r3volution! News

Archive for the category “10_October”

Obama Supporters Actually Hate Obama’s Policies

***ATTENTION: This video is NOT in support of Mitt Romney, in any way, nor is this organization.***

Follow Luke @ http://www.twitter.com/lukewearechange

Luke Rudkowski hits the streets of NYC to find out where Obama supporters really stand on his policies. Now he did this in an underhanded way where the policies where presented to be Romney’s, but this was only done to get an honest opinion. The reactions when the truth was uncovered varied but they were very telling to say the least.

Here are some of the sources that were mentioned throughout the interviews

1st question, part 1 – Obama, in Europe, signs Patriot Act extension
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43180202/ns/us_news-security/t/obama-europe-signs-patriot-act-extension/#.UIkNUcXA_fU

1st question, part 2 – Warrantless Spying Skyrockets Under Obama
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/warrantless-spying-skyrockets-under-obam

2nd question – President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act – Now What?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/

3rd question – Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

4th question – Drone wars and state secrecy — how Barack Obama became a hardliner
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/drone-wars-secrecy-barack-obama

Five Specific Questions Journalists Should Ask About the Drone Strike Policy

Before Monday night’s presidential debate, many of us urged Bob Schieffer to ask a question about drone strikes.

And, in fact – credit where credit is due – Bob Schieffer did ask a question about drones.

It can’t be said that we learned a great deal directly from the interaction. For reasons that aren’t really clear, Schieffer asked his question only of Mitt Romney. Here was the exchange:

SCHIEFFER: Let — let me ask you, Governor because we know President Obama’s position on this, what is — what is your position on the use of drones?
ROMNEY: Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it’s widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.

Schieffer’s choice to exclude President Obama was odd. About any current Administration policy one could say that we know Obama’s policy; after all, he’s in charge. The point is to give him the opportunity to defend his policy and to say what he intends to do going forward. Arguably we know Obama’s policy on health care reform, because he’s in charge of a policy that is being implemented. Would a debate moderator say: “let me ask you, Governor because we know President Obama’s position on this, what is — what is your position on health care reform?”

And so, using language Malcolm X might have appreciated – “we should use any and all means necessary” – Romney endorsed the President’s policy. [For those scoring at home, it’s a basic principle of the law of armed conflict that combatants do not get to use “any and all means necessary.”] So, at this level of abstraction, the candidates agree.

Nonetheless, the exchange was useful, because it put the issue on the table for discussion. Schieffer didn’t take the ball far, but he got it on the field, and that’s more than anyone else of his stature had previously done. As Mark Weisbrot noted at the Guardian, “It was a victory just to have drones mentioned.”

Others picked up the discussion. On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough said:

What we are doing with drones is remarkable. The fact that … over George W. Bush’s eight years when a lot of people brought up a bunch of legitimate questions about international law–my God, those lines have been completely eradicated in a drone policy that says that, if you’re between 17 and 30, and you’re within a half-mile of a suspect, we can blow you up. And that’s exactly what’s happening.

Joe Klein responded:

But the bottom line in the end is: whose four year-old gets killed? What we’re doing … is limiting the possibility that four year-olds here are going to get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror

Writing in the Guardian, Glenn Greenwald noted that “Klein’s justification – we have to kill their children in order to protect our children – is the exact mentality of every person deemed in US discourse to be a ‘terrorist'” and that “Slaughtering Muslim children does not protect American children from terrorism.”

But it should also be noted that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan currently are not really about protecting civilians in the United States from terrorist attacks in any event. U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan today are primarily an extension of the war in Afghanistan, targeting suspected militants believed to be planning to attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Since the majority of Americans oppose the war the war in Afghanistan and want U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, this is a highly relevant political fact: U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are being carried out in support of a war in Afghanistan that most Americans oppose. Pretending that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are about protecting civilians in the United States when they are primarily about extending the unpopular Afghanistan war across the border with Pakistan is therefore a pretty significant deceit.

The best solution to the problem of people trying to attack our troops in other people’s countries is to get our troops out of other people’s countries where people are likely to attack them.

When U.S. troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan, as most Americans want, then there will be no reason to use drone strikes to target militants in Pakistan who are trying to attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan, because there will be no militants in Pakistan trying to attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan, because there will be no U.S. troops in Afghanistan for them to attack. The situation is analogous to that which we faced in Iraq during the Bush Administration: we were told we had to keep our troops in Iraq to fight the people who were attacking our troops in Iraq, but the people attacking our troops were attacking our troops because they were there. Now that our troops have left Iraq, no-one is attacking our troops in Iraq anymore. The best solution to the problem of people trying to attack our troops in other people’s countries is to get our troops out of other people’s countries where people are likely to attack them.

Moreover, it is crucial to recognize that the mere existence of drone strikes is not the focus of international criticism. It is specific features of the drone strike policy which are overwhelmingly the focus of international criticism. There is relatively little international criticism, for example, about the U.S. use of drone strikes in Afghanistan compared to other use of air power, given that whether one supports or opposes it, the war in Afghanistan is generally considered internationally to be lawful overall [which is different from saying that specific actions within the war are lawful]. But there is a great deal of international criticism about the U.S. use of drone strikes in Pakistan, where considerable international opinion does not accept that the U.S. is conducting a lawful war.

And this is why, although it was a great first step that Bob Schieffer even said the word “drone” and made Mitt Romney say it too, to let politicians merely answer the question at this level of abstraction – “I support drone strikes, too” – is to let them off the hook. It’s crucial to drive down into the details of the policy as it exists today and get politicians on the record saying not just whether they support drone strikes as an abstraction but whether they support the details of the policy as it is being implemented today. And this is even more important now, given recent press reports that the current policy is being made permanent.

And this is why it would be tremendously useful if the high-profile TV talk shows would take this on, and devote enough time to it to drive down into details. CBS‘s Bob Schieffer (Face the Nation), NBC‘s David Gregory and Betsy Fischer (Meet the Press), CNN‘s Christiane Amanpour, and MSNBC‘s Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow should all be pressed to drive down into the detail of the current drone strike policy. It would be tremendously useful, for example, if these shows would invite the authors of the recent Stanford/NYU report on drone strikes on as guests and invite an Administration surrogate to respond in detail.

Here are five specific questions that it would be really helpful if these shows would explore:

1. The U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan recently acknowledged that 1) the U.S. government has an official count of the number of civilians the U.S. thinks have been killed in Pakistan as a result of U.S. drone strikes since July 2008 and that 2) this number is classified. What is this number, and why is it classified?

2. Journalists and independent researchers have reported that the U.S. has targeted rescuers with “secondary” or “follow-up” drone strikes. International law experts have said that if this is true, this is clearly a war crime under international law. The U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan has denied that the U.S. is targeting rescuers and has denied that the U.S. is conducting secondary strikes. What is the truth here? Is the U.S. targeting rescuers, or not? Is the U.S. conducting “secondary” strikes, or not? If the U.S. is targeting rescuers, is this a war crime?

3. Pakistani officials say they oppose U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. The Pakistani parliament unanimously demanded that they stop. But U.S. officials claim that the Pakistani military has secretly approved the strikes. What is the truth here? If there is secret approval by the Pakistani military, but not by the democratically elected Pakistani government, should we be satisfied by that? Is such a situation politically sustainable in Pakistan? If there is not secret approval, is the U.S. violating international law with its drone strike policy? If the Pakistani military accepts some U.S. drone strikes but not others, does that count as approval of the drone strikes which the Pakistani military opposes, for the purposes of international law? If not, doesn’t that imply that the U.S. is violating international law, even if the Pakistani military approves some drone strikes?

4. U.S. officials have claimed that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are narrowly targeted on top level terrorist suspects. But the U.S. is reported to be conducting “signature strikes” on unknown targets based on signals intelligence indicating “suspicious activity.” How is this consistent with the claim that the strikes are narrowly targeted on top level terrorist suspects?

5. White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has claimed that civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes have been “exceedingly rare.” The international humanitarian law principle of proportionality in armed conflict requires that civilian harm not be excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage. It has been reported that a mere 2% of the deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004 have been high level targets, while at least 15-30% of the deaths have been civilians. Are these numbers basically correct? If so, is it honest to say that civilian deaths have been “exceedingly rare”? If these numbers are basically correct, is the U.S. violating the international law principle of proportionality?

If you’d like the big TV talk shows to take these questions on, you can tell them so here.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/26-0

Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?

On meeting Obama: “Could not look me in the eye … like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).

“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”

Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.

“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”

Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.”

Woods made clear that he isn’t “mad,” but that he wants to the “truth” to be told because he feels ” abandoned.”

Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have “come above [the area] and completely carpeted area,” and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack.

“When I heard, you know, that there’s a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don’t go rescue them. Because every person in the military–their first response [would be], we’re going to go rescue them. We need to find out who it was that gave that command–do not rescue them.”

Woods told his story to radio host Lars Larson. Here’s the full interview.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/father-slain-seal-who-made-decision-not-save-my-son_657782.html

For DHS, Cybersecurity Education Begins in Kindergarten

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano delivers a speech at George Washington University on January 27, 2011 (Photo: DHS)

In a blog on the Department of Homeland Security website, Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department is working to develop the next generation of leaders in cybersecurity beginning in kindergarten.

In a blog titled, “Inspiring the Next Generation of Cyber Professionals,” Napolitano said, “In addition, we are extending the scope of cyber education beyond the federal workplace through the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education, involving students from kindergarten through post-graduate school.”

“At DHS, we’re working to develop the next generation of leaders in cybersecurity while fostering an environment for talented staff to grow in this field. We are building strong cybersecurity career paths within the Department, and in partnership with other government agencies,” the secretary said.

DHS also sponsors the U.S. Cyber Challenge, she said, “a program that works with academia and the private sector to identify and develop the best and brightest cyber talent to meet our nation’s growing and changing security needs.”

The National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) noted on its website that the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation are leading the Formal Cybersecurity Education Component.

“Their mission is to bolster formal cybersecurity education programs encompassing kindergarten through 12th grade, higher education and vocational programs, with a focus on the science, technology, engineering and math disciplines to provide a pipeline of skilled workers for the private sector and government,” the website said.

“A digitally literate workforce that uses technology in a secure manner is imperative to the Nation’s economy and the security of our critical infrastructure,” NICE said on its website.

“Just as we teach science, technology, engineering, mathematics, reading, writing and other critical subjects to all students, we also need to educate all students to use technology securely in order to prepare them for the digital world in which we live,” the website added.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/dhs-cybersecurity-education-begins-kindergarten

Israel’s stranglehold on US policymakers

Jamal Kanj views the extent of Israel’s stranglehold on American policymakers as highlighted by US threats to the European Union not to support the Palestinian bid for UN observer status and by President Barack Obama’s cancellation of a meeting with world leaders at the UN because the Israeli prime minister was absent.

The US State Department is has sent a confidential letter urging European Union members and other “friendly” countries to help block Palestinian attempts to secure non-member Observer State status at the United Nations General Assembly.

The memorandum, seen by this writer, falsely asserts that the US and the Quartet on the Middle East are working towards a two-state solution that envisages “a secure, democratic Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state as a homeland for the Palestinian people”.

While the Quartet has endorsed the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, it never agreed on defining Israel as a “Jewish state”. In fact, this issue was a sticking point leading to the failure of the Quartet’s meeting in July last year.

…the US is conspicuously treating Palestinian diplomatic efforts at the UN as more serious than Israel’s interminable breaches of the 20-year-old Oslo Accords.

The State Department communiqué also claims the US continues “to urge both parties to avoid provocative one-sided actions that could undermine trust”.

Sadly, the US is conspicuously treating Palestinian diplomatic efforts at the UN as more serious than Israel’s interminable breaches of the 20-year-old Oslo Accords.

Phlegmatic on Israeli violations, the US State Department is mobilizing its own diplomatic corps on behalf of Israel to undermine the basic right of Palestinians to a state of their own.

In the private US document, the administration cautioned that “a General Assembly resolution on Palestinian statehood could also open the door to Palestinian participation as a state in other international fora, including at the International Criminal Court (ICC)”.

Why is the US concerned about this?

UN Observer State status will only grant the ICC jurisdiction over war crimes committed within the geographical area of the state.

In the absence of war crimes, the ICC’s jurisdiction becomes immaterial.

Perhaps US apprehension over Palestinian entry into the UN – with power to adjudicate on matters related to war crimes – is an implicit admission of Israeli culpability in such crimes.

The letter carried an oblique warning to European countries that Palestine joining the UN will have “significant negative consequences”, including “our ability to maintain our significant financial support for the Palestinian Authority” – implying that EU countries will be left with the burden of supporting a Palestinian economy strangled by the Israeli occupation.

Last month, US President Barack Obama cancelled a 20-year-old tradition of meeting world leaders present for the opening of the UN General Assembly session because the Israeli prime minister was not there.

Israel’s grip on US foreign policy is bizarre.

Last month, US President Barack Obama cancelled a 20-year-old tradition of meeting world leaders present for the opening of the UN General Assembly session because the Israeli prime minister was not there.

To avoid the appearance of meeting world leaders but not Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama called off his meetings altogether.

This measure of Israel’s hold over American foreign policy was investigated at length in a book called The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who argued: “It is time for the United States to treat Israel not as a special case but as a normal state, and to deal with it much as it deals with any other country.”

In his farewell speech in 1796, the founding father and first American president, George Washington, presaged these type of relations and forewarned about the danger of “the insidious wiles of foreign influence”.

“The jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government,” he said.

Indeed, the Israeli lobby’s diabolic “influence” over elected American officials is the most destructive threat to US democracy.

http://www.redressonline.com/2012/10/israels-stranglehold-on-us-policymakers/

Obama Doctrine: Global Elite Advance Their World Government Agenda Into National Security Strategy

Since Obama took office in 2009, political analysts and mainstream media pundits have failed to accurately identify any central ideology or grand strategy driving the administration’s policies. The government’s National Security Strategy Report has been the most likely place to find such a doctrine expressed officially, but when Obama’s administration issued their version in 2010, the mainstream media failed to bring to light the real agenda conveyed in the document.

The establishment media’s general interpretation was that the strategy represented a shift away from past policies of unilateralism, preemptive warfare, and military preeminence, towards policies of greater cooperation with international institutions. But an independent examination of the report, along with some of its guidelines now in operation, reveals that the document’s primary policy positions, while setting new precedents, are derived from an old, deep-rooted agenda for a world empire, propelled by elite finance oligarchs and global corporatists.

The document centers around the building of a new “international order” by overhauling, revitalizing and granting more authority to international institutions including the IMF, WTO, NATO, G20, the World Bank and especially the UN.

Decoding the 2010 National Security Strategy

In May of 2010, during presentations introducing and summarizing the new National Security Strategy Report, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of shaping an international order that would emphasize the role of global institutions in national security policy. While speaking at the Brookings Institution, Clinton listed this new international order as one of the government’s four central goals, saying:

Our approach is to build the diverse sources of American power at home and to shape the global system so that it is more conducive to meeting our overriding objectives: security, prosperity, the explanation and spread of our values, and a just and sustainable international order.

Obama had used similar language a few days earlier at West Point saying:

So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. (and) The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times…

Hearing the president speak of shaping a new international order as part of America’s National Security Strategy alarmed those in the alternative media who recognized the phrasing as a familiar reference to the Anglo-American elite’s efforts at establishing a world empire or “new world order.” The mainstream media, however, made no connections to a long-term elitist agenda, and instead framed the speech by contrasting Obama’s new strategy with those released under the Bush administration.

The Washington Post claimed that “Obama pledged to shape a new ‘international order’ based on diplomacy and engagement” which distanced itself from the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare. But when the document was later released, its contents proved to justify the concerns of so-called “conspiracy theorists.” Rather than simply promoting global cooperation or representing a positive new direction in policy, the strategy is instead a bold jump forward in the overarching, multi-administration-spanning agenda of global finance oligarchs to construct a world government.

The fact that this agenda has now openly emerged in America’s National Security Strategy doctrine illustrates the advanced degree to which this scheme has progressed outside public awareness, without any public discussion or debate.

The National Security Strategy Report (NSSR) is the primary policy document, prepared by the executive branch, outlining an administration’s formulation of grand strategy for the country. According to the National Security Strategy Archive, “It is intended to be a comprehensive statement articulating the worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the United States that are important to its security.” Involvement in the creation of the report is regarded by many policy planners as “direct access to the President’s overall agenda and thus highly desirable.” Typically its contents have been the responsibility of National Security Council staff members, but influence has been proven to come from other sources as well.

Years after the 2002 NSSR was released, its primary author was revealed to be Philip Zelikow, a former National Security Council staffer under George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991. Zelikow was not a member of George W. Bush’s administration at the time, but rather worked as a “consultant” to his national security advisor Condoleezza Rice. Long after the report’s publication, he was discovered to be the secret writer of its infamous preemptive (more accurately preventive) war policy, earlier formulated by Paul Wolfowitz, which came to be known as the “Bush Doctrine.”

These reports are responsible for the implementation of long-term policy directives that can extend far into future administrations. Modern versions of the report have provided a continuity to national security policy by only being produced every four years in the middle of the presidential term, even though they are supposed to be released every year. According to the Goldwater-Nichols Act, “The President shall transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the United States,” in a “classified and unclassified form.” The notorious Bush NSSRs were issued in 2002 and 2006. Obama’s NSSR came in 2010 and the next NSSR will most likely be released in the middle of 2014.

The unclassified version of the new National Security Strategy was released to the public in late May of 2010 with little controversy considering its alarming contents. (Screenshots of this report and other sources have been provided below, with added highlighting or underlining, for quick reference.) The document centers around the old and familiar narrative of modern global crises requiring global solutions in the form of a new international order. This theme is introduced in the foreword of the report and repeated throughout, with the “international order” being referenced more than 25 times in the 52-page document, including major sections and subsections devoted to it. The following screenshots from page one contain the document’s opening paragraph summarizing the report’s overview and showing the central theme of the strategy to be the creation of this new international order.

Continue Reading: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/obama-doctrine-global-elite-advance.html

Ray McGovern on the Corruption of U.S Intelligence

Volume 3 of 5 in the ‘speaking freely’ series. (53 minutes)

Having served as a CIA analyst for 27 years, Ray McGovern speaks candidly about the creation of the Agency, the deceit that lead to the invasion of Iraq, the questionable character of George Tenet, and more. In stark frankness, McGovern examines the politicization of the Central Intelligence Agency and how it came to be an entity that serves the White House agenda, instead of one that serves up the unbiased truth. Disgusted by the lack of integrity exhibited by members of the intelligence community and U.S. government, McGovern retired and eventually co-created VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity)-an organization dedicated to exposing the mishandling of important intelligence, particularly with regard to the War on Iraq. Full of inside information you have never heard before about the way in which our nation’s most secretive agency operates. (Written by Richard Castro)

The SAME Unaccountable Government Agency Which Spies on ALL Americans Also Decides Who Gets ASSASSINATED by Drones

“The [Government Agency] — Now Vested With The Power To Determine The Proper ‘Disposition’ Of Terrorist Suspects — Is The SAME AGENCY That Is At The Center Of The Ubiquitous, Unaccountable Surveillance State Aimed At American Citizens.”

The Washington Post reports that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who is assassinated by drone or otherwise.

Over the pas. two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprintfor pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the “disposition matrix.”

The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the “disposition” of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.

Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaeda continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight.

***

Obama has institutionalized the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.

***

White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan is seeking to codify the administration’s approach to generating capture/kill lists, part of a broader effort to guide future administrations through the counterterrorism processes that Obama has embraced.

***

The United States now operates multiple drone programs, including acknowledged U.S. military patrols over conflict zones in Afghanistan and Libya, and classified CIA surveillance flights over Iran.

Strikes against al-Qaeda, however, are carried out under secret lethal programs involving the CIA and JSOC. The matrix was developed by the NCTC [the National Counterterrorism Center], under former director Michael Leiter, to augment those organizations’ separate but overlapping kill lists, officials said.

***

The result is a single, continually evolving database in which biographies, locations, known associates and affiliated organizations are all catalogued. So are strategies for taking targets down, including extradition requests, capture operations and drone patrols.

***

The database is meant to map out contingencies, creating an operational menu that spells out each agency’s role in case a suspect surfaces in an unexpected spot. “If he’s in Saudi Arabia, pick up with the Saudis,” the former official said. “If traveling overseas to al-Shabaab [in Somalia] we can pick him up by ship. If in Yemen, kill or have the Yemenis pick him up.”

***

The administration has also elevated the role of the NCTC, which was conceived as a clearinghouse for threat data and has no operational capability. Under Brennan, who served as its founding director, the center has emerged as a targeting hub.

As Glenn Greenwald notes:

The central role played by the NCTC in determining who should be killed – “It is the keeper of the criteria,” says one official to the Post – is, by itself, rather odious. As Kade Crockford of the ACLU of Massachusetts noted in response to this story, the ACLU has long warned that the real purpose of the NCTC – despite its nominal focus on terrorism – is the “massive, secretive data collection and mining of trillions of points of data about most people in the United States”.

In particular, the NCTC operates a gigantic data-mining operation, in which all sorts of information about innocent Americans is systematically monitored, stored, and analyzed. This includes “records from law enforcement investigations, health information, employment history, travel and student records” – “literally anything the government collects would be fair game”. In other words, the NCTC – now vested with the power to determine the proper “disposition” of terrorist suspects – is the same agency that is at the center of the ubiquitous, unaccountable surveillance state aimed at American citizens.

Worse still, as the ACLU’s legislative counsel Chris Calabrese documented back in July in a must-read analysis, Obama officials very recently abolished safeguards on how this information can be used. Whereas the agency, during the Bush years, was barred from storing non-terrorist-related information about innocent Americans for more than 180 days – a limit which “meant that NCTC was dissuaded from collecting large databases filled with information on innocent Americans” – it is now free to do so. Obama officials eliminated this constraint by authorizing the NCTC “to collect and ‘continually assess’ information on innocent Americans for up to five years”.

And, as usual, this agency engages in these incredibly powerful and invasive processes with virtually no democratic accountability:

“All of this is happening with very little oversight. Controls over the NCTC are mostly internal to the DNI’s office, and important oversight bodies such as Congress and the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board aren’t notified even of ‘significant’ failures to comply with the GuidelinesFundamental legal protections are being sidestepped. For example, under the new guidelines, Privacy Act notices (legal requirements to describe how databases are used) must be completed by the agency that collected the information. This is in spite of the fact that those agencies have no idea what NCTC is actually doing with the information once it collects it.

“All of this amounts to a reboot of the Total Information Awareness Program that Americans rejected so vigorously right after 9/11.

What has been created here – permanently institutionalized – is a highly secretive executive branch agency that simultaneously engages in two functions: (1) it collects and analyzes massive amounts of surveillance data about all Americans without any judicial review let alone search warrants, and (2) creates and implements a “matrix” that determines the “disposition” of suspects, up to and including execution, without a whiff of due process or oversight. It is simultaneously a surveillance state and a secretive, unaccountable judicial body that analyzes who you are and then decrees what should be done with you, how you should be “disposed” of, beyond the reach of any minimal accountability or transparency.

Americans on U.S. Soil May Be Targeted

This might be acceptable if the U.S. government was only targeting really bad guys, and if drones were not being used inside the borders of America itself.

But drones are becoming pervasive within the U.S.  Indeed, some of the numerous drones flying over American soil – projected by the FAA to reach 30,000 drones by 2020 – are starting to carry arms.

When torture memo writer John Yoo was asked last year whether drones could kill people within the United States, he replied yes – if we were in a time of war:

(Of course, since the U.S. has declared a perpetual war – and see this–  drones will always be in fashion.)

Indeed, the military now considers the U.S. homeland to be a battlefield.  The U.S. is already allowing military operations within the United States.    Indeed, the Army is already being deployed on U.S. soil, and the military is conducting numerous training exercises on American streets. And see this.

Government officials have said that Americans can be targets in the war on terror.   Obama has authorized “targeted assassinations” against U.S. citizens.

And it is not very comforting that the U.S. government labels just about every U.S. citizen as a potential terrorists.

The U.S. Activates Skynet

In the Terminator science fiction series, computers and machines – organized by “Skynet” – track people down who threaten the status quo of the machines and then selectively assassinate them.

The powers given to the NCTC remind me of Skynet. Especially given how fast the military is advancing its robotic capabilities:

They remind others of The Matrix.

Greenwald comments on the machine-like aspect the NCTC’s operations:

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko, writing today about the Post article, reports:

“Recently, I spoke to a military official with extensive and wide-ranging experience in the special operations world, and who has had direct exposure to the targeted killing program. To emphasize how easy targeted killings by special operations forces or drones has become, this official flicked his hand back over and over, stating: ‘It really is like swatting flies. We can do it forever easily and you feel nothing. But how often do you really think about killing a fly?’”

That is disturbingly consistent with prior reports that the military’s term for drone victims is “bug splat”. This – this warped power and the accompanying dehumanizing mindset – is what is being institutionalized as a permanent fixture in American political life by the current president.

***

At Wired, Spencer Ackerman reacts to the Post article with an analysis entitled “President Romney Can Thank Obama for His Permanent Robotic Death List”. Here is his concluding paragraph:

“Obama did not run for president to preside over the codification of a global war fought in secret. But that’s his legacy. . . . Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations writes that Obama’s predecessors in the Bush administration ‘were actually much more conscious and thoughtful about the long-term implications of targeted killings’, because they feared the political consequences that might come when the U.S. embraces something at least superficially similar to assassination. Whoever follows Obama in the Oval Office can thank him for proving those consequences don’t meaningfully exist — as he or she reviews the backlog of names on the Disposition Matrix.”

But one thing is clear.  Warmongering is always good for the super-elite, and bad for everyone else … And itdestroys freedom and prosperity.

Given that the national security apparatus has been hijacked to serve the needs of big business and to crush dissent, it’s not far-fetched to think that information gained from drones will be used for purposes that are not necessarily in the best interests of the American people.

As Greenwald notes:

The core guarantee of western justice since the Magna Carta was codified in the US by the fifth amendment to the constitution: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” You simply cannot have a free society, a worthwhile political system, without that guarantee, that constraint on the ultimate abusive state power, being honored.

And yet what the Post is describing, what we have had for years, is a system of government that – without hyperbole – is the very antithesis of that liberty. It is literally impossible to imagine a more violent repudiation of the basic blueprint of the republic than the development of a secretive, totally unaccountable executive branch agency that simultaneously collects information about all citizens and then applies a “disposition matrix” to determine what punishment should be meted out. This is classic political dystopia brought to reality (despite how compelled such a conclusion is by these indisputable facts, many Americans will view such a claim as an exaggeration, paranoia, or worse because of this psychological dynamic I described here which leads many good passive westerners to believe that true oppression, by definition, is something that happens only elsewhere).

***

As the Founders all recognized, nothing vests elites with power – and profit – more than a state of war. That is why there were supposed to be substantial barriers to having them start and continue – the need for a Congressional declaration, the constitutional bar on funding the military for more than two years at a time, the prohibition on standing armies, etc. Here is how John Jay put it in Federalist No 4:

“It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.”

In sum, there are factions in many governments that crave a state of endless war because that is when power is least constrained and profit most abundant. What the Post is reporting is yet another significant step toward that state, and it is undoubtedly driven, at least on the part of some, by a self-interested desire to ensure the continuation of endless war and the powers and benefits it vests. So to answer Hayes’ question: the endless expansion of a kill list and the unaccountable, always-expanding powers needed to implement it does indeed represent a great success for many. Read what John Jay wrote in the above passage to see why that is, and why few, if any, political developments should be regarded as more pernicious.

Note: While it may be tempting to say that spying and assassination are part of the new “post-9/11 reality”,  widespread spying on Americans, assassination, militarization of the police, the Patriot Act, indefinite detention,  and most of the other abuses were launched or contemplated long before 9/11.

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/the-same-unaccountable-government-agency-which-spies-on-all-americans-also-decides-who-gets-assassinated-by-drones/24393/

Obama Plans to Expand Assassination List

Thousands of people have been killed by the U.S. war on terrorism, but that hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from planning to add even more names to the so-called assassination list of those considered a threat to the country. The administration does not use the word “assassination,” preferring the term “targeted killing.”

The administration has spent the past two years developing a secret “disposition matrix” that The Washington Post says represents a “next-generation targeting list” for ridding the world of terrorists.

The fact that Osama bin Laden is dead and that the U.S. war in Afghanistan is winding down have not persuaded officials to slow down on clandestine programs designed to find and kill members of al Qaeda and similar organizations. According to the Post’s Greg Miller, the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command has set up a “targeting center” just 15 minutes from the White House, and the National Counterterrorism Center, formerly a data collection center not directly involved in operations, has been transformed into a “targeting hub.”

If anything the government intends to keep adding names to its assassination list for years to come, possibly even for another decade.

By some accounts the number of militants and civilians killed in American drone strikes since September 11, 2001, will soon exceed 3,000—a total greater than the number of those killed during the 9/11 attacks.

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/obama-plans-to-expand-assassination-list/24389/

It’s the End of the United States as We Know It

What is going to happen in the near future to America? How is martial law related to the current situation? What will happen to America if the dollar collapses?

Hear from Ron Paul, Gerald Celente, David Walker, Jesse Ventura, and Brad Sherman, and a U.S. soldier on what is happening and what will happen.

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson? Will the revolution vote for Johnson?

Will it be Gary Johnson or Ron Paul for Americans who are not willing to vote for the lesser of two evils?

That is the question after the recent Third Party debate brought out a passionate Libertarian who did a bit more than just turn a few heads; he may have changed a multitude of minds after he mentioned Ron Paul as his hero, among other things. You know, like bringing the troops home and legalizing marijuana, just to name a couple.

Today, Free and Equal announced Libertarian candidate Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are the winners over Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson from the Oct. 23 bout and subsequent polling that allowed “We the People” to choose the winners. This brings the Libertarian and the Green candidates to their final destination on Oct. 30 in Washington for a late-in-the-game publicized opportunity to sway voters their way — and you can bet Ron Paul’s movement will be there in full force.

Although Johnson is certainly no Ron Paul, he may have become the next best thing in the hearts of grassroots campaigners who filled stadiums around the country each time the Texas representative made an appearance this past year as he campaigned for constitutional government, honest money and personal liberty.

Many in the revolution who chanted “President Paul” and vowed to write in the good doctor are changing their minds and aren’t shy about announcing it publicly. Needless to say, some will be marking their ballots for Johnson wearing their Ron Paul T-shirt, for symbolic purposes, of course.

A Washington state resident going by “Pawnstorm” caused a category three indeed on the Daily Paul website when he announced his decision to vote for Johnson. Some solid Ron Paul supporters weren’t too excited about the idea, while others embraced it after reading his persuasive piece and argument with himself that brought him to his final decision, which included the fact that his write-in Ron Paul vote may not even be counted in the only state named after a president.

The excitement around the Internet grows as social networking informs Americans that there are other choices besides the continued attempts at a two-party gridlock with Republican candidate Mitt Romney and our current president, the Democrat, Barack Obama. Their similarities are many, as they admitted in their final debate.

Even MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell put out an interesting Last Word the night after the first Third Party debate: “That right there was a presidential debate last night that was not covered by the major networks because it did not include any candidates who are running above 15 percent in the polls, but it did include candidates who dared to talk about important issues that never came up in the presidential debates watched by 60 billion people.”

O’Donnell used his show to educate on voting in a democracy, telling viewers to not listen to those who mislead you by telling you voting for a Third Party candidate is a wasted vote. He persuasively points out that if you vote for a Democrat who loses you are not told you wasted your vote, so why would you be wasting your vote if you voted for a Third Party candidate who loses? You would instead be sending a message.

Proving Americans are looking for another option to choose for their commander-in-chief, Tim Sarver commented beneath a Third Party video and gained 37 thumbs up for saying: “All of these guys, even Virgil, seem like better candidates for president than Obama or Romney.”

Will the Paul revolution vote for Johnson? From what I have read, it may be 50/50 due to some of the differences between Paul and Johnson. Most Paul freedom fighters are a stubborn, determined group. Like their mentor, they will not be swayed by anyone or anything if it goes against their core values, even if they are the last one standing against the crowd. Some have announced on YouTube, Twitter, Ron Paul forums, and Facebook that they have, and will still write in Ron Paul as they take Gary Johnson’s quote seriously, “Wasting your vote is voting for somebody you don’t believe in.”

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13272320-ron-paul-or-gary-johnson-will-the-revolution-vote-for-johnson

Executive Order — Establishing the White House Homeland Security Partnership Council

EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
ESTABLISHING THE WHITE HOUSE
HOMELAND SECURITY PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to advance the Federal Government’s use of local partnerships to address homeland security challenges, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. The purpose of this order is to maximize the Federal Government’s ability to develop local partnerships in the United States to support homeland security priorities. Partnerships are collaborative working relationships in which the goals, structure, and roles and responsibilities of the relationships are mutually determined. Collaboration enables the Federal Government and its partners to use resources more efficiently, build on one another’s expertise, drive innovation, engage in collective action, broaden investments to achieve shared goals, and improve performance. Partnerships enhance our ability to address homeland security priorities, from responding to natural disasters to preventing terrorism, by utilizing diverse perspectives, skills, tools, and resources.
The National Security Strategy emphasizes the importance of partnerships, underscoring that to keep our Nation safe “we must tap the ingenuity outside government through strategic partnerships with the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and community-based organizations. Such partnerships are critical to U.S. success at home and abroad, and we will support them through enhanced opportunities for engagement, coordination, transparency, and information sharing.” This approach recognizes that, given the complexities and range of challenges, we must institutionalize an all-of-Nation effort to address the evolving threats to the United States.
Sec. 2. White House Homeland Security Partnership Council and Steering Committee.
(a) White House Homeland Security Partnership Council. There is established a White House Homeland Security Partnership Council (Council) to foster local partnerships — between the Federal Government and the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, community-based organizations, and State, local, tribal, and territorial government and law enforcement — to address homeland security challenges. The Council shall be chaired by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (Chair), or a designee from the National Security Staff.
(b) Council Membership.
(i) Pursuant to the nomination process established in subsection (b)(ii) of this section, the Council shall be composed of Federal officials who are from field offices of the executive departments, agencies, and bureaus (agencies) that are members of the Steering Committee established in subsection (c) of this section, and who have demonstrated an ability to develop, sustain, and institutionalize local partnerships to address policy priorities.
(ii) The nomination process and selection criteria for members of the Council shall be established by the Steering Committee. Based on those criteria, agency heads may select and present to the Steering Committee their nominee or nominees to represent them on the Council. The Steering Committee shall consider all of the nominees and decide by consensus which of the nominees shall participate on the Council. Each member agency on the Steering Committee, with the exception of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, may have at least one representative on the Council.
(c) Steering Committee. There is also established a Steering Committee, chaired by the Chair of the Council, to provide guidance to the Council and perform other functions as set forth in this order. The Steering Committee shall include a representative at the Deputy agency head level, or that representative’s designee, from the following agencies:
(i) Department of State;
(ii) Department of the Treasury;
(iii) Department of Defense;
(iv) Department of Justice;
(v) Department of the Interior;
(vi) Department of Agriculture;
(vii) Department of Commerce;
(viii) Department of Labor;
(ix) Department of Health and Human Services;
(x) Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(xi) Department of Transportation;
(xii) Department of Energy;
(xiii) Department of Education;
(xiv) Department of Veterans Affairs;
(xv) Department of Homeland Security;
(xvi) Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
(xvii) Environmental Protection Agency;
(xviii) Small Business Administration; and
(xix) Federal Bureau of Investigation.
At the invitation of the Chair, representatives of agencies not listed in subsection (c) of this section or other executive branch entities may attend and participate in Steering Committee meetings as appropriate.
(d) Administration. The Chair or a designee shall convene meetings of the Council and Steering Committee, determine their agendas, and coordinate their work. The Council may establish subgroups consisting exclusively of Council members or their designees, as appropriate.
Sec. 3. Mission and Function of the Council and Steering Committee. (a) The Council shall, consistent with guidance from the Steering Committee:
(i) advise the Chair and Steering Committee members on priorities, challenges, and opportunities for local partnerships to support homeland security priorities, as well as regularly report to the Steering Committee on the Council’s efforts;
(ii) promote homeland security priorities and opportunities for collaboration between Federal Government field offices and State, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders;
(iii) advise and confer with State, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders and agencies interested in expanding or building local homeland security partnerships;
(iv) raise awareness of local partnership best practices that can support homeland security priorities;
(v) as appropriate, conduct outreach to representatives of the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, community-based organizations, and State, local, tribal, and territorial government and law enforcement entities with relevant expertise for local homeland security partnerships, and collaborate with other Federal Government bodies; and
(vi) convene an annual meeting to exchange key findings, progress, and best practices.
(b) The Steering Committee shall:
(i) determine the scope of issue areas the Council will address and its operating protocols, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget;
(ii) establish the nomination process and selection criteria for members of the Council as set forth in section 2(b)(ii) of this order;
(iii) provide guidance to the Council on the activities set forth in subsection (a) of this section; and
(iv) within 1 year of the selection of the Council members, and annually thereafter, provide a report on the work of the Council to the President through the Chair.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) The heads of agencies participating in the Steering Committee shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to implement this order. Each agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof;
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals; or
(iii) the functions of the Overseas Security Advisory Council.
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties, and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d) 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
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 26, 2012.

‘Romney stressing military solutions to Middle East’

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.(AFP Photo / Jewel Samad)

While Barack Obama and Mitt Romney express agreement on most of issues regarding US foreign policy, the Republican seems far more willing to support Israeli offensive actions if elected president, analyst John Feffer told RT.

­The major difference between Obama and Romney is their “comfort level” with Netanyahu and his warmongering towards Iran, John Feffer of think tank Foreign Policy in Focus said.

And following the foreign policy debate with President Obama, the latest polls show Romney has taken a slight lead in the race for the White House.

RT: So why has Romney managed to edge ahead after the debate?

John Feffer: As we have seen, Mitt Romney demonstrated that he could talk in the debate. That was in the first debate, and he has not made any major gaps, and I stress major. Of course there have been minor gaps but nothing that has eliminated him as a potential candidate. So, I think his performance in the debates has been the major reason why he has closed the gap with the President Obama.

RT: The last debate was on foreign policy. Critics say Obama and Romney show no differences in their stance on Iran. But they both claim they do differ. What do you make of it?

JF: There are, I would say, some significant differences between the two candidates. Mitt Romney, even though he does talk about diplomacy, has put the stress on military solutions, and that there is absolutely no daylight between him and Netanyahu. The president, of course, has put more stress on diplomacy, and I think he means that when he says it – and of course, we have the possibility of bilateral negotiations with Tehran right after the election.

And although the president says there is no daylight – factually speaking – between him and Netanyahu, we know that there is and that the two leaders are uncomfortable with one another. So there, we have a major difference between the president and Mitt Romney: their comfort level with Netanyahu and their comfort level with diplomacy with Tehran.

RT: Will we see a change in policy over Syria after the election?

JF: I do not see that we’ll see a major change. As you have pointed out in earlier reports, the American public is certainly not ready for any major US commitment on the ground, or any other significant way, in Syria. So I do not think that the president or Mitt Romney, if he got elected, would execute major or significant change in American foreign policy toward Syria. Of course, if the situation substantially changes on the ground that might force the hand of anybody in Washington – and that is hard to predict.

RT: Despite the US pushing for democracy, the Arab Spring has seen some unexpected elements come to power, many seen as anti-Western and linked to terrorism. How will Washington determine who to do business with?

JF: I think the Obama administration has made a critical decision, an important decision, to work with what it perceives as the moderate Islamist elements in the region, the Muslim Brotherhood for instance in Egypt. I think this was a wise choice – I think it acknowledges that moderate Islamist positions have a great deal to do with popularity in the region, not just in Egypt but in other parts of the region. And this, I think, kind of represents a significant block in the region that prevents more extremist alternatives of whatever alternative nature.

I think this is the decision that Washington has made. There has been criticism of course from Republicans, from challengers here in the Romney camp, that the president has essentially given in to Islamists in the Middle East. But I think this is an incorrect reading. The situation shows that the Republican Party elements of this don’t understand wellsprings of popular sentiment in the Middle East, both before the Arab Spring, during the Arab Spring, and now after the major events of the Arab Spring.

http://rt.com/usa/news/romney-support-israel-iran-351/

Where Is the Proof that UN Soldiers are Actively Operating on American Soil? Oh, Right Here…

As talk of the US government’s police state expansion heats up and the threat of martial lawbecomes the topic of conversation for many who are concerned about recent legislative actions and Executive branch orders, many Americans remain skeptical that foreign troops have even stepped foot on American sovereign soil.

They argue that there’s no way that we’d allow foreigners access to our military, technology, strategies or tactics.

Where’s the proof that there are thousands of United Nations soldiers and units in America?

It turns out the proof is right here.

Not only are foreign troops under the banner of the United Nations stationed within the continental United States, they are and have been actively training, and not just for traditional military engagements.

As depicted in the following video, troops and personnel under the command of the United Nations have been training all over the United States in joint exercises that include policing operations and terrorist suppression:

 The 502nd was in Arkansas practicing house-to-house searches and seizures in a joint U.N. training mission called Agile Provider in the Spring of 1994.

Agile Provider involved 44,000 U.N troops including troops for France and the Netherlands training n the states of Georgia, North and South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee.

Yes, UN troops have been trained in this country in the past, but not in brigade strengths and not in domestic support house-to-house searches and seizures.

Many of our Congressman deny that UN troops are being trained in this country at all.

 

Numerous videos, like the one that follows below, have been made available on the internet and show satellite photos of United Nations vehicles stationed on military bases within the United States – so yes, not only are UN troops being trained in the United States, they would also have UN desginated vehicles already available for operational use should they be called upon to deploy in US cities:
{This video was removed by the user}

In a report made available at Before It’s News and originally published by Steve Quayle, a reader with inside ties to the US military and DHS warns that thousands of Spetnatz operatives, Russia’s Special Purpose Forces, have been infiltrating the United States:

All of us have heard over the years rumors of foreign troops in the USA. I’ve always been reluctant to mention on-air because I have no way of verifying the reports. I received a call today from a long-time trusted Christian friend whom I have known for many years. The couple is wealthy and well-connected to movers and shakers in the USA and Europe. Trust me, if they want to “name drop” it’s not an exaggeration for them. I was was informed by the wife that they have a friend in DHS who promised to pass on anything significant that would be a sign for immediate preparation. That agent called yesterday. He is hearing talk inside DHS that thousands of Sp….N…Z boys from that place connected to Alaska have been infiltrating from Canada into USA throughout this summer. He estimated the number so far exceeds 20,000 commandos. He advised my friends to take action immediately for food, water, ammo. I told her forget it! You need a plane ticket. The greatest shock to the American people will not be the invasion, but the merger of DHS with the invaders. Then they will understand the purpose of the 750 million rounds of hollow point ammo. Marxist Communist Valery Jarrett is the real power in DHS – not Napolitano. The nation has been compromised and sold out. Colonel Lunev told me in 1999 that the Sp…N…Z…boys will start arriving in large numbers months before the war.

These are not the only reports of foreign troops within the borders of the United States. Alex Jones documented the training of foreign troops in his documentary Police State 2000. During the development of the movie Jones took the following snapshot, which depicts Dutch troops training during operation Urban Warrior:

 Foreign troops trained alongside US Marines, practicing taking over American cities, rounding up American civilians and imprisoning them in barbed wire “containment” camps. Conditioning of the troops included having the actors posing as US citizens beg them for food and loudly proclaim that their Constitutional Rights were being violated. The troops were trained to ignore these pleas and accept them as part of “urban warfare.” (source: Infowars)

Video excerpt of Police State 2000 (full movie here) showing foreign troops in the US:

(Interviews of soldiers and training exercises begin at 3:00)

Thus, despite arguments to the conrary from Congressman and average Americans alike, foreign troops have and are training on US soil, they are operating under the banner of the United Nations, and they are involved not in conventional war operations, but operations that include the searching of homes, the detainment of non-combatants and the controlling of mass populations in large metropolitan areas.

As recently as April 2012 the Defense Department confirmed that foreigners would be operating within the United States as reported by Alex Thomas:

The drills, which will take place throughout May, mark the first time that Russian and US troops will train along side each other on American soil and correlate with a long line of Foreign military’s training to take on the American people.

Interestingly, Russia is actually conducting a joint naval training exercise with Communist China at this very moment.

(Source: The Intel Hub)

This particular anti-terrorism exercise was designed to simulate a take-over of Denver International airport.

So, to answer the question, where is the proof that UN troops and foreign soldiers are training and stationed in the United States?

The proof is everywhere – you just have to be willing to accept it.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/where-is-the-proof-that-un-soldiers-are-on-american-soil-oh-right-here_082012

PUTIN’S PIPELINE TO SYRIA

WHILE CNN WAS PROMOTING terrorists in Syria, (95% of ‘Syrian rebels’ are notSyrians), a little noticed headline appeared in the Wall Street Journal in July 2011.

The article, “Iran, Iraq, Syria Sign $10 Billion Gas-Pipeline Deal,” reported that a new Middle East pipeline, changing the geopolitical complexion of the region with dire consequences for the Jewish-led West, would run from the Iranian South Pars gas field to Damascus via Iraq territory.

According to the deal, Syria would purchase 20 million cubic meters of Iranian gas a day with Iraq acting as a transit agent.

In August 2011, Syrian exploration companies discovered a huge new gas field in Homs near its border with Lebanon and just east of the Russian-leased Naval port of Tartus on the Mediterranean situated above the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Syria ultimately plans to extend the planned pipeline from Damascus to its Mediterranean port of Tartus where it would be delivered to energy-thirsty EU markets.

Any export of Syrian-purchased Iranian gas to the EU would thus be transited through the Russian-docked port of Tartus.

Vladimir Putin is keeping the enterprise under wraps knowing that he stands to be a big winner in this new geopolitical equation.

For with Russia acting as shipper and liaison with its established European energy market via its energy giants, Gazprom and Rosneft, Russia’s role as the EU’s leading natural gas and oil supplier would be enhanced by the Syrian pipeline.

The rewards for Putin—considered by many to be a “geopolitical genius”—are manifold, both for Russia’s purse and its political leverage with regard to the EU.

As for Turkey, its saber-rattling goes no further than making a lot of noise. Grounding a Syrian-bound plane with Russians aboard and carrying essential aid for Syria was typical stupidity by Turkish authorities.

For with Turkey dependent on 58% of its natural gas from Russia’s Gazprom, it was forced to admit that Russian cargo bound for Syria was “legal” and have since muted their saber-rattling for now.

All said and done, Jewish-led America has made al-Qaeda their ally in hopes of toppling Assad and removing Putin from the region.

Continue: http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=765

ITS STILL STRENGTHENING: ‘WORST STORM IN 100 YEARS’ SEEN FOR NORTHEAST U.S… SANDY TO HIT FROM NC TO MASS… DC, VA, MD, WV, DE, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI…

Hurricane Sandy will probably grow into a “Frankenstorm” that may become the worst to hit the U.S. Northeast in 100 years if current forecasts are correct.

Sandy may combine with a second storm coming out of the Midwest to create a system that would rival the New England hurricane of 1938 in intensity, said Paul Kocin, aNational Weather Service meteorologist in College Park,Maryland. The hurricane currently passing the Bahamas has killed 21 people across the Caribbean, the Associated Press reported, citing local officials.

“What we’re seeing in some of our models is a storm at an intensity that we have not seen in this part of the country in the past century,” Kocin said in a telephone interview yesterday. “We’re not trying to hype it, this is what we’re seeing in some of our models. It may come in weaker.”

The hybrid storm may strike anywhere from the Delaware- Maryland-Virginia peninsula to southern New England. The current National Hurricane Center track calls for the system to go ashore in New Jersey on Oct. 30, although landfall predictions often change as storms get closer to shore.

A tropical-storm watch was issued from Savannah River northward to Oregon Inlet in North Carolina, the U.S. NHC said in an advisory. A tropical storm warning is in effect forFlorida’s east coast from Ocean Reef to Flagler Beach. A storm watch means tropical storm conditions are possible within the region, a warning means tropical storm conditions are expected.

———————————–

A full moon at the same time will add higher than normal tides to the water that Sandy will be pushing up on shore.

Expect massive flooding.

Wind field could be huge, on the order of 500 miles diameter all at Cat 1 strength.

Also, Appalachians could see massive snow falls.

Real doom with catastrophic damage potential and electricity out for many days.

Get your preps ready.

Obama moves to make the War on Terror permanent

Complete with a newly coined, creepy Orwellian euphemism – ‘disposition matrix’ – the administration institutionalizes the most extremist powers a government can claim

The National Counterterrorism Center, the site of a new bureaucracy to institutionalize the ‘kill list’. Photograph: FBI

A primary reason for opposing the acquisition of abusive powers and civil liberties erosions is that they virtually always become permanent, vested not only in current leaders one may love and trust but also future officials who seem more menacing and less benign.

The Washington Post has a crucial and disturbing story this morning by Greg Miller about the concerted efforts by the Obama administration to fully institutionalize – to make officially permanent – the most extremist powers it has exercised in the name of the war on terror.

Based on interviews with “current and former officials from the White House and the Pentagon, as well as intelligence and counterterrorism agencies”, Miller reports that as “the United States‘ conventional wars are winding down”, the Obama administration “expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years” (the “capture” part of that list is little more than symbolic, as the US focus is overwhelmingly on the “kill” part). Specifically, “among senior Obama administration officials, there is broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade.” As Miller puts it: “That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism.”

In pursuit of this goal, “White House counterterrorism adviser John O Brennan is seeking to codify the administration’s approach to generating capture/kill lists, part of a broader effort to guide future administrations through the counterterrorism processes that Obama has embraced.” All of this, writes Miller, demonstrates “the extent to which Obama has institutionalized the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.”

The Post article cites numerous recent developments reflecting this Obama effort, including the fact that “CIA Director David H Petraeus is pushing for an expansion of the agency’s fleet of armed drones”, which “reflects the agency’s transformation into a paramilitary force, and makes clear that it does not intend to dismantle its drone program and return to its pre-September 11 focus on gathering intelligence.” The article also describes rapid expansion of commando operations by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and, perhaps most disturbingly, the creation of a permanent bureaucratic infrastructure to allow the president to assassinate at will:

“JSOC also has established a secret targeting center across the Potomac River from Washington, current and former U.S. officials said. The elite command’s targeting cells have traditionally been located near the front lines of its missions, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. But JSOC created a ‘national capital region’ task force that is a 15-minute commute from the White House so it could be more directly involved in deliberations about al-Qaeda lists.”

The creepiest aspect of this development is the christening of a new Orwellian euphemism for due-process-free presidential assassinations: “disposition matrix”. Writes Miller:

“Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the ‘disposition matrix’.

“The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. US officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the ‘disposition’ of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.”

The “disposition matrix” has been developed and will be overseen by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). One of its purposes is “to augment” the “separate but overlapping kill lists” maintained by the CIA and the Pentagon: to serve, in other words, as the centralized clearinghouse for determining who will be executed without due process based upon how one fits into the executive branch’s “matrix”. As Miller describes it, it is “a single, continually evolving database” which includes “biographies, locations, known associates and affiliated organizations” as well as “strategies for taking targets down, including extradition requests, capture operations and drone patrols”. This analytical system that determines people’s “disposition” will undoubtedly be kept completely secret; Marcy Wheeler sardonically said that she was “looking forward to the government’s arguments explaining why it won’t release the disposition matrix to ACLU under FOIA”.

This was all motivated by Obama’s refusal to arrest or detain terrorist suspects, and his resulting commitment simply to killing them at will (his will). Miller quotes “a former US counterterrorism official involved in developing the matrix” as explaining the impetus behind the program this way: “We had a disposition problem.”

The central role played by the NCTC in determining who should be killed – “It is the keeper of the criteria,” says one official to the Post – is, by itself, rather odious. As Kade Crockford of the ACLU of Massachusetts noted in response to this story, the ACLU has long warned that the real purpose of the NCTC – despite its nominal focus on terrorism – is the “massive, secretive data collection and mining of trillions of points of data about most people in the United States”.

In particular, the NCTC operates a gigantic data-mining operation, in which all sorts of information about innocent Americans is systematically monitored, stored, and analyzed. This includes “records from law enforcement investigations, health information, employment history, travel and student records” – “literally anything the government collects would be fair game”. In other words, the NCTC – now vested with the power to determine the proper “disposition” of terrorist suspects – is the same agency that is at the center of the ubiquitous, unaccountable surveillance state aimed at American citizens.

Worse still, as the ACLU’s legislative counsel Chris Calabrese documented back in July in a must-read analysis, Obama officials very recently abolished safeguards on how this information can be used. Whereas the agency, during the Bush years, was barred from storing non-terrorist-related information about innocent Americans for more than 180 days – a limit which “meant that NCTC was dissuaded from collecting large databases filled with information on innocent Americans” – it is now free to do so. Obama officials eliminated this constraint by authorizing the NCTC “to collect and ‘continually assess’ information on innocent Americans for up to five years”.

And, as usual, this agency engages in these incredibly powerful and invasive processes with virtually no democratic accountability:

“All of this is happening with very little oversight. Controls over the NCTC are mostly internal to the DNI’s office, and important oversight bodies such as Congress and the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board aren’t notified even of ‘significant’ failures to comply with the Guidelines. Fundamental legal protections are being sidestepped. For example, under the new guidelines, Privacy Act notices (legal requirements to describe how databases are used) must be completed by the agency that collected the information. This is in spite of the fact that those agencies have no idea what NCTC is actually doing with the information once it collects it.

“All of this amounts to a reboot of the Total Information Awareness Program that Americans rejected so vigorously right after 9/11.”

It doesn’t require any conspiracy theorizing to see what’s happening here. Indeed, it takes extreme naiveté, or wilful blindness, not to see it.

What has been created here – permanently institutionalized – is a highly secretive executive branch agency that simultaneously engages in two functions: (1) it collects and analyzes massive amounts of surveillance data about all Americans without any judicial review let alone search warrants, and (2) creates and implements a “matrix” that determines the “disposition” of suspects, up to and including execution, without a whiff of due process or oversight. It is simultaneously a surveillance state and a secretive, unaccountable judicial body that analyzes who you are and then decrees what should be done with you, how you should be “disposed” of, beyond the reach of any minimal accountability or transparency.

The Post’s Miller recognizes the watershed moment this represents: “The creation of the matrix and the institutionalization of kill/capture lists reflect a shift that is as psychological as it is strategic.” As he explains, extra-judicial assassination was once deemed so extremist that very extensive deliberations were required before Bill Clinton could target even Osama bin Laden for death by lobbing cruise missiles in East Africa. But:

Targeted killing is now so routine that the Obama administration has spent much of the past year codifying and streamlining the processes that sustain it.

To understand the Obama legacy, please re-read that sentence. As Murtaza Hussain put it when reacting to the Post story: “The US agonized over the targeted killing Bin Laden at Tarnak Farms in 1998; now it kills people it barely suspects of anything on a regular basis.”

The pragmatic inanity of the mentality driving this is self-evident: as I discussed yesterday (and many other times), continuous killing does not eliminate violence aimed at the US but rather guarantees its permanent expansion. As a result, wrote Miller, “officials said no clear end is in sight” when it comes to the war against “terrorists” because, said one official, “we can’t possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us” but trying is “a necessary part of what we do”. Of course, the more the US kills and kills and kills, the more people there are who “want to harm us”. That’s the logic that has resulted in a permanent war on terror.

But even more significant is the truly radical vision of government in which this is all grounded. The core guarantee of western justice since the Magna Carta was codified in the US by the fifth amendment to the constitution: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” You simply cannot have a free society, a worthwhile political system, without that guarantee, that constraint on the ultimate abusive state power, being honored.

And yet what the Post is describing, what we have had for years, is a system of government that – without hyperbole – is the very antithesis of that liberty. It is literally impossible to imagine a more violent repudiation of the basic blueprint of the republic than the development of a secretive, totally unaccountable executive branch agency that simultaneously collects information about all citizens and then applies a “disposition matrix” to determine what punishment should be meted out. This is classic political dystopia brought to reality (despite how compelled such a conclusion is by these indisputable facts, many Americans will view such a claim as an exaggeration, paranoia, or worse because of this psychological dynamic I described here which leads many good passive westerners to believe that true oppression, by definition, is something that happens only elsewhere).

In response to the Post story, Chris Hayes asked: “If you have a ‘kill list’, but the list keeps growing, are you succeeding?” The answer all depends upon what the objective is.

As the Founders all recognized, nothing vests elites with power – and profit – more than a state of war. That is why there were supposed to be substantial barriers to having them start and continue – the need for a Congressional declaration, the constitutional bar on funding the military for more than two years at a time, the prohibition on standing armies, etc. Here is how John Jay put it in Federalist No 4:

“It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.”

In sum, there are factions in many governments that crave a state of endless war because that is when power is least constrained and profit most abundant. What the Post is reporting is yet another significant step toward that state, and it is undoubtedly driven, at least on the part of some, by a self-interested desire to ensure the continuation of endless war and the powers and benefits it vests. So to answer Hayes’ question: the endless expansion of a kill list and the unaccountable, always-expanding powers needed to implement it does indeed represent a great success for many. Read what John Jay wrote in the above passage to see why that is, and why few, if any, political developments should be regarded as more pernicious.

Detention policies

Assuming the Post’s estimates are correct – that “among senior Obama administration officials, there is broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade” – this means that the war on terror will last for more than 20 years, far longer than any other American war. This is what has always made the rationale for indefinite detention – that it is permissible to detain people without due process until the “end of hostilities” – so warped in this context. Those who are advocating that are endorsing nothing less than life imprisonment – permanent incarceration – without any charges or opportunities to contest the accusations.

That people are now dying at Guantanamo after almost a decade in a cage with no charges highlights just how repressive that power is. Extend that mentality to secret, due-process-free assassinations – something the US government clearly intends to convert into a permanent fixture of American political life – and it is not difficult to see just how truly extremist and anti-democratic “war on terror” proponents in both political parties have become.

UPDATE

As I noted yesterday, Afghan officials reported that three Afghan children were killed on Saturday by NATO operations. Today, reports CNN, “missiles blew up part of a compound Wednesday in northwest Pakistan, killing three people – including one woman” and added: “the latest suspected U.S. drone strike also injured two children.” Meanwhile, former Obama press secretary and current campaign adviser Robert Gibbs this week justified the US killing of 16-year-old American Abdulrahaman Awlaki, killed by a US drone in Yemen two weeks after his father was, on the ground that he “should have a far more responsible father”.

Also yesterday, CNN profiled Abu Sufyan Said al-Shihri, alleged to be a top al-Qaida official in Yemen. He pointed out “that U.S. drone strikes are helping al-Qaida in Yemen because of the number of civilian deaths they cause.” Ample evidence supports his observation.

To summarize all this: the US does not interfere in the Muslim world and maintain an endless war on terror because of the terrorist threat. It has a terrorist threat because of its interference in the Muslim world and its endless war on terror.

UPDATE II

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko, writing today about the Post article, reports:

“Recently, I spoke to a military official with extensive and wide-ranging experience in the special operations world, and who has had direct exposure to the targeted killing program. To emphasize how easy targeted killings by special operations forces or drones has become, this official flicked his hand back over and over, stating: ‘It really is like swatting flies. We can do it forever easily and you feel nothing. But how often do you really think about killing a fly?'”

That is disturbingly consistent with prior reports that the military’s term for drone victims is “bug splat”. This – this warped power and the accompanying dehumanizing mindset – is what is being institutionalized as a permanent fixture in American political life by the current president.

UPDATE III

At Wired, Spencer Ackerman reacts to the Post article with an analysis entitled “President Romney Can Thank Obama for His Permanent Robotic Death List”. Here is his concluding paragraph:

“Obama did not run for president to preside over the codification of a global war fought in secret. But that’s his legacy. . . . Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations writes that Obama’s predecessors in the Bush administration ‘were actually much more conscious and thoughtful about the long-term implications of targeted killings’, because they feared the political consequences that might come when the U.S. embraces something at least superficially similar to assassination. Whoever follows Obama in the Oval Office can thank him for proving those consequences don’t meaningfully exist — as he or she reviews the backlog of names on the Disposition Matrix.”

It’s worth devoting a moment to letting that sink in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list

General: Refugees at Turkish Border a ‘Crisis’ That’s Getting Worse

Syrians fleeing civil war exceeds 100,000 as winter snow and cold approaches

A Syrian boy rides his bike in Karma Jabl district in Aleppo, Syria. With death lurking around every corner, the survival instincts of Aleppo’s population are being stretched to the limit every day.

A senior U.S. general warned Tuesday of a humanitarian crisis along the border of Syria and Turkey with refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria in record numbers and the steady approach of winter snows.

The number of refugees at the Syrian border attempting to escape the bloody fighting in their war-torn homeland is tens of thousands more than previous estimates, Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling told reporters at a breakfast meeting in Washington, exceeding the 100,000 limit Turkish officials said earlier in October that the country could withstand.

“It’s October. What [Turkey is] very concerned about is the approach of winter, and the way they can address the humanitarian crisis on the border,” Hertling says.

[GALLERY: Winter in Afghanistan]

The Turkish government has already spent nearly 400 million euros in relief efforts for the refugees.

This growing concern is further complicated by the NATO ally’s existing struggles against the outlawed Kurdish Workers Party, or PKK, in that same region, making it difficult to determine the scope of the refugee situation.

The commander of Turkish land forces Gen. Hayri Kıvrıkoglu said last week there are nearly 140,000 refugees on the Syria-Turkish border, according to Hertling, who commands U.S. Army troops in Europe. Previous estimates had that number at 100,000, up from only 10,000 at the end of August.

A Turkish embassy spokesperson confirmed 100,363 Syrian citizens are in 13 separate Turkish tent cities as of Oct. 15. There are five of the camps in Hatay, three in Gaziantep, two in Sanliurfa and one in Kahramanmaras, Osmaniye and Adiyaman.

View Turkish Refugee Camps in a larger map

The embassy declined to comment on any future planning for the camps or the potential threats posed by the impending winter or PKK fighting.

Since April 2011, more than 143,000 Syrians have crossed the border, according to an Oct. 15 release provided by the embassy, and almost 43,000 have returned to Syria.

[PHOTOS: Violence in Syria Escalates]

“All kind of humanitarian aid supplies have been provided by [Turkish aid organizations] in camps for more than a year,” the release states. “Sheltering, food, health, security, social activities, education, worship, translatorship, communication, banking and other services have been provided in tent cities and containers by related organizations and institutions within the coordination of our Presidency.”

The Turkish government has already supplied aid, tents and other humanitarian efforts to the refugees, Hertling adds, and are anticipating the onset of winter.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/23/general-refugees-at-turkish-border-a-crisis-thats-getting-worse

UN calls for boycott of US companies doing business in Israel

The Washington Free Beacon has obtained a report soon to be released by the United Nations that calls for an international campaign of legal attacks and economic warfare on a group of American companies that do business in Israel, including Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar Inc., and Motorola Solutions Inc.

The Human Rights Council (HRC), a body dominated by Islamic countries and known for its hostility to, and heavy focus on, the Jewish State, issued the report. The George W. Bush administration refused to participate in the HRC, but President Barack Obama joined it soon after taking office. Members of the HRC include infamous human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Libya, China, and Cuba.

The Obama-approved body maintains a “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories [sic].” The current rapporteur is American college professor Richard Falk, a 9/11 “truther” who once posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his personal blog.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman blasted the report and the HRC’s special rapporteur: “We believe you should have prevented the Secretariat from being a party to Mr. Falk’s anti-Israel agenda. Mr. Falk’s entire tenure as Special Rapporteur has served to undermine the credibility of the institution of the United Nations.”

The report attempts to instigate a campaign of boycott, divestment, sanctions, and legal action against a litany of international companies doing business in Israel. In addition to American companies, the U.N. targets include major European firms such as Veolia Environnement, Group 4 Security, the Dexia Group, the Volvo Group.

“The costs to companies and businesses of failing to respect international humanitarian law are considerable,” the report warns, “including damage to a company’s public image, impact on shareholder decisions and share price and could result in employees being criminally responsible for rights abuses.”

The report warns American employees of targeted companies that they face legal risks.

“Employees of companies can face investigation and prosecution for human rights violations committed irrespective of where the violation was committed.”

In addition to legal action against American employees of targeted companies, the Special Rapporteur “concludes that all companies that operate in or otherwise have dealings with Israeli settlements should be boycotted.” The companies should ”be prepared to accept any consequences—reputation, financial, or legal—of continuing operations.”

Should the companies continue doing business in Israel, the Human Rights Council “calls on civil society to actively pursue legal and political redress against non-complying business” and “to vigorously pursue initiatives to boycott, divest and sanction the businesses highlighted in this report” and “calls on the international community to consider requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice” to punish the businesses.

When the Obama administration joined the Human Rights Council in 2009, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pledged, “Working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.”

http://freebeacon.com/u-n-human-rights-council-calls-for-boycott-of-u-s-companies/

Ted Turner: I Think It’s “Good” U.S. Troops are Killing Themselves

During an appearance on Piers Morgan Tonight, Ted Turner said he thinks it’s “good” that U.S. soldiers are killing themselves because it shows humanity has evolved a distaste for war.

Some have argued that Turner is expressing his satisfaction at U.S. troops killing themselves because it indicates that humanity is starting to spiritually evolve an aversion to war.

However, Turner has repeatedly voiced his wish to see billions of people wiped off the planet via population reduction programs.

If you think Ted Turner wants to save people from dying by ending war, then why does he also advocate the elimination of 95 per cent of the world’s population as well as China’s brutal one child policy?

Colin Powell endorses Obama

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday endorsed President Barack Obama for reelection, arguing the president has improved the poor economy he inherited and sharply criticizing Mitt Romney’s foreign policy positions as a “moving target.”

“I voted for him in 2008, and I plan to stick with him in 2012,” Powell said of Obama on CBS’s “This Morning.” “I’ll be voting for he and for Vice President Joe Biden next month.”

(PHOTOS: Colin Powell over the years)

One of the most coveted endorsements remaining in the 2012 presidential race, Powell said Obama walked into a horrendous economic situation and has begun to turn it around.

“I think, generally, we’ve come out of the dive and we’re starting to gain altitude,” said Powell, who served as George W. Bush’s secretary of state. “It doesn’t mean all our problems are solved.”

While Powell, a Republican, said that he had the “utmost respect” for Romney, he charged that the former Massachusetts governor hasn’t outlined how he would pay for increased defense spending or for his proposed across-the-board tax cut.

(Also on POLITICO: Obama calls Colin Powell)

Powell had even harsher words for Romney’s foreign policy, questioning his changing stances on withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The governor who was speaking on Monday night at the debate was saying things that were quite different from what he said earlier,” Powell said.

“I’m not quite sure which Governor Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy,” he added. “I don’t sense he’s thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have. He gets advice from his campaign staff that he then has to modify as he goes along.”

(Also on POLITICO: 7 takeaways from final debate)

While in the Bush administration, Powell regularly clashed with neoconservatives, some of whom are now advising Romney. Powell said he has “trouble with” some of Romney’s “very strong neoconservative views.”

While Powell has endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate in back-to-back elections, he said he remains a Republican.

“I think I’m a Republican of more moderate mold and that’s something of a dying breed, I’m sorry to say,” Powell said. “But, you know, the Republicans I worked for are President Reagan, President Bush 41, the Howard Bakers of the world, people who were conservative, people who were willing to push their conservative views, but people who recognize that at the end of the day you got to find a basis for compromise. Compromise is how this country runs.”

Powell said he had a “very good conversation” with Romney a few weeks ago, and said he regularly speaks to Obama. Neither man directly asked Powell for an endorsement, and Powell said he didn’t alert either campaign before making his announcement Thursday.

The Government Wants Your Gold

In this clip from RT’s Capital Account, federal tax practitioner, David Selig, blows the whistle on the US government’s nascent efforts to sink its talons into the gold holdings of American citizens:

Mack: End U.S. Funding for United Nations

U.S. Sen. John McCain and U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV, who’s running for the Senate, arrive at a campaign office in South Tampa on Tuesday.

TAMPA –U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV, campaigning in Tampa with Sen. John McCain on Tuesday, advocated ending U.S. funding of the United Nations, saying the organization “should be kicked off of American soil.”

That’s a response to requests from groups including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union for international monitors to check for voter suppression during the coming election.

“The only people who are going to observe American elections are Americans,” Mack told an applauding crowd gathered at a local GOP campaign office where he appeared with McCain.

In a campaign announcement, Mack said the U.N. is “dedicated to diminishing America’s role in the world,” and the idea that it would monitor U.S. elections is “disgusting.”

“Every American should be outraged by this news,” said Mack, who is challenging incumbent Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in the election Nov. 6. “The United States must defund the United Nations. The United Nations should be kicked off of American soil once and for all.”

The elections monitors, however, aren’t coming from the U.N. but from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a separate organization whose members, including the U.S., routinely observe other members’ elections.

Mack’s view also appeared to put him at least indirectly in opposition to presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mack ally.

During his debate with President Barack Obama on Monday night, Romney referred to proposals of a U.N.-organized study group in outlining his approach to combating international terrorism.

Asked whether he was disagreeing with Romney, Mack told reporters in a brief news conference after their appearance Tuesday that Romney “was saying he was going to take advantage of any and all opportunities he has.”

McCain partly demurred on the issue.

He referred to the “complete failure” of attempts by top UN officials to halt the civil war in Syria, and the pretense that dictatorial regimes could monitor human rights.

“I think there are some things the U.N. does well, humanitarian relief, refugees,” he said. “But overall, I may not be in total agreement with Connie as to doing away with the entire U.N.” In return for the U.S. contribution to the organization, though, “the taxpayers deserve one heck of a lot better,” he said.

Asked why Mack attacked the U.N. instead of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, campaign spokesman David James declined to clarify, saying, “He stated his reasons” at the news conference. Asked whether Mack also wants to defund OSCE, he didn’t respond.

According to its website, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which sometimes partners with the U.N., is an organization of 56 member nations in Europe and Central Asia focused on human rights and security. It originated in the 1970s during the Cold War.

It says its members observed U.S. elections in 2004, 2008 and 2010 and were invited by the U.S. State Department to do so again.

Democrats and others have alleged that laws passed in Florida and other states recently are aimed at “voter suppression,” or cutting turnout of minority, young and poor voters.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/oct/24/memeto2-mack-end-us-funding-for-united-nations-ar-542343/

National Guard Whistleblower: “Doomsday Preppers Will Be Treated As Terrorists”

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 and informed he was on the no-fly list, an FBI terrorist watchlist, stranding him in Hawaii. Other preppers 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.

Army Told Preppers Are Terrorists

http://www.infowars.com/national-guard-whistleblower-doomsday-preppers-will-be-treated-as-terrorists/

Texas attorney general threatens to arrest international election monitors

The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, has threatened to arrest international election monitors invited by liberal groups to observe the conduct of next month’s presidential vote in states accused of attempting to disenfranchise minorities.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott

Abbott has written to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe warning that its monitors have no right to monitor the vote even though they have observed previous US elections.

“The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offence for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance,” he said. “Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.”

The OSCE is sending 44 observers to voting stations across the US at the request of various groups, including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, because of “an unprecedented and sophisticated level of coordination to restrict voting rights in our nation”. These include attempts by several states, including Texas, to introduce voter identification laws and other measures blocked by federal courts which have ruled they were motivated by racial discrimination.

In his letter, Abbott glossed over the recent judgements striking down the Texas identification law and pointed to a supreme court ruling in a case involving another state.

“The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the supreme court has already determined that voter ID laws are constitutional,” Abbott said.

The US routinely sends poll watchers to elections in foreign countries, particularly those where there are concerns about the fairness of the vote. In television interviews, Abbott denounced the OSCE as an interfering foreign body even though the US is a founding member and it was invited by President George Bush’s administration to monitor the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in the US.

“If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections,” Abbott wrote. “However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This state has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons – including persons connected with OSCE – are required to comply with these laws.”

The OSCE responded later on Wednesday in a letter to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, calling Abbott’s threat “unacceptable” and noting that the organisation’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has an agreement with the US permitting it to monitor elections.

“The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections,” it said. “The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable.”

A Florida congressman running for the Senate, Connie Mack, also waded into the debate, saying that reports the United Nations wants to send election monitors was an outrage. The OSCE was founded under the UN charter.

“The very idea that the United Nations – the world body dedicated to diminishing America’s role in the world – would be allowed, if not encouraged, to install foreigners sympathetic to the likes of Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin to oversee our elections is nothing short of disgusting,” he told the Orlando Sentinal.

“The United Nations should be kicked off of American soil once and for all. And the American people should demand that the United Nations be stopped from ‘monitoring’ American elections. The only ones who should ever oversee American elections are Americans.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/24/texas-attorney-general-threatens-to-arrest-international-election-monitors/

Damascus agrees to 4-day Eid ceasefire across Syria, starting Friday

A unit of the Syrian armed forces carry out a military operation in the Khan al-Raslan neighbourhood of Syria’s northern city of Aleppo (AFP Photo / STR)

Damascus announced it has agreed to a four-day ceasefire across Syria for the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha, the ‘Feast of Sacrifice.’ The truce will begin on Friday.

“We hope that they both realize the importance of a pause in the fighting… in the symbolic quieting, the silence of the guns,” UN deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson said after a closed-door meeting of the 15-nation Security Council.

Eliasson confirmed that the temporary truce could “create a political environment, where political talks are possible.”

The ceasefire came after UN-Arab League peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi visited Syria earlier this week, and is one of the first real breakthroughs in halting violence in the war-torn country so far.

Brahimi proposed that both sides lay down their arms for the Islamic holiday celebrated by most of the world’s Muslims, which begins on Friday.

Syrian army command agreed to suspend military operations, but insisted on the right to retaliate against any rebel attacks.

During this period, it said, it would also respond to attempts to smuggle in arms from neighboring countries, and against any rebel group attempting to reinforce. The army also said it would prevent “terrorists” from crossing its borders.

The Free Syrian Army commander responded that the rebels would commit to the truce, on the condition that prisoners be released on Friday.

A spokesperson for the Islamist group Ansar al-Islam said that their fighters would not commit to the ceasefire, and expressed doubts that the Syrian Army would honor it.

http://rt.com/news/syria-ceasefire-eid-holiday-239/

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT actually a lending operation.  IT IS A FIAT PRINTING PRESS.  It is an illegal monopoly on the power to counterfeit fiat paper, as U.S.dollars”.  That’s right, I said COUNTERFEIT.  It is an unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, monopoly on the power to counterfeit “money” into existence, in its own hands of course.  A power that has of course, been unconstitutionally granted to the bank’s owners by the morons (and traitors) in Congress.  The reason why this is all true is because the bank DOES NOT POSSESS THE MONEY THAT IT LENDS, BUT SIMPLY COUNTERFEITS IT OUT OF THIN AIR. Tell me, how do you lend to others, that which you do not actually possess yourself to lend?  Can you lend money that you do not possess to someone who asks for a loan, or for help?  HOW DOES THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK DO IT?  (By illegal monopoly?)  You don’t really think they actually have ten trillion dollars to lend to the U.S. government, do you?  So how is it possible?  ONLY BY FRAUD AND THEFT.

Also, the Federal Reserve Bank is NOT EVEN actually part of the Federal government.  It is no more Federal than Federal Express, or Federated Department Stores.  It is a private corporation with a legislated monopoly on currency and credit that is allowed to BUY its paper currency for nothing more than the cost of the paper, ink, and labor, from the Bureau of Printing & Engraving (U.S. Treasury).  Originally this added up to about 2.3 cents per note, or $230 of cost to buy one million dollars (10,000 100 dollar bills).  Today the cost is apparently still about the same.

Because of the existence of the Federal Reserve bank and fractional reserve banking system, America is now without any permanent money supply AT ALL, and all of the paper (notes) that we now have and use as money (in place of real money) have been borrowed into existence from this monopoly.  Unfortunately, the “money” to pay the interest on this borrowing has never been created within the system. So the national debts under this system are now inextinguishable.

Also, just as the income tax is the 2nd plank, the Federal Reserve bank is the Fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto.

 

The Federal Reserve bank has never paid a dime in income tax and has never been audited, and a percentage of this private bank is owned (or controlled) by foreigners (or their corporate shells)!!

Can you buy your money for $230 per million ?

Whatever happened to equal opportunity ?  Why are only the Federal Reserve Bankers allowed to buy money?  Does this monopoly make them rich?

“The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, locally controlled corporations”
[Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F.2d 1239, 1241](1982)

“As we have advised, the Federal Reserve is currently paying the Bureau approximately $23 for each 1,000 notes printed. This does include the cost of printing, paper, ink, labor, etc. Therefore, 10,000 notes of any denomination, including the $100 note would cost the Federal Reserve $230. In addition, the Federal Reserve must secure a pledge of collateral equal to the face value of the notes.”
– William H. Ferkler (Manager Public Affairs, Dept. of Treasury, Bureau of Engraving & Printing, Wash. D.C.

“It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
– Henry Ford, Founder of the Ford Motor Co.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency…the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson  (Ed. – Does this sound familiar ?)

 

Why are private unelected individuals controlling the American currency system ?  Virtually running the entire country, the stock market, the banks, the lending rates, nearly everything ?  Where is any of this in the Constitution?

Do you really believe they are representing We the People with their policies?

If you do, you aren’t thinking clearly!

“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.” – John Adams

Wouldn’t you like to buy your currency for $230 per million (and have the American People guarantee its full face value, with their own assets)? Well, we won’t do that for Citizens but we do it for a select group of private and foreign bankers.  And then we let them fractionalize the reserves to issue even more fiat money in the form of unbacked credit.  What, you mean your government didn’t teach you about this little arrangement in their propaganda centers (public schools). Can you guess why?

Why is a private corporation cashing your income tax check instead of the Treasury?  The money doesn’t even go to the Federal government?  That’s right, not one penny actually goes into the Treasury! It all goes straight to the Federal Reserve bank to service the debts owed to them because of this monopoly on borrowing money into existence that they use to control the money supply.  These very rich banksters are illegally and unconstitutionally attempting to usurp control and rule over America, its People and their wealth, by unlawfully controlling and manipulating our currency through their ownership of this bank, and using that power to manipulate the national policies of our government and nation !

Because of the existence of this unconstitutional bank (Federal Reserve Bank) and its fractional reserve banking system, every penny of our money supply has been borrowed into existence from this bank and its monopoly on “money” (currency and credit), which includes the sole power to issue money without backing – essentially from nothing but air.

Therefore, when the debt is repaid OUR MONEY DISAPPEARS FROM CIRCULATION, unless the bank re-lends the money BACK out into circulation.  Therefore, when ALL the debts are paid off, America will have no “money” left in circulation and will be bankrupt, or will be completely beholden to the banks for more money.  So it is not only impossible to pay off the debts, because while the principal is printed into existence the money necessary to pay the interest never is created, it is not desirable under the current so-called “money” system, because it will bankrupt the nation.  The so-called “money” system is really nothing more than a sophisticated peonage scam that keeps We the People servicing the debts of the bankers forever in order to have “money” to “use” (rent), that they are allowed to create out of thin air as their private property to lend.  What a scam. But sorry, its not available to you.

Because of this hellish system, AMERICA IS ABSOLUTELY NOW WITHOUT A PERMANENT MONEY SUPPLY (like we used to have in gold and silver coin that never disappeared from the accounting books), and the American People are forever chained and enslaved to the repayment of debts for the loans from the banks of “property” that never existed (in the bank’s name) to be borrowed in the first place!  A monopoly on the power to create “money”. WOW – where is that in the ConstitutionIsn’t that actually prohibited ?

WITHOUT A PERMANENT MONEY SUPPLY IN EXISTENCE, THE ENTIRE NATION IS BEHOLDEN TO THE BANKERS FOR ITS VIABILITY AND SOLVENCY.  AS Thomas Jefferson said: “The issuing power must be taken from the banks and returned to the People where it rightfully belongs”

SOON, because of this so-called banking system (that is really not a banking system at all, but a sophisticated system of peonage (debt service)) ALL OF OUR NATIONAL POLICIES WILL BE DIRECTED BY THE BANKERS, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.  SOME FEEL THAT THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN HAPPENING FOR A WHILE, AND THAT THE CURRENT EVENTS ON CAPITAL HILL CONFIRM DAILY THAT THIS IS NOW UNDENIABLY TRUE !

Do you know what peonage is?  Do you feel like a peon?

You should, because that is the role your government has relegated you to.

The servicing of the debt.

If you are not able to understand what is written above, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATON ARTICLES BELOW UNTIL YOU GET IT !

“AS GOES THE FATE OF THE CURRENCY,
SO GOES THE FATE OF THE NATION !”

 

AND RIGHT NOW,

THEY ARE RUNNING IT OUT !

http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta24000.htm

Hungarian demonstrators burn Israeli flag in Budapest

Members of Hungary’s Jobbik ultra-nationalist party have burned an Israeli flag in front of a major synagogue in the capital Budapest, calling on the government to cut diplomatic and economic ties with the Tel Aviv regime.

File photo shows an Israeli flag being burned.

 

The protesters gathered outside the Dohany Street Synagogue, which is regarded as the largest synagogue in Europe, on Tuesday, when the country marked the 56th anniversary of the anti-Communist revolution in 1956.

Jobbik leader Gabor Vona denounced Hungary’s cooperation with the Israeli regime and said any “agreement between Hungary and Israel should be canceled.”

Meanwhile, Israeli Ambassador to Budapest Ilan Mor appeared on a TV program later in the day, condemning the anti-Israel demonstration in Budapest.

Jobbik holds 47 parliamentary seats and has been against Israeli investment in Hungary. It also considers Israeli business as threatening for the country.

In an interview in February, the party’s foreign affairs spokesman, Marton Gyongyosi, condemned policies of the Tel Aviv regime toward Palestinians.

Gyongyosi stated that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians amounted to a “Nazi system.”

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/25/268630/israel-flag-burned-in-hungary-capital/

Top 10 Survival Downloads You Should Have Copy & Keep For Reference

There are tons of good downloads in the Survival Database Download section of this website. For this article – I have selected 10 that everyone should have either printed and put away, or placed on a USB drive – or better yet both.

#10. FM 4-25-11 First Aid (2002)Military First Aid Manual.First aid information is a must – get training before you need it – use this manual for reference.

#9. Guide to Canning– Being able to preserve crops to be able to provide for yourself and your family long after the growing season is over is important. This guide will help with that.
#8. Rangers Handbook (2006) – Crammed with info on demolitions, booby traps, communications, patrolling, tactical movement, battle drills, combat intelligence and much more
#7. Where There is No Dentist– The author uses straightforward language and careful instructions to explain how to: examine patients; diagnose common dental problems; make and use dental equipment; use local anesthetics; place fillings; and remove teeth.
#6. NATO Emergency War Surgery– While this is certainly not a manual that would stand alone in most persons emergency/disaster library, it is an absolutely necessary resource if you expect to handle any type of trauma where immediate comprehensive medical care is not available.
#5. A Guide to Raised Bed Gardening– This is not an “all knowing” gardening book – however it provides a lot of information to the “urban gardener” before or after TSHTF. Best to get the experience and knowledge of gardening NOW rather than later.
#4. FM 3-06 Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain – Combat techniques covered in the manual which may be very valuable in a “Roadwarrior”-type world.
#3. 1881 Household Cyclopedia – A massive resource of information that much of it has been lost over the past 203 generations. From Angling to Knitting – its here.
#2. FM 21-76-1 Survival-Evasion-Recovery (1999) – Excellent manual geared towards the soldier that finds himself behind enemy lines
#1. FM 21-76 US Army Survival Manual – From Amazon.com: This manual has been written to help you acquire survival skills. It tells you how to travel, find water and food, shelter yourself from the weather and care for yourself if you become sick or injured. This information is first treated generally and then applied specifically to such special areas as the Arctic, the desert, the jungle and the ocean.1970 Military Issue Manual. General Introduction and Individual and Group Survival Orientation Navigation, Finding Water In All Parts of The Globe. How To Obtain Food, Start a Fire and much more!

U.S. Sues Bank of America for $1 Billion for Mortgage Fraud

NEW YORK (AP) – The top federal prosecutor in Manhattan sued Bank of America (BAC) for more than $1 billion on Wednesday for mortgage fraud against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the years around the financial crisis.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Countrywide Financial, which was later bought by Bank of America, churned out mortgage loans from 2007 to 2009 without making sure that borrowers could afford them.

“The fraudulent conduct alleged in today’s complaint was spectacularly brazen in scope,” Bharara said in a statement. He said the suit was partly to recover money that Fannie and Freddie lost from defaulted loans.

Bank of America had no immediate comment.

Countrywide sold the loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were left to pay for the loans when they defaulted, according to the lawsuit. Fannie and Freddie were effectively nationalized in 2008.

According to the lawsuit, Countrywide used a process called “the Hustle,” shorthand for “High-Speed Swim Lane.” The idea was that mortgage loans, as they were being processed, would “move forward, never backward.”

The lawsuit alleged that Countrywide traded quantity for quality and eliminated underwriters, even from mortgage loans for which borrowers did not have to get their income verified.

Instead, loan processors simply entered data into an automated underwriting system, and if the system gave the go-ahead, “no underwriter would ever see the loan,” the lawsuit alleged.

With few checks and balances, there was “widespread falsification” of the data entered into the program, Bharara charged.

Loan processors were given little guidance, the suit said: Checklists for making sure that loans were compliant – for example, assessing whether the income level that a borrower listed was reasonable – were eliminated. Bonuses were based solely on how many loans an employee could process, not the quality.

The lawsuit said that Countrywide executives were aware of the dangerous path they were treading. For example, a quality review in January 2008 showed that 57 percent of Hustle loans went into default.

Instead of notifying Fannie and Freddie, Countrywide instead set about to conceal the quality of the loans it was selling them, the suit said. It said Countrywide even offered a bonus to quality-control workers who could “rebut” the default rates that the review had found.

The lawsuit didn’t give specifics, but it accused Countrywide, and later Bank of America, of selling “thousands” of Hustle loans to Fannie and Freddie. Bank of America bought Countrywide in July 2008.

Fannie and Freddie buy mortgage loans from banks, package them into securities and sell them to investors. The idea is to free up banks to make more loans. If a loan defaults, Fannie and Freddie guarantee payments to the investors.

According to the lawsuit, Fannie and Freddie don’t review the loans before they purchase them. Instead, they rely on banks’ statements that the loans meet certain qualifications.

Bharara said the lawsuit was the first civil fraud suit brought by the Justice Department concerning loans that were later sold to Fannie and Freddie.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/24/u-s-sues-bank-of-america-for-1-billion-for-mortgage-fraud/?ncid=webmail6

Jim Moran’s (D-Va.) Field Director Conspires to Commit Voter Fraud,

JOIN US AT http://WWW.ENDVOTERFRAUDNOW.COM

“Effective immediately, I have resigned from the Moran for Congress campaign,” Patrick Moran said in a statement to TPM sent from his campaign email address. http://bitly.com/QYwF22

Watch our Project Veritas reporter being educated on how to properly commit massive voter fraud by the son of a sitting US Congressman. Patrick Moran, son of Congressman James Moran, discusses forging utility bills and impersonating pollsters, all for the goal of circumventing voter ID laws in Virginia and casting ballots for unsuspecting inactive voters within the state for Barack Obama. Patrick Moran holds the salaried title of Field Director for his father’s congressional campaign, and assures our reporter that “committee” lawyers will defend his fraud if the forged documents “look good”.

Obama Closer to Seizing Control of Cyberspace; Exec. Order Imminent

According to a copy of a draft executive order on cybersecurity obtained by the Associated Press (AP), President Obama will soon 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.

Promises of the White House’s imminent issuing of the edict have been coming for months. The AP reports that regardless of the latest leak, “the White House declined to say when the president will sign the order.”

On September 19, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the executive order granting the president sweeping power over the Internet is “close to completion.”

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Napolitano said that the order is still “being drafted” and vetted by various high-level bureaucrats. But she also indicated that it would be issued as soon as a “few issues” were resolved. Assuming control of the nation’s Internet infrastructure is a DHS responsibility, Napolitano added.

“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 order the AP has read. 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 new draft, which is not dated, retains a section that requires Homeland Security to identify the vital systems that, if hit by cyberattack, could “reasonably result in a debilitating impact” on national and economic security. Other sections establish a program to encourage companies to adopt voluntary security standards and direct federal agencies to determine whether existing cyber security regulations are adequate.

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 — in the name of national security, of course.

Corporate employees will be authorized to snoop, as well. Per the AP’s reading of the draft executive order, “selected employees at critical infrastructure companies would receive security clearances allowing them to receive the information.

As for those companies considered less critical to our national cybersecurity, “the government would ask businesses to tell the government about cyberthreats or cyberattacks. There would be no requirement to do so.”

Given the history of 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 mandate private cooperation with the federal government.

Although the president and officials in his administration portray the attack as imminent, Congress isn’t persuaded, and on several occasions lawmakers have rejected measures calling for greater government control over the Internet and the communications infrastructure.

The president claims that this legislative lassitude is forcing him to bypass the Constitution and act alone to protect the country from cyberattacks. Once Barack Obama signs his name to this edict and assuming compliance with its mandates changes from voluntary to involuntary, he will possess powers only dreamed about by the most ambitious dictators of history.

“In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed. Moving forward, the President is determined to do absolutely everything we can to better protect our nation against today’s cyber threats and we will do that,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in an email reported by The Hill.

The demise of the bill in the Senate was not unforeseen. As The New American reported in July:

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 has been the subject of some criticism as privacy advocates feared that the bill would pose too many threats to the constitutional rights of the American people.

Likewise, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and IBM sent out letters to show their opposition for the original bill, asserting that it would overwhelm the industry with regulations.

In response to the criticism, Senator Lieberman reformed the original bill.

For example, the updated version of the bill reflects changes to the provision to assign the Department of Homeland Security the role of creating mandatory cybersecurity standards for infrastructure industries.

The newer version of the bill does not include language for “mandatory, regulatory sections,” but still requires a creation of industry best practice standards for the purposes of protecting critical infrastructure, but rather than making the adoption of those standards mandatory, the owners of the critical infrastructure adopt “voluntary” standards. The bill offers incentives to adopt those standards, such as liability protection, and access to threat information.

Some contend that the revisions are not ideal, however, as it gives the government the power to deny threat information to critical infrastructure owners who choose not to comply with the voluntary standards. Likewise, the incentives are too insignificant to fully incentivize any company to adopt the standards.

Since the beginning of his administration, President Obama has made cybersecurity a central plank in his presidential platform. As The New American reported in 2009:

The president pointed out that shortly after taking office he directed the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council to thoroughly review the federal government’s efforts “to defend our information and communications infrastructure” and to recommend improvements. He mentioned that National Security Council Acting Senior Director for Cyberspace Melissa Hathaway led the review team, and that the 60-day review included input from industry, academia, civil liberty and privacy advocates, every level and branch of government, Congress, and other advisers — even input from “international partners.”

To that end, the White House proposed legislation in 2011 and has ordered one after the other administration official to testify at no fewer than 17 congressional hearings on the subject.

In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece penned by the president, he did his best to instill in the American people fear of the consequences we would suffer should someone launch a successful cyberattack on the critical infrastructure networks of our nation.

The AP reports that the version of the order it obtained was undated and that Obama administration spokesmen refused to disclose when President Obama would issue the order.

National Security Council spokesman Caitlin Hayden was quoted parroting the president’s party line on the urgent need for action, however: “Given the gravity of the threats we face in cyberspace, we want to get this right in addition to getting it done swiftly,” Hayden told the AP.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13334-obama-closer-to-seizing-control-of-cyberspace-exec-order-imminent

Robust Political Economy: Classical Liberalism and the Future of Public Policy

In Robust Political Economy, Mark Pennington offers one of the best cases for classical liberalism ever presented in a single volume.  I do not exaggerate.  Pennington—professor of political economy at King’s College, University of London—here surveys fully and summarizes fairly the major objections to classical liberalism (or, if you prefer, libertarianism).  He systematically demonstrates that each of those objections fails.  The alternative social arrangements, plans, and schemes offered by opponents of classical liberalism all fall well short of dealing adequately with two eternal problems that must be dealt with if people are to enjoy peace and prosperity: the knowledge problem and the incentive problem.

Because people operating within social institutions that conform to classical-liberal tenets deal best with these two enduring problems, such institutions are more robust than their alternatives.  Pennington painstakingly shows that the further institutions are from those recommended by classical liberalism, the more their success requires that individuals perform superhuman feats of accumulating and processing information while exhibiting implausible readiness to sacrifice their personal self-interests for (what they imagine to be) the greater good.

Pennington is hardly the first scholar to identify these two problems and to explain their relevance.  The knowledge problem is most famously associated with the work of F. A. Hayek (or, more generally, Austrian economists) and the incentive problem with the work of James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock (or, more generally, Public Choice economists).  But in applying so comprehensively and powerfully the lessons drawn from a recognition of these two problems, Pennington gives us a volume that might justly be described as The Constitution of Liberty for our day.

I am aware that this praise is unusually high.  And while significant differences in both style and substance do indeed separate Pennington’s 2011 book from Hayek’s 1960 classic, the similarities are enough to justify the comparison and the praise.

As with Hayek’s work, central to Pennington’s book is a deep understanding of the knowledge problem.  This of course involves understanding that the relative values of alternative outputs that can be produced with the same set of inputs can be determined only in competitive, private-property-based markets.  But this understanding involves more; it also involves the realization that such knowledge is never and can never be “given” (as is assumed in economics textbooks).  That is, this knowledge is not simply revealed by decentralized, competitive decision-making; it is also produced by that process.

No consumer comes to market with a detailed, full, and fixed scale of values that he seeks to satisfy.  That scale takes shape only as consumers confront actual alternative opportunities in the market.  Likewise, no producer comes to market with detailed, full, and fixed plans on exactly what to produce, how to produce it, and how much of it to produce.  Those plans take operational shape, and are modified, in light of actual experience in the market—a market whose details are always changing in unanticipated ways for both consumers and producers.

The knowledge problem, though, has yet another dimension beyond the economic.  It springs from the fact that different people have different scales of ethical and political values.  Pennington shines especially brightly in showing how various proposed alternatives to a classical-liberal society are bound to fail—or at least to encounter unexpectedly rough seas—because the success of those alternative social arrangements requires far more agreement than is likely to be found on the relative weights of different ethical and political values.  Egalitarians of various stripes, “market-failure” theorists of various pedigrees, and environmentalists of various shades of green all typically base their social-engineering schemes not only on a presumed agreement on ends that is unlikely to exist, but also on the simplistic assumption that knowledge of the rankings of various ends is easily gathered and made known to government officials.

Speaking of government officials, Pennington goes well beyond repeating the fact that the incentives facing political decision-makers frequently prompt them to act in ways contrary to the best interest of society at large.  He carefully details how the many egalitarian, market-failure, and green challenges to classical liberalism overlook—each in its own uniquely careless way—the perverse incentives that their implementation would create for officials charged with intervening in market arrangements.

Pennington’s survey of the most notable challenges to classical liberalism is a tour de force of scholarship.  And his crystal-clear, fair, yet firm demonstration of the serious flaws that infect each of these challenges is not to be missed.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/robust-political-economy-classical-liberalism-and-the-future-of-public-policy/

General Motors is becoming China Motors

General Motors is becoming China Motors. Forget the spin. The evidence is clear and convincing. Did U.S. taxpayers save GM for China? Listen to the candid comments of GM’s CEO.

Real ID Act deadline approaching, passports may be required to travel anywhere for LA residents

If you’re a frequent-flier, come January all Louisiana residents could be required to have a passport when boarding a plane, no matter the destination. It all has to do with a federal law, called the Real ID Act. It was signed into law back in 2005 in the wake of the September 11th terror attacks. It requires states to have enhanced driver’s licenses and state ID’s to boost security at airports. Louisiana has been able to get around the law since 2005, but that might be coming to an end.

There’s now a new deadline for states to comply, and it’s coming up very soon on January 15th. Louisiana is one of a handful of states, which currently does not meet the requirements of the Real ID Act. The state’s been able to get around it thanks to a law signed in 2008 by Governor Bobby Jindal. But now, the state may be forced to comply with the new deadline. As it stands right now, come January 15th, Louisiana residents would be required to have a passport, should they want to fly, even for domestic travel.

“It is a multi-million dollar change, revision to our system to do that,” said DMV Commissioner Stephen Campbell. “That system won’t be fully operational until October 2013. So with the progress that we’ve made, the things we’re doing and will have done later on next year, we’re hopeful that Homeland Security will continue to allow the Louisiana document to satisfy those requirements.”

So, if Homeland Security decides to stick to their deadline, the big question is, how will this affect the travel industry in Louisiana?

“People have to travel for business, and pleasure, but certainly if people find out on January 14th that they can’t use their driver’s license, and have not prepared by getting another ID, that’s going to create a problem,” said Robbie Bush, owner of Associated Travel Group.

The Department of Homeland Security issued this statement:

“As of January 15, 2013, if presented with a state-issued driver’s license or identification card, federal agencies can only accept driver’s licenses or identification cards for official purposes from states that have been found by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be in compliance with the minimum standards established by REAL ID. Official purposes, as defined in statute and regulation, are accessing a Federal facility, boarding federally-regulated commercial aircraft, and entering nuclear power plants.

DHS strongly encourages states to submit information certifying their progress or as much information as possible to aid DHS in making a determination about compliance. Based on that submission, DHS retains authority to provide extensions on a case-by-case basis if circumstances warrant.”

We reached out to Governor Jindal’s office, who did not return our repeated phone calls.

/0/” target=”_blank”>http://www.katc.com/news/real-id-act-deadline-approaching-passports-may-be-required-to-travel-anywhere-for-la-residents/#!prettyPhoto

/0/

ADHD Drugs Prescribed to Poor Children to ‘Help’ in School

By Dr. Mercola

Medicating children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a double-edged sword, not only because of the steep health risks posed by the medications themselves, but also because many kids labeled with “ADHD” actually do not have ADHD at all.

Diagnosing ADHD really comes down to a matter of opinion, as there is no physical test, like a brain scan, that can pinpoint the condition.

There’s only subjective evaluation, based on signs nearly every child will display at some point (fidgeting, easily distracted, difficulty waiting his or her turn, and so on).

But a recent report from the New York Times highlights an equally concerning, if not more so, practice that is endangering some low-income families: pediatricians using the ADHD diagnosis as “an excuse” to prescribe powerful drugs like Adderall to kids simply because they are struggling in school.

Mind-Altering Drugs to Boost Elementary School Grades?

One pediatrician told the New York Times that because society has decided not to modify a child’s school environment to promote better learning, there is no choice left but to “modify the kid,” which is done by prescribing drugs.

Adderall, which contains amphetamine (aka “speed”) and dextroamphetamine, is a stimulant drug that is often prescribed to improve attention and focus and reduce impulsiveness and hyperactivity in patients with ADHD.

Because of its stimulant properties, it’s become a black-market drug of choice for college kids looking to pull all-nighters to boost their grades. An estimated one in 10 college students abuse Adderall as a way to gain a competitive edge in their studies, often comparing it to athletes who use steroids.1 But the pills have a dark side, often quickly leading to addiction and causing other side effects like mood swings, insomnia, depression and panic attacks.

College students who use Adderall as a “study drug” is a large enough problem on its own, but for pediatricians to prescribe these drugs to children for the same purpose is shocking, and dangerous. Even more alarming is that one particular physician interviewed by the New York Times said he views the drugs as a tool for “evening the scales a little bit,” to give poor children a leg up in their schooling…

Prescriptions for Adderall on the Rise

The use of psychotropic drugs in children has been on a steep upward trend for decades. Writing in the Huffington Post, Lawrence Diller, MD said:2

Given the current CDC data, one can safely estimate (based on previously detailed distribution curves) that one of six 11-year-old white boys with medical insurance currently take a stimulant drug at least during the school week… we are the only society currently managing our under performing/misbehaving children with drugs to this degree.”

Many of the children prescribed ADHD drugs do not have ADHD at all. One study determined that about 20 percent of children have likely been misdiagnosed.3 That’s nearly 1 million children in the United States alone.

The study found that many of the youngest children in any given grade level are perceived as exhibiting “symptoms” of ADHD, such as fidgeting and inability to concentrate, simply because they’re younger and being compared to their older, more mature classmates. In fact, the youngest students were 60 percent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than the oldest in the same grade. And when you take into account the maturity level, and in large part normal behavior of a 6- versus a 7-year old, you can easily see why.

Even if they did have ADHD, there are many superior alternatives for treatment than mind-altering drugs (which I’ll get to shortly).

But it is especially appalling when a physician openly admits that the ADHD diagnosis is simply a ruse to give kids drugs for the purpose of boosting their academic performance. In some cases, three and four children from the same family are all put on the medications, usually along with a prescribed sleep aid, as the pills often cause insomnia – as well as a long list of other serious side effects.

The Downward Spiral of Psychotropic Drug Use

Drugs like Adderall are powerful, mind-altering medications linked to growth suppression, increased blood pressure and psychotic episodes. In children, the impacts of their long-term use are completely unknown, although given the drug’s addictive nature, it’s quite possible these kids could become life-long addicts.

The New York Times featured the case of one family whose four children (ranging in age from 9 to 12) were prescribed either Adderall or Risperdal (an antipsychotic drug) along with sleep aids. After taking Adderall for years, one of the boys began seeing people and hearing voices that weren’t there – a known side effect of the drug. He became suicidal and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where he was then taken off Adderall and put onto Risperdal – another mind-altering drug with serious side effects.

Despite the child’s psychotic reaction, the parents continued to use the drugs in their other children, even though they acknowledged some of them did not have ADHD and were using Adderall “merely to help their grades.” Perhaps they are not aware, as many aren’t, that Adderall can cause potentially life-threatening side effects – the risks of which simply can’t be justified when used only to boost grades. Among them:4

Aggressive behavior or hostility Bipolar illness Worse behavior or thought problems
Psychotic symptoms (hearing voices, believing things that are not true) or manic symptoms Sudden death in patients who have heart problems or heart defects Stroke or heart attack
Increased blood pressure and heart rate Seizures and eyesight changes Slowing of growth in children

Does Adderall Steal Your Ability to Enjoy Life?

Many who start taking Adderall in high school or college as a way to boost their success find it does help them to excel in school and, later, in the job market. But the easy path to success comes at a price…

Former addicts explain the feeling that the drug took over their lives, allowing them to work and concentrate with a robot-like efficiency, but causing them to ignore the physical, emotional and social aspects of life, as well as their former creative passions.5 If they’re lucky, those affected are able to break free from Adderall’s spell – a process one former addict described as a “horrible, horrible process”6 – but what becomes of the child who started Adderall at the age of 8 or 9, during some of his or her key formative years?

Do these children grow up never knowing who they really are? What passions they may have had if not under the drug’s influence? And will they be able to quit when they are older, or will they be turned into life-long addicts? The answers to these questions are unknown.

Dr. William Graf, a pediatrician and child neurologist, told the New York Times he’s concerned the rising use of stimulant drugs may impact “the authenticity of development:”

“These children are still in the developmental phase, and we still don’t know how these drugs biologically affect the developing brain. There’s an obligation for parents, doctors and teachers to respect the authenticity issue, and I’m not sure that’s always happening.”

If You Have a “Hyper” Child You Want to Help Excel at School…

Before resorting to drugs, please understand that behavioral problems in children – including what might appear to be serious mental disorders – are very frequently related to improper diet, emotional upset and exposure to toxins.

Increasingly, scientific evidence shows that nourishing your gut flora with the beneficial bacteria found in traditionally fermented foods (or a probiotic supplement) is extremely important for proper brain function, and that includes psychological well-being and mood control. Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride has successfully demonstrated the power and effectiveness of this theory. In her Cambridge, England clinic, she treats children and adults with a range of conditions, including autism, ADD/ADHD, neurological disorders, psychiatric disorders, immune disorders, and digestive problems using the GAPS (Gut and Psychology Syndrome) Nutritional Program, which she developed.

Her GAPS theory – which is fully explained in her excellent book, Gut and Psychology Syndrome – is an elegant description of how such conditions can develop as a direct result of gastrointestinal toxicity. Another helpful tool is my three-part interview with renowned children’s health expert, the late Dr. Lendon Smith, on Non-Drug Treatment of ADD/ADHD.

Advice from a World-Class Expert

Dr. Lendon Smith was one of the pioneer physicians in the treatment of ADHD. He had been effectively using nutrition and dietary interventions to help relieve the symptoms of ADHD for decades. He realized that drugs like Ritalin were not the answer for ADHD right from the start. Over ten years ago I did an extensive interview with him on this topic and I would encourage you to review it if you have an interest in this area. He stated in the interview:

“It is too bad psychiatrists have failed to recognize that if a stimulant acts as a calming agent, then they must shore up the flagging enzyme that is under-producing. This all fits with the damage that we have done to the top soil. It is washing and blowing away and with it, the magnesium. The psychiatrists have made ADD/ADHD a disease, like pneumonia.

It is actually a syndrome due to a defect in the screening device of the brain. I understand that since they had made it a disease they can be compensated for treating it. Another rule they have used: ‘If the Ritalin works, they need it.’ Sort of like a Ritalin deficiency.”

According to Dr. Smith, stimulant drugs like Ritalin have a calming effect in children with ADHD because there is not enough norepinephrine, a hormone and neurotransmitter, in their limbic system, the part of the brain that is supposed to filter out unimportant stimuli. Because of this, one common denominator that Dr. Smith often used as a diagnostic criterion for ADHD was being extremely ticklish. In other words, they were unable to disregard unimportant stimuli.

Dietary and Lifestyle Interventions to Help Relieve ADHD Symptoms Naturally

As mentioned, dietary interventions can be incredibly effective in helping alleviate the symptoms of ADHD. Dr. Smith also said in our interview:

“When I became familiar with nutrition, I found that if a stimulant drug had a calming effect [as is the case with ADHD], it meant that the child did not have enough norepinephrine (a stimulant) in his limbic system, and that I could help with a good diet and some supplements which should shore up the enzymes in his brain that make that neurotransmitter.

  • If he had ever had ear infections, I stopped his dairy products, and added calcium – 1,000 mg – usually at bedtime. (Note that while I think removing the milk is a great idea, adding the calcium is not. Adding magnesium typically is far more effective)
  • If he was ticklish, I added magnesium – 500 mg is usually safe for a child or adult.
  • If he was a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ type of person (severe mood swings), he had intermittent low blood sugar and he needed to nibble all day to keep his blood sugar up. Or at least eat some additional protein and fewer carbohydrates for better maintenance of blood sugar levels. No sugar or white-flour junk food.
  • If he could not remember his dreams, he needed vitamin B6 – 50 mg is about right.
  • If he ever had eczema or dry scaly skin, he is to take the essential fatty acids [omega-3 fats like krill oil].
  • If he had dark circles under his eyes, he was eating something to which he is sensitive. Milk, wheat, corn, chocolate, eggs, citrus. Usually it is his favorite food.”

Here are a few additional guidelines to help you address underlying toxins in your child, without, or at least BEFORE, you agree to any kind of drug therapy:

    1. Severely limit or eliminate fructose from your child’s diet as sugar/fructose has been linked to mental health problems such as depression and schizophrenia.
    2. Avoid giving your child ANY processed foods, especially those containing artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. This includes lunch meats and hot dogs, which are common food staples in many households.
    3. Replace soft drinks, fruit juices, and pasteurized milk with pure water. This is HUGE since high fructose corn syrup is a primary source of calories in children.
    4. Make sure your child is getting large regular doses of healthy bacteria, either with high-quality fermented organic foods and/or high quality probiotic supplements.
    5. Give your child plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil. Also, make sure to balance your child’s intake of omega-3 and omega-6 fats, by simultaneously limiting their intake of vegetable oils.
    6. Include as many whole organic foods as possible in your child’s diet, both to reduce chemical exposure and increase nutrient content of each meal.
    7. Also reduce or eliminate grains from your child’s diet, especially wheat. Beyond the fact that even healthy organic whole grains can cause problems as they too break down into sugars, gluten-containing grains have pharmacologically active peptides that can cause cognitive and behavioral issues in susceptible children.7

Additionally, whole and even sprouted wheat contains high amounts of wheat germ agglutinin (WGA), which can have adverse effects on mental health due to its neurotoxic actions. Wheat also inhibits production of serotonin, the largest concentration of which can, again, be found in your intestines, not your brain. Try eliminating them first for 1-2 weeks and see if you don’t notice a radical and amazing improvement in your child’s behavior.

    1. Avoid artificial sweeteners and colors of all kinds.
    2. Make sure your child gets plenty of exercise and outdoor playtime.
    3. Get them out into the sun to help maintain optimal vitamin D levels. Scientists are now beginning to realize vitamin D is involved in maintaining the health of your brain, as they’ve recently discovered vitamin D receptors in the brain, spinal cord, and central nervous system. There’s even evidence indicating vitamin D improves your brain’s detoxification process. For children and pregnant women, getting enough vitamin D is especially crucial, as it may play a major role in protecting infants from autism.

If natural sun exposure is not feasible, for whatever reason, you can use either a safe tanning bed or an oral vitamin D3 supplement. For more details on how to safely optimize your and your child’s vitamin D levels, please see this previous article.

    1. Give your child a way to address his or her emotions. Even children can benefit from the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which you or an EFT practitioner can teach them to use.

Be sure you are also providing positive praise to your child. Dr. Smith believed parents should be able to say nice things to their child twice as often as they give commands or ask questions. If you are shouting and scolding more than you are complimenting and rewarding your child, it could be contributing to psychiatric problems.

  1. Prevent exposure to toxic metals and chemical by replacing personal care products, detergents and household cleaners with all natural varieties. Metals like aluminum, cadmium, lead and mercury are commonly found in thousands of different food products, household products, personal products and untold numbers of industrial products and chemicals. The presence of toxic metals in your child’s body is highly significant for they are capable of causing serious health problems by interfering with normal biological functioning. The health effects range from minor physical ailments to chronic diseases, and altered mood and behavior.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/24/children-adhd-drugs.aspx?e_cid=20121024_DNL_art_2

US Third Party Presidential Debate

In response to widespread blackout from both the mainstream media and political establishment alike, RT is honored to be presenting a platform for the major third-party candidates also vying for the White House this election year to debate. We are offering the event live in cooperation with the debate’s organizers, the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

The event is moderated by multi-award winning broadcast journalist Larry King.

How Psychologists Subvert Democratic Movements

By the 1980s, as a clinical psychology graduate student, it had become apparent to me that the psychology profession was increasingly about meeting the needs of the “power structure” to maintain the status quo so as to gain social position, prestige, and other rewards for psychologists.

Academic psychology in the 1970s was by no means perfect. There was a dominating force of manipulative, control-freak behaviorists who appeared to get their rocks off conditioning people as if they were rats in a maze. However, there was also a significant force of people such as Erich Fromm who believed that an authoritarian and undemocratic society results in alienation and that this was a source of emotional problems. Fromm was concerned about mental health professionals helping people to adjust to a society with no thought to how dehumanizing that society had become. Back then, Fromm was not a marginalized figure; his ideas were taken seriously. He had bestsellers and had appeared on national television.
However, by the time I received my PhD in 1985—from an American Psychological Association-approved clinical psychology program—people with ideas such as Fromm’s were at the far margins. By then, the focus was on the competition as to what treatment could get patients back on the assembly line quickest. The competition winners that emerged—owing much more to public relations than science—were cognitive-behavioral therapy in psychology and biochemical psychiatry. By the mid-1980s, psychiatry was beginning to become annexed by pharmaceutical companies and forming what we now have—a “psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex.” Increasingly marginalized was the idea that treatment that consisted of manipulating and medicating alienated people to adjust to this crazy rat race and thus maintain the status quo was a political act—a problematic one for people who cared about democracy.
My Tactical Withdrawal
After graduating, it seemed clear to me that academic clinical psychology and psychiatry departments, hospitals, and the mainstream clinical institutional worlds were going to depress, damage, and enrage me more than I was going to make a dent in reforming them, so I made a “tactical withdrawal” into private practice. Only several years later, in the late 1990s, did I begin to go public—writing articles and books, giving media interviews and talks about the problems in the mental health profession.
A major motivation for going public was that I was embarrassed by the direction of my profession and I wanted to separate myself from it. I remember thinking, half seriously, that when all these kids who were having a difficult time fitting into dehumanizing environments and who were getting increasingly drugged—first with psychostimulants and then with antidepressants and antipsychotics—grew up and figured out what had happened to them, they would get pretty enraged. If ever there was a revolution and it resembled the French Revolution, then instead of kings, queens, and priests’ heads being placed in guillotines, it would be shrinks’ heads; and I thought that if I spoke out, maybe I might get spared.
Over the years, I discovered a handful of other psychologists—and even a few courageous psychiatrists—who were also speaking out against mainstream psychology and psychiatry. Most of them had paid the severe professional price of marginalization. I also came across psychologist authors who were not routinely discussed by mainstream mental health professionals, but whom I respected. One such psychologist author/activist was Ignacio Martin-Baró, a social psychologist and priest in El Salvador who popularized the term “liberation psychology” and who was ultimately assassinated by a U.S. trained Salvadoran death squad in 1989. One observation by Martin-Baró about U.S. psychology was that “in order to get social position and rank, it negotiated how it would contribute to the needs of the established power structure.” We can see that in many ways.
Meeting the Needs of the Power Structure
On the obvious level, we can see psychologists meeting the needs of the power structure for social position and rank in the recent policies of the American Psychological Association (APA). For several years, the APA not only condoned but actually applauded psychologists’ assistance in interrogation/torture in Guantánamo and elsewhere. When it was discovered that psychologists were working with the U.S. military and the CIA to develop brutal interrogation methods, the APA assembled a task force in 2005 to examine the issue and concluded that psychologists were playing a “valuable and ethical role” in assisting the military. In 2007, an APA Council of Representatives retained this policy by voting overwhelmingly to reject a measure that would have banned APA members from participating in abusive interrogation of detainees. It took until 2008 for APA members to vote for prohibiting consultations in interrogations.
At the tip of this iceberg, are the efforts of perhaps the most famous academic psychologist in the U.S., who is also a former president of the APA, a man who once did some worthwhile work with learned helplessness. Of course, I’m talking about Martin Seligman, who more recently consulted with the U.S. Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program—this for not only social position and rank but for several million dollars for his University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Center, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, which quoted Seligman saying, “We’re after creating an indomitable military.”
To give you an example of how positive psychology is used in this Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, in one role play, a sergeant is asked to take his exhausted men on one more difficult mission and the sergeant is initially angry, saying, “It’s not fair”; but in the role play, he’s “rehabilitated” to reframe the order as a compliment, concluding, “Maybe he’s hitting us because he knows we’re more reliable.”
This kind of “positive reframing” and the use of psychology and psychiatry to manipulate and medicate people—one in six U.S. armed service members are taking at least one psychiatric drug, many in combat zones—so as to adjust to dehumanizing environments has concerned many critical thinkers for quite some time, from Aldous Huxley in Brave New World to Erich Fromm in The Sane Society to, more recently, Barbara Ehrenreich in Bright-Sided.
How Psychologists Subvert  Democratic Movements
One major area that concerns me is the everyday pathologizing and diseasing of anti-authoritarians. This is quite scary because anti-authoritarians are absolutely vital for democracy and democratic movements. I want to talk about how this is being done, but first let me define authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism
Authoritarianism is unquestioning obedience to authority. Authoritarians in control demand unquestioning obedience and authoritarian subordinates give them that unquestioning obedience. In contrast, anti-authoritarians question the legitimacy of an authority before taking it seriously. Does the authority know what it’s talking about or not? Does it tell the truth or lie? Does it care about the people who are taking it seriously or is it exploitative? And if anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they then challenge and resist it. By pathologizing and “treating” anti-authoritarians, psychologists and other mental health professionals are taking them off “democracy battlefields.”
I began to think about this problem of psychologists pathologizing anti-authoritarians when I was in graduate school in the early 1980s. In the 1970s—when mental health professionals were moving forward instead of backward—psychiatry, in response to the pressure of gay activists, removed homosexuality as a mental illness from their diagnostic bible, the DSM. But 1980 was a sad year—Erich Fromm died, Ronald Reagan became president, and DSM III was published in 1980, my second year of graduate school.
DSM III had a huge expansion of psychiatric disorders, with many more child and adolescent diagnoses and I immediately noticed that DSM III was pathologizing stubbornness, rebellion, and anti-authoritarianism. Some of these new diagnoses subtly pathologized rebellion, but one diagnosis was an in-your-face obvious pathologizing of rebellion—“oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD).
ODD kids are not doing anything illegal. ODD kids are not the kids who once were labeled “juvenile delinquents”—that’s “conduct disorder.” Rather, the official symptoms of ODD include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “often argues with adults.”
When I discovered ODD, I told some of my professors that I was already a little embarrassed by the profession, but now I’m really embarrassed—didn’t psychologists realize that just about every great American activist from Saul Alinsky to Harriet Tubman to many great artists and scientists to scientist-activists such as Albert Einstein would have been diagnosed with ODD? In response, they diagnosed me as having “issues with authority.” I definitely do have issues with authorities who don’t know what the hell they are talking about. This was another reason that I withdrew from the mental health professional world.
Anti-Authoritarians
So, I went into private practice, where I received many referrals for teenagers diagnosed with ODD from colleagues who were uncomfortable with these kids. As I worked with the kids, I found that not only did I like most of them, but I also respected the vast majority of them, as they had real courage. They don’t comply with authorities whom they consider to be illegitimate and, most of the time, I concurred with their assessment. If they do respect an authority, they aren’t obnoxious and usually they clamor for adults whom they can respect and who genuinely respect them. Not only are these kids not mentally ill, many of them are what I consider to be the hope of the nation.
Over the years, I have worked not only with ODD teens, but also with adults diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder, and substance abuse, and with psychiatric survivors who have been previously diagnosed with various psychoses. What’s impossible to ignore is how many of the individuals diagnosed with mental disorders are essentially anti-authoritarians. This was potentially a large army of anti-authoritarian activists that mental health professionals are keeping off democracy battlefields by convincing them that their depression, anxiety, and anger are a result of their mental illnesses and not, in part, a result of their pain over being in dehumanizing environments.
Earlier this year, I wrote a piece for AlterNet called“Would We Have Drugged Up Einstein?” about why anti-authoritarians are diagnosed with mental illness. I received a huge response, including many emails from people who have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorder who positively resonated with this particular sentence: “Often a major pain of their lives that fuels their anxiety and/or depression is fear that their contempt for illegitimate authorities will cause them to be financially and socially marginalized, but they fear that compliance with such illegitimate authorities will cause them existential death.”
So, over the years, I have become increasingly confident that there is a huge group of anti-authoritarian activists who are being pacified by the mental health profession and taken off democracy battlefields. I think this is one important reason why the number of Americans actively involved in democratic movements is so low.
Psychologists’ Unavoidable Political Choice
If you look at the history of hierarchical civilization, the reality is that there have always been power structures. There has been the ruling power structure of the combination of the monarchy and the church. Today in the U.S. and many other nations, the ruling power structure is the corporatocracy—giant corporations, the wealthy elite, and their politician collaborators.
All power structures throughout history have sought to use groups of people, especially among so-called professionals, who will control the population from rebelling against injustices. Power structures have used clergy—that’s why clergy who cared about social justice and who were embarrassed by their profession created “liberation theology.” Power structures have certainly used police and armies, as has been done throughout American history to try to break the U.S. labor movement. The U.S. power structure now uses mental health professionals to manipulate and medicate people to adapt and adjust and thereby maintain the status quo, regardless of how insane the status quo has become.
So, mental health professionals have a choice. They can meet the needs of the power structure by only focusing on adjusting and adapting to what I think is an increasingly insane U.S. society. By insane, I mean multiple senseless wars that Americans don’t even know why we are fighting. By insane, I mean prisons-for-profit corporations such as Correction Corporation of America buying prisons from states and demanding in return a 90 percent occupancy guarantee (this actually occurred recently in my state of Ohio). And so on.
Mental health professionals can act very differently. Clinicians can recognize that many among their clientele diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder, and substance abuse are not essentially biochemically ill, but are essentially anti-authoritarians. Not all of them are anti-authoritarians but many of them are. And that self-destructive behaviors are fueled by a variety of pains, with one such pain being the direct and indirect impact of illegitimate authorities at all kinds of levels in people’s lives. And pained anti-authoritarians can be exposed to the idea that throughout history many people—famous and not-so-famous, from Buddha to Malcolm X—have transformed their pain and their self-destructive behaviors to constructive behaviors through art, spirituality, and activism.
Once anti-authoritarians have their pain and their anti-authoritarianism validated and feel more whole, they are likely to become less on the defensive and more secure. That’s when the real fun begins, as we can move to the next level—we can learn to get along with one another. When anti-authoritarians regain the energy to do battle with the corporatocracy and learn to get along with one another—we might actually achieve something closer to democracy in the United States.

Vote your conscience not the lessor of two evils

Israel neck deep in perpetrating cyberterrorism

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the Israeli regime will construct an iron dome to counter cyber attacks from Iran. In a security meeting, Netanyahu noted that Israel’s infrastructure system and computers are the objectives of Iran, claiming his cybernetics office staff seeks to develop a digital iron dome to address such leaks.

Israel resorts to iron dome cyberattacks against Iran

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the Israeli regime will construct an iron dome to counter cyber attacks from Iran.

In a security meeting, Netanyahu noted that Israel’s infrastructure system and computers are the objectives of Iran.

He said that the Israeli cybernetics office staff, formed last year, seeks to develop a digital iron dome to address such leaks.

The Israeli official added that the operation needs time to be developed. However, he indicated that the Tel Aviv regime has started.

The newspaper The Washington Post revealed in a recent report that the Israeli regime and the U.S. created the “flame”  computer virus to spy on Iran.

The virus is among the most sophisticated and subversive pieces of malware to be exposed to date. Experts said the program was designed to replicate across even highly secure networks, then control everyday computer functions to send secrets back to its creators. The code could activate computer microphones and cameras, log keyboard strokes, take screen shots, extract geo­location data from images, and send and receive commands and data through Bluetooth wireless technology.

Also in June the newspaper The New York Times brought to light that President Barack Obama had secretly ordered a computer attack against Iran through the Stuxnet virus in order to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program.

“This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,” said one former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, who added that Flame and Stuxnet were elements of a broader assault that continues today.

The two destructive viruses that infiltrated Iranian computers over the past two years were neutralized in Iran after developing software capable of disabling them.

On the other hand, Netanyahu has said that to relieve against jihad activities and the recent attacks on the Gaza Strip that left three people dead, regime forces continue operations of a similar nature.

Since Saturday, three people have been killed by the wave of air strikes by the Israeli regime against the Gaza Strip

It’s rather notable that they announce a “defensive” program, playing the victim role, when they are the perpetrators of massive cyberterrorism.  One comes to expect such Orwellian doublespeak from the FUKUS/Israel axis.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/24-10-2012/122551-israel_deep-0/

Romney: I will have Israel’s back, including militarily

In final debate, Repubican nominee attacks president for sidelining Israel to curry favor with regional players • Obama vows Iran will not get nuclear bomb on his watch and touts unprecedented U.S. aid, says visit to Yad Vashem and Sderot had great impact on him.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney squared off on Monday in their final debate, which focused on foreign affairs.|Photo credit: Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Governor Mitt Romney sparred on Monday over who was Israel’s strongest defender but both agreed that a military strike over Iran’s nuclear program must be a “last resort.”

Tehran’s nuclear program, which the West suspects is for developing weapons and that economic sanctions have so far failed to stop, is almost certain to be among the top foreign policy challenges facing the next president.

Yet Romney and Obama, in their foreign policy debate, did not offer sharply contrasting policies to address the challenge. They agreed on the need for tough economic pressure — and for safeguarding Israel. “If Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily,” Romney said. “I will stand with Israel if they are attacked,” Obama said. Both were responding to a question on whether they would consider an attack on Israel an attack on the United States.

Obama later called Israel “a true friend and our greatest ally in the region,” and said Israel and the U.S. maintain “unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat.” Obama went on to say that a nuclear Iran would be a national security threat to the United States. He stressed he would not let Iran obtain a nuclear bomb so long as he is president and would not let Iran “perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere.”

Iran’s leaders have from time to time threatened to eradicate Israel, and Israeli leaders see an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat. The question that has risen repeatedly this year is whether Israel would conduct a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear sites, which would put the United States in a difficult position of whether to enter another Middle East conflict.

The candidates did not say what they would do if Israel conducted a unilateral strike on Iran. Pressed by the moderator on how he would react if Israel were to launch a unilateral strike against Iran, Romney said, “Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of Israel [Benjamin Netanyahu] is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way or their fighters are on the way.” Romney and Netanyahu both worked for a Boston-based consulting firm in the 1970s. The two still maintain a close friendship, which was clearly on display during Romney’s visit to Israel over the summer.

Obama accused Romney of rushing to conclude that a military strike was necessary. “The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that, during the course of this campaign, he’s often talked as if we should take premature military action,” Obama said at Monday’s debate, which was the final such encounter before the Nov. 6 election. “I think that would be a mistake, because when I send young men and women into harm’s way, I always understand that is the last resort, not the first resort,” he said.

“We need to increase pressure, time and time again, on Iran because anything other than … a solution to this … which stops this, this nuclear folly of theirs, is unacceptable to America,” Romney said. “And of course, a military action is the last resort. It is something one would only … consider if all of the other avenues had been … tried to their full extent,” he said.

Romney challenged the effectiveness of Obama’s Iran policy, saying his perceived weakness has strengthened the ayatollahs’ resolve. “They have looked at this administration and felt that the administration was not as strong as it needed to be,” Romney said. “I think they saw weakness where they had expected to find American strength.” “We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran. We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran,” Romney continued. “And — and we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they’ve — they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer.”

Obama bluntly said newspaper reports that Iran and the United States had agreed to hold bilateral talks on Tehran’s nuclear program were not true. Iran has also denied that bilateral negotiations on its nuclear program had been scheduled.

Romney went on to attack the president for sidelining the relations with Israel as part of the effort to curry favor with other Middle East players, evident by what the governor called an “apology tour.”

“You went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq. And by [the] way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations,” Romney said. “And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations and on Arabic TV you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.”

Romney also attacked Obama for not acting to shore-up relations with Israel even after 38 members of Congress had sent him a letter urging him to do so. “They asked him, please repair the tension — Democrat senators — please repair the damage,” Romney said.

Obama said his administration and he personally consider Israel’s security paramount, in part owing to the impression left by his visit there as a candidate in 2008. “I went down to the border town of Sderot, which had experienced missiles raining down from Hamas. And I saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children’s bedrooms, and I was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids, which is why, as president, we funded an Iron Dome program to stop those missiles.” Obama also attacked Romney for using his recent trip to Israel to benefit his campaign war chest rather than to study the region. “When I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn’t take donors, I didn’t attend fundraisers, I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself [of] the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.”

Speaking on Egypt, Obama said he would make sure Egypt’s pro-Islamic regime would uphold the country’s long-standing peace treaty with Israel. “That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels,” Obama said.

On Syria, Romney tried to put Obama on the defensive by saying the administration has not led in the crisis in which thousands of Syrians have died and President Bashar al-Assad remains in power. “What I’m afraid of is, we’ve watched over the past year or so, first the president saying, well, we’ll let the U.N. deal with it,” Romney said. “We should be playing the leadership role there.”The United States should work with partners to organize the Syrian opposition and “make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves,” he said.

“I am confident that Assad’s days are numbered,” Obama said. “But what we can’t do is to simply suggest that, as Governor Romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the Syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term.” Obama also used Monday night’s debate to criticize Romney’s support for beginning the war in Iraq, for opposing his plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, for inconsistent stances on Afghanistan and for opposing nuclear treaties with Russia. “Every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong,” Obama said. Romney responded that “attacking me is not an agenda” for dealing with a dangerous world.

If and how the debate would affect the Nov. 6 presidential election was not clear. Foreign policy, the theme of the debate at Lynn University, in Boca Raton, Florida, has not been a major issue in a race centered on the U.S. economy. But both candidates were determined to appear to be strong leaders, rallying their supporters and winning over the remaining undecided voters.

Romney appeared more measured than Obama, agreeing with the president on a number of issues, perhaps seeking to appear more moderate to centrist voters who may determine the election’s outcome. Obama, from the opening moments, wasn’t as subdued. He said Romney would reinstate the unpopular foreign policies of President George W. Bush.

“Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s,” Obama said.

Romney said that despite early hopes, the ouster of despotic regimes in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere over the past year has resulted in a “rising tide of chaos.” He said the president has failed to come up with a coherent policy to grapple with the change sweeping the Middle East.

Foreign policy is generally seen as Obama’s strength and he highlighted two of his campaign’s main points, that he gave the order leading to the killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and fulfilled a promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Romney, a multimillionaire businessman, has little foreign affairs experience. Romney congratulated Obama “on taking out Osama bin Laden and taking on the leadership of al-Qaida.” But he added, “we can’t kill our way out of this mess. … We must have a comprehensive and robust strategy.”

The election is a state-by-state contest and the outcome in a small number of states that are not predictably Democratic or Republican will determine the winner. With the final debate behind them, both men are embarking on a two-week whirlwind of campaigning. The president is slated to speak in six states during a two-day trip that begins Wednesday. Romney intends to visit two or three states a day. Already four million ballots have been cast in early voting in more than two dozen states. Just hours before the debate CNN published the latest “poll of polls,” showing Romney has been able to maintain his momentum. The poll, which is the average of five polls conducted over the past week, has both Obama and Romney locked in a dead heat — each garnering 47 percent support among likely voters. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from Monday night (before the debate) also had both candidates tied at 46% in a sample that included both registered and likely voters. Gallup’s daily tracking poll has Romney holding on to a 6% advantage among likely voters.

The last debate could turn out to be decisive in such a close race. One Democratic activist told Politico on Monday that the voters who had yet to make up their minds “go back and forth every day”. “One day they are for Romney, and one day they are for the president. Right now they have gone back to Obama. The last thing they hear matters. … It’s extremely fluid outside the base.”

For the first time since May, The Politico/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll has Romney ahead in ten competitive swing states, with the former governor commanding a 50% to 48% lead among likely voters. This marks an upset from last week, when the president was at 49% to Romney’s 48%. In all-important Ohio, with its 18 electoral votes, Obama still maintains a 50% to 45% advantage among likely voters according to a Quinnipiac University/CBS poll, although Romney has been able to narrow the gap lately.

Meanwhile, real estate magnate Donald Trump, who is a Romney supporter, announced on Monday that he will release as early as Wednesday a political bombshell the could decide the race. Speaking on Fox News, Trump described it as “something very, very big concerning the president of the United States.” “It’s going to be very big. I know one thing — you will cover it in a very big fashion,” Trump said. Trump has been one of Obama’s most vocal critics and even questioned Obama’s claim that he was born in the United States. The U.S. constitution stipulates that the president must be a “natural-born” U.S. citizen.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6180

Ron Paul Outted Drug King Pin George H.W. Bush 25 Years Ago

Ron Paul exposes George H.S. Bush and US Government Drug Trafficking

“Once a CIA member, always a CIA member.”

Watch interview of Ron Paul outting George H.W. Bush as CIA Drug King Pin on August 26, 1988

No one has made it to the White House since Reagan who is not enthusiastic about continuing the bogus drug war.

Some like Bush Sr. and Clinton are documented to have participated in the business first hand.

What does the “Drug War” accomplish:

1. It keeps drug prices sky high for maximum profits for drug criminals, their bankers and money launderers.2. It creates a vast pool of black money that politicians can dip into any time they need it.

3. It keeps a bloated domestic security force employed so they can continue to harass working people and deprive them of basic civil rights.

So who is the leading drug war candidate in this race?

George Bush Sr’s candidate, of course, Mitt RomneyWatch video explaining the mysterious Bush-Romney connection here. . .

http://revolutionpac.com/articles/ron-paul-outted-bush-criminality-25-years-ago

Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein Files Lawsuit Against the Commission on Presidential Debates

Last week the Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was arrested for trying to gain access to presidential debate.

Stein and her running mate Cheri Honkala attempted to enter the debate hall at Hofstra University, but were refused entry by police because they lacked credentials, even though they are qualified candidates who are on the ballot in most states.

Yet despite being legitimate candidates the two women were arrested by local police when they tried to enter the grounds of Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York, where the debate took place

According to Jill Steins website:

“This week her fight continues with a lawsuit filed today against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), claiming that the CPD, Democratic National Committee, and Republican National Committee, together with the Federal Election Commission and Lynn University, had deprived her of her constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and free speech, as well as her statutorily protected civil rights.

The lawsuit sought both an emergency court order enjoining tonight’s CPD presidential debate from taking place, as well monetary damages.

According to the lawsuit pleadings, “Dr. Jill Stein is not only equal under the law to the two “major party” candidates, she is better, because she became a viable contender for the Presidency while being discriminated against by the defendants at every turn.”

“Our constitution is supposed to protect us against manipulations of democracy of the kind scheduled tonight, and I hope the court will act now to stop this farce, but either way, we will keep up the fight, and one of these days American elections and our debates will be reclaimed by the American people,” said Stein.

Today, Tuesday, October 23 at the Chicago Hilton there will actually be a third party debate featuring Dr. Jill Stein, Gov. Gary Johnson and others, but it is not being aired anywhere on mainstream television in the US.

Ironically enough though, the debates are being aired on Russia Today and Aljazeera.

Over 14,000 people have signed a statement calling on CPD to change its criteria, and repeated public calls for opening the CPD debates have been ignored by the government and the CPD corporation.

The electoral process is another ruling class scam designed to keep people distracted from the violence and oppression inherent in the system.

This corruption that obviously exists in electoral politics leaves many people feeling like there is no hope, but that is only because the public education system and the mainstream media dialogue present the electoral process and the whims of our masters as the only viable solutions for change.

In reality, there are many things you can do to empower yourself and your community that are completely outside of the political system.

There are personal steps, as well as social steps that can be taken to peacefully underthrow the status quo.

The battle to bring 3rd party candidates into the spotlight is still important though, because it exposes the corrupt nature of the electoral process, and it also lets people know that there are other ideas out there that are not presented through mainstream sources.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/10/24/green-party-presidential-candidate-jill-stein-files-lawsuit-against-the-commission-on-presidential-debates/

Romney Rep. Peter King: Presidential Kill List “Totally Constitutional”

Luke Rudkowski asks NY Congressman and Romney representative, Peter King for his insight on how Mitt Romney should handle the inheritance of Obama’s kill list should he become president. Peter King touts the kill list as “totally right, totally Constitutional” as he quickly becomes angered and derogatory towards Luke.

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans’ Bank Accounts

The latest executive order (EO) emanating from the White House October 9 now claims the power to freeze all bank accounts and stop any related financial transactions that a “sanctioned person” may own or try to perform — all in the name of “Iran Sanctions.”

Titled an “Executive Order from the President regarding Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions…” the order says that if an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a “sanctioned person,” he (or she) will be unable to obtain access to his accounts, will be unable to process any loans (or make them), or move them to any other financial institution inside or outside the United States. In other words, his financial resources will have successfully been completely frozen. The EO expands its authority by making him unable to use any third party such as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, subgroup or other organization” that might wish to help him or allow him to obtain access to his funds.

And if the individual so “sanctioned” decides that the ruling is unfair, he isn’t allowed to sue. In two words, the individual has successfully been robbed blind.

But it’s all very legal. The EO says the president has his “vested authority” to issue it, and then references endless previous EOs, including one dating back to 1995 which declared a “state of emergency” (which hasn’t been lifted): Executive Order 12957.

EO 12957 was issued by President Bill Clinton on March 15, 1995, which was also obliquely related to the Iran “problem”:

I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of the Government of Iran to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Clinton’s EO further delegated such powers as were necessary to enforce the EO to the secretaries of the treasury and state “to employ all powers … as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government.”

Such EOs are the perfect embodiment of what the Founders feared the most: the combining of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions into one body. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says: “All legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” As Thomas Eddlem, writing for The New American, expressed it, “then it stands to reason [that] none is left for the president.”

But Joe Wolverton, also in The New American, pointed out the particular piece of language the Founders used to limit the powers of the president which totalitarians have twisted to allow such powers to expand: the “take care” clause, to wit: Article II, Section 3: he [the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…

With every EO, the president avoids the cumbersome constitutional safeguards spelled out by the Constitution, and uses them to implement policies he “knows” are right. Says Wolverton: “With every one of these … executive orders, then, the president elevates his mind and will above that of the people, Congress and the courts.”

The current administration has had a lot of help in justifying and codifying the legitimacy of executive orders, going all the way back to President George Washington who in 1793 issued his “Neutrality Proclamation,” which declared that the United States would remain neutral in the current conflict between France and Great Britain, and would bring sanctions against any American citizen who attempted to provide assistance to either party. The language of Washington is eerily similar to that used by President Obama in the present case:

I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid toward those powers respectively, and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition…

I have given instructions to those officers to whom it belongs to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations with respect to the powers at war, or any of them.

When James Madison protested Washington’s usurpation of powers not intended for the president, Congress acquiesced and passed, retroactively, the Neutrality Act of 1794, validating Washington’s usurpation.

President Lincoln engaged in similar usurpations, using presidential “directives” to run the early months of the Civil War, presenting Congress with, as Todd Gaziano put it,

the decision either to adopt his [directives] as legislation or to cut off support for the Union army.

Within his first two months in office, on April 15, 1861, Lincoln issued a proclamation activating troops to defeat the Southern rebellion and for Congress to convene on July 4.

He also issued proclamations to procure warships and to expand the size of the military; in both cases, the proclamations provided for payment to be advanced from the Treasury without congressional approval.

These latter actions were probably unconstitutional, but Congress acquiesced in the face of wartime contingencies, and the matters were never challenged in court.

President Franklin Roosevelt often overlooked the niceties of constitutional restraints as well. As Gaziano expressed it, “FDR also showed a tendency to abuse his executive order authority and [to] claim powers that were not conferred on him in the Constitution or by statute.”

As far as numbers of executive orders issued, Obama is a piker. At the moment, although the list is growing, his administration has issued 138 executive orders. President Theodore Roosevelt issued 1,006 while President Woodrow Wilson issued 1,791. Even President Calvin Coolidge used the EO “privilege” 1,253 times.

The granddaddy of them all, FDR, issued an astounding 3,728 executive orders, but of course he was in office longer than Obama.

President Bill Clinton issued only 364 executive orders, but he made the most of them, using this extra-legal power to, among other things, wage war in Yugoslavia without congressional approval. Cliff Kincaid collated the numerous EOs issued by Clinton in 1998 and 1999, and concluded:

Clinton waged his war on Yugoslavia through executive order and presidential directive. Clinton used executive orders to designate a “war zone,” call up troops, proclaim a “national emergency” with respect to Yugoslavia, and impose economic sanctions on the Belgrade government.

Clinton claimed war-making presidential authority through his “constitutional authority” to conduct “foreign relations,” as “Commander in Chief” and as “Chief Executive.” Under this self-designated authority, Clinton delegated command-and-control of U.S. forces to NATO and its Secretary-General Javier Solana, who decided when the air war would be discontinued…

The most outrageous executive order of all time was that issued by President Roosevelt that allowed the enforced internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans: 9066.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) called EOs patently unconstitutional. When asked about them by Fox News’ Megan Kelly, Paul responded:

The Constitution says that only Congress passes laws. The executive branch is not allowed to pass laws, nor should the judicial system pass laws. So it is clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders.

They’ve been done for a long time, both parties have done it, but the Congress is careless. They allow and encourage and do these deals … to get the president to circumvent the Congress. If something’s unpopular and he can’t get it passed, well, let’s just sign an executive order. So I think that is blatantly wrong. I think this defies everything the founders intended. I think it’s a shame that Congress does it, and I think it’s a shame that the American people put up with it.

Correction: As originally written, this article placed the number of executive orders issued by the Obama administration at 900, based on an inaccurate source. We regret this misinformatiion. The figure cited in the article has now been corrected.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13196-another-obama-executive-order-allows-seizure-of-americans%E2%80%99-bank-accounts

Michael Scheuer: Mrs Clinton Has Blood on her Hands Everywhere

U.S. Foreign Policy the Cause of Middle East Protests?
Air Date: Sep 14, 2012
Former CIA Operative Michael Scheuer on the motives behind the recent protests in the Middle East.

All credits to: Fox Business Network

FBI — WARNING — Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyright motion pictures, video tapes, or video disks under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called fair use and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.

Lew Rockwell explains how the Federal Reserve Enables War, Empire, and Destroys the Middle Class

Welcome to Capital Account. The accused Federal Reserve bomb plotter’s home country wants details on his case. While this may make headlines, we ask Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute about one aspect of the Federal Reserve that has not made front page news: how the Fed, with its printing press, may be making war easier. After all, if the people of the United States were asked to write a check every year to the IRS in order to fund the exploding deficits and rising interest payments on the national debt, would they continue to support all these wars? Randolph Bourne may have famously quipped that “war is the health of the state,” but it isn’t the health of the economy, this is for certain. If the American people could identify their miserable economic plight with the actions of the federal reserve and with the hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year on war and defense, it is reasonable to expect that they would simply refuse the burden all together. We will ask Lew Rockwell, Chairman of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute what he thinks, and if he thinks that war is made easier by a pliant and compliant central bank.

And, sticking with this issue of the Federal Reserve as the great “enabler,” what about it’s role in “disabling” and dismembering America’s dwindling middle class? How responsible is the Federal Reserve and its quantitative easing, zero percent interest rate policy for the plight of America’s economy and its society? The two main contenders for the presidency, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, speak often about the Fed. The candidates talk about supporting the middle class in terms of tax cuts, loopholes, and regulation but they don’t discuss the “money” in the middle class’s pockets. We ask Lew Rockwell, Chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, about what happens to the middle class if you don’t address savings.

And it’s the 25-year anniversary of Black Monday, but it’s also the 1-year anniversary of Capital Account’s launch! Lauren and Demetri respond to your birthday wishes and more in viewer feedback. Plus one of the more memorable exchanges in Tuesday’s presidential debate was the back and forth over pension plans: Obama told Romney “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long.” President Obama might want to take a look at his pension, as it turns out it holds shares of the Las Vegas Sands corporation, owned by Sheldon Adelson, a major Romney backer. The holdings in his pension also include Domino’s Pizza, Exxon Mobil, China Life Insurance, Halliburton, and Altria (Philip Morris USA). Lauren and Demetri discuss the political landmine in Obama’s pension fund in today’s “Loose Change.” They also discuss Social Impact Bonds and how SIBs have made it easier for businessmen to combine philanthropic goals with business. The SIBs are loans made by investors to pay for a social program, and they require a government to pay a return on their principal investment if the program meets its agreed-upon goals. Lauren and Demetri talk about how SIBs make the market incentive for philanthropy more efficient.

Shocking Secrets and Verifiable Facts about Barack Obama the MSM Refuses to Report

Shocking Secrets and Verifiable Facts about President Barack Obama the Mainstream Media Refuses to Report
If you think you know everything there is to know about Barack Obama, think again.

What you’ll hear on this episode of Catch Kevin: No Holds Barred! will not only shock you, it will alarm you!

Why does mainstream media refuse to give us the truth about the most powerful man in the world? Yet, a man who is shrouded in secrecy and immune to any and all vetting by that same media.
What information would have turned up had Barack Obama been properly vetted? Listen to this eye-opening, jaw-droppoing episode of Catch Kevin: No Holds Barred!

Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law is given $737m of taxpayers’ money to build giant solar power plant in middle of the desert

  • Obama administration approved $1bn in green energy loans days after failed Solyndra project due to be completed
  • $737m handed to Crescent Dunes project in Tonopah, Nevada, for 110-megawatt desert solar power plant
  • Investors include firm Minority leader’s brother-in-law and major Solyndra stakeholder
  • Republicans warn Energy Department is ‘rushing’ $5bn in loans ahead of Friday deadline

Cronyism? A solar energy project backed by Nancy Pelosi’s brother has been granted a massive government loan (file picture)

 

Nancy Pelosi is facing accusations of cronyism after a solar energy project, which her brother-in-law has a stake in, landed a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, despite the growing Solyndra scandal.

The massive loan agreement is raising new concerns about the use of taxpayers’ money as vast sums are invested in technology similar to that of the doomed energy project.

The investment has intensified the debate over the effectiveness of solar energy as a major power source.

The SolarReserve project is backed by an energy investment fund where the Minority Leader’s brother-in-law Ronald Pelosi is second in command.

PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC is listed as one of the investors in the project that has been given the staggering loan, which even dwarfs that given to failed company Solyndra.

Other investors include one of the major investors in Solyndra, which is run by one of the directors of Solyndra.

Steve Mitchell, who served on the board of directors at the bankrupt energy company, is also managing director of Argonaut Private Equity, which has invested in the latest project.

Since Solyndra has filed for bankruptcy has been asked to testify about the goings on at the firm by two members of the House and ‘asked to provide documents to Congress’.

Generator: Artist’s impression of the solar plant being constructed north west of Tonopah, Nevada

 

The artist’s impression shows the incredible size of the giant solar power plant, which is being bankrolled by President Obama’s green jobs fund.

Energy will be generated using concentrated solar power technology, in which a series of mirrors direct sunlight to a receiver at the centre of the plant.

The ‘solar tower’ in the middle, which will be taller than the Washington Monument, is the first of its kind to be built.

Stretching out across a plain in Tonopah, Nevada, the mind-bogglingly big project will generate enough electricity to power 43,000 homes.

But the joint announcement by Energy Secretary Steven Chu comes just two days after the doomed Solyndra project, which cost the taxpayer $528 million from the same cash pot, was meant to be completed.

The project approval came as part of $1 billion in new loans to green energy companies yesterday.

Republican critics of the President Obama’s solar energy program have voiced their outrage at the new loans while the Solyndra scandal is still being investigated.

They have raised concerns that the Department of Energy is rushing through the approval of loans before stimulus funds expire on Friday.

While the departments insists the projects are being properly vetted, some lawmakers have written to express concern that they vast loans are not being adequately scrutinised.

‘The administration’s flagship project Solyndra is bankrupt and being investigated by the FBI, the promised jobs never materialised, and now the Department of Energy is preparing to rush out nearly $5 billion in loans in the final 48 hours before stimulus funds expire — that’s nearly $105 million every hour that must be finalised until the deadline,’ said Florida representative Cliff Stearns, who is chairman of the investigations subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Tom Schatz, president of Washington-based advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste, said: ‘It is time for a full audit of their activities, their management and their results.

‘Candidly, it might be time for the federal government to rethink the whole idea of loan programs.’

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said the project, which was had extensive reviews that included scrutiny of the parent companies’ finances.

Investigation: Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and Chief Financial Officer Bill Stover are sworn in at a House Oversight and Investigations subcommittee hearing

 

The shocking scale of spending Solyndra lavished on the factory it started building alongside Interstate 880 in Fremont, California, has been revealed.When it was completed at an estimated cost of $733 million, including proceeds from the company’s $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, it covered 300,000 sq ft, the equivalent of five football fields.It had robots that whistled Disney tunes, spa-like showers with liquid-crystal displays of the water temperature, and glass-walled conference rooms.John Pierce, 54, a San Jose resident who worked as a facilities manager at Solyndra, said: ‘The new building is like the Taj Mahal.’Designed to make far more solar panels than Solyndra got orders for, the site is now empty and U.S. taxpayers may be stuck with it.Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protection on September 6, leaving in its wake investigations by Congress and the FBI.

 

Mr Chu said the two projects will create about 900 construction jobs and at least 52 permanent jobs.

He added: ‘If we want to be a player in the global clean energy race, we must continue to invest in innovative technologies that enable commercial-scale deployment of clean, renewable power like solar.’

The 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes project will use the sun’s heat to create steam that drives a turbine, SolarReserve, which is based in Santa Monica, California.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a strong supporter of the Nevada project, which he says will help his state’s economy recover. Former Governor Jim Gibbons, a Republican, also supported the project.

Mr Pelosi is one of several controversial figures set to benefit from the huge loan agreement.

The loan approvals came just two days before the renewable energy loan program approved under the 2009 economic stimulus law is set to expire. At least seven projects worth more than $5 billion are also waiting to be approved.

California-based solar panel maker Solyndra Inc went bankrupt after receiving its money and laid off 1,100 workers. The firm is now under investigation by the FBI.

It was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model.

President Barack Obama visited the company’s Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Joe Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking ceremony.

Since then, the company’s failure has become an embarrassment for Obama.

Nut Scott Crider, a spokesman for Sempra Generation, a Sempra Energy subsidiary that is developing the Arizona project, said its loan guarantee was not as risky as the Solyndra loan.

Most important, the project has a 20-year agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to buy power supplied by the solar plant, he said

Mr Crider claimed the purchase agreement is a key element of the project and will ‘provide assurance that there are sufficient revenues in place to support the loan guarantee’.

A similar agreement is in place in Nevada. NV Energy, the state’s largest electric utility, has agreed to buy power from the Tonopah tower, which will connect to NV Energy’s power grid.

Jimmy Carter Claims Israel Creating ‘Catastrophic’ Situation With Palestinians

Former President Jimmy Carter, former president of Ireland Mary Robinson, right, and former prime minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland, left, listen to a guide as they tour East Jerusalem, on Oct. 22, 2012, during the second day of a visit by “The Elders”, a group of global leaders focused on human rights. (credit: AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP/Getty Images)

JERUSALEM (AP) — Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Monday during a visit to Jerusalem that the prospect of an Israel-Palestinian peace accord is “vanishing,” blaming Israeli settlement of the West Bank.

Carter, a longtime critic of Israeli policies, called the current situation “catastrophic” and blamed Israel for the growing isolation of east Jerusalem from the West Bank. He said a Palestinian state has become “unviable.”

“We’ve reached a crisis stage,” said Carter, 88. “The two-state solution is the only realistic path to peace and security for Israel and the Palestinians.”

Carter is currently on a two-day visit leading a delegation known as the “The Elders,” which includes the former prime minister of Norway and the former president of Ireland. The group met with Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

But they didn’t meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Carter said that the delegation didn’t request a meeting because they haven’t been granted meetings on previous visits.

Netanyahu has pledged support for a Palestinian state but peace talks with the Palestinians have been frozen for most of his tenure. Carter criticized him for not doing enough.

“Up until now, every prime minister has been a willing and enthusiastic supporter of the two-state solution,” he said.

The Palestinians say they will only return to the negotiating table if Israel freezes settlement construction on occupied lands claimed by the Palestinians. Israel says talks should resume without preconditions.

As president, Carter brokered the historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. But since he left office, he has become increasingly critical of Israel. His 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” claimed that Israel’s settlement of Palestinian land was the primary obstacle to Mideast peace. The book sparked widespread outrage in Israel.

Carter and the delegation also expressed concern about the ongoing divisions between the main Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, and vowed support for a Palestinian observer state status bid at the United Nations General Assembly in November.

The group departs for Egypt on Tuesday, where they will meet with newly elected Islamist President Mohammed Morsi.

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/22/jimmy-carter-claims-israel-creating-catastrophic-situation-with-palestinians/

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: