Archive for the ‘Orwellian’ Category

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance140.html

by Laurence M. Vance

Americans love their war heroes. It doesn’t matter where the war was fought, why it was fought, how it was fought, or what the war cost. Every battlefield is holy; every cause is just; every soldier is a potential hero. But what is it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero? Since it obviously depends on the criteria employed, is it possible that American war heroes are not heroes at all? Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead dupes?

Democrats who loathe John McCain because he is a Republican and Republicans who consider him to be a lukewarm conservative are united in their belief that, whatever his politics, McCain is a genuine war hero because he spent five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. But one does not have to be a prisoner of war to be considered a war hero. The Department of Defense maintains a website that highlights “the military men and women who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in the Global War on Terror.” Every soldier who died fighting in the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, is also considered to be a war hero.

After McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, he became a naval aviator. During the Vietnam War he rained down death and destruction on the people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions. After being shot down, he was imprisoned instead of receiving the death sentence his bombs delivered to the Vietnamese. So why is he considered a war hero? If he got what he deserved, there would be 58,257 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. instead of 58,256. Pilots like McCain who drop napalm from the safety of their cockpit are lauded as heroes by the government, the media, and Americans ignorant enough or gullible enough to swallow the myth that there can be heroism in the performance of evil. McCain was even well received by the Vietnamese government in 2000 when he traveled to Vietnam in pursuit of a bilateral trade agreement.

Begun in September of 2006, the DOD “Heroes’ Archive” contains the names of 116 U.S. soldiers who performed some heroic deed fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the four soldiers currently featured, two were awarded the Bronze Star, one was awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service Cross, and the fourth was awarded the Bronze Star, the NATO Medal, the Afghan Campaign Medal, and the Outstanding Service Medal. Now, unlike General Petraeus, at least these soldiers earned their metals during real combat. Yet, the fact remains, as Catholic Eastern Rite priest Charles McCarthy has recently stated, “Murder decorated with a ribbon is still murder.”

Both IraqWarHeroes.org and AfghanistanWarheroes.org are “dedicated to our deceased Heroes that have served in Iraq & Afghanistan.” The list of “deceased Heroes” contains the names of 4,591 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t know where these sites are getting their information from. The “Casualties in Iraq” page at Antiwar.com shows a total of 4,528 deaths. But regardless of the exact number, the point is that every soldier who died fighting in the war on terror is said to be a hero. It doesn’t matter if they were killed by enemy fire, roadside bombs, friendly fire, disease, accident, or carelessness – they are all heroes. But since the war in Iraq is senseless, immoral, and criminal does it really matter how these soldiers died? Again, I refer the reader to Father McCarthy:

Authentic heroism is freely taking a grave risk in order to try to do good.

Evil does not become a scintilla less evil because a person put his or her life in jeopardy to do it and is subsequently designated a hero.

This means that whatever we call U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, we should not call them heroes.

Some of these “heroes” are mercenaries. The “large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny” that our Founding Fathers protested against in the Declaration of Independence are now fighting for the United States in Iraq. Since 9/11, the United States has granted citizenship to over 32,000 foreign soldiers. All it takes now is one year of service in the military to be granted citizenship.

Many of these “heroes” are killers for hire. For them, the enlistment bonuses, the tuition assistance, the student loan repayment plans, the assignment incentive pay, the career training, the thirty days of vacation each year, the free medical and dental care, and the generous retirement benefits are enough to erase any concerns about the morality of traveling thousands of miles away from U.S. soil to kill people they have never met or seen, and that posed no threat to America or Americans.

Most of these “heroes,” however, are dupes. They think they are fighting for our freedoms when instead they are helping to destroy our freedoms. They think they are retaliating for 9/11 when instead they are paving the way for another terrorist attack. They think they are preventing terrorism when instead they are making terrorists. They think they went to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda when instead al-Qaeda came to Iraq because of them. They think they are protecting Israel when instead they are contributing to increased hatred of Israel. They think that our cause is just when instead it violates every just war principle ever formulated. They think they are fighting injustice when instead they are committing a crime against the Iraqi people. They think they are defending the United States when instead they are helping to destroy it.

One of the saddest cases of a duped hero is that of Marine Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski. He died fighting in Iraq on March 27 of last year while assigned to the Marine Forces Reserve’s Third Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment, Fourth Marine Division, in Nashville, Tennessee. He had been in the Marine Reserves for twelve years, and was thirty years old when he died.

About a week before he died, Golczynski sent home this e-mail:

I want all of you to be safe. And please don’t feel bad for us. We are warriors. And as warriors have done before us, we joined this organization and are following orders because we believe that what we are doing is right. Many of us have volunteered to do this a second time due to our deep desire to finish the job we started. We fight and sometimes die so that our families don’t have to. Stand beside us. Because we would do it for you. Because it is our unity that has enabled us to prosper as a nation.

At his funeral in Lewisburg, Tennessee, the eight-year-old son he left behind was presented with the flag from his father’s casket. This was captured in a heart-rending photograph that has circulated around the Internet. But Golczynski was not the only one who was duped. Instead of being outraged about his son’s death, his father said that “we owe a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to pay.” And instead of resenting the government that sent the father of her son to fight and die in a senseless foreign war, his wife said that her husband “made the sacrifice for my freedom.”

The terrible truth, of course, is that Sergeant Golczynski, like all of the other soldiers who died in Iraq, died for a lie. He was duped by his commander in chief who said our cause was just. He was duped by the secretary of defense who said the war would be over quickly. He was duped by his commanding officers who said he should obey orders. He was duped by veterans who said he was fighting for our freedoms. He was duped by Republicans who said he needed to follow the president’s leadership. He was duped by politicians who said we should trust them. He was duped by pundits who said we had to fight them “over there” lest we have to fight them “over here.” He was duped by preachers who said we should obey the powers that be. He was duped by Christians who said we must fight against Islamo-fascism. He was duped by Americans who said he was a hero. He was duped by the lying and killing machine known as his own government.

Marcus Golczynski was not alone. Millions of Americans were duped as well. Millions of Americans remain duped. The fact that McCain can talk about being in Iraq for a hundred years and still be greeted by cheering crowds and receive millions of votes says a lot about just how much Americans are duped.

The love affair that Americans have with all things military must be ended. The United States has become a rogue state, a pariah nation, an evil empire – all made possible by the dupes in the U.S. military we call heroes.

April 18, 2008

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest book is a new and greatly expanded edition of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. Visit his website.

(Ed. If you think they are waiting to get permission then you are very naive. They are getting permission because they want to legalize their crimes of the past and present)

Senate Considers Adding Universal Wiretapping

Amendments to Telecom Act

 

Darren Pauli
Computerworld
April 19, 2008

Sweeping reforms will make it easier than ever for law enforcement to intercept communications if amendments to the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act are agreed upon by a Senate standing committee.

The federal government is pushing a bill to force all telecommunications providers to facilitate lawful data interception across fixed and mobile telephone systems, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Instant Messaging (IM) and chat room discussions.

The standing committee is meeting today to discuss the proposed changes to Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2008 (TIA).

The amendments build on previous reforms by the then Howard government which required Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to implement wiretapping provisions in VoIP services.

Private organisations will be handed “quasi-police” powers under separate government plans announced on Monday.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said business owners will be handed powers to intercept employee e-mails without notice in a bid to prevent cyber-terrorism.

Consumer advocacy groups are outraged by the reforms and have questioned the motives of the government, labelling the move as a blatant invasion of privacy.

NSW Council of Civil Liberties president, Cameron Murphy, said the changes are unnecessary and will inadvertently subject hundreds of people to privacy violations.

“These laws will massively increase the number of interception points available for techniques such as wiretapping,” Murphy said.

“Everything from online chatting, to Skype (VoIP) and mobile phone calls will be open to interception.”

He believes the changes are being driven by law enforcement which is effectively offloading its work on the private industry.

The reforms also violate the privacy of other parties involved in a monitored communication channel, according to the Council, the Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) and the Electronic Frontiers Association (EFA).

The organisations told Computerworld that NSW law, which allows businesses to intercept employee e-mails with consent, is a breach of the TIA and the Privacy Act. The problem arises from ambiguity in the law which does not stipulate rules for dealing with third party information, and what constitutes consent.

APF board member Roger Clarke called on the government to provide clarity and scope on the new proposals, including what the changes hope to ultimately achieve and who will be affected. “Any employer that acted on the powers of interception (under the NSW bill) are in breach of the TIA and the Privacy Act if they are accessing the information of non-employees,” Clarke said.

“The attempts of the Attorney-General’s Departments of successive governments to get some changes to the TIA have been torn apart by various agencies because they haven’t addressed scope.

“Every time ministers open their mouths on this type of policy, they keep saying something stupid.” He said the scope of the changes can be interpreted to apply to all employers, to private organisations with a responsibility to national infrastructure, or to investigators of serious threats against nation infrastructure.

“The last thing we want is private investigators running with enormous powers if an act of terrorism occurs,” Clarke said, speaking of McClelland’s reference that the employers powers is a counter-terrorism measure.

The APF has argued for years for workplace privacy protection law reform, and for interception to be solely in the hands of trained investigators under the public service framework.

Both Murphy, Clarke and EFA chair Dale Clapperton called for government to document what it sees as problems with the TIA.

 

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

A recent Austin-American Statesman review of Neo-Con Philip Bobbitt’s new book Terror and Consent features an image of a shredded Constitution under the words “Everything must go,” which acts as a suitable entrée to a disgusting diatribe which praises Bobbitt’s call for the end of America and its replacement with a de facto world government in the name of fighting terror. The words, “How to Fight Terrorism” are in place of a torn piece of the Bill of Rights.

Reviewer James E. McWilliams describes Bobbitt as “a distinguished lecturer and senior fellow at the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia University,” but anyone with a basic grasp of what America’s founders envisioned and what Ronald Reagan later termed the “shining city on a hill” would be more apt to describe Bobbitt – nephew of Lyndon Baines Johnson and former State Department counselor – as an enemy of the Republic.

McWilliams’ fawning review of the book is intended to sucker in millionaire pseudo-intellectuals who think they are part of the elite by using mental gymnastics and brazenly contradictory statements in order to justifying the revolting underlying premise of the book.

As soon as we learn that the facade of Bobbitt’s argument is to provide a solution “for fighting the wars that are bound to plague the 21st century,” we’re already safe in the knowledge that Bobbitt represents another chicken-necked warhawk who has already claimed ownership of the next 10 decades for his Neo-Con ideological fetish of imperial bloodletting and brutal domination.

So what exactly is Bobbitt’s solution?

The complete obliteration of sovereignty and the nation state and its replacement with a new “order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations” that will have the power to pursue “more aggressive tactics of preclusionary warfare,” meaning more pre-emptive invasions of broken-backed third world countries to expand the creaking pax-Americana empire.

Despite terse and contradictory promises that we will still have some semblance of freedom in Bobbitt’s technocracy, he admits that there will be “no obvious answer to many of the human rights issues that are bound to arise,” as a result of his plan to completely eviscerate God-given freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The reviewer cites Bobbitt’s justification to impose world government as a means of combating,”The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital and the “universalization of culture” have eroded the conventional borders that once legitimated national security,” all problems that were created by globalists’ drive to impose centralized systems of control in the first place by creating crises and then posing as the saviors.

This is another classic example of problem-reaction-solution. Use the pretext of the problems you have created to then offer a solution that befits your ultimate agenda – global government.

“Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force without a Security Council authorization,” and “In cases in which the use of non-lethal chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine such methods as “counterforce measures,” writes McWilliams.

The “use of chemical weapons,” where have we heard that one before?

It was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century – the ideological framework of the Bush administration, who proposed the use of “…advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes (which) may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

A leaked British Ministry of Defence report last year also envisioned a nightmare future society in which the population are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and biological and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.

(Ed. I’m tellin’ you folks-the people running our govts. are nut cases and probably demonically controled. Cheney, Wolfawitz, even Bush need to be carefully watched. They want to kill us off to have better control)

Since Bobbitt cites “non-lethal chemical weapons” as a means of “preventing terror” what exactly does he mean? Mass-medicating Americans’ drinking water with sodium fluoride to keep the population docile and subservient to the new international order, absent of traditional constitutional rights, that Bobbitt seeks to impose? The vagueness of the reference suggests Bobbitt and in turn the simpering reviewer McWilliams are attempting to carefully dance around the true scale of the horror that they are advocating.

Mandating a false choice between the acceptance of terrorism as a routine cancer upon society or the imposition of a brutal warmongering world government and the obliteration of sovereignty and the constitution, the book advises us to progress, “not by choosing good over bad, but — as is usually the case in war and politics — the lesser of evils.

And the lesser of evils in this case is to allow Bobbitt and his salivating Neo-Con cronies to have their way with the 21st century while they posture and insist their global government is our savior against a terrorist threat that they created in the first place. As Bobbitt would no doubt agree with the CFR’s Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the globalists are “not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money,” and as H.G. Wells proclaimed, “Countless people… will hate the new world order… and will die protesting against it… When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents…” (Ed. They’ve been talking about this for a long time. The Plan is in place. Are you prepared-is your heart right? There may not be much time left, “now is the day of salvation”. It is time to repent)

We are those “malcontents” that the globalists fear so much, we are the representation of everything that is good about the human spirit – love, hope, the yearning for freedom and a kindred bond with our fellow man, along with the shared promise of a peaceful and prosperous future for our children.

Bobbitt and the rest of the Neo-Con turds who have already decided to condemn us to a century of warfare, tyranny, and centralized control may be surprised to learn that the resistance to their agenda is accelerating and that the true essence of humanity, the “malcontents,” will rise up and condemn them to the only place they belong – on the scrapheap of history.

Philip Bobbitt:

Phone: (512) 232-1376
Fax: (512) 471-6988
E-mail:
PBOBBITT@LAW.UTEXAS.EDU

If you contact Bobbitt, please be polite in your disagreement.

Always Question Authority-Do not be deceived by those who tell you to submit

to this stuff.

That Message is form the Pit of Hell. We were created to submit to only one. Not the Government.

Not some pastor or other spiritual leader

Submit to Yahushua Alone!

Think for yourselves!

The eletists depend on you acting like Robots or slaves.

Come out of her My Beloved”.

(Ed. E-mail recieved from a friend. I had thought about this myself and considered writing something. When one persons’ right are violated we all lose. The US Govt is intruding in our lives more and more. We need to wake up-Remember the Nazis and their gradual elimination of all groups they could not control)

Shalom Chaverim. I have been very dissappointed over the last 2 years in some of the things that Rabbi Moshe has come out with, but on this one, politically, humanistically, spiritually, and socially, he hit the mark 100 percent. Reply with comments for discussion if you like.

Bracha V’hazlaha
Bro. Gregory

Hebrew Malkhut Israel.
www.hmisrael.net , www.hmisrael.org

—– Original Message —–

From: YATI News

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: All Torah Believers Are Now In Grave Danger

Tyranny in Texas-DO NOT Ignore This!

!cid_00e301c89ff0$a3cdf390$2300a8c0@NEWHPDESKTOP !cid_00e401c89ff0$a3cdf390$2300a8c0@NEWHPDESKTOP

Right: An armed law enforcement official sits behind a series of rocks.

Left: An armored personnel carrier moves into position during a raid at a Texas polygamist compound.

These photos were taken by sect members, contradicting police lies of a non military exodus.

NEW

4/16/08

Editorial by Apostle Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky

The USA Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

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

Yet the recent illegal military style invasion of the polygamous sect in Lubbock Texas has violated their most basic freedom of religion, guaranteed under the first amendment.

While we may, or may not agree, with their lifestyle, the fact remains this practice is part of their religion based on Torah beliefs. The US government entered the compound illegally, without any evidence of child abuse. Period! They allegedly have only one witness, a 16 year old girl, who allegedly phoned in a telephone tip of abuse by a 50 year old man. Problem is that the man was not in Texas and hasn’t been for many years. So far they have not found the girl who allegedly alerted authorities.

Is it not interesting that the US gov’t does not enter gay bath houses, or illegal massage parlors, where all kinds of perversions and fornication including sodomy and other alternative lifestyles are practiced. All these behaviors are clearly against the word of YHWH. It seems like the only alternative lifestyle that the government despises is marriage, even if the marriage is polygamy. How come the gov’t does not seek to remove children from gay couples and gay marraiges, or those monogamous couples that raise children in an abusive home, or a home where there is open fornication or other vices going on? And when they do, do tanks show up?

This is nothing but an attack on all religious freedoms in the USA and an attack on marriage, regardless of whether polygamy is viewed as legitimate or not. The problem with this sickening gov’t “police state” action is that if one religion is outlawed, or persecuted by the state without any real evidence of illegalities, then ALL NON-TRADITIONAL, NON-PROTESTANT, OR NON-ROMAN CATHOLIC expressions of religion are in danger of a gov’t military invasion, or shut down.

We may not agree with the Jehovah Witness doctrine, but because they are free to express their religion apart from state interference, we and other non traditional sects are also free to express ourselves religiously. If we don’t stand with these victims in this polygamous sect, then our rights may one day be trampled upon by a state that sees our lack of willingness to confirm to Sun god/day worship and Easter celebrations as a threat.

If we don’t stand with these polygamous folks, even though we may, or may not agree with their lifestyle, one day very soon the US gov’t may well declare all Messianic and Nazarene Yisraelite believers an “abusive sect,” because we also practice Torah and also spank our children to discipline them when needed. The day may soon come when the gov’t police will rip your children out of your arms, homes, because you home school them, or because you don’t worship on Sun/god day. This case with over 430 innocent children ripped and pulled away from their homes and parents at gunpoint with firearms drawn, is nothing but a brutal police state action against all men and women of faith. They may soon be wards, or children of the state, subject to the cruelest forms of bureaucratic abuse and neglect.

Don’t believe what the media is telling you. Please! Where is the EVIDENCE OF THREE credible witnesses required by Torah that alleged child abuse is going on? It’s not there and all the media labeling and self righteous declarations will not change that underlying fact. Where is the evidence?

The USA Constitution in the 4th amendment guarantees that citizens shall not be subject to sudden, or unjust entry and seizure.

  • Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

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

The State of Texas has SEIZED these children from their homes and from PRIVATE property, all because these folks practice a religion, or have a religious expression that society does not understand or approve.

There was no warrant against 430 MOTHERS TO SEIZE their precious babies. Only one warrant was issued for 1 individual adult, who allegedly abused an underage child. Yet when the State of Texas came looking for the under aged child, the child was missing, as was the adult. The State of Texas, not the polygamist sect is engaged in illegal and immoral criminal activity, as the Torah DOES forbid kid-napping, which is the seizure of “kids!” The Torah DOES NOT criminalize polygamy, as almost all of Yisrael’s patriarchs; our forefathers were in fact polygamous. It may not be your cup of tea, but it’s certainly not illegal in Scripture.

Furthermore, the second amendment to the USA Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to bear arms for self defense.

  • Second AmendmentA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Part of self defense, is protection against the illegal search and seizure of our properties and children by the USA, or state governments’. See, the founding fathers knew that if the US experiment in democracy was to succeed, the people needed to have and maintain a real and legitimate means of defending themselves, if and when Uncle Sam came knocking. They wanted to make 1 million % sure that the citizens were armed, so that the fear of YHWH could be put into the gov’t, should the gov’t ever step out of constitutional bounds.

This is why those opposed to private firearms ownership to keep tyrannical government actions at bay are ignorant, or simply scared by misinformation, or personal fears. Sadly these folks in Texas were unarmed to defend their 2nd and 4th amendment rights and were no match for armed Texas gov’t kidnapers, coming to kidnap 430 children with military tanks and AK 47s.

Never forget, that it is the second amendment, the right to bear arms for self defense that keeps us free, and guarantees the first amendment, so that all Americans can enjoy religious freedom, with the US gov’t forbidden to make any laws for, or against any religious expression. Without the exercising of our second amendment rights, our first amendment rights will most certainly be lost. Most people still won’t get that however, as they have been spell bound and brainwashed by the media and by so called “cultural norm.” Gun control really means the gov’t ALONE controls the guns, so that only criminals and police state officials can have guns. The average law abiding innocent citizens are then at the mercy of the state. Only in gun control situations can the type of illegal human abduction and “kid”-napping police action that we have seen in Texas take place.

Now pershaps the most sensitive point; but we must confront the biblical truth regrdless where it leads us, and regardless of who may turn against us. All of these statuatory rape laws are simply bogus and purely manmade and have no basis in Scriputre. Most of our biological Yisraelite forefathers had young women/girls, say ages 14-19 as their wives. Some had more than one. Those are the facts folks. Even though we may not feel comortable with the facts.

YHWH never denocunced them, or condemned them. This may be a tad uncomfortable for most, but do you want the MSNBC, CNN lies that promote a secular anti-marriage society and agenda, or do you really want to know what YHWH has said all along on this matter? Moreover, Miriam the surrogate mother of Yahshua was no more than 15 when she carried and brought YHWH’s very own Son to term. Joseph was not arrested when he betrothed her either at age 14, or 15 and later slept with her, as he fathered several of Yahshua’s siblings.

Based on manmade statuatory (note statuatory, not biblicaltory) rape laws, YHWH The Father, the ANCIENT OF DAYS, certainly older than 50 years old, allowed an “underaged” girl to carry His seed. So based on these faulty manmade laws defining, or should we say redefining, what YHWH does and does not allow, men and women are being sent to jail, as innocent children are ripped away from their loving mothers with horrific machine like cruelty; all in the name of MANMADE statuatory rape laws. Our forefather Jacob fathered Yisrael through polygamy. Was he arrested?

So let’s recap here. Scriputre allows for marraige with younger women/girls and allows poylgamy, though it may not have been YHWH’s initial “Garden of Eden will.” Man has declared these practices abusive and repulsive. On the other hand, YHWH decalres sodomy and fornication as abominable. Yet these gay, lesbian, and transgender couples and families can legally rasie children and have government sanction, medical care and protection for their abominations and for the chldren victims in their care. What is wrong with this sick picture?

This is the true biblical view of the wrongdoing still unfolding right now in Texas, as this police state Gestaapo action unfolds before our eyes, while most of the American public is drunk with the lies of our secualr society and of the American media, that portrays these folks as some kind of threat to their own sick anti-Christ society.

These religious folks teach their children Torah, salvation thru Messiah, love, pacificism, mercy and covenant relationships, teaching them faithfulness and how to eschew fornication and pornography. Yet the very same government thugs, who proliferate pornography by looking the other way ($$$) and who continue to do nothing about its widespread availablity in society, are now guilty of the worst kind of illegal crimes against helpless people.

Who will restore the children to their families? Will they be returned to their homes? Where is the righteouss outcry and indignation from Americans with real discernement? Sadly, if we don’t speak the truth in love right now, hold on real tight to your children now being raised in Torah.

The day may not be too far off, where they also will be seized at gunpoint in the middle of the night, as you also are allegedly guilty of a religious faith and expression that is “not approved” by the US gov’t. If we don’t stand with the polygamists rights to practice their religion freely and without persecution and raise their children in the USA, we who practice monogamy, are also in danger, as our children are being raised based on the same Torah that allows both monogamy and polygamy as marriage lifestyles before YHWH.

If we remain withdrawn, unconcerned, duped and silenced by apathy, or by the media references to these folks as being some kind of a weird crazy religious cult, or sect, and if we don’t see our way out of their “Geobels type propoganda machine,” there is no doubt in my mind, that we are “tomorrows cult,” needing armed gov’t intervention and salvation to protcet our children from us and our Torah based faith and parenting methods.

Remember that the gov’t officials, media and news reports that are committed to ending this group represent a sick anti-YHWH society that has sanctioned gay marraiges and gay civil unions without marriage, along with open adultery and fornication, all the while decrying and belittiling all forms of covenant marriage, whose undergirding principle is love, commitment and faithfulness.

Final Thought-By the way, can you imagine the Associated Press ever calling a mosque a “polygamist temple? Why not? Double standard? How would Muslims react?

Please do your civic duty and pass this along to many others. Thank you so much. Please address all comments to: info@yourarmstoisrael.org Keep them brief please. Feel free to pass this on to news media organizations.

Listen to the YATI Radio Network, the only true Name 24/7 radio network.

www.yatiradionetwork.com

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html

Download Video 15.6 MB WMV full video

Richard Porter, the head of news at BBC World issued this explanation of the BBC World video:

  1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
  2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
  3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
  4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.
  5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

Below are some selected comments made in reply to Mr Porter’s explanation:

How deservedly ironic that the BBC gets exposed for what it really is (a propaganda bureau that attempts to indoctrinate Britain and the world with a false reality) so soon after the airing of the appalling hit piece (9/11 conspiracy files) last Sunday night. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire?
I’m not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it’s collapse is highly suspicious.

If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you’d just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.

You can’t possibly expect us to believe this. Let’s look at all the pieces here.

1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.

2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC’s report….or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley’s live shot was disconnected.

3. BBC loses all of it’s 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He’s 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?

4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.

5. BBC’s response is, ‘there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.’

Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.

Oh, and the ez-out phrases like ‘it appears’ and ‘we’re receiving reports that..’ were not used throughout this footage.

Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2.

The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it’s definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.

To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn’t it? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor’s trousers had fallen down before they did so
Let’s say for a second that you messed up and reported a building going down that didn’t – why the exact one that DID? What are the odds? Why not by mistake report a building going down that DIDN’T actually go down?

You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history… 😉
(Good job! That way no one can “prove” anything that day…)

Out of all the surrounding buildings that suffered massive damage – WTC 3,4,5,6 – and assorted others that suffered minor damage (amoung them, WTC 7 – Salomon Brothers Building), BBC – by merely a mistake and in confusion – picked exactly the right one that was going to fall -…. 😉
(Good job! Hey, BBC is incompetent – they lose tapes AND they claim buildings fall that haven’t – but what LUCK! They hit the lottery! What a ‘lucky guess’, huh?)

BBC should go to Vegas, with those odds – you’d be rich.

BBC is not part of the conspiracy – but you are just a bunch of pathetic dupes.

You capture the biggest smoking gun in history … and your response is ….. to call yourselves incompetent and go play ‘blind/deaf/dumb monkey’ on your public.

Good job, Guys!!

“If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that.”

Uh, it WASN’T an error… That’s the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn’t the anchor say something like, “We’re getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing… We’ll have to check up on this… etc.” No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was “…trying to make sense of what they were seeing… and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.”

And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross… So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We’ll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air).

Do I think the BBC is “…part of a conspiracy”? No… but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO.

With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. At the very least you are minimizing your error and trivializing the life’s lost or the potential of life’s that could have been saved. In the most important final 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the said segment the words “apparently”, “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” ARE NOT USED in context of building 7. The words used are those have definite and past tense. “Now more on the latest building collapse in New York,…the Solomon Brothers Building collapse… and indeed it has” “What can you tell us about the Salomon Building and it’s collapse?” “When it collapsed” Ticker –“The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.” Who is responsible for the newsroom in desk and floor prompters being used by the news presenter? Who is responsible for the news report on the bottom screen news ticker? Who is responsible as the newsroom floor source for giving these people information? What is the complete list of editors and journalists responsible for this program on said day? The words in your statement #4 of footage being lost may very well redefine irresponsible. The BBC Media Management policy clearly states TWO broadcast standard copies be retained one on a separate site as a master. As follows. Ref No. Policy Area / Policy Statement 01 Components to be Retained 01-01 The following components to be retained:- Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast materialhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/
archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm#top
If the footage had continued, we’d all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program.

Good thing you lost the feed five minutes before THAT happened in front of all your viewers.

What in the world would you have said if that had happened?

What is going on here?

I’d like a little truth please.

I never actually thought I would live to see the day that things would surpass even Orwell, Huxley, Wells, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Zamyatin, Ayne Rand, on and on…but, the virtual reality that the “media” create for us now is truly more unfathomable than even those great minds warned us of.
Contrary to the dismissive tone of the “explanation”, whether or not the building was known to be about to fall goes to essential point of culpability for 9/11, foreknowledge.

Those who are in the dock and being cross-examined are not allowed to wave their hands and create a plausible explanation. It’s gone too far for that. There is a disastrous war built on false evidence, and that falsification process may have begun much sooner than is generally now understood.

In ordinary life, a witness who lies about one thing will be assumed to lie about everything. And we aren’t talking about private matters, but about the essential role of a government to defend its country. This issue is about credibility of news sources during a terror attack, in which a rush to judgment resulted shortly in an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the BBC know it.

Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost thus far, and there are doubtless more to come

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103296.html

By Nita Farahany
Sunday, April 13, 2008

Imagine a world of streets lined with video cameras that alert authorities to any suspicious activity. A world where police officers can read the minds of potential criminals and arrest them before they commit any crimes. A world in which a suspect who lies under questioning gets nabbed immediately because his brain has given him away.

Though that may sound a lot like the plot of the 2002 movie “Minority Report,” starring Tom Cruise and based on a Philip K. Dick novel, I’m not talking about science fiction here; it turns out we’re not so far away from that world. But does it sound like a very safe place, or a very scary one?

It’s a question I think we should be asking as the federal government invests millions of dollars in emerging technology aimed at detecting and decoding brain activity. And though government funding focuses on military uses for these new gizmos, they can and do end up in the hands of civilian law enforcement and in commercial applications. As spending continues and neurotechnology advances, that imagined world is no longer the stuff of science fiction or futuristic movies, and we postpone at our peril confronting the ethical and legal dilemmas it poses for a society that values not just personal safety but civil liberty as well.

Consider Cernium Corp.’s “Perceptrak” video surveillance and monitoring system, recently installed by Johns Hopkins University, among others. This technology grew out of a project funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — the central research and development organization for the Department of Defense — to develop intelligent video analytics systems. Unlike simple video cameras monitored by security guards, Perceptrak integrates video cameras with an intelligent computer video. It uses algorithms to analyze streaming video and detect suspicious activities, such as people loitering in a secure area, a group converging or someone leaving a package unattended. Since installing Perceptrak, Johns Hopkins has reported a 25 percent reduction in crime.

But that’s only the beginning. Police may soon be able to monitor suspicious brain activity from a distance as well. New neurotechnology soon may be able to detect a person who is particularly nervous, in possession of guilty knowledge or, in the more distant future, to detect a person thinking, “Only one hour until the bomb explodes.” Today, the science of detecting and decoding brain activity is in its infancy. But various government agencies are funding the development of technology to detect brain activity remotely and are hoping to eventually decode what someone is thinking. Scientists, however, wildly disagree about the accuracy of brain imaging technology, what brain activity may mean and especially whether brain activity can be detected from afar.

Yet as the experts argue about the scientific limitations of remote brain detection, this chilling science fiction may already be a reality. In 2002, the Electronic Privacy Information Center reported that NASA was developing brain monitoring devices for airports and was seeking to use noninvasive sensors in passenger gates to collect the electronic signals emitted by passengers’ brains. Scientists scoffed at the reports, arguing that to do what NASA was proposing required that an electroencephalogram (EEG) be physically attached to the scalp.

But that same year, scientists at the University of Sussex in England adapted the same technology they had been using to detect heart rates at distances of up to 1 meter, or a little more than three feet, to remotely detect changes in the brain. And while scientific limitations to remote EEG detection still exist, clearly the question is when, not if, these issues will be resolved.

Meanwhile, another remote brain-activity detector, which uses light beamed through the skull to measure changes in oxygen levels in the brain, may be on the way. Together with the EEG, it would enhance the power of brain scanning. Today the technology consists of a headband sensor worn by the subject, a control box to capture the data and a computer to analyze it. With the help of government funding, however, that is all becoming increasingly compact and portable, paving the way for more specific remote detection of brain activity.

But don’t panic: The government can’t read our minds — yet. So far, these tools simply measure changes in the brain; they don’t detect thoughts and intentions.

Scientists, though, are hard at work trying to decode how those signals relate to mental states such as perception and intention. Different EEG frequencies, for example, have been associated with fear, anger, joy and sorrow and different cognitive states such as a person’s level of alertness. So when you’re stopped for speeding and terrified because you’re carrying illegal drugs in the trunk of your car, EEG technology might enable the police to detect your fear or increased alertness. This is not so far-fetched: Some scientists already are able to tell from brain images in the lab whether a test subject was envisioning a tool such as a hammer or a screwdriver or a dwelling, and to predict whether the subject intended to add or subtract numbers. Just last month, scientists announced a new study aimed at decoding visual imagery in the brain.

Although brain-based lie-detection technology has been quite controversial and has only been tested on a limited basis, early researchers have claimed high accuracy at detecting deception. But there’s a problem: Most brain-based lie-detection tests assume that lying should result in more brain activity than truth-telling because lying involves more cognition. So these lie-detection methods may fail in sociopaths or in individuals who believe in the falsehood they’re telling.

Whether such technology will be effective outside the laboratory remains to be seen, but the very fact that the government is banking on its future potential raises myriad questions.

Imagine, for example, a police officer approaching a suspect based on Perceptrak’s “unusual activity” detection. Equipped with remote neural-detection technology, the officer asks her a few questions, and the detection device deems her responses to be deceptive. Will this be enough evidence for an arrest? Can it be used to convict a person of intent to commit a crime? Significant scientific hurdles remain before neurotechnology can be used that way, but given how fast it’s developing, I think we must pause now to ask how it may affect the fundamental precepts of our criminal justice system.

Americans have been willing to tolerate significant new security measures and greater encroachments on civil liberties after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Could reports of significant crime reduction such as that seen by Johns Hopkins, or incidents such as the student shootings last year at Virginia Tech or more recently at Northern Illinois University, be enough to justify the use of pre-crime technology? Could remote neural monitoring together with intelligent video analytics have prevented those tragedies? And if they could, should they be allowed to?

These are just some of the questions we must ask as we balance scientific advances and the promise of enhanced safety against a loss of liberty. And we must do it now, while our voices still matter. In a world where private thoughts are no longer private, what will our protections be?

nita.farahany@vanderbilt.edu

Nita Farahany, an assistant professor of law and philosophy at Vanderbilt University, is the editor of the forthcoming “Genes and Justice: The Impact of Behavioral Genetics and Neuroscience on Criminal Law.”

www fff.org

The Martial Law Act of 2006
by James Bovard, Posted April 9, 2008

Martial law is perhaps the ultimate stomping of freedom. And yet, on September 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision in a 591-page bill that will make it easy for President Bush to impose martial law in response to a terrorist “incident.” It also empowers him to effectively declare martial law in response to what he or other federal officials label a shortfall of “public order” — whatever that means.

It took only a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened those restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the United States without the express permission of Congress. (This act was passed after the depredations of the U.S. military throughout the Southern states during Reconstruction.)

But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act aim to deter dictatorship while permitting a narrow window for the president to temporarily use the military at home. But the 2006 reforms basically threw any concern about dictatorial abuses out the window.

Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list of pretexts to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” — and such a “condition” is not defined or limited.

One might think that given the experience with the USA PATRIOT Act and many other abuses of power, Congress would be leery about giving this president his biggest blank check yet to suspend the Constitution. But that would be naive.

The new law was put in place in response to the debacle of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. There was no evidence that permitting a president far more power would avoid future debacles, but such a law provides a comfort blanket to politicians. The risk of tyranny is irrelevant compared with the reduction of risk of embarrassment to politicians. According to Washington, the correct response to Katrina is not to recognize the failure of relying on federal agencies a thousand miles away but rather to vastly increase the power of the president to dictate a solution, regardless of whether he knows what he is doing and regardless of whether local and state rights are trampled.

The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for as many as 365 days. Bush could send the South Carolina National Guard to suppress anti-war protests in New Haven. Or the next president could send the Massachusetts National Guard to disarm the residents of Wyoming, if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Governors’ control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration.

Section 1076 had bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, including support from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Since the law would give the feds more power, it was very popular inside the Beltway.

On the other hand, every governor in the country opposed the changes. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on September 19, 2006, that “we certainly do not need to make it easier for presidents to declare martial law.” Leahy’s alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record, “Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.”

A U.S. Enabling Act

The new law vastly increases the danger from the actions of government provocateurs. If there is an incident now like the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993, it would be far easier for the president to declare martial law — even if, as then, it was an FBI informant who taught the culprits how to make the bomb. Even if the FBI masterminds a protest that turns violent, the president could invoke the “incident” to suspend the Constitution.

“Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights before they are locked away. “Martial law” means: Obey soldiers’ commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in Southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug.

Section 1076 is an Enabling Act-type legislation — something which purports to preserve law and order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

Bush can commandeer a state’s National Guard any time he declares a “state has refused to enforce applicable laws.” Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood — or to the “laws” after Bush “fixes” them with a signing statement? Unfortunately, it is not possible for Americans to commandeer the federal government even when Bush admits that he is breaking a law (such as the Anti-Torture Act).

Section 1076 is the type of “law” that would probably be denounced by the U.S. State Department’s Annual Report on Human Rights if enacted by a foreign government. But when the U.S. government does the same thing, it is merely another proof of benevolent foresight. The “comfort blanket” on Section 1076 is that the powers will not be abused because the president will show more concern with the Bill of Rights than Congress did when it rubberstamped this provision. This is the same “pass the buck on the Constitution” that worked so well with the PATRIOT Act, the McCain Feingold Campaign Reform Act, and the Military Commissions Act. As long as there is hypothetically some branch of the government that will object to oppression, no one has the right to fear losing his liberties.

The military on the home front

Section 1076 is more ominous in light of the Bush administration’s long record of Posse Comitatus violations. Since 2001, the Bush administration has accelerated a trend of using the military as a tool in the nation’s domestic affairs. From its support of the Total Information Awareness surveillance vacuum cleaner, to its use of Pentagon spy planes during the Washington-area sniper shootings in 2002, to the Pentagon’s seizures of Americans’ financial and other private information without a warrant, the Bush administration has not hesitated to use military force and intimidation at home whenever convenient. And Americans may have little or no idea of how far the military has actually gone on the home front, given the Bush team’s obsessive secrecy.

The Pentagon has sent U.S. military intelligence agents on domestic fishing expeditions. In 2004, two U.S. Army intelligence agents descended on the University of Texas’s law school in Austin. They entered the office of the Journal of Women and the Law and demanded that the editors turn over a roster of the people who attended a recent conference on Islam and women. The editors denied having a list; the behavior of one agent was described as intimidating. The agents then demanded contact information for the student who organized the conference, Sahar Aziz. University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock commented,
We certainly hope that the Army doesn’t believe that attending a conference on Islamic law or Islam and women is itself ground for investigation.

Military officials later declared that U.S. Army intelligence agents had overstepped their bounds. But this did not stop the Bush administration from having a provision inserted in a bill passed in secret session by the Senate Intelligence Committee that would allow military intelligence agents to conduct surveillance and recruit informants in the United States. Wired.com reported,
Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents.

The provision would authorize military agents to go undercover and never inform their targets that they were dealing with a G-man. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, denounced the provision:
This … is giving them the authority to spy on Americans. And it’s all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night.

The controversy over the amendment scuttled its enactment, though it is unclear whether that has deterred the military from expanding its domestic spying.

There is no Honesty-in-Absolute-Power mandate in the federal statute books. The more power government seizes, the more easily it can suppress the truth. There is nothing to prevent a president from declaring martial law on false pretexts — any more than there is to prevent him from launching a foreign war on false pretenses. And when the lies become exposed years later, it could be far too late to resurrect lost liberties.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

This article originally appeared in the January 2008 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.

© 2001-2007 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in U.S.

Congressional Critics Want More Assurances of Legality

(Who do they think they are? Questioning King George about Legalities and all that other unimportant stuff-Don’t Question Authority Bow Down You Minions!!)

By Spencer S. Hsu

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 12, 2008; A03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103655_pf.html

The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation’s most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon, rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea’s legal authority.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department will activate his department’s new domestic satellite surveillance office in stages, starting as soon as possible with traditional scientific and homeland security activities — such as tracking hurricane damage, monitoring climate change and creating terrain maps.

Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement once privacy and civil rights concerns are resolved, he said. The department has previously said the program will not intercept communications.

“There is no basis to suggest that this process is in any way insufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans,” Chertoff wrote to Reps. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee and its intelligence subcommittee, respectively, in letters released yesterday. (I am sure it will be passed over in any case since

King George wants it! Ed.)

“I think we’ve fully addressed anybody’s concerns,” Chertoff added in remarks last week to bloggers. “I think the way is now clear to stand it up and go warm on it.” (Gee, I feel so much better Ed.)

His statements marked a fresh determination to operate the department’s new National Applications Office as part of its counterterrorism efforts. The administration in May 2007 gave DHS authority to coordinate requests for satellite imagery, radar, electronic-signal information, chemical detection and other monitoring capabilities that have been used for decades within U.S. borders for mapping and disaster response.

But Congress delayed launch of the new office last October. Critics cited its potential to expand the role of military assets in domestic law enforcement, to turn new or as-yet-undeveloped technologies against Americans without adequate public debate, and to divert the existing civilian and scientific focus of some satellite work to security uses.

Democrats say Chertoff has not spelled out what federal laws govern the NAO, whose funding and size are classified. Congress barred Homeland Security from funding the office until its investigators could review the office’s operating procedures and safeguards. The department submitted answers on Thursday, but some lawmakers promptly said the response was inadequate. (I stand by my previous comments Ed.)

“I have had a firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration,” said Harman, citing the 2005 disclosure of the National Security Agency‘s domestic spying program, which included warrantless eavesdropping on calls and e-mails between people in the United States and overseas. “I won’t make the same mistake. . . . I want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program.”

Thompson called DHS’s release Thursday of the office’s procedures and a civil liberties impact assessment “a good start.” But, he said, “We still don’t know whether the NAO will pass constitutional muster since no legal framework has been provided.”

DHS officials said the demands are unwarranted. “The legal framework that governs the National Applications Office . . . is reflected in the Constitution, the U.S. Code and all other U.S. laws,” said DHS spokeswoman Laura Keehner. She said its operations will be subject to “robust,” structured legal scrutiny by multiple agencies. (Of Course they will)


Zieg Heil Heil Bush

Question

Authority!

Oakland cops: Mind if we search your house for guns?

By Kelly Rayburn, Staff Writer

Article Created: 04/09/2008 05:58:57 PM PDT

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_8868701

OAKLAND_A six-month pilot program where Oakland police officers would knock on doors and ask permission to search homes for guns got the green light from the City Council’s public safety committee Tuesday night.

It goes to the full council Tuesday, when the council will meet at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza.

The consent-to-search program, as it is called, is based closely on a similar effort launched in St. Louis in 1994 and on ongoing programs in Boston and Washington, D.C. The idea is simple: To ask parents for permission to search their homes for weapons their children may be hiding.

Under the program, officers would request permission to search homes for guns. Guns would be taken away, but officers would not pursue prosecution unless the weapon was tied to a crime.

The St. Louis effort fizzled after initial success, but Oakland’s Deputy Police Chief David Kozicki said that in Washington, police officers say they cannot keep up with requests from parents to search their homes. Such is the interest in the program, he said.

Councilwoman Patricia Kernighan (Grand Lake-Chinatown), who is on the public safety committee, said she was surprised to hear that and hoped Oakland might see the same results.

“I think it’s worth trying and seeing what the community reaction is,” she said. “If it’s embraced as a way to get guns off the street, great. If people don’t want to cooperate, then we don’t continue the program.”

Kernighan and Councilwoman Desley Brooks (Eastmont-Seminary) asked the Police Department to look into the possibility of a consent-to-search program in February.

The police department is proposing a six-month trial period for the program beginning in either June or July, probably somewhere in West Oakland.

Lt. Kirt Mullnix said the program, which would be launched during summer break, would largely be operated by Campus Life and School Safety (CLASS) officers, who normally patrol in and around schools.

It also could involve department problem-solving officers as well. All told, six to 10 officers would be used in the effort, Mullnix said. He didn’t anticipate additional overtime being billed to the city.

Consent-to-search programs are not without controversy. Oakland civil-rights attorney John Burris criticized the idea when asked about it in February. And the American Civil Liberties Union has protested programs in other cities. Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director for the ACLU of Northern California, said the organization would pay close attention to what happens in Oakland.

“There are a whole host of reasons why people might not want police to search their homes,” he said. “But people might not know they have a right not to consent.”

City and police officials stressed it would be important to educate community members about how the program works before implementing it and said providing education and outreach would be a priority.

Under the program, if guns were found, police would take them away, but not pursue prosecution unless the gun in question was tied to a shooting or homicide.

“The important thing is you’re looking at removing guns from the streets to prevent future violence,” Mullnix said. “You’re giving up arrest and prosecution for less violence in the future. It’s another tool we can use. There’s a lot of gun violence in Oakland and that’s why we’re trying it.”

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival…It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is a state of war should exist. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.”

– G. Orwell, 1984

Wednesday, April 09, 2008 by: David Gutierrez

http://www.naturalnews.com/022965.html

(NaturalNews) A former AT&T technician who retired in 2004 has told Congress that the telecommunications company cooperated with the National Security Agency (NSA) by building special routing rooms that would allow the agency to monitor all U.S. internet traffic.

Mark Klein, who worked for AT&T for 22 years with no special security clearance, told Congress that in 2003, he was transferred to an office that was responsible for building a “secret room” connected to the company’s Internet room in San Francisco. Another technician showed him wiring diagrams for the room.

“That was my ‘aha’ moment,” Klein said. “They’re sending the entire Internet to the secret room.” Klein realized that the room was set up to split all Internet traffic passing through the building in two, sending one signal along uninterrupted and the other signal into the NSA’s secret room.

“This splitter was sweeping up everything, vacuum-cleaner-style,” he said. “The NSA is getting everything. These are major pipes that carry not just AT&T’s customers but everybody’s.”

Similar secret rooms were set up in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose, Calif. Klein said that AT&T also funneled phone-call data to the NSA.

The surveillance was carried out as part of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretap program, which has come under increasing fire as the depth of the surveillance has been uncovered.

Klein decided to come forward when he heard that the government was claiming that surveillance was only carried out on terrorism-related communications that involved someone outside the United States.

“I flipped out,” he said. “They’re copying the whole Internet. There’s no selection going on here. Maybe they select out later, but at the point of handoff to the government, they get everything.”

The technician urged Congress to reject a bill to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the wiretap program. Immunity would lead to the dismissal of 38 pending lawsuits.

“If they’ve done something massively illegal and unconstitutional — well, they should suffer the consequences,” Klein said.

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

April 10, 2008

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1089.htm

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers (Traducción al Español abajo)

A most curious report is circulating in the Kremlin today, submitted by Colonel Boris Sokolov of the Ministry of Defense, one of Russia’s top UFO investigators, and wherein he states that ‘embedded’ within last months largest ever recorded Cosmic Blast was a ‘40 megahertz radio wave coded signal’ that could ‘stimulate’ the electromagnetic activity of religiously devout people by ‘substantially altering’ their brain frequencies.

The areas of the brain of devout followers of religion most likely to have ‘received’ this ‘cosmic message’, this report continues, had previously been identified by French Researchers from the University of Montreal, and who stated about their research:

“The main goal of the study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience. Rather than there being one spot that relates to mystical experiences, we’ve found a number of brain regions are involved. This does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience and neither does it confirm or disconfirm the existence of God,” explained lead researcher of the study Dr Mario Beauregard. “

Colonel Sokolov continues in his report by stating that this ‘cosmic message’ would be first ‘understood’ by the most devoted followers of religion as their brain frequencies are more attuned to the 40 megahertz radio wave and that these people would be, most likely, found in cults.

Now, and most curiously, following this ‘cosmic message’ blasted at our Earth, both the United States and European Union have launched near simultaneous crackdowns against their respective religious cults, and as we can read as exampled by the two most prominent of these cults affected:
From German News Sources:

“Around 400 police on Tuesday raided the southern German homes and offices [pictured on left, third photo down] of a guru-like leader of a new age organic farming commune suspected of widespread fraud. Police arrested the 54-year-old, who has not been named, as well as six other suspects as they raided around 100 offices and homes and seized assets worth several million euros, a spokesman for the prosecutors said.The man is believed to have exerted strong personal control over members of a “highly hierarchical” farming commune in Aichstetten in southern Germany known as St. Michaelshof, prosecutors in the southern city of Ravensburg said.”

From United States News Sources:

“The allegedly polygamous group whose compound was raided this week in Texas is either a religious sect or a full-blown cult, depending on whom you ask. The raided compound was founded by jailed polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, who took over in 2002 as prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), which broke off from the Mormon church in the 1930s over the issue of polygamy. Authorities have reportedly taken into legal custody more than 400 children and 133 women deemed to have been harmed or in imminent danger of harm.”

To the exact linking of this ‘cosmic message’ to the US-EU crackdown on their cults it is not to our knowing, but to an alien civilization directing messages to our Earth it is, indeed, likely as we ourselves have done likewise:

“On February 14, 2003, Team Encounter, LLC (Houston, Texas) [transmitted] a series of interstellar radio messages on behalf of the worldwide public, using a 230-foot diameter radio astronomy dish (one of the world’s largest steerable radio astronomy dishes) at the Evpatriya Radio Astronomy Facility in the Ukraine.

Called the Cosmic Call, the broadcast will be aimed at target stars deemed likely prospects to harbour life supporting planets as selected by a team of scientific experts. The messages will consist of multiple parts: Part 1, designed by the science team, will involve anticryptic messages conveying detailed information about Earth and humanity; Part 2, will include a re-broadcast of the 1974 Arecibo radio transmission, and Part 3 will consist of the names and personal messages of the Team Encounter participants.”

But, to most mysterious part of this report is Colonel Sokolov’s deciphering of this ‘cosmic message’, and which he states in his report simply said:

“I Am. I Come.”

© April 10, 2008 EU and US all rights reserved.
[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.]

Shocking KSLA 12 news report confirms story we broke last year, Pastors to cite Romans 13 as reason for public to obey government orders, relinquish guns and be taken to camps during state of emergency

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Thursday, August 16, 2007

A shocking KSLA news report has confirmed the story we first broke last year, that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to “quell dissent” and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.

In May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.

A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.

The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to “obey the government” when martial law is declared.

It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the “cowboy mentality” of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure.

It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that “this is for their own good.”

Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.

Though some doubted the accuracy of this report at the time due to its fundamentally disturbing implications, the story has now been confirmed by a KSLA 12 news report, in which participating clergy and officials admit to the existence of the program.

Watch the video.

The report entertains the scenario of martial law as depicted in the movie The Siege and states that “quelling dissent would be critical.”

Dr. Durell Tuberville serves as chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo Sheriff’s Office. Tuberville said of the clergy team’s mission, “the primary thing that we say to anybody is, ‘let’s cooperate and get this thing over with and then we’ll settle the differences once the crisis is over.'”

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. “In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,” assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, “because the government’s established by the Lord, you know. And, that’s what we believe in the Christian faith. That’s what’s stated in the scripture.”

So there you have it – Homeland Security are working with local police departments and religious leaders to prepare for the declaration of martial law and in particular developing techniques they will employ during the crisis to “quell dissent.”

Phony Christian leaders are brainwashing their congregations to accept the premise that the totalitarian police state is “of the Lord” and that they should get on their knees and lick jackboots while the round-ups take place as citizens are processed into quarantine zones and detention camps by the National Guard and U.S. troops returning from Iraq.

The precedent for mass gun confiscation and martial law in times of a real or manufactured emergency was set during Hurricane Katrina, when police and National Guard patrols forced home owners – even in areas unaffected by the hurricane – to hand over their legally owned firearms at gunpoint.

This is a clear precursor for the imminent declaration of a state of emergency, a scenario that President Bush codified in his recent Presidential Decision Directive of May 9th, which states in the event of a “catastrophic event” the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The scope of the program is so secretive that even Homeland Security Committee member and Congressman Peter DeFazio was denied access to view the classified portion of the documents.