U.S. Government Okays Huge For-Profit Immigrant Detention Center

 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

U.S. Government Okays Huge For-Profit Immigrant Detention Center

Posted by Charleston Voice


Private prison corporation Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) operates 60 facilities across the United States, primarily in the South, but they’re itching to expand across the country. Last month, CCA sent proposals to state governments of the lower 48 states in a sort of sales pitch, offering to take the state-run prisons off their hands, spinning it as a sort of relief measure for skint state coffers.(Source)


U.S. Government Okays Huge For-Profit Immigrant Detention Center
Wednesday, September 10, 2014

(photo: Wikipedia)

Federal immigration officials are planning to open a mammoth detention center in Texas to hold illegal immigrant families, much to the dismay of advocates who point to a similar effort that raised considerable controversy.
The South Texas Family Detention Center, which will be located 70 miles outside San Antonio, would be operated by the nation’s largest private prison company, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is preparing to hire CCA to run the 2,400-bed facility, previously partnered with the operator on the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Center outside Austin.
That operation ended in 2009 following “numerous allegations of human rights abuses, accounts of children suffering psychological trauma and a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the University of Texas Law School Immigration Clinic,” Forrest Wilder of theTexas Observer reported.
Bob Libal, executive director of Grassroots Leadership, a group that opposes for-profit prisons, told the Observer: “Given the shameful history of family detention at Hutto, it’s beyond troubling that ICE would turn back to Corrections Corporation of America to operate what would be by far the nation’s largest family detention center.”
“While little kids and their families will suffer in this remote private prison, far away from legal or social services, this multi-billion-dollar private prison company stands to make enormous profits,” Libal added.
ICE is in negotiations with the commercial real estate firm Koontz McCombs to lease a 50-acre stretch of land for the planned center. That property is part of Sendero Ranch, which currently serves as a housing community for oilfield workers. Koontz McCombs, which owns the land, is tied to Red McCombs, a San Antonio business mogul.
The land that ICE hopes to lease currently stands as a fenced campus capable of housing 680 people. Additional buildings would be constructed to handle the 2,400 detainees.
The decision to open the new center is part of the administration’s response to the flood of children and families from Central America into the U.S.

Noel Brinkerhoff

To Learn More:

Feds Planning Massive Family Detention Center in South Texas (by Forrest Wilder, Texas Observer)

Immigrant Detention Bed Quotas Cost Taxpayers, Profit Private Prison Companies (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

Private Prisons Punish States for not Having Enough Prisoners (by Matt Bewig, AllGov)

Related Posts

U.S. Government Okays Huge For-Profit Immigrant Detention Center
noreply@blogger.com (Charleston Voice)
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:41:46 GMT

Republicans and Democrats Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution

Tuesday, 09 September 2014 11:51

Republicans and Democrats Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution

Written by  Christian Gomez

Republicans and Democrats Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution

Many conservative Americans who support a modern-day constitutional convention, a.k.a. a “Convention of the States,” sincerely believe that the states will be able to control what happens should such a convention be convened and that the agenda would be limited to a predetermined “conservative” agenda, such as balancing the federal budget. Yet the evidence continues to mount that this is mere wishful thinking. As a little-publicized meeting late this spring clearly demonstrated, conservative state legislators who fashion themselves the founding fathers of a new convention recognize that they must make their “tent” big enough to include liberal Democrats in order to succeed.

On June 12-13, 2014, the Indiana State Legislature hosted what its organizers termed a “write the rules convention,” composed of both Republicans and progressive Democrats, to prepare for a future Article V “convention of the states.”

This “rules convention” was the product of the Assembly of State Legislatures (ASL), which describes itself as “a bipartisan group of currently serving state legislators from across the country who recognize that the states have a responsibility under federalism to work together to solve problems of national concern.”

Formerly known as the Mount Vernon Assembly and renamed at the June meeting, ASL appears to be the brainchild of Republican State Representative Chris Kapenga of Wisconsin. Both Kapenga’s and ASL’s desired goal is to bring about an amendments convention as provided for in the Constitution’s Article V: “The Congress … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” (Emphasis added.)

Said and Unsaid

The June 12 ASL session opened with prayer and pledge in the House of Representatives Chamber of the Indiana Statehouse, followed by elaboration by Kapenga on some of the background of Article V and how the states can utilize it to amend the Constitution. Asserting that this would be a purely state-led and state-directed process, Kapenga proceeded to quote from Alexander Hamilton’s The Federalist, No. 85, which addresses Article V: “The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress ‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.”

Since “The Federalist Papers are not [the] governing documents of our country,” as Democratic State Representative Raymond Dehn of Minnesota pointed out, Kapenga and other pro Article V convention advocates cannot use the above quote from Hamilton to definitively lay to rest any concerns or fears of potential congressional involvement and influence over an actual Article V convention.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, which unlike the Federalist Papers is the nation’s primary governing document, specifically states: “The Congress shall have Power … To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.” (Emphasis added.)

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the various powers specifically granted to Congress, among which are the power to “establish Post Offices and post Roads,” “declare war,” and “provide and maintain a Navy.” Regarding the latter, since Congress has the power to “provide and maintain a Navy,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 grants Congress the power to do what is “necessary and proper” to exercise this power ­— meaning the establishment of naval academies to train officers and sailors; the creation of shipyards to construct, refit, and repair warships; and the hiring and training of engineers to build, design, and operate those vessels. Clause 18 is not limited to only those “foregoing powers” listed in Article I, Section 8, but to “all other powers vested by this Constitution,” including Article V.

This means that under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 Congress is granted the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” Article V’s constitutional mandate that Congress, “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” Constitutionally, Congress has and will execute all the powers it deems necessary for calling a convention. This would likely include choosing the location and date of the convention, allocation of delegates from the states (whether proportional by population, congressional district, one per state, etc.), the method of ratification for any proposed amendments to the Constitution, and all other preliminary rules associated with the convention.

Put simply, the power to establish such rules resides exclusively with Congress. It is not a state-led process as Kapenga and others in the pro-Article V camp maintain.

Of course, once an Article V convention actually convenes, it would then be free to create its own agenda, including possibly even coming up with a new ratification process, as was the case with the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But this historical fact underscores even more the fact that the states cannot bind the work of the convention.

Speaking about the nature and purpose of the two-day Indianapolis meeting, Kapenga told the state legislators in attendance that their current assembly meeting “does not trigger Article V authority or involvement of Congress, because remember the Article V authority is to amend.” Kapenga continued, “We are not touching amendments at this convention. This is a write the rules convention.” (Emphasis added.)

Kapenga and the other state legislators behind the ASL view their two-day gathering in Indianapolis as already being a “new legislative body” or “convention,” the same type of convention as an Article V convention, which they claim is not a one-time meeting but an ongoing assembly or continuous series of “Conventions of the States.”

Page three of the ASL’s “Committee Responsibility Form” for the Rules and Procedures Committee states:

It should also be clearly stated that we see a Convention of the States as the same legislative body, no matter if convened for the purpo
se of an Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments, or for any other purpose. It is the same precedent as if the Indiana House, for example, was in regular or special session; it is still the same body even though it is convened under a different ­purpose.

According to Kapenga and ASL documents, the June 12-13 Indianapolis meeting was the “same legislative body” as an Article V convention. To them this June 12-13 Indianapolis meeting was a Convention of the States, and is a continuous legislative body just as the houses of state legislatures or the two houses of Congress are as they go from one session to another. Where in Article V of the Constitution does it say that the convention for proposing amendments is an ongoing “legislative body,” one that can convene, meet, and pass resolutions at its own discretion, and only requiring Congress’ approval (at the behest of 34 states) before proposing amendments to the Constitution? The short answer is nowhere.

These claims are nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution. Yet Kapenga is considered to be one of the “conservative” Republicans involved in this process. If this is what reputed conservatives are claiming about an Article V convention, then how much further will pro-Article-V-convention progressive Democratic supporters go?

Democrats in the Digs

What progressive Democratic supporters, you may ask? Wasn’t this supposed to be a purely conservative Republican effort from start to finish? That’s what the pro-Article-V-convention advocates originally claimed early on in their presentations to numerous Tea Party groups and on popular conservative talk-radio shows. Now, however, their true colors, Red and Blue (Republican and Democrat), are bleeding through as some of those who originally gave the impression that this would be a “conservative” Republican effort are now proudly proposing to work together with the Left and boasting of the Article V movement’s “bipartisanship.”

Of the 109 state legislator delegates shown in the seating chart for the ASL’s Indianapolis “rules convention,” 11 were Democrats. At the end of the two-day meeting, Kapenga promised that “we’re going to change” the political makeup of the ASL, i.e., attract more Democrats. Missouri State Senator Jason Holsman,  a participant in the Indianapolis ASL convention as co-chair of the Rules and Procedures Committee and regarded as the “greenest Democrat” in the Missouri Legislature, stressed the need to bring in and involve more Democrats, minorities, and women. Senator Holsman elaborated on the need to “change the complexion of the room,” a goal that “conservative” Republican Kapenga of Wisconsin shares.

What effect would attracting more Democrats have on the outcome of an Article V Convention of the States? Would it still be limited to a single subject or amendment, such as a balanced budget amendment? After all, ASL views its recent “rules convention” as constituting the “same legislative body” as an actual congressionally authorized Article V ­convention.

Whereas most conservative Republican state legislators favor a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, the inclusion of more liberal Democrats will surely also mean the inclusion of a more liberal progressive agenda. Why else would liberal Democrats participate in an Article V convention unless they expected to make their own desired changes to the Constitution? Would liberal Democratic delegates seek the adoption of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights” that he proposed in his 1944 State of the Union Address? Would they go after the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, in order to proclaim that “money does not equal speech,” that “corporations are not people,” and that all elections must be publicly financed? This type of campaign finance reform amendment is what left-wing Article V convention groups, such as Wolf-PAC, advocate.

Between 2013 and 2014, 16 state legislatures introduced resolutions requesting that Congress call a convention to propose variations of Wolf-PAC’s campaign finance amendment. The legislatures of Vermont and California passed the nation’s first two Wolf-PAC Article V convention applications in 2014 with two more states, Minnesota and Illinois, passing it in their respective state Senates. In fact, one of the Democratic participants at the ASL’s Indianapolis rules convention was Minnesota State Representative Raymond Dehn, who not only cosponsored SF 17, the Minnesota Senate version of the Wolf-PAC application, but also was the lead sponsor of the House version, HB 276. On the first day of ASL’s Indianapolis meeting, Dehn introduced himself as the “most left” leaning legislator present.

Both Minnesota’s SF 17 and HB 276 that Dehn sponsored read in part:

BE IT RESOLVED by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota that it requests that Congress propose an amendment to the Constitution that shall substantially read as follows:

(1) The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

(2) Any entity, including any organization or association of one or more persons, established or allowed by the laws of any State, the United States, or any Foreign State shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the people, through Federal, State, or local law.

(3) The privileges of any entity, including any organization or association, shall be determined by the people, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

(4) Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

(5) Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

(6) The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the 1st Amendment.

Dehn’s resolution further affirms itself as an Article V application:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if Congress does not propose the amendment language or substantially similar amendment language as contained in this resolution, the Legislature of the State of Minnesota applies to the Congress of the United States to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing the amendment language or substantially similar amendment language as contained in this resolution as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [Emphasis added.]

Despite Kapenga’s denial that a “Convention of the States” and a “constitutional convention” are the same thing, the text of this Article V application, cosponsored and introduced by a leading ASL delegate, demonstrates otherwise.

What effect would a constitutional amendment such as the one above sponsored by Dehn (“no rights under this Constitution”) have on the legal standing of (say) Hobby Lobby? On June 30, 2010, this Christian-owned corporation won a landmark decision in the Supreme Court over its refusal to participate in the Obama­Care mandate requiring it to provide abortion-inducing contraceptive drugs for its employees. Under Dehn’s Wolf-PAC amendment, Hobby Lobby and other corporations like it would have no constitutionally protected rights. Are these the type of architects we want to be amending or rewriting the Constitution?

Despite the inclusion of pro-Wolf-PAC supporters such as Dehn in the ASL’s ranks, Representative Chris Kapenga and Senator Jason Holsman are eager to invite even more Democrats to further change the future makeup of the room. Why such a bipartisan eagerness to invite the Left
to help make changes to the nation’s Constitution? The answer might lie in an e-mail from Michael Farris’ Convention of States, a project of Mark Meckler’s Citizens for Self Governance (CSG).

In an e-mail from Eric Burk, the Grassroots Coordinator for CSG’s Convention of States Project, Burk expressly states: “The plain and simple truth is that unless we can get both support from Republicans and Democrats, we cannot hope to get our application passed in 34 states.”

If the Right is making such bipartisan concessions now, before an actual Article V convention has convened, imagine how much further they would be willing to compromise at a second constitutional convention. What exactly would the results of a new, modern-day, “great compromise” be?

Those who love the Constitution should be wary of Article V convention advocates who all too easily give false assurances as to the safety of such a convention. The Constitution need not be amended, but rather should be defended by upholding it. Changing the Constitution will not correct man’s failure to properly interpret or willingly obey it. Only through an informed electorate and the educational efforts of grassroots constitutionalist organizations dedicated to the preservation of the Constitution will this latest bipartisan assault on the Constitution be thwarted, assuring the continued blessings of liberty for America’s posterity.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/19082-republicans-and-democrats-working-together-to-rewrite-the-constitution

States vs Feds: Borders and the Constitution

by Robert Greenslade

The battle raging between the federal government and the State of Arizona over its so-called anti immigration law has raised some constitutional issues that will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court.  It has been asserted by the federal government that the States are precluded from protecting their borders and controlling illegal aliens because the Constitution grants the federal government these powers.  This assertion is erroneous because the individual States, as sovereign political entities, have the absolute right to protect their borders from illegal aliens irrespective of the Constitution or any power granted to the federal government.

We are constantly told that people illegally entering the country are undocumented immigrants and the federal government has jurisdiction over all matters concerning immigration.  This is not the case.  In fact, the word immigration does not appear any where in the Constitution.  The only general power granted to the federal government concerning aliens, in times of peace, is the power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” This provision was inserted because there was, in the words of James Madison, “a dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization” among the States.  By vesting this power in the federal government, as opposed to the individual States, the Founders ensured that the qualifications for becoming a citizen would be uniform throughout the several States.  If the rule were not uniform, one State could impose a different standard than another State or discriminate against immigrants from certain nations.  No other power is granted to the federal government concerning this subject.

The federal government also claims the duty of securing the borders of these United States rests solely with the federal government.  The Constitution states: “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion….” [See Article IV, Section 4]  If aliens entering into a State from a foreign country constitute an “invasion,” then the federal government is constitutionally mandated by this provision to intervene and protect the State.

The Constitution grants the federal government the power to fulfill this duty in one of two ways.  It can either use the military, or Congress can call forth the militias of the several States to repel the invasion.  [See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15]  Once Congress calls forth the militia, the President, as commander in chief, has the power to direct the movement of these forces.  Thus, the President could constitutionally send the State militias to any State to repel the “invasion” by illegal aliens.  However, if illegal aliens pouring into the States by the millions do not constitute an “invasion,” then the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to intervene and prevent the States from protecting their borders.

Note: The National Guard is a State military force and is referred to as the organized militia.  The so-called common folk who meet certain age requirements are referred to as the unorganized militia.  There is no federal militia.  In addition, there is no specific provision in the Constitution for the so-called Border Patrol to function within the several States.  Protecting the borders of the States from illegal aliens has nothing to do with the federal government’s power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” The regular military and the militia are the only entities designated in the Constitution to protect the States from invasion.

Even though the word immigration does not appear in the Constitution, the federal government claims that anything relating to immigration and the border is vested exclusively in that government.  In other words, the States are prohibited by the Constitution from exercising any power that touches on these issues.

During the debates in the Virginia State Convention of 1788, John Marshall made the following statement concerning the constitutional prohibitions on State power:

“The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislatures before, both shall exercise it, unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that of the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it…  All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to the Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.”

Marshall stated that if the States possessed a power prior to the adoption of the Constitution and a like power was granted to the federal government, the States retained a concurrent power unless there was a conflict in the exercise of power or there was a clause that specifically prohibited the States from exercising that power.

Alexander Hamilton made this observation, several months prior to Marshall, in his writings in the Federalist Essays.  In Essay No. 32 he wrote:

“The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequences of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution.  We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States.  The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions.  This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.” [Bold added]

In Essay No. 82, Hamilton restated this principle and noted that there were only three instances where the “exclusively delegated” rule would apply:

“The principles established in a former paper teach us that the States will retain all preëxisting authorities which may not be exclusively delegated to the federal head; and that this exclusive delegation can only exist in one of three cases: where an exclusive authority is, in express terms, granted to the Union; or where a particular authority is granted to the Union, and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States; or where an authority is granted to the Union, with which a similar authority in the States would be utterly incompatible.”  [Bold not added]

As stated by Marshall and Hamilton, the States retained every preexisting power that was not exclusively delegated to the federal government.  The exclusively delegated rule, as defined by Hamilton, has no application to the States concerning illegal aliens and their borders.

Marshall and Hamilton also noted that all of the constitutional prohibitions on State power are contained in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.  A review of this section shows that it does not contain a single clause that places any restraint on State power concerning illegal aliens or protec
ting the borders of the several States.

In Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, the States have the power to engage war when “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit delay.” How could the States have the power to engage in war, independent of the federal government, but not have the civil authority to protect their borders?

Even if the federal government had been granted authority over foreigners in the several States, the States would not be precluded from exercising this power as well.

Since the Constitution prevents the States from maintaining a standing army, without the consent of Congress, in times of peace, the State force contemplated in Article 1, Section 10 is the State militia.  Thus, the States have the constitutional authority to use the militia to protect their borders.

It should be noted that the Constitution only grants the federal government limited powers concerning use of the militias.  Congress has no constitutional authority over these militias unless and until they are called into the actual service of the United States.  When not in federal service, the States have exclusive authority over their militias.

This principle was discussed during the debates on the Constitution.  In the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, there was a lengthy debate concerning the militia.

Mr. HENRY wished to know what authority the state governments had over the militia.

Mr. MADISON answered, that the state governments might do what they thought proper with the militia, when they were not in the actual service of the United States.

Mr. JOHN MARSHALL The state governments do not derive their powers from the general government…  The state legislatures had the power to command and govern their militia before, and still have it, undeniably, unless there is something in this Constitution that takes it away…  But there are no negative words here…  To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption…  All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to the Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article…  But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it–that ‘no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.’  When invaded, they can engage in war, as also when in imminent danger.  This proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary.

Marshall, who would later become Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, went on to state:

“[T]he power of governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, because, being possessed of it antecedent to the adoption of the government, and not being divested of it by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as fully possessed of it as ever they had been.”

As stated by Marshall, since the States were not divested of the power to govern their militia they have the authority to use their militia in any manner they see fit.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there a single clause that places a prohibition on State power concerning the use of their militias.  If a State wants to send its militia to the border to stop intrusions by illegal aliens, it has the power to do so irrespective of the Constitution or the powers delegated to the federal government.

In California, Article 5, Section 7 of our Constitution states:

“The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute.  The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.”

Thus, a governor has the constitutional authority to call forth the militia independent of the California Legislature.

The conditions under which a governor can call forth the militia is spelled out in California’s Military and Veterans Code.  Section 146 grants a governor the authority to:

“[C]all into active service any portion of the active militia as may be necessary, and if the number available be insufficient, the Governor may call into active service any portion of the unorganized militia as may be necessary, in any of the following events:

a) In case of war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of the peace, public calamity or catastrophe, including, but not limited to, catastrophic fires, or other emergency, or imminent danger thereof, or resistance to the laws of this state or the United States.” [Bold added]

Note: This provision grants the governor the statutory authority to use California’s militia to enforce so-called federal immigration laws within this State.

Hundreds of thousands of illegals pouring into California every year triggers several of these provisions and is nothing short of a human invasion.  Thus, a governor has the statutory authority to use the militia to protect California’s border and stop the flow of illegals.  Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have similar provisions in their laws.

If you have ever watched a documentary on legal immigrants entering the country through Ellis Island, you saw they were screened for any diseases.  Thus, the States could employ this same standard under their police powers to protect its citizens from any potential diseases.  Since the general power of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the people was reserved to the States, the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to prevent the States from performing this function.

In addition, a governor could send the State militia to the border to protect property.  Other than federal land, where the States have no jurisdiction, all the property belongs to private citizens or the individual States.  The federal government has no constitutional authority over this land.  It is well documented that illegals are trespassing and vandalizing property during their trip north.  Thus, a governor could mobilize the State militia to protect State land and private property.

California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have the power, unrestrained by the Constitution for the United States, to engage in war with Mexico to protect their citizens and borders from the human invasion.  One or all of these States should inform the clowns in Washington D.C. that we are mobilizing our militia for the trip south and we double dog dare you to try and stop us.

FYI If you read the Naturalization Acts of 1790 & 1795, which were the first two Naturalization Acts passed by Congress after the Constitution was ratified, you will note that they are not called Immigration Acts.  In fact, the word immigration does not appear in either Act.  These Acts negate the assertion that the Constitution made the so-called immigration process an exclusive federal function because individuals wishing to become citizens could do so through the States and their courts.

Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/10/04/states-vs-feds-borders-and-the-constitution/
noreply@blogger.com (Charleston Voice)
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:07:10 GMT

James Madison: How the States Can Block Federal Gun Control

 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

James Madison: How the States Can Block Federal Gun Control

Posted by Charleston Voice

What do we do when the federal government simply ignores the Second Amendment and acts in ways that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms? Well, James Madison laid out a blueprint in Federalist 46 before the Constitution was even ratified.

James Madison wrote in Federalist #46;

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

Here Madison says that the people of a whole possess the advantage of having arms and through their subordinate governments would be the greatest army on earth. It would be insurmountable odds for any standing army of any nation to conquer just by the vast numbers of the armed citizenry.

He further writes;

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”

Madison illustrates that not only can an armed citizenry repel any outside foreign forces by large standing armies, but also, as the very last resort, can serve as a check on a tyrannical central government. It also illustrates that the natural right of self-defense and arms is indeed an individual right.

This, in its very essence, is why the founders restricted the authority of the central government when it come to arms though the Second Amendment.

But Madison goes on to provide a strategy that makes it possible to resist unconstitutional federal act without relying on arms – a moderate middle road between submission and revolution. He gave us a blueprint for stopping federal overreach before the Constitution was even ratified.

That tool is the non-cooperation, and he assured Americans that the power of the states could keep the general government in check.

The states simply do NOT have to cooperate with the enforcement of unconstitutional federal acts concerning the right to keep and bear arms. This strategy has even been affirmed by the courts under what is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

JAMES MADISON’S ADVICE

From Federalist #46:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Let’s break down Madison’s prescription.

“Should an unwarrantable measure…” What does Madison mean by “unwarrantable?” The word literally means “unjustifiable.” Madison was clearly talking about federal acts with no constitutional justification. In other words, unconstitutional.

But notice something interesting, Madison implies that state governments can even resist a “warrantable” or justifiable federal act.

So what does Madison suggest states do when the feds overstep their authority? Oppose it!

“…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand.” Madison anticipated the possibility of federal usurpation and clearly believed the states would serve as a check on federal power. He believed the states should and would resist unconstitutional acts.

So, what are the “means of opposition?”

1. Disquietude of the people – This would include protests and petitions generated at the grassroots level. Madison expected the people would throw a fit when the feds usurped power – even using the word “repugnance” to describe their displeasure. That’s a pretty strong word. And inevitably, disquietude leads to action – first at the local level, then bubbling up to the state level. That leads to the next step.

2. Refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union – Noncompliance. Madison apparently knew what we know today. The feds rely on cooperation from state and local governments, as well as individuals. When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce their so-called laws.

Noncompliance works and it should be happening at both the state and local level.

3, The frowns of the executive magistracy of the State – Here Madison envisions Governors formally protesting federal actions. This not only raises public awareness; executive leadership will also lead to the next step – legislative action. Prior to passage of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Gov. Garrard delivered a powerful message condemning the Alien and Sedition Acts and calling on legislative action.

4. Legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions -What exactly does Madison mean by “legislative devices?” He doesn’t make that clear. But we know they include resolutions, because he and Thomas Jefferson penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the draconian and unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Together, these Principles of ’98 formalize the doctrine of nullification.

But do legislative devices stop at non-binding resolutions? Clearly not, because Madison said these measures would create “difficulties” and “impediments.” 18th-century dictionaries list “obstruction” as a synonym for impediment. In other words, these legislative devices could serve to block the operation of unconstitutional power. This infers actions including formal, binding prohibitions of state or local cooperation, and outright interposition: “to intervene or place an agency between two positions.”

So what do we have today? Do we not have a federal government that has long since usurped its powers enumerated to it by the US Constitution and disobeyed its further restrictions outlined in the Bill of Rights?

The clear course we have to take to once again have a resemblance of federalism and a constitutional republic is undoubtedly the non-cooperation/anti-commandeering doctrine of any and all federal gun restrictions, it is the rightful remedy

James Madison: How the States Can Block Federal Gun Control
noreply@blogger.com (Charleston Voice)
Thu, 11 Sep 2014 03:04:40 GMT

VIDEO: Sen. Mike Lee condemns Democrats for trying to alter the First Amendment | Ben Swann Truth In Media

VIDEO: Sen. Mike Lee condemns Democrats for trying to alter the First Amendment | Ben Swann Truth In Media.

VIDEO: Sen. Mike Lee condemns Democrats for trying to alter the First Amendment

By: Michael Lotfi Sep 11, 2014

0

WASHINGTON D.C., September 10, 2014 – On Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R- Utah) gave an impassioned speech before Congress detailing the threat S.J. Res 19, a new proposed constitutional amendment, poses to the  First Amendment.

If passed, the proposed amendment would grant Congress and states the power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to federal and state elections. Lee blasted the Democrats attempt to limit free speech and said our political system “keeps us free only to the extent that individuals rich and poor alike are able to say what they want and join together to form voluntary associations for the purpose of influencing the outcome of elections.” You can watch the full video here:

http://benswann.com/video-sen-mike-lee-condemns-democrats-for-trying-to-alter-the-first-amendment/

Feds Make Public Schools Enroll Unvaccinated Immigrant Kids | The Daily Caller

Feds Make Public Schools Enroll Unvaccinated Immigrant Kids | The Daily Caller.
Feds Make Public Schools Enroll Unvaccinated Immigrant Kids | The Daily Caller

Since October 2013, 50,303 “unaccompanied children” from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have crossed America’s porous Southern border to claim green cards via the immigration courts.

The Obama administration has sent none of these children home. Instead, federal officials have chosen to set aside normal immigration practices and to allow this wave of young illegal immigrants to apply for green cards via asylum applications and to disperse across the country. (RELATED: Obama Hides Steady Inflow Of Central American Migrants)

With school now in session, these kids have enrolled in public schools nationwide.

In the event that any of these thousands of Central American children are carrying communicable diseases, experts claim, any subsequent health crisis will likely first manifest itself within a public school environment.

That’s alarming news. But wait! There’s more!

According to the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, the Obama administration has not subjected a large number of these children to proper medical screening processes.

Instead, the federal government has sent the unaccompanied minors to various U.S. locations to live with relatives or, in some cases, to live as foster wards. The children then enroll in local, taxpayer-funded public schools with no questions asked — by law.

Dr. Elaina George, a member of the national advisory council of the Project 21 black leadership network and a board-certified otolaryngologist, warned that this policy adds up to the possibility of a very serious disease outbreak.

“There’s no mechanism in place to ensure children are checked medically,” George told The Daily Caller. “It’s put everybody at risk. Anybody who comes into contact with a disease — tuberculosis, for example — is at risk.”

“This is not something that’s theoretical. This is not something that kind of happened. It’s happened,” she added.

“All you need is one person with tuberculosis to cough on somebody else. Share a cup. Other kids are at risk. Teachers are at risk. Parents are at risk. Grandparents are at risk.”

In Virginia, for example, the state Department of Education issued a July memo ordering local school districts to accept illegal immigrant children even if they have no home and no documentation concerning their health or immunization status.

The memo stated, in part, that local schools “cannot exclude from school attendance those homeless children who do not provide the requisite health or immunization information required of other students.”

School districts are supposed to refer students who don’t present immunization documentation to a local social worker who will assist with obtaining physical examinations and required vaccinations.

There’s no guarantee social workers will follow through with the assistance, though, and, as George notes, by the time sick kids rub shoulders with healthy kids, it could be entirely too late.

School districts have no choice but to enroll illegal immigrant children. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that a state law (in Texas) preventing the children of illegal immigrants from attending public schools was unconstitutional because denying the children basic education contributes to “the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries.”

Additionally, in May of this year, the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice sent a joint letter to school districts nationwide warning that they would “contravene Federal law” if they “chill or discourage the participation, or lead to the exclusion, of students based on their or their parents’ or guardians’ actual or perceived citizenship or immigration status.” (RELATED: White House Tells Public Schools To Enroll Illegals Despite Lack Of Age Or Address Evidence)

Another member of the Project 21 black leadership network, Michael Dozier, Ph.D., has noted that unchecked immigration is fraught with public health risks.

“Latin America is currently dealing with a mysterious epidemic reported to cause chronic renal failure and death that has killed more than 24,000 people in El Salvador and Nicaragua since 2000,” Dozier claimed. “It has spread as far north as southern Mexico and south into Panama. Diseases such as this could be carried across our border by illegal immigrants and could create a nationwide health crisis.”

The Obama administration is fully aware of the health risks presented by its policy of forcing potentially unvaccinated, diseased immigrants into public schools.

In a July 30 memo to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General, John Roth, warned that many of the illegal immigrants who have recently arrived from Central America “require treatment for communicable diseases, including respiratory illnesses, tuberculosis, chicken pox and scabies.” Some illegal immigrants transmitted some of those diseases to Border Patrol agents at a Del Rio, Texas holding facility.

To make bad matters worse, the DHS Inspector General released a report last week warning that the United States is “ill-prepared” for a pandemic. The agency noted that the federal government has failed to manage its stockpile of protective gear and antiviral medications. At the same time, the feds have an overabundance of some supplies which would be useless in the event of a severe outbreak, such as influenza. (RELATED: Audit: Homeland Security ‘Ill-Prepared’ For Pandemic)

Project 21, which is a conservative public policy group, observes that the Obama administration’s policy of placing illegal immigrant children in public schools around the country is likely to affect black children disproportionately because black children tend to live in urban areas and rural areas in the Southeast. Both have been popular destinations for illegal immigrant children.

“Will children of the elites and liberals enrolled in private schools who advocate for this de facto amnesty be subjected to the same health risks as public school students?” asked Project 21 member Christopher Arps.

Follow Eric on Twitter and on Facebook, and send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/10/feds-force-public-schools-to-enroll-illegal-immigrant-children-with-no-medical-screening/2/#ixzz3Cych56eR

Guess who's coming to dinner? The Council on Foreign Relations

 

THE BLOG

Obama Dines With Man Caught Stealing, Destroying Classified Documents

8:46 AM, SEP 9, 2014 • BY DANIEL HALPER

President Obama hosted “a private dinner with a group of foreign policy experts,” the White House announced last night. Among them: Sandy Berger, who was caught stealing and destroying classified documents that related to President Clinton’s record on terrorism issues.

“Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them,” CNN reported in 2005.

“Berger must perform 100 hours of community service and pay the fine as well as $6,905 for the administrative costs of his two-year probation, a district court judge ruled.”

Ronald A. Cass, in 2007, noted that Berger took extraordinary steps to cover up his crime:

On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation’s most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.

Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration’s handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.

What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?

Guess who’s coming to dinner? The Coucil on Foreign Relations
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

Obama’s Speech to America: Stop ISIL by Funding ISIL

 

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
As many had expected as soon as the announcement was made that Barack Obama would make a speech on September 10 regarding his strategy against ISIS, the U.S. President has confirmed that he reserves the right to engage in airstrikes inside Syria.
The President outlined a four-point strategy that would, according to him, “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Obama stated that, “if left unchecked, ISIS could prove a threat across the middle eastern region” and possibly the American “homeland.” Obama warned that ISIS terrorists originating from the United States and Europe could return home and engage in terrorist attacks on both American and European soil.
The President also announced his desire to create a “broad coalition” to “roll back the terrorist threat.”
The four-point strategy is allegedly 1) “a systematic campaign of airstrikes” against terrorists in Iraq as well as a plan to work with the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military forces. 2) To increase support to forces fighting ISIL on the ground. This will take the form of 475 additional U.S. service members. Obama claims that these troops will not have a combat mission, but instead an advisory role. Obama also stated his intention to increase assistance to Syrian death squad fighters fighting against Bashar Al Assad. 3) Increase counter-terrorism efforts, cut off funding to terrorist groups and improve intelligence on the ground. Obama stated that he intends to convene a meeting of the UN Security Council in two weeks to discuss these matters. 4) Increase humanitarian assistance to the victims of the crisis in Iraq and Syria.

Obama made clear that he will “not hesitate to take action against ISIL” and that he has “the authority to combat ISIL” but he believes that the country is stronger when the President consults Congress in these decisions. Toward the end of his speech, Obama stated that he intends to “take out ISIL wherever they exist.”
All in all, Barack Obama’s speech to the nation was nothing more than an exercise in the live broadcasting of utter insanity. Obama’s four-point plan is entirely full of deceit and contradictions.
Obama’s statement regarding ISIS in Iraq and Syria is a thinly masked lie covering up the ultimate goal of launching air strikes against the secular government of Assad in Syria. Despite all of the air strikes taking place in Iraq and those to take place in the future, ISIS/ISIL is entirely a creation of the United States and NATO.
In the same speech, Obama professed a desire to cut off funding for ISIL while he simultaneously announced his intention to increase financial and military assistance to ISIL in Syria.
If Obama were truly serious about ending terrorism in Iraq and Syria, he would immediately cease funding it. He would also call on his NATO allies and his allies of the Gulf State feudal monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar to cease their funding and assistance.
Aside from comments that have no basis in reality, such as his statement that “America’s manufacturing industries are thriving” and that American businesses are experiencing the “biggest streak of job creation in our history,” Obama also took the opportunity to take a jab at what he called “Russian aggression.” Taken with the statement that he reserves the right to “use force against anyone that threatens core American interests,” one can only surmise that the western provocation in Ukraine will continue as planned.
While echoing the Brzezinski-esque [1] cry for “dignity” Obama also proceeded to take credit for the rescue of the trapped Yazidis on Mount Sinjar despite the fact that it was the Syrian Kurds who rescued the Iraqi victims.
In the end, Barack Obama’s statements of aggression and duplicity came as no surprise to informed observers. The Western-backed terrorist organization known as ISIS will be used as an excuse to continue American Imperialism in the Middle East and to justify a military strike on Syria.
Notes:
[1] Tarpley, Webster Griffin, Obama the Postmodern Coup, Progressive Press, 2008
Recently from Brandon Turbeville:

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Obama’s Speech to America: Stop ISIL by Funding ISIL
Activist
Thu, 11 Sep 2014 01:56:00 GMT

LAPD Blames Predictive Software For Misconduct And Abuse, Rather Than Its Own Disinterest In Holding Officers Accountable

from the it’s-never-a-cop’s-fault dept

As long as we’re heading into an age of predictive policing, it’s good to know that some police departments are willing to turn the ThoughtCrime scanner on their own employees.

Police departments across the U.S. are using technology to try to identify problem officers before their misbehavior harms innocent people, embarrasses their employer, or invites a costly lawsuit — from citizens or the federal government.

Of course, some of this is just “insider threat” detection that ousts whistleblowers before they can blow the whistle and punishes employees for not adhering to the prevailing mindset. Nothing about this software is anywhere close to perfect, but it’s still being used to (hopefully) head off police misconduct before it occurs. But what the system flags doesn’t seem to be stopping cops before they do something regrettable.

The systems track factors such as how often officers are involved in shootings, get complaints, use sick days and get into car accidents. When officers hit a specific threshold, they’re supposed to be flagged and supervisors notified so appropriate training or counseling can be assigned.

Proponents of the system point out that its largest value is as a deterrent. Even so, it’s still relatively worthless.

The Los Angeles Police Department agreed to set up their $33 million early warning systems after the so-called Rampart scandal in which an elite anti-gang unit was found to have beaten and framed suspected gang members. The system was then implemented in 2007.
The LAPD’s inspector general found in a recent review that the system was seemingly ineffective in identifying officers who ultimately were fired. The report looked at 748 “alerts” over a four-month period and found the agency took little action in the majority of cases and only required training for 1.3 percent, or 10 alerts, of them.

The LAPD presents this as a software failure — and some of it is. What’s being flagged isn’t necessarily indicative of potential misconduct. But beyond the algorithm, there’s this integral part which is being ignored.

Experts say the early warning system can be another powerful tool to help officers do their jobs and improve relations, but it is only as good as the people and departments using it… “These systems are designed to give you a forewarning of problems and then you have to do something.”

Even the IG’s report notices nothing’s being done. 748 “alerts” only resulted in action on 10 of them. The LAPD is trying to portray this as a software failure, most likely in hopes of ditching the system that was forced on it by its own bad behavior. (The irony here is that police departments will argue that predictive policing software doesn’t work on cops but does work on citizens.)
But it’s not just the software. It’s the LAPD. Long before the Rampart Scandal of the late 90s uncovered massive corruption in the force, the LAPD’s Internal Affairs department was doing absolutely nothing to hold officers accountable for misconduct.

The Christopher Commission (1991) in Los Angeles found that the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) of the LAPD had sustained only 2 percent of the excessive force complaints and stated: “Our study indicates that there are significant problems with the initiation, investigation, and classification of complaints.” It called the IAD investigations “unfairly skewed against the complainant.”

More recent reports [pdf] still show that public complaints are almost never sustained (3.5%). Even factoring in the much higher rate given to complaints from other officials and officers (45%), the overall rate still routinely sits near 10%.
This isn’t just Los Angeles. Overall, the nation’s law enforcement agencies are only sustaining 8% of complaints. Officers have seemingly unlimited “strikes” before misconduct costs them their jobs. Combine that with the low sustain rate and officers know they can get away with a lot before they receive any discipline.
And if that isn’t enough, these flagging systems create their own perverse incentives:

A 2011 Justice Department report found the New Orleans Police Department’s system, adopted roughly two decades ago, was “outdated and essentially exists in name only.” Investigators said information was included haphazardly and flagged officers were put into essentially “bad boy school,” a one-size-fits-all class seen by some as a badge of honor.

No doubt more than a few New Orleans residents received a few extra nightstick swings/Taser shots just so Officer X could hang with the big boys. Fun stuff.
But on the other side of the coin lies the LA Sheriff’s Department — at least in terms of predictive software.

The sheriff’s department has an early warning system. “Our diagnostic systems were fine,” said the department’s Chief of Detectives, Bill McSweeney, who advised his agency on creation of the warning system. “Our managerial and supervision response was not fine. It’s that simple.”

The LASD is finally acknowledging that it let its officers (and prison guards) act with impunity for far too many years. The system could have worked — at least in its limited capabilities — but no one wanted to follow up on flagged officers. The situation there has deteriorated to the point that the LASD is looking at a few years of federal supervision.
Predictive policing is still a bad idea, even for policing police. While data may help pinpoint problem areas, the flagging systems are far too inaccurate to guarantee hits. But the problem within law enforcement agencies is the lack of accountability, not faulty software. Unless the first problem is addressed, it won’t matter how much the software improves in the future.

LAPD Blames Predictive Software For Misconduct And Abuse, Rather Than Its Own Disinterest In Holding Officers Accountable
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

Dozens of Indiana residents arrested for harvesting ginseng plants too early

Natural medicine is considered contraband without a state-issued license; can only be harvested legally during certain months.

Posted on September 7, 2014 by Site Staff in News

Dried ginseng roots.  (Source: Fotalia / Stephanie Fray)

Dried ginseng roots. (Source: Fotalia / Stephanie Fray)

INDIANA — A number of Hoosiers are facing charges and potential jail-time for merely possessing ginseng plants without government permission.

According to media reports, a total of 25 residents were caught up in a government crackdown to ensure compliance with the state’s onerous regulations on the natural plant, desired for its roots.

Indiana dictates every aspect of ginseng cultivation, including the issuance of a state license to “deal” ginseng; prescribing the dates of permissible harvesting; specifying the required plant characteristics before harvesting; controlling where and how it can be grown; controlling when and how it can be harvested; and controlling when, where and how it can be sold.

Ginseng plants ready to harvest.  (Source: itmonline.org)

Ginseng plants ready to harvest. (Source: itmonline.org)

“It is ILLEGAL to buy, sell, or possess any ginseng out of season without written authorization from the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Law Enforcement,” states an official brochurefrom the Indiana DNR.

Individuals are only allowed to harvest ginseng between September 1st and December 31st each year (some restrictions apply).  Selling ginseng is only permitted by licensed individuals between September 1st of the current year through March 31st of the following year (some restrictions apply).

Penalties for violating the various prohibitions on ginseng range between Class A and Class B misdemeanors, with maximum penalties of 1 year and 180 days in jail, respectively.  Indiana Code 14-31-3 covers ginseng regulation and enforcement.

The recent police crackdown involved state conservation officers “acting on tips” regarding unlicensed ginseng growers, and with search warrants they shook down citizens for contraband plants.  Officers arrested or cited individuals in Clark, Harrison, Martin, Orange, Scott, and Washington Counties.  Names of those facing charges, as so far released, includes:

  • Derek Durden, 40, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season.
  • Kyle Sneed, 34, Paoli, possession of ginseng during closed season.
  • David Pittman, 56, Paoli, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.
  • Dustin Walton, 33, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.
  • Parker Mullins Jr. 18, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season.
  • William Yockey, 37, Eckerty, possession of ginseng during closed season, resisting law enforcement.
  • Michele Reitz, 43, French Lick, possession of ginseng during closed season.
  • Starla Enlow, 32, Shoals, possession of ginseng during closed season.
  • Randy A. Stidham, 44, Austin, possession of ginseng during closed season.
  • Randy L. Stidham, 26, Austin, possession of ginseng during closed season.
  • George Stidham, 68, Austin, possession of ginseng during closed season.
  • James McCurry, 43, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.
  • Devon McCurry, 19, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.
  • Daniel Arnold, 30, Salem, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.

The plant is desired around the world and has a number of professed medicinal benefits, including stress relief, immunity support, blood sugar control, among other things.  Its rarity, usefulness, and black market restrictions enable ginseng to fetch prices between $500 and $1000 per pound.

The black market has also driven people to commit property crimes such as stealing ginseng and secretly growing/harvesting ginseng on land belonging to someone else (to obscure blame for unlicensed cultivation).  Of the listed charges this week, theft was a minority — most people were charged just for possessing ginseng out-of-season.

Setting aside the property violations, would people in a free society be imprisoned for merely possessing a naturally-occurring plant?

{ Support Police State USA }

Dozens of Indiana residents arrested for harvesting ginseng plants too early
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

Starting today: Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary

 

Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary

ReThink911 Digital Billboard NYC

September 9, 2014
Starting today through October 5, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is sponsoring a massive billboard in the heart of Times Square that will show video of 7 World Trade Center’s destruction to millions of viewers and refer them to the campaign website,ReThink911.org.
Towering above the intersection of West 42nd Street and 8th Avenue, the two-sided 90 ft. x 45 ft. billboard will display the 15-second ad once every two minutes for four weeks, reaching an estimated 105,000 adults each day, and approximately 3 million during the four-week campaign.
The goal of the ReThink911 campaign is to spark public dialogue around the little-known destruction of WTC 7, which polls in recent years have found nearly half of all Americans and one-third of all New Yorkers do not even know occurred.
However, when people see the collapse, most immediately suspect that it was a controlled demolition because of the unmistakable smooth, symmetrical downward motion. A YouGov poll sponsored by the ReThink911 campaign last year found that 46% of Americans, when shown video of WTC 7’s collapse, are sure or suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition, compared to only 28% who are sure or suspect it was caused by fires, while 27% are unsure.
“The poll shows quite clearly what we already knew,” observes Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “Most people who see WTC 7’s collapse have trouble believing that fires brought it down. It simply doesn’t look like a natural building collapse, and that’s because all the columns have been removed at once to allow it to come down symmetrically in free-fall. When every American sees this footage, there will be a widespread outcry for a new investigation, and a new investigation will find that the evidence of controlled demolition is overwhelming.”

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuesL-ufkzo]

Starting today: Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

BRICS keep supporting Russia in bid to rebalance world power

While Western nations beef up economic sanctions and Nato discusses what stance to take toward Russia, the BRICS are maintaining tacit support for Moscow despite the Ukraine crisis.

This is not entirely unexpected. Yet, it suggests that the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping’s commitment to the reform of the international system is to be taken seriously. And the Ukraine crisis has provided the group with a powerful opportunity to voice its shared opposition to Western powers’ self-assigned role as the custodians of the international community.

Shows of support

Last March, the BRICS abstained from a vote at the UN General Assembly condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The group also reacted angrily to comments made by the Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, that Russia should be banned from the next November meeting of the G20 group of developed and emerging economies. The group reminded Australia about the equal status of the G20 members:

The custodianship of the G20 belongs to all member states equally and no one member state can unilaterally determine its nature and character.

Moscow was much more easily excluded from this year’s G8(now G7) summit of Western industrialised nations.

Challenging the status quo

The current crisis has exposed the increasingly limited capacity the West has to bring emerging powers in line with their positions. As the West tries to economically punish and politically ostracise Russia over its involvement in Ukraine, Moscow is forging a new economic and financial architecture with what is expected will be the economic powerhouses of the future.

The recent creation of a US$100 billion BRICS development bank and a reserve currency fund worth another US$100 billion, as an alternative to the Western dominated IMF and Wold Bank, are concrete examples of these countries’ intentions and capabilities.

The BRICS have also shown their anti-Western stance by opposing Western attempts to review the international norm of the inviolability of sovereignty. They fiercely criticised the ousting of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi by a NATO-led intervention in 2011, perceiving it as a violation of the UN Security Council’s resolution 1973, which only authorised intervention in order to protect civilians. But the military operation quickly shifted to full-blown regime change and the assassination of the Libyan leader. They then more vehemently resistedattempts by Western powers to assist rebels in overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Brothers in arms. EPA/Jarbas Oliveira

In Ukraine, though, it was Russia that breached the non-intervention principle. By invading and annexing Crimea, Moscow also violated the international norm of not claiming territory by force. Yet, the BRICS maintained their support for Russia.

India and China – which face separatist movements in their own countries – in particular are turning a blind eye to Moscow’s association with pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine.

For them, the exclusion of Russia from the BRICS is not an option. It would be akin to conceding defeat at a time when the group has managed to place itself as a viable political platform to promote meaningful institutional change in international relations.

Final blow

The current dynamic of Western economic sanctions followed by Russia’s counter sanctions, the escalation of hostile language and the growing threat of a wider military conflict involving NATO may well represent the final blow to an already dilapidated international order. This is clearly not good for the West, which has many overlapping interests with Russia from nuclear proliferation to fighting Islamic radicalism. Then there are the economic anxieties brought by imposing sanctions on the Russian economy.

In the long run, the policy of isolating Russia will prove highly disruptive to the international system. It will push Putin towards China, further consolidating a growing, and rather unhelpful, East-West divide in international politics.

Russia’s fellow BRICS may have sufficient leverage to restrain Russia’s aggressive anti-liberal nationalism, at the same time as opening new channels of negotiation with the Western powers. This could be done in the context of the G20 where the BRICS group has made efforts to advance these emerging powers’ agenda of reforms.

The danger, however, is that Russia will remain uncompromising in its opposition to the West and will enjoy full support from the BRICS. And the potential for the two blocs going head to head could well lead to a reform of the international system.

Big Banks Manipulated $21 Trillion Dollar Market for Credit Default Swaps (and Every Other Market)

Posted on September 9, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog

Derivatives Are Manipulated

Runaway derivatives – especially credit default swaps (CDS) – were one of the main causes of the 2008 financial crisis. Congress never fixed the problem, and actually made it worse.

The big banks have long manipulated derivatives … a $1,200 Trillion Dollar market.

Indeed, many trillions of dollars of derivatives are being manipulated in the exact same same way that interest rates are fixed (see below) … through gamed self-reporting.

Reuters noted last week:

A Manhattan federal judge said on Thursday that investors may pursue a lawsuit accusing 12 major banks of violating antitrust law by fixing prices and restraining competition in the roughly $21 trillion market for credit default swaps.

***

“The complaint provides a chronology of behavior that would probably not result from chance, coincidence, independent responses to common stimuli, or mere interdependence,” [Judge] Cote said.

The defendants include Bank of America Corp, Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc , Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG , Goldman Sachs Group Inc, HSBC Holdings Plc , JPMorgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS AG.

Other defendants are the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and Markit Ltd, which provides credit derivative pricing services.

***

U.S. and European regulators have probed potential anticompetitive activity in CDS. In July 2013, the European Commission accused many of the defendants of colluding to block new CDS exchanges from entering the market.

***

“The financial crisis hardly explains the alleged secret meetings and coordinated actions,” the judge wrote. “Nor does it explain why ISDA and Markit simultaneously reversed course.”

In other words, the big banks are continuing to fix prices for CDS in secret meetings … and have torpedoed the more open and transparent CDS exchanges that Congress mandated.

As shown below, Wall Street has manipulated virtually every other market as well – both in the financial sector and the real economy – and broken virtually every law on the books.

Interest Rates Are Manipulated

Bloomberg reported in January:

Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc was ordered to pay $50 million by a federal judge in Connecticut over claims that it rigged the London interbank offered rate.

RBS Securities Japan Ltd. in April pleaded guilty to wire frauda s part of a settlement of more than $600 million with U.S and U.K. regulators over Libor manipulation, according to court filings. U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in New Haventoday sentenced the Tokyo-based unit of RBS, Britain’s biggest publicly owned lender, to pay the agreed-upon fine, according to a Justice Department Justice Department.

Global investigations into banks’ attempts to manipulate the benchmarks for profit have led to fines and settlements for lenders including RBS, Barclays Plc, UBS AG and Rabobank Groep.

RBS was among six companies fined a record 1.7 billion euros ($2.3 billion) by the European Union last month for rigging interest rates linked to Libor. The combined fines for manipulating yen Libor and Euribor, the benchmark money-market rate for the euro, are the largest-ever EU cartel penalties.

Global fines for rate-rigging have reached $6 billion since June 2012 as authorities around the world probe whether traders worked together to fix Libor, meant to reflect the interest rate at which banks lend to each other, to benefit their own trading positions.

To put the Libor interest rate scandal in perspective:

  • Even though RBS and a handful of other banks have been fined for interest rate manipulation, Libor is still being manipulated. No wonder … the fines are pocket change – the cost of doing business – for the big banks
Currency Markets Are Rigged

Currency markets are massively rigged. And see this and this.

Energy Prices Manipulated

The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says that JP Morgan has massively manipulated energy markets in California and the Midwest, obtaining tens of millions of dollars in overpayments from grid operators between September 2010 and June 2011.

Pulitzer prize-winning reporter David Cay Johnston noted in May that Wall Street is trying to launch Enron 2.0.

Oil Prices Are Manipulated

Oil prices are manipulated as well.

Gold and Silver Are Manipulated

Gold and silver prices are “fixed” in the same way as interest rates and derivatives – in daily conference calls by the powers-that-be.

Bloomberg reports: < blockquote>

It is the participating banks themselves that administer the gold and silver benchmarks.

So are prices being manipulated? Let’s take a look at the evidence. In his book “The Gold Cartel,” commodity analyst Dimitri Speck combines minute-by-minute data from most of 1993 through 2012 to show how gold prices move on an average day (see attached charts). He finds that the spot price of gold tends to drop sharply around the Londonevening fixing (10 a.m. New York time). A similar, if less pronounced, drop in price occurs around the London morning fixing. The same daily declines can be seen in silver prices from 1998 through 2012.

For both commodities there were, on average, no comparable price changes at any other time of the day. These patterns are consistent with manipulation in both markets.

Commodities Are Manipulated

The big banks and government agencies have been conspiring to manipulate commodities prices for decades.

The big banks are taking over important aspects of the physical economy, including uranium mining, petroleum products, aluminum, ownership and operation of airports, toll roads, ports, and electricity.

And they are using these physical assets to massively manipulate commodities prices … scalping consumers of many billions of dollars each year. More from Matt Taibbi, FDL and Elizabeth Warren.

Everything Can Be Manipulated through High-Frequency Trading

Traders with high-tech computers can manipulate stocks, bonds, options, currencies and commodities. And see this.

Manipulating Numerous Markets In Myriad Ways

The big banks and other giants manipulate numerous markets in myriad ways, for example:

  • Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments. See this, this and this
  • Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide. Details here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here and here
  • Pledging the same mortgage multiple times to different buyers. See this, this, this, this and this. This would be like selling your car, and collecting money from 10 different buyers for the same car
  • Pushing investments which they knew were terrible, and then betting against the same investments to make money for themselves. See this, this, this, this and this
  • Engaging in unlawful “Wash Trades” to manipulate asset prices. See this, this and this
  • Bribing and bullying ratings agencies to inflate ratings on their risky investments
The Big Picture

The experts say that big banks will keep manipulating markets unless and until their executives are thrown in jail for fraud.

Why? Because the system is rigged to allow the big banks to commit continuous and massive fraud, and then to pay small fines as the “cost of doing business”. As Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitznoted years ago:

“The system is set so that even if you’re caught, the penalty is just a small number relative to what you walk home with.

The fine is just a cost of doing business. It’s like a parking fine. Sometimes you make a decision to park knowing that you might get a fine because going around the corner to the parking lot takes you too much time.”

Experts also say that we have to prosecute fraud or else the economy won’t ever really stabilize.

But the government is doing the exact opposite. Indeed, the Justice Department has announced it will go easy on big banks, and always settles prosecutions for pennies on the dollar (a form of stealth bailout. It is also arguably one of the main causes of the double dip in housing.)

Indeed, the government doesn’t even force the banks to admit any guilt as part of their settlements.

Again Wall Street has manipulated virtually every other market as well – both in the financial sector and the real economy – and broken virtually every law on the books.

And they will keep on doing so until the Department of Justice grows a pair.

The criminality and blatant manipulation will grow and spread and metastasize – taking over and killing off more and more of the economy – until Wall Street executives are finally thrown in jail.

It’s that simple …

Big Banks Manipulated $21 Trillion Dollar Market for Credit Default Swaps (and Every Other Market)
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

Why Do You Keep Refrigerating Your Eggs?

Dec 15 • Chickens, Farm to Table, Good Healthy Food by DR MERCOLA

eggs sq

If you’re an American, you probably store eggs in the refrigerator – and wouldn’t think of doing it any other way. Yet, the US is one of the only countries where chicken eggs are kept refrigerated. In much of Europe, for instance, eggs are often stored right on the counter, at room temperature. But then, US eggs would be illegal in Europe due to an egg-washing process that may actually make them more susceptible to contamination with bacteria like Salmonella.

In the US, Eggs Are Refrigerated to Help Reduce Salmonella Risks

If an egg is infected with salmonella, the bacteria will multiply more quickly if the egg is stored at room temperature instead of in the refrigerator, particularly if they’re stored for longer than 21 days.1 This is why, in the US, public health agencies advise keeping your eggs in the fridge.

And the truth is, the way most eggs are raised in the US – in industrial concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs – the risk of salmonella contamination rises.

In CAFOs, egg-laying hens are often crammed into tiny quarters with less space to stand upon than the computer screen you are looking at. Disease is rampant, and the birds ARE filthy — not because of their nature, but because we have removed them from their natural habitat and compromised their innate resistance to disease.

Eggs from such large flocks (30,000 birds or more… and some actually house  millions of hens) and eggs from caged hens have many times more salmonella bacteria than eggs from smaller flocks, organically fed and free-ranging flocks.

They’re also more likely to be antibiotic-resistant strains, due to the flock’s routine exposure to such drugs. It is because of these disease-promoting practices that the US also employs egg washing – a technique that’s actually banned in Europe.

Why Are American Eggs Washed, When Egg Washing Is Banned in Much of Europe?

When you have eggs from tens of thousands of chickens – or more — all under one roof, there’s a good chance they’re going to get feces and other contaminants on them. The US solution, rather than reducing the size of the flocks and ensuring better sanitation and access to the outdoors, is to wash the eggs. But this isn’t as innocuous as it sounds.

As the eggs are scrubbed, rinsed, dried, and spritzed with a chlorine mist, its protective cuticle may be compromised. This is a natural barrier that comes from the mother hen that lays the egg, and it acts as a shield against bacteria.

It even contains antimicrobial properties. US egg-washing strips this natural protectant from the egg, which may actually make it more likely to become contaminated. According to European Union (EU) guidelines:

“Such damage may favor trans-shell contamination with bacteria and moisture loss and thereby increase the risk to consumers, particularly if subsequent drying and storage conditions are not optimal.”

Industrial egg washing, by the way, is banned in much of Europe, not only because of potential damage to the eggs’ cuticles but also because it might allow for more “sloppy” egg-producing practices. The chief executive of Britain’s Egg Industry Council told Forbes:2

In Europe, the understanding is that [prohibiting the washing and cleaning of eggs] actually encourages good husbandry on farms. It’s in the farmers’ best interests then to produce the cleanest eggs possible, as no one is going to buy their eggs if they’re dirty.”

In the US, of course, you’d have no way of knowing whether your bright-white grocery-store eggs were covered in filth before they arrived in your kitchen. Plus, about 10 percent of US eggs are treated with mineral or vegetable oil, basically as a way to “replace” the protective cuticle that’s just been washed off.

Unfortunately, since an eggshell contains approximately 7,500 pores or openings, once the natural cuticle has been removed what’s put ON your egg goes INTO your egg. Meaning, whatever the eggshell comes into contact with can cross over this semi-permeable membrane and end up in your scrambled eggs, from chlorine to mineral oil to dish soap — to salmonella.

The Other Reason Why the EU Recommends Constant Room Temperature Egg Storage

European egg marketing regulations state that storing eggs in cold storage and then leaving them out at room temperature could lead to condensation, which could promote the growth of bacteria on the shell that could probably get into the egg as well. As io9 reported, the EU therefore advises storing eggs at a constant non-refrigerated temperature:3

EU guidelines therefore stipulate that eggs should be transported and stored at as constant a temperature as possible – a temperature between 66.2 °F and 69.8°F in the winter and between 69.8°F and 73.4°F in the summer.”

So, despite what you may have heard, eggs that are fresh and have an intact cuticle do not need to be refrigerated, as long as you are going to consume them within a relatively short period of time.

In the US, refrigeration of eggs became the cultural norm when mass production caused eggs to travel long distances and sit in storage for weeks to months before arriving at your superstore. The general lack of cleanliness of CAFOs has increased the likelihood that your eggs have come into contact with pathogens, amplifying the need for disinfection and refrigeration.

So, IF your eggs are very fresh, and IF their cuticle is intact, you do not have to refrigerate them. According to Hilary Thesmar, director of the American Egg Board’s Egg Safety Center:4

“The bottom line is shelf life. The shelf life for an unrefrigerated egg is 7 to 10 days and for refrigerated, it’s 30 to 45 days. A good rule of thumb is one day at room temperature is equal to one week under refrigeration.”

Eggs purchased from grocery stores are typically already three weeks old, or older. USDA-certified eggs must have a pack date on the carton, and a sell-by date. Realize that the eggs were often laid many days prior to the pack date.

Most grocery-store eggs in the US should not be left unrefrigerated because they’ve had their cuticles essentially washed off. If your eggs are fresh from the organic farm, with intact cuticles, and will be consumed within a few days, you can simply leave them on the counter or in a cool cupboard.

Are US Organic Eggs Washed?

Organic flocks are typically much smaller than the massive commercial flocks (typically by an order or two of magnitude) where bacteria flourish, which is part of the reason why eggs from truly organic free-range chickens are FAR less likely to contain dangerous bacteria such as salmonella. Their nutrient content is also much higher than commercially raised eggs, which is most likely the result of the differences in diet between organic free ranging, pastured hens and commercially farmed hens.

As far as washing, detergents and other chemicals used for “wet cleaning” organic eggs must either be non-synthetic or among the allowed synthetics on the National List of allowed non-agric
ultural substances, which can include chlorine, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, vinegar, and others. Some farmers report rinsing eggs very quickly in water, just to dislodge any debris, and believe this is adequate. Others use a dry brushing process — no liquids at all — just a brush, sandpaper, or a loofah sponge.

Since most organic egg producers are typically interested in producing high-quality eggs, many of them—especially small, local farming operations—have implemented gentle washing methods that don’t compromise the cuticle. However, you certainly can’t tell by looking at them what type of washing process they may have gone through. The only way to know if your eggs have been washed or oiled (and using what agents) is to ask the producer — and the only way to do that is to buy from small local farmers you have direct contact with.

Locally Raised Eggs Are Usually Best

The key here is to buy your eggs locally; this is typically even preferable to organic eggs from the grocery store. About the only time I purchase eggs from the store is when I am travelling or for some reason I miss my local egg pickup. Finding high-quality organic eggs locally is getting easier, as virtually every rural area has individuals with chickens. If you live in an urban area, visiting the local health food stores is typically the quickest route to finding the high quality local egg sources.

Farmers markets and food coops are another great way to meet the people who produce your food. With face-to-face contact, you can get your questions answered and know exactly what you’re buying. Better yet, visit the farm — ask for a tour. If they have nothing to hide, they should be eager to show you their operation.

Eggs ARE a Highly Nutritious Food

The issue of whether or not to refrigerate your eggs becomes a moot point if you’ve been scared into believing that eggs are bad for your health. I want to address this briefly, as there is a major misconception that you must avoid foods like eggs and saturated fat to protect your heart. Eggs are an incredible source of high-quality protein and fat—nutrients that many are deficient in. And I believe eggs are a nearly ideal fuel source for most of us. The evidence clearly shows that eggs are one of the most healthful foods you can eat, and can actually help prevent disease, including heart disease. For example, previous studies have found that:

-Consumption of more than six eggs per week does not increase the risk of stroke and ischemic stroke5

-Eating two eggs a day does not adversely affect endothelial function (an aggregate measure of cardiac risk) in healthy adults, supporting the view that dietary cholesterol may be less detrimental to cardiovascular health than previously thought6

-Proteins in cooked eggs are converted by gastrointestinal enzymes, producing peptides that act as ACE inhibitors (common prescription medications for lowering blood pressure)7

-A survey of South Carolina adults found no correlation of blood cholesterol levels with “bad” dietary habits, such as use of red meat, animal fats, fried foods, butter, eggs, whole milk, bacon, sausage, and cheese8

As for how to eat your eggs for optimal health, ideally the yolks should be consumed raw, as the heat will damage many of the highly perishable nutrients in the yolk. Additionally, the cholesterol in the yolk can be oxidized with high temperatures, especially when it is in contact with the iron present in the whites and cooked, as in scrambled eggs, and such oxidation contributes to chronic inflammation in your body.

However, if you’re eating raw eggs, they MUST be organic pastured eggs. You do not want to consume conventionally raised eggs raw, as they’re much more likely to be contaminated with pathogens. The next best option to raw is to eat them soft-boiled or gently cooked “sunny side up” with very runny yolks. One final caveat: I would strongly encourage you to avoid all omega-3 eggs, as they typically come from chickens that are fed poor-quality sources of omega-3 fats that are already oxidized. Omega-3 eggs are also more likely to perish faster than non-omega-3 eggs.

References:
1 Epidemiol Infect. 1991 Jun;106(3):489-96
2 Forbes October 25, 2012
3 io9.com November 15, 2013
4 News Observer April 22, 2009
5 HealthCorrelator.blogspot.com August 20, 2012
6 International Journal of Cardiology 2005 Mar 10;99(1):65-70
7 Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2009, 57 (2), pp 471–477
8 Journal of Nutrition Nov 1990, 120:11S:1433-1436

Read more: http://www.realfarmacy.com/why-do-you-keep-refrigerating-your-eggs/#ixzz3CwYn4ULx

CHINA TELLS SUSAN RICE TO CURB U.S. SURVEILLANCE FLIGHTS

 

TOPICS: THE PENTAGON NATIONAL SECURITY CHINA SUSAN RICE PENNAVE SURVEILLANCE

Photo - U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice, left, shakes hands with Fan Changlong, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission at Bayi Building in Beijing Tuesday. The U.S. national security adviser says China and the U.S. need to avoid any incidents that could complicate relations between their militaries. (AP Photo/Wang Zhao)

http://video.washingtonexaminer.com/services/player/bcpid1665626956001?bckey=AQ~~,AAABg16tKLE~,EXj2L-M6q85vi98dMxlkjoHm_GHUUiQx&bctid=3776105950001 

U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice, left, shakes hands with Fan Changlong, vice chairman…

A top Chinese official on Tuesday told visiting U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice that improved military ties between the two countries would require the curbing of “close-in reconnaissance” by U.S. aircraft near China.

“We hope the U.S. can promote the healthy development of new China-U.S. military ties with concrete actions,” the official Xinhua news agencyquoted Fan Changlong, vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission, as saying.

The comments echoed those by other Chinese officials to Rice, who is making her first visit to Beijing as national security adviser in advance of President Obama‘s participation in an APEC summit there in November.

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

The Pentagon has said the U.S. surveillance flights would continue, even after an Aug. 19 near-collision between a U.S. Navy P-8 patrol craft and a Chinese fighter jet sent to intercept it over the South China Sea near China’s Hainan Island.

The Chinese pilot’s actions — which a Pentagon spokesman called “very dangerous … pretty aggressive and very unprofessional” —nearly sparked a replay of an April 2001 crisis when a collision with a Chinese fighter jet forced a Navy EP-3 patrol plane to land on Hainan. The Chinese held the 24 U.S. crew members for 11 days, releasing them only after a U.S. statement of regret. The aircraft was later returned in pieces, after the Chinese had thoroughly studied its classified equipment.

China has rejected the U.S. characterization of last month’s incident and says it will continue to respond to further surveillance efforts.

CHINA TELLS SUSAN RICE TO CURB U.S. SURVEILLANCE FLIGHTS
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

No Sex Please: We’re Californian

No Sex Please: We’re Californian

By: Robin Koerner Sep 9, 2014

 

no sex in California

Rape may represent the greatest possible violation against a human being except, perhaps, for murder.

Any decent person sympathizes with the intent of those who would seek to prevent it by any reasonable means. Moreover, there are plenty of statistics regarding the prevalence of rape in our society – mostly, but not exclusively against women – that indicate a moral and cultural epidemic that must be addressed. I, like far too many people, am close to more than one victim of this evil and so nothing I write here is written lightly.

But I am genuinely concerned about what has recently occurred in California with a view to tackling the crime of rape on college campuses. As is so often the case when the details of behavior are legislated in reaction to the actions of the worst people among us, the results are likely to be much less noble than the intention, because the legislation eliminates the most general rights that should be enjoyed by everyone at all times, to protect a few people some of the time.

Late last week, the first state bill to require colleges to adopt an “affirmative consent” model in their sexual assault policies passed the California senate unanimously.

This bill seeks to change the perfectly moral and behaviorally natural “no means no” standard of consent to sexual activity into “everything except an explicitly verbalized “yes” (along with the acquisition of positive evidence of the same that can be later presented just in case you are ever accused of anything untoward), means “no”.

Let us be absolutely clear what such a rule does and does not do. It does not require that sex always be consensual. That is already the law and the policy of any sane institution. Rather, this bill seeks to make most heretofore consensual sexual activity between adults punishable by requiring a specific form of consent – explicit agreement to a specific request.

Most consensual sexual activity between normal people does not involve the kind of explicit, subsequently provable statement of consent, that this bill demands. Sex usually happens between people who trust each other and – precisely because they know each other well enough to engage in sexual activity – wouldn’t wish to receive or provide such encounter-specific and explicit consent to continue with what to both parties is natural behavior – behavior which, some would say, is often most fulfilling when engaged in with just that trust, naturalness and spontaneity.

The Californian bill would make the majority of such normal encounters punishable. Avoidance of punishment would require either a) refraining from normal (consensual) sexual activity or b) engaging in positive behavior that is mandated by the rule. Both are affronts to basic human rights.

Moreover, the California bill states that past sexual encounters or a romantic relationship do(es) not imply consent. It also specifies that “lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent”.

Seriously? It is of course true that “a current relationship or prior sex doesn’t imply consent” per se, but “a current relationship or prior sex” most certainly does bear on what does imply consent. Consider an ongoing sexual relationship. Does explicit consent have to be given for the 200th sexual encounter between the couple? And if so, how should it be recorded? That there is clear implied ongoing consent of a kind that stands behind most sexual encounters among human beings is not a prescriptive statement or a normative one: it’s just a recognition of reality. California is thus making normal sexual encounters – of which the sexual act is the culmination – punishable.

Of course, relationships can end and the contextual element of consent can thereby be changed. But consider a relationship that ends acrimoniously. By California’s new bill, since the man cannot provide proof of explicit consent for that last sexual encounter, he has, a priori committed an offense if the woman seeks to declare that an offense was committed. He is, in other words, guilty until he can prove himself innocent. “Slippery slope” does not even come close.

Were this rule to be generalized beyond California’s educational institutions, then most men who’ve ever engaged in sex would be deemed guilty of having engaged in non-consensual sex. Of course that is absurd: all they would really have been guilty of is failing to engage in a mandated form of speech.

For what it’s worth (and it is worth a great deal), the mandating of speech or behavior is against all premises of common law and the healthiest norms of a genuinely free society. And it may even be against the first amendment: even if California’s bill doesn’t force specific words to be said before sex, it nevertheless does force certain behaviors or speech that is designed to elicit a certain response.

Defenders of such a rule might argue only that nothing is mandated because no one is forced to have sex. That would, of course, be to miss the point entirely, but let’s address it for completeness: if someone is willing to have consensual sex with me, then we have a natural right as human beings to engage in that activity, regardless of how we have expressed our willingness to do so. No public institution can impinge on that – or any other – natural right.

Let us generalize away from sex to focus on the principles at stake here.

If you were to say to me that I may not perform any other activity unless I communicate something to someone in a certain way, then you would not be protecting anyone from the outcome of that activity: you would be merely removing my freedom to engage in it with the positive purpose of controlling my communication. You would be preventing me from exercising a natural right, from being a normal human being, going about my business without harming others. This is exactly what happens in prison: which operates by firstly removing a natural freedom (to move freely, for example), and then requiring the incarcerated person to earn that right back in limited fashion as a privilege by performing positive, specified activities. I truly don’t wish to be over-dramatic or reactionary, and obviously the degree of infringement of freedom caused by California’s bill is not quantitatively comparable to that caused by imprisonment, but the principle must be starkly seen.

And what do we get for this basic violation of natural rights? Will California’s bill prevent campus rape? Under the bill, any dispute will still come down to she-said, he-said. Whereas a real rapist would in the past have tried to lie his way out by claiming “she consented to sex”, he will now lie his way out by saying, “she affirmatively consented to sex”.

So in the best case, California’s rule does nothing; in the worst, it punishes decent, sexually active adults and compromises natural rights.

Either way, it is dangerous. The passing of such a law gives lazy politicians and institutional officers the sense that a very real and serious problem has been taken care of when it has not at all. By defining consent so narrowly, non-consent is defined so broadly that its true instances cannot be identif
ied. The genuine moral responsibility of educational institutions to identify actual sexual predators – and to engage in the self-examination necessary to identity the cultural causes of the presumed heightened prevalence of rape at the institution – is entirely abdicated.

Of secondary import is the negative contribution of such a bill to an even broader, if less dangerous, problem: men’s generational inability to understand women, with all those mysterious-to-men female modes of communication, all the ways they communicate their desires, all the ways they like to be made to feel like women, and the way in which everything on that list is mediated by context.

To summarize in British vernacular, “don’t bother with any of that, mate. Just get her to sign here”. That’s where we are going. A law that forces free people, harming no one, to do things they choose not to do can only be consistently enforced with repeated refinements to specify, in ever-increasing detail, the mandated action whenever a case is brought. Such law-making turns the real meaning of rights on its head. Just as all human beings have the (negative) right to the integrity of their bodies, they have the same (negative) right not to be forced to do things they do not want to do when they are harming no one.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, obviously – so I am really seeking to contribute to a debate that I believe must be had. But for sure, college students are legally responsible adults at institutions that are designed to teach them how to think for themselves, and become responsible decision-makers. So as an initial suggestion, why not tackle this devastating moral and cultural problem by educating them about the issue, and requiring them to rise to both the challenge and the responsibility of negotiating, setting and implementing their own policies to deal with it in their community?

Cultures, after all, are the sum total of the attitudes and expectations of the people in them. Therefore, requiring individuals to consider the issue of sexual consent with the other members of their community may be the only way to get to the real roots of the problem – to treat its causes, and not just its terrible symptoms. Education before the crime – rather than punishment after the non-crime – would seek to help men and women understand and genuinely respecteach other’s modes of communication and expectations in social contexts.

Without such an approach, we are surely just diminishing our moral sensitivity and giving up personal responsibility – in the name, ironically, of moral sensitivity and personal responsibility.

And meanwhile, the Californian government will be not only in your bedroom, but also in the conversation you have on the way there.

http://benswann.com/no-sex-please-were-californian/

Ebola: Making Disease Profitable

 

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sYYX3m59sk]Experimental Vaccines
GSK Fast-tracked into clinical trials
CFR Council on Fake Realities Vaccine Created Outbreaks? MAP
GSK’s Ebola vaccine to begin US clinical trials in weeks
Human Trial for Ebola Vaccine to Begin This Week
Ebola Vaccine to Get Human Trial for the First Time
Clinical Trials Ebola Vaccine Studies
Ebola Experimental Vaccine for Prevention of Ebola Virus Infection
Vaccine Exemption Forms

Ebola: Making Disease Profitable
Activist
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:02:00 GMT

Does Obama Plan To Announce Bombing Of Syria On Eve Of 9/11 Anniversary?

 

Anthony Freda Art

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post
As the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11 draws closer so does the possibility that the United States and NATO will finally be able to realize their dream of direct airstrikes against the secular government of Bashar Al-Assad’s Syria.
After years of propaganda alleging Assad’s “brutality against his own people” and a recent volley of “ISIS is under the bed”-style hype, complete with beheadings, forced starvations, and other savagery, the American people remain utterly befuddled regarding the true nature of events taking place inside Syria, Iraq, and virtually every other country in the world, including their own. As a result, the buildup to a Western bombing campaign against Syria, while rejected by the general public only a year ago, will now likely move full steam ahead with the tacit support of the population.
Thus, as the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, U.S. President Barack Obama is planning to make a dramatic statement regarding his strategy to combat ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.
Although Obama has repeatedly stated that he will not commit U.S. troops to either Iraq or Syria, the possibility of “targeted airstrikes” or aerial bombardment is by no means off the table. Of course, it is also important to point out that Obama has already broken his promise regarding boots on the ground in Iraq with the deployment of at least 1,100 American personnel in the Middle Eastern nation.
Still, as the Detroit Free Press reports, “The plan is expected to involve an expansion of air strikes in Iraq that began in August. Obama is also likely to discuss a coalition of allies that has been assembled in opposition to the Islamic State, and to brace Americans for the possibility that the battle could take years.” In other words, Obama is once again channeling his inner George W. Bush in promoting war with no end against a sovereign state who is the victim of Anglo-American meddling and Western-backed terrorism.

The DFP also states that “In his speech, the president may also discuss the long-term potential for air strikes in Syria, though military action in that country is not considered imminent.”
In a recent interview with NBC’s Meet The Press, Obama stated that he expected Syrians to battle ISIS on their own land. Obama said “In terms of controlling territory, we’re going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with. The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that.”
Obama’s statement is quite interesting considering the fact that his administration claims to have been doing just that – developing a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with – since 2011. So either his upcoming speech will simply be more repetition of tired talking points that serve to cover up the fact that the West is backing ISIS or it will be admission that there is no moderate opposition inside Syria which would reveal that the U.S. has been backing ISIS all along.
All of this, of course, will simply go over the heads of Americans more focused on “supporting the troops” and football stats than the slaughter of thousands of people overseas or a potential nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine.
There Are No Moderates In Syria
In reality, the so-called “opposition” in Syria is anything but moderate. As Tony Cartalucci wrote in his article, “In Syria, There Are No Moderates,”

. . . . . there were never, nor are there any “moderates” operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria’s borders as “divided” along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria’s borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.

Indeed, even the New York Times has been forced to admit that there are, as Cartalucci expertly argues in his article, no moderates in the ranks of the Syrian death squads. As Ben Hubbard wrote in April, 2013,

In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce. 

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government. 

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of. [emphasis added]

ISIS Is Controlled By NATO

It is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.

As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article “Implausible Deniability: West’s ISIS Terror Hordes In Iraq,” 

Beginning in 2011 – and actually even as early as 2007 – the United States has been arming, funding, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to overthrow the government of Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and undermine the power and influence of Iran, which of course includes any other government or group in the MENA region friendly toward Tehran.

Image: ISIS corridors begin in Turkey and end in Baghdad. [image credit: Land Destroyer]

Billions in cash have been funneled into
the hands of terrorist groups including Al Nusra, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and what is now being called “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” or ISIS. One can see clearly by any map of ISIS held territory that it butts up directly against Turkey’s borders with defined corridors ISIS uses to invade southward – this is because it is precisely from NATO territory this terrorist scourge originated.

ISIS was harbored on NATO territory, armed and funded by US CIA agents with cash and weapons brought in from the Saudis, Qataris, and NATO members themselves. The “non-lethal aid” the US and British sent including the vehicles we now see ISIS driving around in.

They didn’t “take” this gear from “moderates.” There were never any moderates to begin with. The deadly sectarian genocide we now see unfolding was long ago predicted by those in the Pentagon – current and former officials – interviewed in 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh.

Hersh’s 9-page 2007 report, “The Redirection” states explicitly:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” and are “sympathetic to Al Qaeda” – is a verbatim definition of what ISIS is today. Clearly the words of Hersh were as prophetic as they were factually informed, grounded in the reality of a regional conflict already engineered and taking shape as early as 2007. Hersh’s report would also forewarn the sectarian nature of the coming conflict, and in particular mention the region’s Christians who were admittedly being protected by Hezbollah.

While Hersh’s report was written in 2007, knowledge of the plan to use death squads to target Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, had been reported on even as far back as 2005 by Michael Hirsh and John Barry for Newsweek in an article entitled “The Salvador Option.”

Regardless, Cartalucci states in a separate article, “NATO’s Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion,”

In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran’s arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey’s (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.

Cartalucci is referring to a cross-border invasion that was coordinated with NATO, Turkey, Israel, and the death squads where Israel acted as air force cover while Turkey facilitated the death squad invasion from inside its own borders. 

Airstrikes Will Be Directed At Assad

Despite all the browbeating by the Western media suggesting that any targeted airstrikes would be strikes against ISIS, the truth is that the airstrikes are actually aimed at the Syrian government. The United States allowed ISIS to conquer Iraqi territory so as to justify the eventual invasion of Syria in addition to the reinvasion of Iraq. Indeed, any deployment of American troops, airstrikes, or any other type of US military force, will necessitate a battle against ISIS inside Iraq as well as “cross-border” strikes against the organization in Syria. Such “cross-border” strikes would likely be met with apathetic support from the American people since any restraint regarding borders will be presented and then viewed as placing “handcuffs on the troops.”
Make no mistake, however, any military action taken across the border inside Syria will not be taken for the purposes of eliminating ISIS. The truth is that such military action will be nothing more than a backdoor attempt at establishing the “buffer zone” that NATO so ardently desired early on in the Syrian conflict. With the establishment of this “buffer zone,” a new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria.

ISIS Attack On Taqba Airbase – The Precursor To A NATO Attack On Syria

Keeping in mind that ISIS is controlled and directed by NATO and Western intelligence, the fact that the death squads have recently focused on the Taqba Airbase in Raqqa province is significant. Particularly when viewed in context of the recent “debate” taking place in front of the American public by the Obama administration on whether or not to engage in targeted airstrikes inside Syria.

For those who may not see the pattern – while the United States and NATO deliberated engaging in targeted airstrikes in Syria and the Syrian government subsequently states its opposition to those attacks and its intentions to shoot down the planes delivering those strikes if they do not coordinate with the Syrian government, death squads have effectively eliminated the air defense capability of the Syrian government in the east of the country.
After all, the Pentagon even stated that one of the biggest threats to an airstrike operation in Syria is the Syrian government’s air defenses. Thanks to ISIS, those air defenses no longer exist in the east of Syria.
This was the end game of the ISIS battle to take over Taqba from the start – eliminate air defenses so that the NATO powers can launch airstrikes against the Syrian military and thus freeing up a launching pad for the terrorists to conduct attacks even deeper into Syria.
With the James Foley beheading video being largely understood as a staged propaganda ploy as well the fact that ISIS and its related terrorist organizations are funded, directed, and trained by the United States and NATO, it is imperative that th
e American people speak out and oppose the impending strike on Syria.
So far, on this particular issue, American apathy has largely contributed to preventing a war.
Unfortunately, with slightly more clever propaganda narratives, that apathy has been converted over to the benefit of the world oligarchy.
Thus, while apathy may have prevented the desire for a fight the first time around, that same apathy may well serve to allow one the second.
Recently from Brandon Turbeville:

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Does Obama Plan To Announce Bombing Of Syria On Eve Of 9/11 Anniversary?
Admin
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:20:00 GMT

10 Signs That ISIS is a Scripted Psyop

 

Scripted Oddities Portray ISIS As “James Bond” of Terrorism
Bernie Suarez
Activist Post
Has the ISIS psyop calmed down a bit? Before it dies out let’s examine some incredible ironies and oddities surrounding CIA’s ISIS. After all, the ISIS psyop deserves a thorough analysis from every angle, so I thought it appropriate to outline for the sake of humanity. Hopefully, humanity can use the ISIS psyop as a tool for the final or further awakening. It may be wishful thinking, but it is worth exposing every crack and corner of this psyop and let government know that we are not going for it this time.
I declare humanity too intuitive to buy into this psychological operation and hopefully I’m right. So while the core TV-watching, mainstream media-believing community drinks the government Kool Aid, let us get started by pointing out several glaring observations regarding the ISIS psyop.
Glancing ahead, the ISIS kids have knowledge of things that require you to have education, modern technical skills, a little bit of decency, structure, conformity to societal norms and somewhat transparent connection to the outside world. What are these things and what are some of the surreal oddities surrounding ISIS? Let’s examine:
1. Professional Camera, Editing Software and Skills
Incredibly, despite being savages that only want to kill for apparently no specific burning reason other than that fact that you are not ISIS, ISIS has at least some kind of production department that can skillfully provide what could be considered Hollywood-style editing (of supposed beheading videos) with multiple camera angles, consistent daylight on their subjects and proper daylight mode video exposure. They clearly have the skills for setting up multiple cameras and using those precise angles for their production department. In order to put out these supposed beheading videos, they also had to make sure that the sounds were just right and that there was no shaking of the camera.

Someone then had to take the various video angles and properly edit the footage so as to make it look professional. The editor, apparently a man of class and decency, then is careful not to show any actual action and blood. Savage killers who are ALSO respectful and classy about being too disturbing with their videos. Instead they courteously (but sloppily) cut from the early hand action of their British-sounding supposed lead man, to the post beheading amazingly clean shot of a head sitting on a corpse with the classic Photoshop drop shadows. In Hollywood style, reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock films, the editor essentially leaves the action to the viewer’s imagination. Even though this beheading movie created by ISIS is not being submitted for any film festivals, they carefully comply with techniques that would make this film fully acceptable into almost any gore film festival.
To those who want to point out to viewers the amazing lack of blood during those first critical throat slices of James Foley’s neck, sorry, exposing this lack of blood is in itself apparently too grotesque by YouTube standards and should you post such a video it will be conveniently removed.

2. Professional Image Editing Software and Skills.

Like the editing software, the ISIS production team shows off their skills in Photoshop image editing software, which often requires an extended learning period, resources, and practice. Despite a few imperfections, the ISIS production department seems to know how to cut and splice out sections of images to produce the desired effect of disconnecting a head from the body. Even if obtaining and using the software is believable, let’s remember we’re talking about savage “terrorists” that are supposedly inhumane. In other words, these are clinically, factually documented psychopaths and not your average person according to government legend. Let’s keep this in mind (psychopaths) when speaking about ISIS.
3. Internet Connection, Video Uploading Capabilities, and Social Media Accounts.
According to U.S. “intelligence sources” mouthpieces, ISIS has all the above including social media capabilities. Amazingly, these covered-face killers have unraveled the secret of how to outsmart every world power including the U.S. Empire with regard to every form of communication. They have stomped out the U.S. military, NSA, CIA, NATO, U.N. and the intelligence of Israel, U.K. and every other nation that surrounds them. You may think it’s not every day that a small group of young face-covered kids can outsmart the world, but this could be attributed to pure luck if you believe in the ISIS psyop. Just to be able to say that you’ve outsmarted the U.S. Empire 13 years after they accelerated their plans to rule the world outlined in The Project for the New American Century document titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” According to the ISIS psyop, that accomplishment alone is worthy of historic recognition.
Here’s a group of young kids with covered faces who maintain Internet accounts without any past due balances, they have wide open social media accounts (Facebook? YouTube? Twitter?) that are also apparently well maintained. They must understand and be properly following the rules of these social media accounts. But wait, if they have social media accounts doesn’t that mean that the social media providers are terrorists too? Unless these geniuses called ISIS are also fooling them as well. I suppose this would be realistic according to the  government narrative since ISIS has apparently outsmarted everyone else.
Okay, forget social media, how is ISIS able to log on to the Internet? Do they have their own ISIS hackers?? Who do they pay their Internet bill with? Without Internet aren’t they lost? No social media and no way of knowing what is going on right? I doubt they have analog TV in their convoys? Doesn’t this present a communication problem? ISIS again quietly has overcome this problem in a flawless and mysterious manner.

4. ISIS Intelligence Operation Apparently Far Superior to CIA/Mossad

Amazingly this group of geniuses who have outsmarted the entire global intelligence community seem to have all the capabilities to put the U.S. Empire’s CIA and their globalist partner Israel’s Mossad to shame. ISIS has put on a clinic and has officially handed the U.S. and Israel their butts in the intelligence department. They not only formed right below their noses, they did it quickly, they figured out unanimously what their mission would be and all agreed on it. Football teams and all sports team for that matter throughout the world could learn from ISIS. ISIS apparently is teaching the world how a team works together. Imagine, the CIA’s mainstream media would have us believe that ISIS is powerful and high in numbers. Really? How would you get that many people to agree on anything? Every NCAA coach would learn a lot from ISIS. Here’s a group of young face-covered men who actually agree on everything. They even all agree not to attack Israel for no reason at all.
How quickly ISIS rose to power and fame and how they operate in such unity should strike everyone as very odd, yet the ISIS psyop narrative continues without missing a beat in regards to these technicalities and finer points. Any way we slice it, the ISIS psyop narratives has a group of kids with hidden faces who have revolutionized the concept of the “intelligence” operation. They solved the CIA Mos
sad and NSA problems and now are laughing at the global intelligence community. They did this at a time, by the way, even as uncharged innocent prisoners sit in George W Bush’s Guantanamo illegal prison for life. Can you imagine what is going on in the minds of the men in Guantanamo hearing about ISIS?

5. Super Secret Database Holding the Secret Names and Identities of Their Members

Have you noticed that no one knows who ISIS is? What are their names? Why not snag up one or two of them and let the identities come out? No, not ONE member of ISIS is capturable or identified to the world. It’s like they never existed. Not one wife, sister, brother, father, cousin, nephew, aunt, or uncle is speaking out. Apparently they never lived anywhere and never told their friends that they were going to join ISIS. Not one of the has a girlfriend or a spouse that would have spoken by now. No one has come out testifying that ISIS tried recruiting them. Oddly, we haven’t even heard of an angry former girlfriend speaking out about the initial call, the recruiting effort or anything whatsoever. But without a powerful recruiting effort how did they recruit? Somehow they got around this one too. No one knows how. They simply came into being. Let that sink in.
6. Anti Surveillance Technology- Able to Avoid All Existing Surveillance
In the age of super advanced government biometric surveillance, tracking and spying, ISIS has one less problem than anyone in America. Unlike Americans who are constantly under the threat of being surveilled and spied on by the U.S. empire, ISIS lives free of the threat of technological surveillance of any kind. For some reason, their images, faces, voices and actions are not surveilled, tracked or recorded by those who can do it.
“Intelligence sources” are powerless in the face of ISIS. All of the U.S.’s NASA, NSA and USAF technology and equipment makes no difference when it’s ISIS. Despite all this, amazingly we hear nothing about the U.S. military or NSA trying to steal or decode the ISIS counter surveillance technology. Oddly, the topic of ISIS’s amazing counter-surveillance technological abilities is not talked about by anyone in the media or in Washington.
7. Endless Secret Water, Food, Farming and Meals Supply
Anyone who has served in the military knows that being a soldier makes you hungry. ISIS fighters definitely require lots of food and drinks that keep their energy up. You can’t go around killing people just for not being part of ISIS without having plenty of energy and lots of water and drinks. Even in the military, working in the mess hall for some was a career. Why? Because someone has to do it.
When I was in the military I remember the supply specialists; their full time job was tagging along on our field trips, making sure the unit had enough food and water. When necessary, the supply guys had to go to work to make sure everything went smooth. So where is ISIS getting their supplies? Who’s feeding them with food and water? Do they also own the farms? Do they grow their own food? Amazingly, according to the ISIS psyop they do. Or perhaps their food and water suppliers are all part of a secret operation being hidden by the world’s new leader of counter intelligence, ISIS. And speaking of supplies, who’s supplying their actual bullets? Ammunition? Guns without ammo are useless, so the question is where are they getting their bullets from?

8. All American Timing! – Common Enemies, Lucky Gift

ISIS is a unique group from which almost all their goals fit in perfectly with the Bush Neocon plans to militarily control the world. I covered this topic in a recent article. Amazingly, ISIS now happens to hate Russia, too, just like the United States. What are the odds? Bush Neocons controlling Obama and the globalists benefit greatly from more, not less, terrorism. An end to the War on Terror would leave the U.S. without the planned conquering of Syria and Iran and re-conquering Iraq. Without a bogeymonster like ISIS to provide the pretext for invading these countries (in some cases, again) the plan has no legs. That ISIS fits in perfectly with the Bush Neocon plans is merely a coincidence according to the ISIS psyop narrative. Like Lucky Larry Silverstein taking the day off only on 9/11/01 to go to an appointment after never missing work for years if ever at all. Luck, the narrators of the ISIS psyop would have you believe, is something that just happens and should be accepted without question.
But wait, ISIS is so close to Israel, they may attack Israel any given day. Given how fast they move, how well they operate together, their skillful blend of technology and brute force surely they could cause a historic massacre in Israel overnight and leave their trail of blood through large sections of Israel. Isn’t that the stated goal of ISIS? IDF and Mossad have already failed to detect or stop ISIS in any way shape or form so I wouldn’t expect them to provide much of a challenge for the ISIS powerhouse terror group. Given how brave they are, I would imagine they wouldn’t have any problems getting the young men to volunteer for the big Israel attack.
The big Israel attack would gain them all the PR and Marketing they need. Isn’t that the goal when someone opens up a social media account? Hasn’t ISIS demonstrated in the supposed beheading videos that they are serious, they want everyone to know who they are and they want certain things? An attack on Israel would get them everything they want; yet, for another lucky reason (luck of the U.S. and Israel) ISIS doesn’t seem motivated about pulling off the big damage/low-cost attack on Israel.
The irony gets even crazier here. According to U.S. politicians pushing the ISIS psyop narrative, ISIS is not only unwilling to attack Israel, which they could do in a day or two, they instead prefer to make plans to travel all the way to the other side of the world to attack the world’s most powerful Empire of all time. Yes, they would rather risk getting caught, imprisoned or killed traveling halfway around the world than to go for an easy quick strike at Israel. And, for good measure, as if to flaunt their super counter-intelligence capabilities, they are willing to announce ahead of time their travel plans to fly halfway across the world to attack American cities.
So this previously incredible intelligence organization that outsmarted all of the world’s intelligence agencies at once, is now giving away their plans before they even happen. Doesn’t that sound like a monumental change in intelligence strategy from such a stellar counter-intelligence skilled violent organization? Apparently in the “new” ISIS philosophy they now give away their plans ahead of time knowing that NOT giving away their plans worked pretty well during their secret and rapid rise to power under everyone’s noses. Keep in mind ISIS uses U.S. military gear which they accidentally “found” in Iraq. The military gear – including tanks, artillery weapons and high-powered guns – all just happened to work perfectly, and for good measure they apparently have all the ammunition to go with these weapons.
But wait, you might say, how can ISIS transport huge military equipment to the U.S. for an attack? Not one U.S. “intelligence source” seems to know the answer to this. Apparently ISIS is not just lucky like lucky Larry, they also have a lot of money (that no one seems to know the origin of) and they are very versatile. The ISIS engineers are apparently working on brand new smaller, easier to hide weapons that are not detectable by airport scanners or surveillance cameras. Is ISIS starting to sound like James Bon
d yet?

9. Complete Ongoing Immunity and Hidden Identities

Amazingly, ISIS is unknown to anyone (as mentioned in number 6). Even if their database is never discovered, ISIS is skilled at knowing when to wear their masks. I mean, you wouldn’t want to be caught without your mask right? And if you are caught without your mask and someone videotapes you, does that mean they kill you? No big deal? How does that work? One thing we know is that ISIS thus far (and they have been around allegedly a few years) has been perfect at hiding their faces. Not ONE video or photo exists where one member of ISIS showed his face. Amazing? Yes, for a group that has regular social media and Internet access. Where are the images of these men that belong to ISIS and why hide your face anyway? This amazing stroke of luck of not having even one member show his face or having his identity known to the world is an amazing accomplishment given all the technology and media available as mentioned before.
With this ongoing face-hiding playing out to perfection, once again ISIS is schooling the world on how to be a criminal in the face of the global police state and get away with it. Do you realize someone you know or someone they know could be part of ISIS without anyone knowing? Is ISIS really Blackwater? Academi? You know, the U.S.’s private mercenary organization that likes to change its name all the time. Is this the reason why “ISIS” covers their face? Even James Bond could not successfully hide his identity for very long and he’s just one person. Remember, we’re talking about supposedly thousands if not tens of thousands of young men working as one without one of these men making a mistake. Try to imagine how ridiculous this really sounds. Ultimately, as long as secrecy of the faces of ISIS is maintained, we really don’t know for sure just who ISIS really is. We know what the federal government would have us think, but humanity as a whole is now moving past this type of solution for procurement of legitimate information.

10. Untraceable Money and Endless Spending

Yes, according to government mouthpiece “experts” like Colonel Anthony Shaffer and others, we (the U.S. “intelligence sources”) know a lot about ISIS. They have money, they are organized, etc. But think about it, how come they “know” so much about ISIS’s financial abilities but don’t “know” who funded them or what bank accounts they currently have?? U.S. and its allies’ intelligence only “know” enough to scare you with ISIS but not enough to act to actually stop their banking activity. That would actually stop ISIS dead in its tracks wouldn’t it? But nope, we don’t want ISIS to go away too quickly. The script needs to play out doesn’t it?
This script is indeed playing out, and America and the world is the audience watching the show. Those that are awakened stand in dismay at the level of propaganda we are seeing and are wondering what ridiculous narrative will the globalists spin next to get into Syria and continue into Iran? Others who wanted to believe mainstream media news but perhaps are intuitive enough to not be fooled yet again are scratching their head. We call that The WTF Moment.
While sadly others have seen this script before and for some reason they kind of liked it before. Perhaps they love the post-9/11 feeling of believing government and looking to it for protection from terrorism. Perhaps they love the police state and maybe they are comfortable being surveilled 24/7. Perhaps they know that the only way to maintain their sanity and their lifelong and hard-fought-for paradigm is to simply believe whatever mainstream media news says. This third group will welcome the CIA script.
It is this group (those that welcome the mainstream media script) that makes this next (information war) chess game between humanity’s awakened segment and humanity’s governing segment very interesting. This third (asleep) segment of humanity is playing out the last bit of fantasy left in their personal paradigms. Some of them would probably rather die than face reality. Some of them think they are “saving” themselves from reality. Reality, with some of these people, thus takes on the role of sin in that they want to save themselves from this consciousness. For others the same reality takes on a role of “insanity”. The goal thus becomes to “preserve” their consciousness from this “insanity” or tin foil, crazy, lunatic, “conspiracy theories”- you get the picture.
That is how the ISIS psyop divides itself upon humanity. Recognizing the three primary forms of consciousness will help us arrive at a consensus on how to move forward to fix this problem. Let’s hope that we (humanity) can figure it out quickly this time and with the fewest amount of lost lives. Let us pray for humanity and for the survival of the human race. Let’s remember that all those logos, flags, ideologies, and concepts of governments are all just artificial agreements. Let’s all try to see the biggest picture, which is that we are all part of a species (humanity) which is actually trying to kill itself off. Let’s not let tiny individual samples of our own species ruin it for all of us. They’ve tried everything they have, so they have to start repeating their tactics. They are making the script easier for us all. Let’s take advantage of this weakness they are showing. The weakness of lack of creativity. This lack of creativity is glaringly obvious to all of us now. The globalists are not very creative and they like to repeat their tactics. This is why history is a great tool to expose the globalists and their new world order.
Its been said and I declare again that those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat it; never has this been more true than today. Here’s a word of caution to those who still believe government’s ongoing War on Terror. Look at the past, look at attacks of 9/11/01, don’t you agree it didn’t work out very well for us? And on top of that they took all our liberties away. This is a failed government. Are you going to trust them at a game where you are always the loser? Ask yourself, how did their phony war on terror improve your life last time? Why would this next round of ISIS be expected to be any different? Don’t you want to thrive while you are alive? Then let go of government-engineered lies and narratives and see the greater agenda now for yourself. Then share this message with someone.
Bernie Suarez is an activist, critical thinker, radio host, musician, M.D, Veteran, lover of freedom and the Constitution, and creator of the Truth and Art TV project. He also has a background in psychology and highly recommends that everyone watch a documentary titled The Century of the Self. Bernie has concluded that the way to defeat the New World Order is to truly be the change that you want to see. Manifesting the solution and putting truth into action is the very thing that will defeat the globalists.

10 Signs That ISIS is a Scripted Psyop
Activist
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:03:00 GMT

THE HUMAN STORY