r3volution! News

Archive for the category “10/27/2012”

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

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: