being viewed by government officials or pulled in by data collection services like the RIOT search.”

-

-

The National Security Agency (NSA) revealed the Perfect Citizen (PC) program that “would employ sensors in computer networks that would be activated by unusual activity. Allegedly, the program would not monitor computers persistently.”

In Bluffdsale, Utah the National Security Agency (NSA) are erecting a one million square feet complex for collecting data on American citizens. This complex is costing American taxpayers $2 billion dollars. Essentially, we are paying for the US government to spy on us.

According to an email obtained by mainstream media, “prefect citizens is big brother” and Raytheon was championed as heading this project with a defense contract worth $100 million.

PC was intended to preform vulnerability assessments of the US government’s digital infrastructure. However the NSA planned on using the software to intervene against cyber-attacks to government agencies, private corporations, utilities corporations, nuclear power plants and transportation.

Google’s relationship with the federal government was ruled as none of the business of the private citizens in June of 2012.

Prior to this ruling, Google was involved in a violation of wire-tapping laws by stealing private citizen’s personal data through their unmanned vehicles called “street view” cars.

Google’s Android has the ability to use ambient background noise of an individual’s environment to spy on them. Their activities will be targeted to more efficiently advertise to them through their technological devices.

Google will use your private conversations, music preferences, favorite shows and radio stations – anything in your immediate environment to build a profile on you. Thanks to Google’s Android and similar smartphones the patent for this surveillance technology will allow our phones to become spies.

According to the Twitter “The Transparency Report” released in 2012 the US government has made requests that are infringing on American privacy rights. Twitter states that “we’ve received more government requests in the first half of 2012, as outlined in this initial dataset, than in the entirety of 2011.”

As the US government sifts through the tweets US citizens are making and analyzing information from illegal means, there are decisions about particular citizens being made to justify the construction of an all-encompassing Big Brother network.

While data mining, cell phone corporations are using mobile phone habits to decipher the predictive movements of users. Scientists from the University of Brimingham in the UK have revealed that they can predict the movements of mobile phone users through tracking the network usage in real time with algorithms that forecast probabilities. This means that cell phone corporations, if using this system could predict the future whereabouts of their customers at any time of the day or night.

-

BIG BROTHER NOT ONLY WATCHING: NEW SPY SOFTWARE CAN PREDICT YOUR BEHAVIOR

Published on Feb 14, 2013

The US government’s stepping-up efforts to spy on its citizens – with a new defense software, able to predict people’s future behavior and locations. However, with the program only using data submitted voluntarily via social networks – the authorities emerge unscathed when it comes to claims of privacy violations – RT’s Gayane Chichakyan has more.

-

MEET STINGRAY SURVEILLANCE: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DATA BUFFET

A Lightning War for Liberty
Feb 14, 2013

It’s getting impossible to keep track of all the new spy tools being rolled out by the police state in the name of “fighting terrorism”, aka spying on innocent American citizens unconstitutionally.  I thought that I had my hands full the other day with ARGUS: The World’s Highest Resolution Video Surveillance Platform, but this “Stingray” system is already being deployed illegally in cities throughout the United States.  As the EFF states: “The Stingray is the digital equivalent of the pre-revolutionary British soldier.” From the EFF:

The device, which acts as a fake cell phone tower, essentially allows the government to electronically search large areas for a particular cell phone’s signal—sucking down data on potentially thousands of innocent people along the way. At the same time, law enforcement has attempted use them while avoiding many of the traditional limitations set forth in the Constitution, like individualized warrants. This is why we called the tool “an unconstitutional, all-you-can-eat data buffet.”

Recently, LA Weekly reported the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) got a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant in 2006 to buy a stingray. The original grant request said it would be used for “regional terrorism investigations.” Instead LAPD has been using it for just about any investigation imaginable.

Of course, we’ve seen this pattern over and over and over. The government uses “terrorism” as a catalyst to gain some powerful new surveillance tool or ability, and then turns around and uses it on ordinary citizens, severely infringing on their civil liberties in the process.

Stingrays are particularly odious given they give police dangerous “general warrant” powers, which the founding fathers specifically drafted the Fourth Amendment to prevent. In pre-revolutionary America, British soldiers used “general warrants” as authority to go house-to-house in a particular neighborhood, looking for whatever they please, without specifying an individual or place to be searched.

The Stingray is the digital equivalent of the pre-revolutionary British soldier.

On March 28th, the judge overseeing the Rigmaiden case, which we wrote about previously, will hold a hearing on whether evidence obtained using a stringray should be suppressed.  It will be one of the first times a judge will rules on the constitutionality of these devices in federal court.

It will be interesting to see what happens in late March.  I will be watching.

-

AS SECRETIVE STINGRAY SURVEILLANCE TOOL BECOMES MORE PERVASIVE, QUESTIONS OVER ITS ILLEGALITY INCREASE

By Trevor Timm | Electronic Frontier Foundation

February 12, 2013

A few months ago, EFF warned of a secretive new surveillance tool being used by the FBI in cases around the country commonly referred to as a “Stingray.” Recently, more information on the device has come to light and it makes us even more concerned than before.

The device, which acts as a fake cell phone tower, essentially allows the government to electronically search large areas for a particular cell phone’s signal—sucking down data on potentially thousands of innocent people along the way. At the same time, law enforcement has attempted use them while avoiding many of the traditional limitations set forth in the Constitution, like individualized warrants. This is why we called the tool “an unconstitutional, all-you-can-eat data buffet.”

Recently, LA Weekly reported the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) got a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant in 2006 to buy a stingray. The original grant request said it would be used for “regional terrorism investigations.” Instead LAPD has been using it for just about any investigation imaginable.

In just a four month period in 2012, according to documents obtained by the First Amendment Coalition, the LAPD has used the device at least 21 times in “far more routine” criminal investigations. The LA Weekly reported Stingrays “were tapped for more than 13 percent of the 155 ‘cellular phone investigation cases’ that Los Angeles police conducted between June and September last year.” These included burglary, drug and murder cases.

Of course, we’ve seen this pattern over and over and over. The government uses “terrorism” as a catalyst to gain some powerful new surveillance tool or ability, and then turns around and uses it on ordinary citizens, severely infringing on their civil liberties in the process.

Stingrays are particularly odious given they give police dangerous “general warrant” powers, which the founding fathers specifically drafted the Fourth Amendment to prevent. In pre-revolutionary America, British soldiers used “general warrants” as authority to go house-to-house in a particular neighborhood, looking for whatever they please, without specifying an individual or place to be searched.

The Stingray is the digital equivalent of the pre-revolutionary British soldier. It allows police to point a cell phone signal into all the houses in a particular neighborhood, searching for one target while sucking up everyone else’s location along with it. With one search the police could potentially invade countless private residences at once.

In another recent development, the FBI handed over two documents—out of an estimated 25,000 they have on Stingrays—to EPIC as part of the privacy group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain more information about the use of mysterious devices. As Slate’s Ryan Gallagher reported:

Two heavily redacted sets of files released last month show internal Justice Department guidance that relates to the use of the cell tracking equipment, with repeated references to a crucial section of the Communications Act which outlines how “interference” with communication signals is prohibited.

It’s a small but significant detail. Why? Because it demonstrates that “there are clearly concerns, even within the agency, that the use of Stingray technology might be inconsistent with current regulations,” says EPIC attorney Alan Butler. “I don’t know how the DOJ justifies the use of Stingrays given the limitations of the Communications Act prohibition.”

The documents also suggest that the FBI is loaning out the devices to local police.

On March 28th, the judge overseeing the Rigmaiden case, which we wrote about previously, will hold a hearing on whether evidence obtained using a stingray should be suppressed.  It will be one of the first times a judge will rules on the constitutionality of these devices in federal court.

It’s time for local police and federal law enforcement agencies to come clean about the technology and how they are using it, before more ordinary citizens have their constitutional rights violated.

-

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IS STORING ALL OF YOUR TWEETS FROM TWITTER

Published on Feb 15, 2013

It’s part of the social media landscape that has revolutionized the way communicate. Twitter allows users to broadcast their thoughts 140 characters at a time. From the mundane to the historic, the Library of Congress has announced they have archived over 170 billion tweets. RT Correspondent Liz Wahl reports on why the Library doesn’t know what to do with this enormous database and the possible privacy concerns.

-

DARPA WANTS A SEARCHABLE DATABASE OF ALL YOUR CONVERSATIONS

The ultimate privacy killer

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 4, 2013

DARPA is working on an embryonic project that would store your every verbal conversation on an Internet server, creating a searchable chat database that would represent the ultimate privacy killer.

Having failed to establish its infamous Total Information Awareness system, although the project was continued under numerous different guises, DARPA is attempting to create a world in which your every utterance is stored in perpetuity.

But don’t worry, the servers on which your conversations are stored will be owned by the individual or their employer, and the government promises to never access the information using their vast new $2 billion dollar spying hub in the middle of the Utah desert. Honest.

“University of Texas computer scientist Matt Lease has studied crowdsourcing for years, including for an earlier Darpa project called Effective Affordable Reusable Speech-to-text, or EARS, which sought to boost the accuracy of automated transcription machines. His work has also attracted enough attention for Darpa to award him a $300,000 award over two years to study the new project, called “Blending Crowdsourcing with Automation for Fast, Cheap, and Accurate Analysis of Spontaneous Speech.” The project envisions a world that is both radically transparent and a little freaky,” reports Wired’s Robert Beckhusen.

Described as being, “like a Twitter feed or e-mail archive for everyday speech,” day to day conversations, “could be stored in archives and easily searched.”

Lease claims that the technology would represent a, “democratizing force of everyday people recording and sharing their daily lives and experiences through their conversations,” and yet the Wired article barely even scratches the surface on examining what a horrendous privacy threat this would pose, with governments and police departments potentially obtaining the ability to Google-search speech.

Imagine a situation where, in the name of preventing terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security is given access to the database and uses it to search for spoken keywords, as it already does online with social networks. Forget slippery slope, this would be a rapid descent into the maelstrom of ubiquitous surveillance – the type George Orwell couldn’t even conjure up in his worst nightmare.

The Wired piece glibly addresses concerns about “respecting the privacy rights of multiple people involved,” as well as whether the conversations would be stored on remote or private servers, but doesn’t even mention the chilling ramifications that could ensue once the state manufactures a justification to access the database.

Former CIA director David Petraeus heralded the arrival of the “smart home” as a boon for “clandestine statecraft,” yet that represents child’s play in comparison to what DARPA is planning.

To get a sense of the motivation behind DARPA’s latest attempt to drive the final nail into any semblance of privacy, one only has to recall the furore over the agency’s Total Information Awareness program, symbolized by its logo of an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid beaming its gaze upon the globe.

As the New York Times’ William Safire wrote in November 2002, the TIA program was based around tracking, “Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as ”a virtual, centralized grand database.”

The program was defunded and mothballed in 2003, but it continued to operate under a number of different sub-projects.

Brought to fruition, DARPA’s new attempt to record verbal communications would represent TIA on steroids, but as long as it is sold to the public on a voluntary basis with a shiny, cool, hip veneer (Google Glass-style), a million tech-heads and transhumanists will jump right on board with no hesitation, leaving refusniks increasingly ostracized in a world where storing your every interaction and experience in some vast database becomes as normal as having a Facebook page.

-

PENTAGON INKS DEAL FOR SMARTPHONE TOOL THAT SCANS YOUR FACE, EYES, AND THUMBS

The Pentagon has introduced a new technology it’s banking on, and this time it’s with a smartphone tool that will be able to scan human faces in order to identify anyone. Reportedly the Defense Department allocated $3 million to a California-based company that transforms a smartphone into a space-age gadget. RT’s Liz Wahl has the details.

-

presstv.com

In a few years, the soldier, marine or special operator out on patrol might be able to record the facial features or iris signature of a suspicious person all from his or her smartphone — and at a distance, too.

The Defense Department has awarded a $3 million research contract to California-based AOptix to examine its “Smart Mobile Identity” biometrics identification package, Danger Room has learned. At the end of two years of research to validate the concepts of what the company built, AOptix will provide the Defense Department with a hardware peripheral and software suite that turns a commercially available smartphone into a device that scans and transmits data from someone’s eyes, face, thumbs and voice.

“They’ve asked us, based on what they’ve seen of our product, to work on some more specific needs and requirements for DoD,” Chuck Yort, AOptix’s vice president for identity solutions, tells Danger Room. Data security for the system will be provided by partner CACI International, which shares in the $3 million contract, which will be officially announced Wednesday morning.

Currently, U.S. troops rely on a single-use device, known as the Handheld Interagency Identity Detection System (HIIDE), to scan, upload and transmit data from someone’s facial, eye or thumb features to its wartime biometrics databases. The HIIDE, shown below, looks a bit like the camera Hipstamatic uses for its logo, and troops who want to operate it need to bring it close to the faces and thumbs of the people they scan.

The hardware AOptix has developed isn’t itself a phone. It’s a peripheral that wraps around a phone to enable the additional sensing capabilities necessary to acquire the biometric data. AOptix was hesitant to describe the peripheral, but supposedly it won’t impact the phone’s form factor, and the company swears a smartphone bulked up with its sensing dongle will weigh under a pound. Unlike HIIDE, it’ll only take one hand to operate.

Outside of the add-on, the computational power of the smartphone is supposed to enable the software package that AOptix built — and displayed at a September conference in Tampa partially sponsored by the National Security Agency. The company won’t say what operating system Smart Mobile Identity it’s configured to run on, but the Defense Department tends to like the relative cheapness and open architecture of Android devices. Yort promises the software will have a “very intuitive interface that leverages smartphone conventions.”

Smart Mobile Identity has limited ability to record biometric data at a distance, but its specs outperform the HIIDE camera. It scans faces at up to two meters away, irises from one meter, and voice from within the typical distance from a phone. Thumbprints will still require a finger against the reinforced glass face of the phone. Joey Pritikin, another AOptix executive, says that an additional advantage of the system is its ability to capture an iris in bright sunlight, which is a challenge for HIIDE and other biometrics device. Apparently the system will also be able to snap an image of someone’s face or eye once the phone running the software focuses on it, without a specific click, swipe or press.

AOptix is also cagey about which part of the Defense Department inked the deal with the company. (Pentagon officials didn’t respond to requests for additional information.) But since AOptix and CACI are supposed to deliver Smart Mobile Identity after 24 months of research, its most likely application would be for special operations forces, who after the 2014 completion of the troop drawdown from Afghanistan will be doing the majority of patrolling in places where biometric ID collection on a mobile device will be relevant.

It’s worth noting that even though the military is backing away from foot patrols in warzones, it’s not backing away from biometric data acquisition — far from it. The U.S. Central Command has held on to the biometric database of three million people it compiled during the Iraq war. And Darpa-funded projects are already working on biometric identifier devices that can scan irises and even fingerprints from further distances than Smart Mobile Identity — to say nothing of next-gen biometrics projects that can scan thearea around your eye, your odor, and even the way you walk.

It’ll be a very long time before any of those detection systems can run on a phone, however. And even with the Defense Department’s budget crunch, the Army and now the Navy are showing interest in equipping their troops with smartphone and smartphone-like devices. Enabling them to scan someone’s physical features with the same device may not be a step too far.

-

UNITED NATIONS AMBASSADOR: CONTROL FREE SPEECH WITH LEGISLATION TO FACILITATE CIVIL SOCIETY

freedom-of-speech1

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 9, 2013

At the UN Headquarters in New York, the Ambassador of Norway, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, a fellow on genocide prevention at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and experts on journalistic ethics and related issues, participated in a discussion on how to control freedom of speech with regard to incitement of “genocide and other crimes against humanity.”

Adama Dieng, UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide explained: “It is important to balance the principle of freedom of expression with the need to prevent or stop the most extreme cases of hate speech – those that have the potential to incite mass violence.”

Dieng said that there is a need for legislation to define hate speech, determine its root cause and counter it with “positive speech” approved by the UN and governments to facilitate civil society while “improving national and international early warning of build-up of hate, through the monitoring of new media.”

It must become clear through international action and governmental understanding that there are factors that make speech “dangerous because of the intimated or direct “severity, content, extent, imminence, likelihood, and context of the speech.”

Dieng continued: “However, we need more clarity on what constitutes incitement to atrocity crimes, especially because by better knowing what constitutes incitement, we can also better limit or control it. This, in turn, is essential to prevent mass violence.”

Genocide and its incitement is a concern of the UN because the founding principles of the international body with respect to the Holocaust and the role speech have played in recent events occurring in Rwanda and across the Middle East.

Censorship of speech on the internet is the concern of pro-Zionist groups such as the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) who are “a private, independent, non-violent protest organization representing a collective of activists” that are committed to advocating for Israel on the internet by pro-Israel “presenting news, viewpoints, and information throughout a large network reaching hundreds of thousands via email, Facebook, YouTube, RSS feeds, Twitter, and other digital hubs to those who share our concerns for Israel and about anti-Semitic and jihadist online content.”

JIDF are proud that they have been integral in “the removal of thousands of anti-Semitic and jihadist pages online. Whether it’s an anti-Semitic Facebook page with millions of members, or a YouTube video promoting global jihad, our team is on it, monitoring it, and urging companies to adhere to their own rules.”
In the name of controlling free speech on the Web, as well as demanding that anti-Zionist views be silenced, JIDF have gathered “individuals” together in “a real grassroots effort for change.”

The House of Representatives passed HR 347 entitled the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act” in 2011 which was subsequently signed into law by President Obama in March of the same year.

The law states that it is a federal offense to protest on grounds that are restricted from public access such as the White House, in or around the President or Vice President, any government official and the Secret Service (SS) “knowingly”.

According to House Representative Thomas Rooney, the SS wanted the language of the bill to state that agents assigned to the president be included.

Interpretations of the bill have been varied; however the change to the language from “willfully and knowingly” to only “knowingly” is insight into the mind of the government who would have to proof the individual’s guilt by the intent standard ; however the legislation could easily be misused by the SS who would bring legal action against protesters who were gathered lawfully with the intent to suppress the 1st Amendment.

Judge Andrew Napolitano explained: “Permitting people to express publicly their opinions to the president only at a time and in a place and manner such that he cannot hear them violates the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to useful speech; and unheard political speech is politically useless.”

-

-

Marvin Kurz, senior legal counsel of the pro-Zionist B’nai B’rith International (BBI), said that limitations on free speech are necessary to protect the Jewish community.

BBI’s name translates to “children of the covenant” and has become a high-profile organization standing for humanitarian rights with regard to atrocities committed against the Jewish people. They have worked with the US government, the UN and have been utilized as a non-governmental organization (NOG) to further advocate for Zionist-controlled Israel and quash perceived anti-Semitism.

BBI has lobbied on Capitol Hill for pro-Israel legislation; including HR 1400 and S 970 the “Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007”. This Act died in the Congress, yet it would have applied economic pressure on Iran under the guise of their nuclear program, prevented corporations and their subsidiaries from conducting business with Iran and further imposed financial sanctions on Iran with regard to exportation of goods.

Iranian-sponsored media reports that William Spring is warning that pro-Zionist lobby organizations in the US are actively seeking to control free speech in America with regard to anti-Zionist commentary. Spring said: “Why is it then that the Jewish lobby or the Zionist lobby, I’d rather say, in America, is so anxious to limit the activities of Press TV? It seems to me though there’s a real fear among the Zionist lobby in America that they are losing the propaganda war.”

Spring explained that Zionist lobbies control US foreign policy. He said: “They (the Zionists) have no right to hijack American policy which is what has happened. Policies are now being determined by the United States of America in favor of Israel, not in favor of what are the best interests of the United States of America. What they want to do is [to] close down the debate on Syria. It’s very important…that we get a proper perspective which is not given by the BBC or Sky [News].”

-

The First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-

BEN SWANN EXPLAINS H.R. 347 THAT LIMITS FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES

The House of Representatives passed HR 347 entitled the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act” in 2011 which was subsequently signed into law by President Obama in March of the same year.

-

NO MORE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO SPEAK

by Andrew P. Napolitano

In 1798, when John Adams was president of the United States, the feds enacted four pieces of legislation called the Alien and Sedition Acts. One of these laws made it a federal crime to publish any false, scandalous or malicious writing – even if true – about the president or the federal government, notwithstanding the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment.

The feds used these laws to torment their adversaries in the press and even successfully prosecuted a congressman who heavily criticized the president. Then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson vowed that if he became president, these abominable laws would expire. He did, and they did, but this became a lesson for future generations: The guarantees of personal freedom in the Constitution are only as valuable and reliable as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those to whom we have entrusted it for safekeeping.

We have entrusted the Constitution to all three branches of the federal government for safekeeping. But typically, they fail to do so. Presidents have repeatedly assaulted the freedom of speech many times throughout our history, and Congresses have looked the other way. Abraham Lincoln arrested Northerners who challenged the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson arrested Americans who challenged World War I. FDR arrested Americans he thought might not support World War II. LBJ and Richard Nixon used the FBI to harass hundreds whose anti-Vietnam protests frustrated them.

In our own post 9/11 era, the chief instrument of repression of personal freedom has been the government’s signature anti-terror legislation: the Patriot Act. It was born in secrecy, as members of the House of Representatives were given 15 minutes to read its 300 pages before voting on it in October 2001, and it operates in silence, as those who suffer under it cannot speak about it.

The Patriot Act permits FBI agents to write their own search warrants and gives those warrants the patriotic and harmless-sounding name of national security letters (NSLs). This authorization is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that that security can only be violated by a search warrant issued by a neutral judge and based upon probable cause of crime.

The probable cause requirement compels the feds to acquire evidence of criminal behavior about the person whose records they seek, so as to prevent politically motivated invasions of privacy and fishing expeditions like those that were common in the colonial era. Judges are free, of course, to sign the requested warrant, to modify it and sign it, or to reject it if it lacks the underlying probable cause.

The very concept of a search warrant authorized by law enforcement and not by the courts is directly and profoundly antithetical to the Constitution – no matter what the warrant is called. Yet, that’s what Congress and President Bush made lawful when they gave us the Patriot Act.

When FBI agents serve the warrants they’ve written for themselves – the NSLs as they call them – they tell the recipient of the warrant that he or she will commit a felony if he or she tells anyone – a lawyer, a judge, a spouse, a priest in confessional – of the receipt of the warrant. The NSLs are typically not served on the person whose records the FBI wants; rather, they are served on the custodians of those records, such as computer servers, the Post Office, hospitals, banks, delivery services, telephone providers, etc.

Because of the Patriot Act’s mandated silence, the person whose records the FBI seeks often never knows his or her records have been seized. Since October 2001, FBI agents and other federal agents have served more than 350,000 search warrants with which they have authorized themselves to conduct a search. Each time they have done so, they have warned the recipient of the warrant to remain silent or be prosecuted for telling the truth about the government.

Occasionally, recipients have not remained silent. They have understood their natural and constitutionally protected right to the freedom of speech and their moral and fiduciary duty to their customer or client, and they have moved in federal court either to suppress the warrant or for the right to tell the customer or client whose records are being sought that the FBI has come calling. Isn’t that odd in America – asking a judge for permission to tell the truth about the government?

What’s even more odd is that the same section of the Patriot Act that criminalizes speaking freely about the receipt of an agent-written search warrant also authorizes the FBI to give the recipient of the warrant permission to speak about it. How un-American is that – asking the FBI for permission to tell the truth about the government?

Last week in San Francisco, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston held that the section of the Patriot Act that prohibits telling anyone about the receipt of an FBI agent-written search warrant and the section that requires asking and receiving the permission of the FBI before talking about the receipt of one profoundly and directly infringe upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. And the government knows that.

We all know that the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage open, wide, robust debate about and transparency from the government. Our right to exercise the freedom of speech comes from our humanity, not from the government. The Constitution recognizes that we can only lose that right by consent or after a jury trial that results in conviction and incarceration.

But we can also lose it by the tyranny of the majority, as Congress and the president in 1798 and 2001 have demonstrated.

-

WAR ON TERROR TO PLAY OUT ON AMERICAN STREETS

Published on 2 Feb 2013

A political analyst says the banking and petroleum groups have controlled the US government for years, favoring corporations over American citizens. According to the results of a recent poll released by Pew Research, 53 percent of Americans consider the US government a ‘threat’ to their personal rights and freedoms, with nearly three-quarters of Americans saying they only sometimes or never trust the federal government. This is the first time that a majority of respondents have described the US government as a threat against their freedoms since Pew began polling on the question in 1995.

-

GEORGE GREEN: THE ELITE’S PLAN FOR TOTAL GLOBAL DOMINATION

As America and European economies are destroyed, and the current unrest continues in the Middle East and Africa, it will lead Russia, China, and the entire world into World War III. The war will bring about a final nuclear exchange that will be so catastrophic that the world population will demand that world conflict never happen again. This will involve implementing a centralized World Government, with a one world army, a one world currency, and a one world religion that will have complete and total control over every single society.

World War III is being planned and designed to change the face of society forever. The global elite want societies to stay in a world war long enough to change them in such a way that they will never change back again. If you look at the world after a major war like World War I or World War II, societies were never the same again.

The purpose then of World War III, will be to change the face of global society to the point where the elite can introduce a centralized World Government in a way that members of society no longer have their individual freedom, and it will never be able to change back again.

-
RELATED POSTS:
.
.
READ THE FULL E-BOOK FREE: TOWARDS A WORLD WAR III SCENARIO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

-

.
.
.
.

RICHARD DUNCAN: VERY REAL DANGER OF COLLAPSE: “COULD BE SO SEVERE I DON’T THINK OUR CIVILIZATION COULD SURVIVE IT

.

EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA SIGNS NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2013 INTO LAW ON JANUARY 2, 2013: MARTIAL LAW COMES TO AMERICA; CONTAINS LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ARREST AND DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT TRIAL

.

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. GOVERNMENT NOW ACTIVATING FEMA DETENTION CAMPS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

.
.

ARMED UNITED STATES DRONES COMING TO AN AIRSPACE NEAR YOU BY 2015

-

1.6 BILLION ROUNDS OF AMMO FOR HOMELAND SECURITY?  IT’S TIME FOR A NATIONAL CONVERSATION

Soldiers from the 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st ...
-
BY Ralph Benko, Contributor, Forbes

The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice.  It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.  As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month.  Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years.  In America.

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation.  As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:

[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the  Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”

These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”

Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”

“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

Why indeed?  It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America.  There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok.  About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division.  And is wise to the ways.   The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this:  it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget.  So… why not?

Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland?  Because it’s wrong in every way.  President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control.  The federal government can (for a nice change) begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.

Remember the Sequester?  The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS.  Quality ammunition is not cheap.  (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)

Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse.  According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:  “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”

At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) … that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century.  To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.

Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban 100 capacity magazine clips.  Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billion rounds is … 16 million times more objectionable.

Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership.  According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,

“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’

I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’

’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.

I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.

He simply grimaced and turned away. …

Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”

Mr. Obama?  Where’s the disdain now?  Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling back — by 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armored personnel carriers, would be a “fourfer.”

  • The federal government would set an example of restraint in the matter of weaponry.
  • It would reduce the deficit without squeezing essential services.
  • It would do both in a way that was palatable to liberals and conservatives, slightly depolarizing America.
  • It would somewhat defuse, by the government making itself less armed-to-the-teeth, the anxiety of those who mistrust the benevolence of the federales.

If Obama doesn’t show any leadership on this matter it’s an opportunity for Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon Secretary Napolitano over for a little national conversation. Madame Secretary?  Buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to what “homeland security” really means.  Discuss.

-

FEDS BUYING 100 YEARS WORTH OF AMMO

Government’s argument ‘could only fool a career civil servant’

By World Net Daily

When the numbers are put in perspective, the federal government’s extraordinary buildup of ammunition looks even more ominous than critics already have portrayed it.

An analysis by Forbes contributor Ralph Benko shows the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo that the government is acquiring would be enough for more than 100 years of training.

As WND previously reported, it also would be enough ammunition to fight a war for more than 20 years.

It would give the federal government enough ammunition to shoot every American more than five times.

The Department of Homeland Security argues it is buying in bulk to save money, explaining it uses as many as 15 million rounds a year for training law enforcement agents.

Forbes columnist Benko, who worked for two years in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division, doubts the government’s explanation.

“To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant,” he writes.

But it’s not just the amount of ammo the feds are buying, it’s the type of ammo that’s also is causing concern.

WND has reported the DHS order apparently includes hollow-point bullets. As WND recently reported, she believes the federal government is “stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

Last month, Palin said the feds were afraid of what might happen if the sequester went into effect and if the government eventually went broke.

She wrote on her Facebook page: “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion-dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually, and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

Weeks before Palin’s warning, WND CEO Joseph Farah paired the ammo buildup with a statement made by then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008 calling for a “civilian national security force” as big, as strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.

In Colorado July 2, 2008, Obama said: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Farah asked: “Why does the civilian Department of Homeland Security need billions of rounds of ammunition? This is the agency that is responsible for policing the border. But it doesn’t. This is the agency that is responsible for catching terrorists. But it doesn’t. So why does Homeland Security need so many weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?”

The federal stockpiling of ammunition could cause a problem for local law enforcement agencies. WND reported in January that police and sheriff departments around the country were beginning to experience an ammo shortage.

Brownells, the largest supplier of firearm accessories in the world, reported it had sold several years’ worth of ammunition in just a matter of hours.

The company released a statement apologizing for the delay in fulfilling orders, explaining it had experienced “unprecedented” demand for AR-15 ammunition magazines since earlier in the week.

Gun companies are already fighting back. Olympic Arms of New York, which sells AR-15s and other firearms, says it will no longer sell guns to police. A company statement says that’s because legislation “recently passed in New York outlaws the AR-15 and many other firearms and “will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines.”

“Olympic Arms would like to announce,” the statement said, “that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.”

In Texas, LaRue Tactical is refusing to sell its AR rifles to police in states that limit the features of civilian rifles.

Magpul, a gun magazine manufacturer based in Erie, Colo., says it will not sell gun magazines to law enforcement officers unless they pledge to uphold the Second and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Magpul also vows to leave Colorado if House Bill 1224 passes. The bill would limit gun magazines to 15 rounds.

WND has reported growing federal police power across dozens of government agencies for more than a decade and a half.

In 1997, WND exposed the fact that 60,000 federal agents were enforcing more than 3,000 criminal laws. The report prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark: “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”

Also in 1997, as part of a ongoing series on the militarization of the federal government, WND reported armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.

WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of paperwork.

WND further reported a plan by then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen in dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.

In 1999, Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the founding fathers had nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.

Also in 1999 WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.

In 2000, Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”

A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.

In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”

-

WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT STOCKPILING GUNS AND AMMUNITION?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah examines Obama’s plan for a ‘civilian national security force’ that will be used to declare a full-scale war against his opposition

By Joseph Farah | World Net Daily

Is the U.S. government getting ready for a war we don’t know about?

And, if that’s why Washington is stockpiling massive amounts of ammunition (hollow points, by the way), why is Homeland Security doing the buying instead of the Defense Department?

I have some theories.

Many of you will remember a story I broke a long time ago – about presidential candidate Barack Obama’s little-noticed announcement that, if elected in 2008, he wanted to create a “civilian national security force” as big, as strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.

-

-

Here’s what he actually said at a campaign stop in Colorado July 2, 2008: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Could what we see happening now in the Department of Homeland Security be the beginning of Obama’s dream and our constitutional nightmare?

We’ve learned more about Obama’s vision since then. Maybe it’s time for a review:

  • He made the campaign promise to build this $439 billion domestic army, but all references to the initiative were inexplicably deleted from the copy of his speech posted on his website while others mysteriously disappeared from transcripts of the speech distributed by the campaign. That was strange – and ominous.
  • At the time, I had never heard anyone use the phrase “civilian national security force” before. But I did a little homework and found out where it originated. It was first proposed by then Bush administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates. On that basis alone, I accurately predicted that, if elected, Obama would name Gates as his own defense secretary. Needless to say, when that appointment came to pass, no media outlet bothered to interview me about my foresight.
  • Still during the campaign of 2008, I suggested that what Obama had in mind might be something very sinister indeed – perhaps “some kind of domestic Big Brother program.”

We never heard another mention of Obama’s “civilian national security force” again. Not in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.

But that brings us up to 2013 and the highly unusual stockpiling of firearms and ammo by Homeland Security – firearms and ammo that Obama would like to deny to ordinary citizens who are not members of his domestic army.

Well, I hate to say it, but I may have predicted this, too.

In a Halloween column last fall, I stated that, if re-elected, Obama would “declare a full-scale war on his domestic opposition.”

I wasn’t joking. I was deadly serious – so serious, in fact, that I did something I pledged I would never do: Vote for Mitt Romney. It was a matter of self-defense and self-preservation. I said then that a second term of Obama might mean we would never see another free and fair election in America. (I’m not even sure we saw one in 2012.) I suggested due process would go the way of the horse and buggy. I said I expected Obama would move to shut down or destroy all independent media. I even speculated that his biggest critics would eventually be rounded up in the name of national security.

Think about it.

Why does the civilian Department of Homeland Security need billions of rounds of ammunition?

This is the agency that is responsible for policing the border. But it doesn’t.

This is the agency that is responsible for catching terrorists. But it doesn’t.

So why does Homeland Security need so many weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?

Maybe this is the “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the Defense Department.

These words – “civilian national security force” – have haunted me ever since I first read them.

Obama has never explained what he meant.

He’s never been called to account for that remark.

Doesn’t this sound like police-state talk to you?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. defense budget was $439 billion. No one knows what the budget is today because Congress stopped passing budgets when Obama took office.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? Is this part of his second-term agenda?

He has also set up, as I have reported, a new homeland security bureaucracy to operate under his own direction.

I think it’s worth recalling here that just over a year ago both houses of Congress unwisely passed the defense reauthorization bill that killed the concept of habeas corpus – legislation that authorized the president to use the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.

That legislation would empower a lame-duck Obama to use all of the power of the federal government – constitutional and unconstitutional – to target his political enemies.

If any Republican, conservative, independent journalist, pro-life activist, returning veteran, gun-rights activist, constitutionalist, Bible believer or critic of Obama thinks they will be safe in a second term under this would-be despot, they had better think again – real fast.

The “civilian national security force” is not here to protect any of them. It’s here to destroy the opposition. It’s here to destroy liberty. It’s here to destroy the Constitution.

-

CONGRESSMAN ASKS BIG SIS TO EXPLAIN HUGE AMMO PURCHASES

“Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 19, 2013

New Jersey Congressman Leonard Lance (R) has demanded an explanation from Secretary Janet Napolitano as to why the Department of Homeland Security is buying huge amounts of bullets.

-

-

Asked about the federal agency’s purchase of over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the past year – enough to wage a 20 year plus war – as well as thousands of armored vehicles – Lance called on Congress to get involved.

“I think Congress should ask the Department about both of those issues and I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done and I have every confidence that the oversight committee ….should ask those questions,” said Lance, adding that he shared a belief, “that Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred.”

The Congressman said he was “concerned” and that his goal was ensuring Americans “continued to live in a country based on freedom and individual rights,” adding that he hoped Congress could get answers on the reasons behind the huge ammunition purchases by the DHS.

Lance, who is the U.S. Representative for New Jersey’s 7th congressional district, was speaking at a Morristown Tea Party Organization meeting on Friday.

Last week, the Democratic Governors Association (DGA), a lobbying organization which represents governors affiliated with the Democratic Party, started an ad campaign calling on Americans to sign a petition demanding Sarah Palin be denounced for “extremist” rhetoric after the former Governor of Alaska expressed concern about the bullet purchases in a Facebook post.

Earlier this month, Forbes Magazine called for a “national conversation” on the matter despite claims by mainstream media and leftist websites that the issue had been “debunked”. As we documented, the sole source for claiming the story was “debunked” came from a single quote by a DHS official carried in a February 14 Associated Press report.

The AP report regurgitated claims by the federal agency that the bullets were bought in bulk to save money and were for training purposes only.

However, as former Marine Richard Mason told reporters with WHPTV News in Pennsylvania last week, hollow point bullets (which make up the majority of the DHS purchases) are not used for training because they are more expensive than standard firing range rounds.

“We never trained with hollow points, we didn’t even see hollow points my entire four and a half years in the Marine Corps,” Mason said.

-

BIG SIS REFUSES TO ANSWER CONGRESS ON BULLET PURCHASES

DHS staying mum as members probe for explanations

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Mar 21, 2013

UPDATE: 14 Members of Congress Demand Investigation of Obama’s Ammo Horde

Speaking at CPAC with Infowars and We Are Change reporter, Luke Rudkowski, Congressman Timothy Huelscamp revealed this week that the Department of Homeland Security has refused to answer questions from “multiple” members of Congress regarding its recent purchase of huge amounts of weapons and ammunition.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that,” Huelscamp said.

“I’ve got a list of various questions of agencies about multiple things. Far from being the most transparent administration in the world, they are the most closed and opaque,” the Congressman added.

“They refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t really have an answer for that. Multiple members of Congress are asking those questions,” he added.

“It comes down to during the budget process, during the appropriations process, are we willing to hold DHS’s feet to the fire?”

“We’re going to find out… I say we don’t fund them ’til we get an answer. Those type of things really challenge Americans. They are worried about this administration,” Huelscamp urged.

-

-

The Congressman’s comments come in the wake of a demand for answers from New Jersey Congressman Leonard Lance on the same subject.

“I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done and I have every confidence that the oversight committee ….should ask those questions,” said Lance, adding that he shared a belief, “that Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred.”

The DHS has purchased over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the past year – enough to wage a 20 year plus war. Earlier this month, Forbes Magazine called for a “national conversation” on the matter.

During the CPAC interview, Congressman Huelscamp also spoke briefly about why he voted twice against the National Defense Authorization Act, stating that it was because of the lack of detail regarding the provision in the bill to allow for incarceration of Americans without due process.

“I think it’s something that is so Constitutionally suspect,” Huelscamp said. “It’s one of those things, if you’re not absolutely crystal clear on a Constitutional issue like that, we shouldn’t take those chances.”

“I gather there are folks on the other side who think they covered that. I just don’t think we did a good enough job,” the Congressman added. “And based on how hard it was for Senator Paul to get an answer out of the administration, very clearly we need to make it absolutely clear that there are Constitutional protections in this country.”

The Congressman also spoke with regards to the recent and ongoing furor over the Obama administration’s intentions for using drones domestically and it’s withholding of information on it’s overseas drone program.

“One of the difficulties I have as a member of Congress is the failure of this administration to provide information on what is actually going on,” Huelscamp said.

“When we take office we sign an oath to office, but we also sign a little card that says we have access to classified military intelligence, and I’ll just tell you, this administration and prior administrations are not very clear or transparent with the folks that actually control their budget.”

“Every member of Congress should know the answers to those questions, and whether or not they can share them,” the Congressman concluded.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WON’T ANSWER CONGRESS ON 1.6 BILLION BULLET PURCHASE

By Investors Business Daily

MARCH 22, 2013

Bullet Buys: Fifteen members of Congress have written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know why the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition. We’d like to know too.

Freshman California Republican Doug LaMalfa and 14 of his House colleagues, who signed on to his March 5 letter, are asking the Department of Homeland Security to explain why it is buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition of various calibers. They aren’t happy with explanations provided so far in the press by lower-level officials, answers meant to debunk “unfounded” concerns.

As we have noted, DHS has been buying lots of ammo, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraqi War.

Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., told the Associated Press that the training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

The massive purchases are said to be spread out over five years and due simply to the best practice of saving money by buying in bulk what comes down to five rounds of ammo for every man, woman and child on the U.S. That’s a lot of practice and training.

A good portion of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition are being purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government’s second-largest criminal investigative agency. Yes that’s the same ICE that is releasing detained criminal illegal aliens onto our streets because of sequestration cuts.

Jonathan Lasher, the Social Security Administration’s assistant inspector general for external relations, explained the purchase of 174,000 hollow-point bullets by saying they were for the Social Security inspector general’s office, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes.

When they say they’re cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse, they apparently mean it.

However, as former Marine Richard Mason told reporters with WHPTV News in Pennsylvania recently, hollow-point bullets (which make up the majority of the DHS purchases) are not used for training because they are more expensive than standard firing range rounds .

“We never trained with hollow points, we didn’t even see hollow points my entire 4-1/2 years in the Marine Corps,” Mason said.

LaMalfa offers one theory that’s less sinister than some: The federal government is simply trying to corner the market on ammo and restrict what’s available to the American people as part of its gun control efforts.

“The extraordinary level of ammunition purchases made by Homeland Security seems to have, in states such as my own, created an extreme shortage of ammunition to the point where many gun owners are unable to purchase any,” LaMalfa wrote in the letter.

While lower-level officials talk to the press, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano apparently doesn’t want to tell Congress herself the reasons for these purchases.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse answer that,” Congressman Timothy Huelskamp (R-Kan.) told reporters recently, adding, “They refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t really have an answer for that. Multiple members of Congress are asking those questions.”

Homeland Security has acquired a number of Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles which have been retrofitted for possible service on the streets of the U.S. They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq. These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks.

As we noted in a recent editorial, DHS is also seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56-by-45-millimeter NATO “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians.

If there are plausible explanations for all this, some congressmen would like to hear them.

Maybe DHS can answer Congress’ questions in a series of bullet points.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DENIES MASSIVE AMMUNITION PURCHASE

By Elizabeth Flock | U.S. News and World Report

March 22, 2013

The Department of Homeland Security responded Friday to questions from Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., about why the agency was allegedly planning to buy some 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the next five years.

DHS told Whispers it regularly fills all of its goods and services requirements at one time because it’s cheaper for the agency, and that the 1.6 billion number was misleading because the language of DHS’s purchase said it would need “up to” a certain amount.

One solicitation by the agency—for training centers and law enforcement personnel—was for “up to” 750 million rounds of training ammunition over the next five years, DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard told Whispers.

Another five-year contract allows for the purchase of “up to” 450 million rounds of ammunition, he said, and was also for law enforcement. Boogaard noted that the contract would be used by all DHS agencies except the Coast Guard.

“With more than 100,000 armed law enforcement personnel in DHS, significant quantities of ammunition are used to support law enforcement operations, quarterly qualifications, and training, to include advanced firearms training exercises,” Boogaard told Whispers.

According to a letter to one lawmaker detailing DHS ammunition purchases, the department procured 148 million rounds in 2012.

Questions over DHS’s big ammunition purchases have been bouncing around the right-wing blogosphere for months. But the story came to a head Friday after a video was posted to the website Infowars of Rep. Huelskamp saying at CPAC that he had expressed concerns to DHS over the purchase but received no response.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that,” Huelskamp said on the video of the purchases. His office told Whispers that he had sent a letter to DHS with his concerns but had not heard back.

In the letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, Huelskamp wrote that it had “become clear” that DHS was “purchasing vast quantities of ammunition” and that “estimates show that this … would be enough for 24 Iraq wars.” The Kansas congressman also said the timing of the purchase was “of great interest” because of gun control legislation currently being pushed by the Obama administration.

“The extraordinary level of ammunition purchases made by Homeland Security seems to have, in states such as my own, created an extreme shortage of ammunition to the point where many gun owners are unable to purchase any,” he wrote.

DHS previously responded to concerns over the purchase voiced by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., noting in a detailed letter sent to the senator’s office in February just how much had been purchased and for what purpose.

“DHS routinely establishes strategic sourcing contracts that combine the requirements of all its components for commonly purchased goods and services such as ammunition,” a DHS legislative affairs person wrote to Coburn. “These strategic sourcing contracts help leverage the purchasing power of DHS to efficiently procure equipment and supplies at significantly lower costs,” the department told Coburn.

-

14 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DEMAND INVESTIGATION OF OBAMA’S AMMO HORDE

Congressman Asks if DHS Bullet Buys Aimed at Restricting Ammo

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 22, 2013

Californian Congressman Doug LaMalfa and 14 of his House peers have written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know why the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition and whether the purchases are part of a deliberate attempt to restrict supply to the American people.

-

Congressman Doug LaMalfa. Image: YouTube
-

The DHS has committed to purchasing around 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last year. Many believe the purchases are exacerbating bullet shortages across the country, supplies already strained by record sales prompted as a result of the Obama administration’s gun control agenda.

“The extraordinary level of ammunition purchases made by Homeland Security seems to have, in states such as my own, created an extreme shortage of ammunition to the point where many gun owners are unable to purchase any,” LaMalfa wrote in the letter.

“Are these purchases being conducted in a manner that strategically denies the American people access to ammunition,” the Congressman added.

According to the Record Searchlight, it is not yet known whether the DHS has responded to LaMalfa’s letter. The report also quotes gun store owners who are suspicious about the federal agency’s huge ammo buys.

As we reported yesterday, other members of Congress who have asked similar questions to those posed by LaMalfa have been rebuffed.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that,” Congressman Timothy Huelscamp told WeAreChange reporters earlier this week, adding, “They refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t really have an answer for that. Multiple members of Congress are asking those questions.”

Huelscamp promised to keep asking and even threatened to back a move to defund the agency if answers were not forthcoming.

Last Friday, New Jersey Congressman Leonard Lance also indicated that he would pursue an explanation as to why the DHS is engaging in an apparent arms build-up.

“I think Congress should ask the Department about both of those issues and I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done and I have every confidence that the oversight committee ….should ask those questions,” said Lance, adding that he shared a belief, “that Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred.”

Earlier this month,