Home | About | Issues | Documents| Media | Links | Chat | Blog | Interactive Constitution | Contact Us

Archive for April 14th, 2009

The New World Order Is Taking Over the Patriot and Truth Movements

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

We all know that there are infiltrators into the various patriot movements. Old news. But that is not what I discuss in this article. I may be wrong, but I think something far more serious is going on: I think that the biggest, strongest patriot movements (Alex Jones and the Truth Movement, Campaign for Liberty, etc.) are about to completely damaged or hijacked so that they no longer exist, and are completely destroyed. This is the New World Order tactic, so none of us should be surprised, just like I was not surprised when the Ron Paul Presidential run was run off the road and taken over almost effortlessly, it seems, before the first votes in New Hampshire were cast. So let’s get into this issue…

If Ann Coulter is so ‘awake’ now, endorsing Ron Paul and stating that he was right about everything, why won’t she then talk about the things that Ron Paul discusses: the Fed, Codex Alimentarius, the North American Union, the WTO and IMF, what the Second Amendment really is all about, and so on? There is something funny going on here… and I think I know what. If Glen Beck is such a patriot and such a rebel of the mass media now, also promoting Ron Paul, why can’t his research team, after searching for over a week as Beck said, simply find any of the dozens of news articles in Newsweek, the New York Times, the Houston Chronicle, and so on, about the massive FEMA camps all over? Answer: he’s lying. Why is the mass media moving into our territory now, discussing some of the same issues we Truthers and patriots discuss, all of a sudden? If this keeps up, even as Alex Jones hinted at last week, his radio show “could become passé”. In other words, the movement will be hijacked from Jones, Ron Paul, and other leaders in the genuine patriot movements by the mass media (and the New World Order that controls the mass media), and the mass media will have control of them, just as they almost effortlessly took over the Ron Paul Presidential run’s momentum in the days before the New Hampshire Primary. Let me explain what I think is really going on.

Consider these facts:

1. All of a sudden, starting around late last fall, right when the stock market crash was going on, with a vengeance, the mass corporatist media began telling us that there is a New World Order and a coming world government. And since then, the mass media tells us either that this New World Order and coming world government is great, or they would tell us that it’s bad and it’s onlyabout the bankers—they don’t tell us, for example, that it’s project of the occultist and militaristic corporatists behind the scenes, or that it traces back to Hitler—I didn’t hear Beck cover that story!

2. That same mass media is telling us that the old system is the cause of the economic collapse, and “oh no [‘wink wink], the people might revolt against it (against system and/or the bankers)”.

That “old system” referred to in 2 is, we are told by the thought-controlling mass media, not the country the Founders set up for us, but rather:

3. our current system of government (which is far from the libertarian Founders’ government, and which is now actually a corporatist system where the government is a ceremonial government, like the Roman Congress was in ancient Rome),

4. the banks (but not the globalist banks, IMF, etc.),

5. capitalism (sure we never really have had it in the past 150 years—instead we’ve only had corporatism—but what traces of capitalism we’ve had are now being castigated [‘GM’s failed business model’, etc.] or called nonexistent by the mass media, needing to be replaced by socialistic systems, such as with the NewsWeek cover story: “We Are All Socialists Now”)

And there are other odd things going on, such as

6. Ann Coulter, who has been unwavering and incredibly rabid and virulent in her pro-war hate for Middle Eastern people, all of a sudden is supporting the most anti-war presidential candidate in decades, saying he was right all along—um… did I hear that right?

There are other examples, but these are all stunning, and they are quite new in the mass media. Is any of this making any sense? Because it’s really confusing me—Anne Coulter has never used reason, but now suddenly she wants to? I think it’s all sounding more like the old “wolf in sheep’s clothing” than anything else. To understanding the conclusions I am going to bring out in this article, you will have to interconnect all these points, 1-6, at once. Let’s continue…

We are being told in the mass media in various ways that these systems (1-3) have failed us, that’s really the problem, and those systems need to be changed (eradicated) in one way or another. But all this (and so much more) has been going on all along for centuries—the banks robbing us, etc.—so why now does the mass media all-at-once decide to announce a few of these tid-bits to us that they’ve covered up for decades? If the mass media suddenly wants to tell us how the banks have ripped us all off, well why didn’t they tell us that in 1913, the 1980s, or maybe even just in 2007? And why not tell us that Obama supported it all? But more importantly, why all-at-once, right at this particular point in time, are we getting these few tid-bits from the mass media? Answer: look what it is doing to the patriot movements; it’s becoming them.

Now, also consider that the mass media is telling us a few more things simultaneously, in addition to 1-6:

7. world government is the solution to the failed systems and to the economic collapse, and

8. The “conspiracy people” were right about a all along.

Now, notice, again, that 1-8 are all happening at once! Coincidence? Hard to believe. The robots and extremists of the mass media (Beck, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly, and others.) have been such robotic and unfathomable traitors through the years that they can only be carrying out an agenda now too, not trying to report news, attract an audience, or keep their ratings high. Why else would they bring all this up at the very same time? Perhaps Alex Jones is correct, and these propagandists are suddenly just worried about their ratings and their competition from the alternative media. This may be true, but as I said, my theory is that there’s something more serious going on.

Continued At Infowars

Danish Scientist on TV: Nano-thermite Behind Collapse of WTC Buildings on 9/11, Not Planes

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

On the morning of April the 6th, Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, who is an expert in nano-chemistry, was interviewed for an entire 10 minutes during a news program on the topic of the nano-thermite found in the dust from the World Trade Centre, (WTC).

During this news report, Harrit, who is one of the nine scientists primarily responsible for the pivotal paper entitled: ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’,  talks about how their research, which was conducted over 18 months, led to the conclusion that planes did not cause the collapse of the three buildings at the WTC on 9/11.

He says that they found such large quantities of nano-thermite in the dust from the WTC, that he believes that this compound, which has the ability to melt metal,  must have been brought into the WTC site in tonnes, on pallets.   Consequently, he suggests that we need to address this matter with those who were in charge of the security at the World Trade Centre on 9/11.

Harrit, like Dr Steven Jones who also played a major role in this ground-breaking research, refers to their findings as “the loaded gun” and suggests that military personnel might be able to enlighten us more on the little-known topic of nano-thermite, which differs from regular thermite in a number of significant ways, including that its ignition temperature is far lower than that of the conventional kind, [1].

Thanks INFOWARS

Every call made, email sent and website visited is now being logged under new regulations in the UK

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

Want to be an investigative journalist of the future? You’ll need a pen and paper, pay-as-you-go phone, and a motorbike. We’ll explain the motorbike later. But you may be an endangered species. New regulations that came into force last week – requiring telephone and internet companies to keep logs of what numbers are called, and which websites and email services and internet telephony contacts are made – have left some wondering if investigative journalism, with its need to protect sources (and its sources’ need, often, for protection), has been dealt a killer blow.

Worries focus on the fact that every government department, local council and even quango can access this telephone and internet data, given a judge’s clearance. What will they use it for? To investigate everything from treason to flytipping. Might it also be used to find out who has been tipping off a journalist on a local paper about the misdeeds of local councillors? That’s the concern.

“I would say that investigative reporting is desperately threatened by what this government is doing. I’ve been thinking a long time about how to stay one step ahead of the game,” says the Brighton-based investigative journalist Duncan Campbell (not the reporter of the same name on this paper). “The good news is that the surveillance methods that would close down what we do are still one step away. This isn’t the one that does the real harm.”

That will come, Campbell thinks, when the police put all sorts of information – vehicle licence plates’ movements, emails, phone calls – into a real-time system that anyone can access. But that’s not to say the new regulations will not have an impact.

In 1986, Campbell uncovered and revealed the UK’s secret Zircon spy satellite, and in 1988 the Echelon worldwide eavesdropping system; more recently he has written for this paper about police errors in Operation Ore prosecutions, meant to target viewers of child pornography but which accused people who had had their credit card details stolen.

A story that spread about Zircon was that Campbell spotted its existence because of the difference between two press releases – one from a satellite manufacturer and one from the Ministry of Defence. In fact he also had inside help. “I had confidential sources,” he says. “There was always 5% in the stories that came from a whistleblower.”

Sources are essential to Campbell’s work. Investigative journalists may write many dull stories and meet lots of dull people, but some of those they meet or influence through those stories matter enormously. Bob Woodward – who, with Carl Bernstein, uncovered the Watergate scandal while at the Washington Post – met Mark Felt, who became his contact, Deep Throat, by chance at the White House in 1970. Woodward was in the navy, working as a courier; Felt was in the FBI. Both were waiting outside the Situation Room one day. They chatted and kept in touch: two years later Woodward had a top-level source. His identity remained secret until Felt admitted it in 2005; he died last December.

But what of such sources now? The concern is that if someone gets in touch with a journalist, who then writes a story based on that information, the new regulations mean that the police – or intelligence services or local council – can work back from the database of all the contacts made to the journalist and figure out who the whistleblower is. It blows a huge hole in the journalist’s legal defence under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 that sources can stay secret unless “the court is satisfied disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime”. Join the communications dots, and a suspect is fingered.

How do you counter that risk? “Step down a couple of technological rungs,” says David Leigh, the Guardian’s investigations editor. “Just send a letter – you know, snail mail.” He adds: “When I’ve dealt with secret sources they take very great care not to communicate on any electronic medium.”

The next step, says Campbell, is to do what drug dealers and terrorists do: use pay-as-you-go phones and unregistered sim cards, bought with cash. Such closed rings are almost unbreakable – once you’ve met to swap numbers.

But must journalists and sources really use the same tactics as terrorists and drug dealers? If that’s the price of free, civil society, then yes, Campbell says. “The abuse of free communications by a minority is part of the price of liberty. [But] this government appears to think that it is civil society [itself] and so needs no checks or balances on its intrusions into private lives.”

Then again, don’t many scandals involve private companies, which won’t have access to the communications data? Neil Hamilton, Jonathan Aitken, British Aerospace (BAE) – none of those would be affected by this change, surely?

Leigh isn’t so sure. He and Campbell both say that any database will eventually spill out to those who pay enough or know the right people. Where big companies are involved, big money is at stake. “I have sources in the US who refuse to communicate via electronic means because they say it’s insecure,” Leigh says. “I know there are sources who already felt this before the new regulations. The bottom line about this is that anybody who imagines that electronic communications are secure is crazy.”

There can’t be investigative journalism without people willing to talk. And more and more important stories are emerging not from journalistic prying, but from those involved: the pictures from Abu Ghraib, taken by the US guards themselves; the details of Home Office failings, leaked from within it to the Tory MP Damian Green; the video provided to the Guardian last week showing a police officer assaulting Ian Tomlinson, who died during the G20 protests in London.

Technology is, however, also making life easier for investigative journalists. “I have more information at my fingertips than ever before,” says Leigh. The government and its agencies may be able to track journalists, but equally journalists can spread information over the web, from where it can’t be removed. The Freedom of Information Act also provides some leverage against government, if not a counterbalance to the new surveillance methods.

Leigh calls it a game of “attack and defence” – the internet works both ways, but slightly more in the journalist’s favour. He has just returned from Berkeley, California, and the presentation of a new film based on this newspaper’s investigation into BAE’s slush funds. How was the mood of journalists over there? “They were all miserable, but it wasn’t about this. It was because they were being thrown out of their jobs because the newspapers are going bust.” Oh, yes – a method even the government couldn’t dream up. Campbell observes wryly: “I don’t think, despite the claims of the blogocracy, that they [bloggers] have stepped into legally hard investigative journalism.”

He thinks that if unchecked, the government’s monitoring proposals “within a decade will threaten to bring [investigative journalism] to an end. It’s not that whistleblowers will be rounded up, but that the chilling effect of the surveillance society means no whistleblower will feel a journalist can protect them.”

What really troubles him is the automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) system implemented by the police across the country to track vehicle tax evaders and criminals, but also potentially to record where you’ve been. Currently it can only be accessed by the police and intelligence services, and you can’t yet do it in real time – when that moment comes, it will be truly dangerous, says Campbell.

The system does pose a threat to sources’ anonymity, agrees Leigh: if you assume that CCTV is watching any public journey, the only way left to meet is through a private journey in your car. “ANPR is a greater threat [than internet and phone-logging] because it’s tracking the physical movement of vehicles that are closely correlated to people,” Campbell says. “Unlike sim cards.”

We ponder solutions. Bicycles? Horses? Too slow. Motorbikes? Those usually only have a numberplate on the back – and the ANPR cameras focus on the front plate. Campbell and Leigh like it. Add it to the future armoury.

Thanks Guardian

Guns, Drugs Seized From Homeland Security Officer

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

PALM BAY — A Homeland Security employee at Orlando International Airport is in the Brevard County Detention Center on numerous drug trafficking and gun charges.

Timothy Monroe, 41, was arrested Wednesday at his Palm Bay home on Coral Reef Road.

According to the Palm Bay Police Department, a three month investigation led them to Monroe.

Monroe was caught with 40 grams of cocaine, 65 grams of marijuana bagged for sale, a shotgun, two pistols, close to 100 rounds of ammunition and more than $6,000 in cash.

He’s being held without bond.

Police are calling Monroe a mid-level drug dealer, and now the real work begins to try and find out who his suppliers are.

Monroe is a security officer for the Transportation Security Administration based at OIA.

The TSA told News 13 they are aware of the situation and said, “TSA takes the allegations very seriously. TSA has initiated an investigation into the facts of this case.  We will take appropriate action to address this situation.”

CFnews13

Reporters threatened with arrest for filming private Federal Reserve building

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

Reporters from INFOWARS.COM were harassed and threatened with arrest in downtown Kansas City, Missouri after filming the local branch of the private Federal Reserve building.

Security guards working for the bank approached the reporters at a city park that houses the National WWI memorial and demanded that they provide their names and disclose why they were filming the building.

 

After Aaron Dykes refused to provide his full name, he was told to leave public property immediately or face arrest because the bank was concerned about what he was filming– despite the fact that the female security guard repeatedly admitted he had done nothing wrong. In the face of Free Speech under the First Amendment, as well as common sense, the other reporter, Rob Jacobson was also told to leave despite complying with the request to provide his name.

“Officer Booth”, the female private security guard for the Federal Reserve, dared to pronounce that he was “guilty by association.”

When this reason was challenged, the stupefied “Officer Collins” told reporters that they were not to ask anymore questions and should in fact leave immediately. What jurisdiction they had– if any– is unclear, as the cameramen were approached on city property.

In some respects, this is hardly surprising in the same state that issued the secret MIAC report to police– instructing them to watch for “potential terrorists” who might be identified by their support for Ron Paul, bumper stickers of the USA flag or who hold sentiments against the Federal Reserve bank.

The Federal Reserve– who have branches at some 38 locations across the country– have repeatedly trampled on the rights of free speech and attempted to challenge anyone daring to film their building. It is clear they regard any press as a threat.

It happened to an unaffiliated cameraman outside the Washington D.C. location who was told no filming of any ‘federal’ buildings was allowed under any circumstances unless special clearance was given by the Fed’s press office.

We Are Change founder Luke Rudkowski was also challenged by a security officer outside of the Federal Reserve’s New York location who demanded to see what had been filmed under threat of arrest (as documented in his activist film ‘Dedicated’).

Shockingly, it has also been revealed that military intelligence spied on peaceful demonstrators who met simultaneously at “End the Fed” rallies across the country, including Alex Jones & Wayne Paul, brother of Congressman Ron Paul.

The stifling of free speech and the attempt to intimidate reporters and legitimate protesters is despicable.

The outrage over the privately owned bank has grown as more & more members of the public have realized that this entity– which has been given the power to print our money– is not a part of the U.S. government but a deception organization hiding behind the name “Federal.”

Rep. Ron Paul, among others, has led the effort to audit this unaccountable bank and end its ability to inflate the money supply, and ultimately to target its value.

Its chairman Ben Bernanke has refused to tell Congress who it has lent money to under the TARP bailout plan, and in what amount– despite its relevance to dealing with the current financial crisis.

The compounding acts of secrecy– at the ground level and in the halls of the U.S. government– should sound alarm bells for the sleeping American people that this bank must no longer control the economic policies of this nation.

Thanks JONES REPORT

The Rush Towards Socialism – and How To Stop It

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

It only took the Obama administration a couple of weeks to prove that the national leadership of the Democratic Party is guided by totalitarian-minded socialists who seek to create an omnipotent government. The U.S. government is now controlled by people who have been dreaming of living out their utopian socialist fantasies ever since the fantasies were brought to their attention in college decades ago by their Mao/Castro/Che Guevara poster-hanging, capitalism-hating, communistic professors.

The administration’s main agenda is an explosion of federal spending and debt so large and outrageous that America will soon exceed Sweden in the proportion of the economy that is controlled by government – if it hasn’t already. That’s just for starters. They also want to sharply increase taxes on the most productive and hardest-working people in society; increase the capital gains tax to deter private investment; expand the welfare state; spend trillions on pure, pork barrel spending in a massive vote-buying spree; set all corporate compensation levels by governmental fiat; tax away the wealth of unpopular business people (only starting with those AIG executives); regulate and control all risk taking by private entrepreneurs; enforce a civilian draft to create a modern-day, American version of the Hitler Youth (See Rahm Emanuel’s creepy, Stalinist-sounding book entitled The Plan); nationalize entire industries, starting with the capital markets (they understand that there can be no capitalism without private capital markets); and double, triple, and quadruple the number of “regulators” who already regulate all aspects of human life in America.

At the recent G-20 meeting Obama even signed off on the creation of an international regulatory “authority” that could set compensation policies in American corporations. On top of this, there is a never-ending drumbeat of anti-capitalist propaganda coming from the administration and its worshipful mouthpieces in the “mainstream media.”

What can be done? How can this rush toward totalitarian socialism be stopped? Will the Republicans find another old, angry geezer to appeal to the angry white male vote? How about another mumbling and incompetent Bush family heir? Will there be another Reagan who will talk libertarian while governing more like a European Social Democrat? Will they trot out another old “war hero” who will plunge us into war with Iran, North Korea, China, or whomever, to divert our attention away from the economic mess government has placed us in? These are the likely alternatives if we cling to the fantasy that “throwing the bums out” at election time leads to something other than another group of slightly different bums.

The fact is that the American people have been servants or slaves to their government for generations. It wasn’t always that way. When the Adams administration enforced the Sedition Act that made criticism of the federal government illegal, Jefferson and Madison responded with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 that clearly stated that the people did not intend to allow the enforcement of this unconstitutional law within those two states. Section One of Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve stated, for example, that “the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government . . .” Other states supported Jefferson and Madison in their defense of free speech.

Continued At LewRockwell