Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists

Alex Jones has received a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009. A footer on the document indicates it is “unclassified” but “law enforcement sensitive,” in other words not for public consumption. A copy of the report was sent to Jones by an anonymous Missouri police officer.

Click on thumbnails to see larger images.

The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.”

MIAC is part of the federal “fusion” effort now underway around the country. “As of February 2009, there were 58 fusion centers around the country. The Department has deployed 31 officers as of December 2008 and plans to have 70 professionals deployed by the end of 2009. The Department has provided more than $254 million from FY 2004-2007 to state and local governments to support the centers,” explains the Department of Homeland Security on its website. Missouri is mentioned as a participant in this federal “intelligence” effort.

Last month, the ACLU issued a news release highlighting the activity of a fusion center in Texas as the “latest example of inappropriate police intelligence operations targeting political, religious and social activists for investigation,” in particular “Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.”

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order. The MIAC document is a classic guilt by association effort designed to demonize legitimate political activity that stands in opposition to the New World Order and its newly enshrined front man, Barack Obama.

In September of 2008, Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors organized truth squads to intimidate people opposed to Obama and threatened to arrest and prosecute anybody who ran “misleading television ads.” Missouri governor Matt Blunt eventually denounced the use of “police state tactics” on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign.

MIAC claims members of a “rightwing” militia movement organized in the 1990s — generally in response to the Oklahoma City bombing and the events at Waco — “continuously exploit world events in order to increase participation in their movements. Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created” and supposedly exploited by “constitutionalists” and “white supremacists,” the latter an oft-employed canard used to demonize activists as dangerous and potentially violent lunatics.

MIAC notes many of the political issues cited by the so-called patriot movement — the Ammunition Accountability Act, the impending economic collapse of the government, the possibility of a constitutional convention, the North American Union, Obama’s “Universal Service Program,” and the implementation of RFID, issues that are not limited to the patriot movement but are shared by a wide array of political activists.

The MIAC document includes a map of the North American Union not dissimilar from one released by NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition (see the NASCO map here).

The MIAC report is similar to one created by the Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Joint Terrorism Task Force during the Clinton administration (see page one and page two of the document). The FBI document explicitly designates “defenders” of the Constitution as “right-wing extremists.” The MIAC report expands significantly on the earlier document.

Source

Elitist Blueprint For World Government Revealed

New book written by insider - 6,000 globalists control the planet and plan to completely end national sovereignty, manifesto for dealing with "antiglobalist" resistors unveiled

A new book written by a leading globalist luminary provides a blueprint for how 6,000 elitists plan to completely end national sovereignty, impose a system of global governance, and how they will deal with an international network of people that resist their agenda.

Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making is a manifesto for how the elite plan to shape the course of the planet and impose a new world order while combating the inevitable "global network of antiglobalists" who will rise up against it.

The author of the book, David J. Rothkopf, is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and has previously served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade during the administration of Bill Clinton before he became managing director of Kissinger and Associates in January 1996.

A Salon.com review alarmingly details the brazen premise of Rothkopf's book - a global elite now run the planet and have usurped the power of national governments while ensuring laws constrained by borders are all but obsolete.

"Each one of them is one in a million. They number six thousand on a planet of six billion. They run our governments, our largest corporations, the powerhouses of international finance, the media, world religions, and, from the shadows, the world's most dangerous criminal and terrorist organizations. They are the global superclass, and they are shaping the history of our time," states the promo for the book.

The threadbare notion that Rothkopf's book is a critical and impartial investigation of the global elite can be rejected out of hand just by looking at the author's biography - in reality he is a cherished insider.

Throughout the book Rothkopf fawns over the global elite of which he too is a member. The Salon review notes his "palpable thrill" at "recognizing CEOs, oil company executives and Harvard professors on his way to a fondue restaurant," in the globalist enclave of Davos, Switzerland and his obsession with listing every banal "achievement" of each elitist he speaks with.

According to the article, the kind of elitist celebrated in Rothkopf's book "have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite's global operations."

Rothkopf himself concurs that laws and regulations defined by borders and nation states are obsolete and need to be replaced not by a global government but by "global governance". The fact that the ultimate goals of the two - the total elimination of national sovereignty - are essentially identical is not lost on globalists who know that a more subtle imposition of centralized control needs to be enacted in order to con the serfs into sacrificing their identity. A sharply defined "world government" is too visceral a concept and would attract fierce opposition, therefore a method of forcing countries to adopt harmonized policies of "global governance" is the new approach that globalists have embarked on.

Rothkopf ominously expresses the plan to mandate the "Registration and management of Internet domain names (via a collection of organizations)" under a global umbrella, which the informed will recognize as a bastardized version of Internet 2, where individuals require government permits to operate a website under tight regulation.

The article concedes that, "Rational as it may sound to set up such systems, they just aren't directly answerable to the populace at large -- they're undemocratic," which Rothkopf admits will give rise to rebellions and pave the way for more people like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who he labels as being part of "the global network of antiglobalists," and a man who has "made political theater out of taunting and thwarting the global elite."

Rothkopf's answer to the inevitable antagonism that will be directed towards the globalists as their agenda unfolds is to hoodwink the commoners into thinking they have influence in the new world order that is being built around them - a method otherwise known as the Delphi Technique, which is universally recognized as an underhanded and unethical ploy of achieving consensus through deception.

According to Rothkopf the, "Superclass ought to be smart enough to foresee any such crisis and head it off by doing more to make the currently disenfranchised feel like "stakeholders" in the new global order."

The fact that the same elitists Rothkopf affords such sycophantic adulation are also personally responsible for the policies that result in the slaughter of untold millions and the misery of countless others across the globe matters little to Rothkopf, who also has no qualms about including Osama Bin Laden in a group of 6,000 "global elite" who now control the world and "whose connections to each other have become more significant than their ties to their home nations and governments."

Superclass maintains that the elite, who mainly comprise "older males of European descent who graduated from prestigious Western colleges," are "an improvement on those of the past," but this rings hollow when we consider the state of the planet that they have crafted.

A million-plus dead Iraqis since 2003, a global economy in chaos and individual freedom under attack in every corner of the world suggests the much-vaunted global elite - worshipped in Rothkopf's book as saviors of the Earth - are more accurately parasites and a cancer upon humanity.

Watch Rothkopf give a lecture on the power of the global elite. He identifies Bohemian Grove as a key meeting venue for the globalists. Decide for yourself whether he is a fawning sycophant or an objective critic. Rothkopf creates a false paradigm by claiming that freedom is at the opposite end of the scale to justice and essentially argues that the world's problems can only be solved by moving away from freedom towards justice, which is a complete contradiction in terms.

Rothkopf's approach is to blame the world's problems on free-market capitalism and and imply that global elitists are a new phenomenon and therefore part of the solution, when in reality the elite created monopoly capitalism and have been a hidden-hand manipulating world events and offering solutions to problems they created for centuries.

Source

Everything Must Go: How to Fight Terrorism (And Shred the Constitution)

'Terror and Consent': brilliant, contrarian

James E. McWilliams / Austin-American Statesman | March 30, 2008

During the course of a long, intellectually demanding narrative, "Terror and Consent" pivots on several paradigm-shifting claims. One of them, which appears in the introduction, stands out for its humanitarian implications: "During the era of twentieth century industrial nation states … 80 percent of the dead and wounded in warfare were civilians."

For Philip Bobbitt, a distinguished lecturer and senior fellow at the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia University, this is more than a gee-whiz factoid. It's the basis upon which he advances an ambitious argument for fighting the wars that are bound to plague the 21st century.

The prospect that the good old industrial nation state is a shrinking violet might rankle patriotic flag-wavers. But Bobbitt's statistic thrusts home an unsettling question: What does it say about the nation state that it has so often failed to provide, in the words of British statesman Douglas Hurd, "the security, prosperity, and the decent environment which the citizens demand"? Might it be time for something new?

In Bobbitt's view, the current wars against terror provide a shrill wake-up call to confront this question. The best way to protect citizens of modern democracies, he claims, is to fundamentally rethink the nation state as the guarantor of the freedoms that terrorists intend to obliterate.

Bobbitt's previous book, "The Shield of Achilles," explored the grand themes of warfare and state development, marking his penchant for the magnum opus. At nearly 700 pages (including more than 100 pages of notes), "Terror and Consent" follows suit, taking on a similarly big picture. If "we want to defeat state-shattering terror in the twenty-first century," Bobbitt writes, we will have to "transform the emerging constitutional order of the twenty-first century State."

Specifically, we must stop thinking like a nation state and start thinking like the "market state" that we are inevitably becoming. The nation state — a constitutional order dedicated to protecting and improving the material welfare of its citizens — served the United States well from the mid-19th century to the end of the Cold War. But Bobbitt contends it's vulnerable to a new battery of threats. The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital and the "universalization of culture" have eroded the conventional borders that once legitimated national security.

What's needed is a constitutional order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations, relying "less on law and regulation and more on market incentives" to expand people's options. Such a market state keeps its finger on the pulse of consumer demand, advocates trade liberalization, is prone to the privatization of public works and "will outsource many functions." In the seminar rooms of political science departments this change is referred to as "neoliberalism" (on the streets, it is known as "globalization") — and Bobbitt, who is a geopolitical realist, believes we have no choice but to embrace it.

The market state, Bobbitt contends, has great potential for the cause of individual freedom, but it also has a dark side. Global terrorism has already taken advantage of its ethos of openness in order to undermine it. For example, the wide-open arms market that neoliberalism endorses has allowed terrorists to gain access to weapons of destruction that they then use to destabilize legitimate market states. "Market state terrorism," Bobbitt explains, thus feeds on the "ardently sought innovations" of the 20th century to exploit "the increasing vulnerability of market states to catastrophic events."

"One cannot say," Bobbitt warns, "precisely how long we have."

What is to be done

This is not fear-mongering but rather a sophisticated geopolitical assessment. Therefore, a great deal rests on the solutions Bobbitt offers. Fortunately, his suggestions are, if not entirely novel, largely sensible. But they are ambitious to the point of being unachievable without extraordinary political leadership and unprecedented corporate discipline.

First, Bobbitt argues that the market state must allow the timeworn strategies of deterrence and containment to yield to the more aggressive tactics of preclusionary warfare. In an "epochal war," which we're in, market states share the burden of employing power "preclusively rather than waiting for an acute crisis to set in that irrevocably puts us at a disadvantage." Venturing educated guesses about the behavior of future threats is no one's idea of an ideal tactical strategy, but Bobbitt argues that if we strengthen our alliances with other states, networks of shared intelligence could do an impressive job of it.

Of course, this would require a more invasive process of information gathering within and across national borders. In order to reduce the threat to civil liberties this would entail, Bobbitt highlights "(o)ur commitment to globalize the systems of human rights and government by consent." He insists that emerging market states must collectively, out of "self respect," define and protect our inalienable rights. What this means in concrete terms is that governments "must rethink ideas like 'Homeland Security,' when the threats to security cannot be neatly cabined as in or out of the homeland," that an "alliance of democracies" must form to discourage isolationism and that the United States must "change its role as hegemon" in NATO. Only then can a consortium of neoliberal democracies draw "a bright-line rule against the intentional infliction of pain on any person detained by government," one of the many human rights threats that Bobbitt believes we must address.

These developments — the acceptance of preclusionary war, the universalization of human rights — hinge on a revamping of international law. Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force without a Security Council authorization, that the Geneva Conventions should be changed to forbid the indefinite containment of terrorist prisoners without trial and that we must, in cases in which the use of non-lethal chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine such methods as "counterforce measures."

The messy reality

These prescriptions provide a useful blueprint for fighting terror. As with any blueprint, however, there is the messy reality of filling in the details. Bobbitt presents his arguments persuasively; there is nothing dumbed down about "Terror and Consent." Nevertheless, one wonders if he concedes too much to the many virtues of neoliberalism without fully appreciating its negative impact. Two issues stand out.

First, Bobbitt admits that there will be no obvious answer to many of the human rights issues that are bound to arise. In many situations, he explains, our only option is to vest faith in properly formulated international and constitutional systems of law. This sort of vagueness is frustrating, perhaps dangerously so.

Take one case that Bobbitt offers: What should a market state do when an Islamic state holds free elections that bring a bin Laden to power? This situation, after all, presents allied market states with a human rights quandary — some sort of ethical corner will have to be cut. Bobbitt's approach to these kinds of problems is often to dance a bit too delicately around them. He argues, "States must measure their tactical and strategic policies against the impact these policies are likely to have on their legitimacy," and "Whether (a) state is subject to intervention … ought to be measured by the relationship between the strategic interests of the states of consent and the severity of the deprivations of human rights." Both answers tell us we need to take measurements but offer no ruler with which to do so.

Further left unexplored in this response is the possibility that the market state offers a conception of inalienable rights that it has not yet developed the means to protect. One can't help but wonder, as globalization renders millions of people vulnerable to human rights violations, if the nation state and its emphasis on human welfare should be so thoroughly dismissed.

Second, there is the matter that Bobbitt does not spend much time addressing: the war in Iraq — specifically, the subcontracting tactics that a CEO president and his corporate-modeled Cabinet have embraced. The inefficiencies of Halliburton, the corruption of Bechtel and the violence perpetuated by Blackwater call into question Bobbitt's advocacy of privatizing public duties. How does a market state draw "bright-line" rules on human rights when the actors in charge of drawing those lines hold privately funded erasers?

These questions, like so many others that this book poses, lack easy answers. But the long century we face might demand that we answer them not by choosing good over bad, but — as is usually the case in war and politics — the lesser of evils. If this is so, then "Terror and Consent" offers the most we can expect from our blinkered vantage point: a dauntingly learned and occasionally infuriating manifesto.

Philip Bobbitt:

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

Source

Call For "Federal World Government" Endorsed By Hillary - Extended Clip

Former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite receives an award from the World Federalist Association for supporting globalism and admits, "We need a system of enforacable world law, a federal world government."

Cronkite says "I am glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan." Hillary Clinton endorsed the award.

Source

7/7 Ripple Effect

Regarding the 7/7/2005 terrorist attacks in London, let us look at the facts, and what we were told, and compare them. Then, using Ockham's Razor and common-sense, let us see what conclusions are to be drawn, so we can all understand what most likely really did happen that day.

UN Propaganda aimed at U.S. Schoolchildren

Marvel Entertainment, owner of Marvel Comics, is teaming up with the UN to produce a comic book for schoolchildren with the purpose of improving the UN's bad image.

Follow this link to the original source: "Kapow! A hero for our troubled times"

Marvel Comics will be working with the UN Office for Partnerships to produce a new comic book that will include UN characters and agencies working alongside Spider-Man and other superheroes to "settle bloody conflicts and right the world of disease." According to the UN press release: "By making the complex UN system accessible to youth, the partners hope to teach children the value of international cooperation, and sensitise them to the problems faced in other parts of the world."

Exact details have not yet been released, but American schoolchildren will be the first target for the UN's propaganda blitz with the distribution of one million copies sometime in 2009. Eventually the plan is to translate the comic book into other languages, for further indoctrination of the world's children. The UN wants children to get used to the idea of visits from UNICEF officials and visions of blue helmeted "peacekeeping" forces.

This project is something of an admission by the UN that the world body's reputation has sunk to new lows. The fact that they've had to resort to clever marketing techniques aimed at children in order to try and rescue their image speaks volumes.

What could these new UN comic books use as plot lines? A superhero needs a villain, of course. Marvel, in this case, need look no further than the UN itself for these. UN officials have been involved in exploitation of women and in sex rings in third world nations. Perhaps Marvel could have Spider-Man apprehend villains of this sort. Or maybe the X-men could bring to justice the criminals who profited from the oil-for-food program/scandal.

These would be more appropriate than using the beloved hero characters to convince children of the UN's supposed beneficence.

Source

Child Abuse by the Government

Government rips an autistic boy from his home because it prefers a different treatment than the one offered by the parents

What kind of society rips a 17-year-old autistic boy from his loving home and places him in a state-run mental institution, where he is given heavy doses of drugs, kept physically restrained, kept away from his family, deprived of books and other mental stimulation and is left alone to rot?

Certainly not a free or humane one.

Yet that's exactly what has happened to Nate Tseglin, after a teacher called Child Protective Services, the county agency charged with protecting children from many forms of abuse and given power to remove children from their family homes in certain circumstances. The teacher reported seeing self-inflicted scratches on Nate's body and complained about the doctor-approved arm restraints his parents used to keep Nate from hurting himself. Nate remains in Fairview Developmental Center (formerly Fairview State Hospital) in Costa Mesa, labeled a danger to himself and others, while his parents fight a lonely battle to bring their son back home.

Isn't there anyone out there who can help them?

After the complaint, social workers intervened and decided that the judgment of a psychologist who examined Nate's records but never even met the boy trumped a lifetime of treatment and experiences by his parents, Ilya and Riva Tseglin. Without prior notice, "the San Diego Health and Human Services agency social worker, with the aid of law enforcement, forcibly removed a struggling and terrified autistic boy … from his home, while his mother and father, who are Russian Jewish immigrants, and Nate's younger brother stood by helplessly," according to the complaint the parents, who have since moved to Irvine to be near Nate, filed with the court.

The forced removal came after the Tseglins came to loggerheads with the government over Nate's proper treatment. The parents are opposed to the use of psychotropic drugs and argue that Nate has had strong negative reactions to them. They point to success they've had with an alternative, holistic approach that focuses on diet and psychiatric counseling. The government disagreed, so it took the boy away from home and initially placed him in a group home – where he had the same negative reaction to the drugs that his parents predicted would happen.

Of course, once social workers are involved in a family, they are reluctant to relinquish their power – something I've found in every Child Protective Services case I've written about. And even though the court determined "the evidence is clear that the parents have always stood by and tried to help their son," the court sided with the government. That's another common theme from these closed family-court proceedings – the social workers' words are taken as gospel, and the parents are treated like enemies and given little chance to defend themselves.

The details are complicated and discouraging. But, essentially, the parents were cut out of any decision-making regarding their son. They were given only short visits with him. After he ran away from the group home, the government transferred Nate to a mental hospital. The Tseglins say the drugs the hospital gave Nate caused him to have a "grand mal" seizure, and his health has continued to deteriorate while he languishes in a government mental facility. When they visited him over the summer, they found his face swollen. He faded in and out of consciousness and was suffering from convulsions. They believe he has been beaten and are worried about sexual abuse, given that he is housed with the criminally insane.

The Tseglins claim Child Protective Services has told them they have the "wrong set of beliefs" and even threatened to force them to undergo court-ordered psychological evaluation. The agency at one point suspended the parents' visitations as a way "to assist them in coming to grips regarding their son." The Tseglins, as former citizens of the Soviet Union, have good reason to be fearful of the authorities. But they tell me that they experienced nothing of this sort in the former communist nation. If their descriptions are correct, then the Soviets weren't the only ones who know how to create a totalitarian bureaucracy.

The family's legal argument is persuasive:

"Riva and her husband have cared for Nate, in their home, for his entire life, until he was dragged kicking and screaming away from his parents. … The court found that it was very impressive that the parents 'were able to maintain Nate in the home for the better part of a decade when he was having some severe behavioral difficulties.' … The court found further that when the parents put Nate on a 'more holistic approach' and ignored the professional opinions, that 'for a period of time, Nate responded very well to that.' Even though Nate subsequently deteriorated, the court found that he fared no differently using the more traditional medical approach.' …

"In short, this case turns on value judgments, such as whether it is preferable for Nate to be maintained in his own home, subject to occasional physical restraint, surrounded by the love and devotion of his parents and brother, or whether Nate should be placed in a locked facility, subject to occasional physical restraint and constant chemical restraint, surrounded by strangers and a burden to the California taxpayer. … The real issue in this case is that the agency and some medical personnel believe their opinions regarding Nate's treatment are better than the parents' choices, and have sought the judicial intervention to override the parents' decisions regarding their son."

In a free society, individuals and families get to make those judgments and decisions. As the Tseglins argue, "Riva has a right to raise her child, Nate, free from government interference, as long as he is not at risk of physical, sexual or emotional abuse, neglect or exploitation."

Sure, the state can and does intervene when parents are accused of abusing or neglecting their children. There are many problems and injustices even in those cases, but at least it's understandable when the government intervenes to protect a potentially threatened child. But in this case, the state is simply saying that it knows best, that no matter how diligently a boy's parents have worked to provide the best-possible care for him, that officials get the final say. And the government's choice of mandatory incarceration seems harsh and cruel, which shouldn't surprise anyone, given the basic nature of government.

At last check, autism is not a crime. It's time to free Nate Tseglin and return him to the love and care of his parents.

Source

Chertoff Warns Of "Earth Shattering" Events

Department of Homeland Security Head Michael Chertoff has repeated the same fearmongering warning he made last year - he is worried "earth shattering" terror events are likely to be carried out soon.

Once again, Chertoff provides no specific details, he simply reminds Americans that they need to remain afraid of phantom terrorists:

"If you're asking me what keeps me up at night or what I most worry about -- in the short term, obviously, you worry about homegrown terrorists or somebody coming in with an explosive device or the kind of act of violence or terror that we've actually seen occasionally carried out in this country by people who are simply nuts or like a Timothy McVeigh." Chertoff told WTOP news.

"But in the longer run, in terms of something that would really be earth-shattering, the kinds of things I'm worried about are a nuclear or a dirty bomb attack or a nuclear or biological attack." Chertoff continued, citing the motive of toppling the already teetering US economy.

The threat from "Al Qaeda" is not over, Chertoff is at pains to remind us, "Just look at what's happened in the last year." he adds, referring to the fact that two men, since proven to be totally unconnected to "Al Qaeda", set a jeep on fire and drove it towards Glasgow airport in Scotland last August

It was just last July that Chertoff cited a "gut feeling" when warning that Al Qaeda may attack the US, at the same time admitting there was not enough evidence of a pending attack to raise the nation's threat level.

He then toured the country warning attendees to his speeches that his gut feelings included simultaneous Los Angeles / San Francisco dirty bomb attacks.

Chertoff's hunches were much maligned by critics and spurred MSNBC's Keith Olbermann to lay out possible explanations for "Mr. Chertoff's remarkable revelations about his transcendently important, counter-terrorism stomach."

In recent times Chertoff has expressed disdain for those who have described the "war on terror" as hype, even taking a swipe at the 9/11 truth movement.

He is always keen to focus on his assertion that the internet is a breeding ground for terror and has publicly predicted that the next attack will be carried out by home grown web radicalized terrorists.

"I also think that the preparations that we need to have in place to deal with this threat are going to take a while to build, and we're building them as we speak." Chertoff concludes in the interview.

"But they're not going to be done in six weeks or even six months. So what is important is to stay focused on making the investments now that we will be very grateful for in several years if someone does get their hands on nuclear materials or a biological agent."

In other words, be Afraid, and stay afraid America.

Source

 

A $7bn Rogue Trader? The Central Banks present their patsy

Like any major depression or economic collapse in history, the Central Banks have skillfully managed to divert attention away from their own bankrupt monetary shell-game and put forward a patsy for the history books and Hollywood. Enter: Jerome Kerviel.

The aggressive maneuvering and consolidation is already underway but as always, it needs a good story to get the ball rolling. When a major institutional crisis finally comes to light, you can expect the Bank's highly paid and highly skilled PR machine to spring into action with a spectacular cover story. Enter patsy and latter-day "Rogue Trader", Jerome Kerviel.

Thus the junior trader at the heart of an alleged $7 billion "fraud" at French bank Societe Generale was named today. Sources presented the fall-guy in the form of Kerviel, a low-ranking junior trader with no less than five ranking supervisors. A convenient back-story was already spun by the bank's public relations heads, one which claims that Kerviel had "detailed knowledge of the bank's security systems because of the back office job he previously held". Although not very convincing to industry insiders, it is enough to cover headlines and spark endless hours of prime-time made-for-TV media coverage.

In fact this very "fall-guy" scenario was predicted on air by a number of respected media voices months ago, including former Wall Street Journal editor Dr Paul Craig Roberts and syndicated radio talk-show host Alex Jones. And as expected, many of the mainstream media's outlets are attempting to blame this lone gunman for the stock market collapse of "Black Tuesday" on Jan 22nd 2008.

In their usual break-neck attempt to both write and close the books of history in a day, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation was quick to highlight in its global dispatched today, that the bank's 'rogue' trader lost "four times more than British dealer Nick Leeson who sank Barings bank in 1995", drawing the convenient familiar comparison for easy public consumption. Like any major depression or economic collapse in history, the Central Banks have put forward a patsy for the history books and Hollywood.

The bank's senior executives have quickly positioned junior trader Kerviel for a media feeding frenzy. "I'm convinced he acted alone," said Jean-Pierre Mustier, chief executive of corporate and investment banking at Societe Generale. As in the Leeson affair in 1995, the bank spokesperson claims that "he made a number fictitious trades to cover his losses" and managed to "fool the bank's management and security for months". This very tidy and well-crafted back story provides, once again, a wonderful smoke screen for this establishment bank's generally shady financial practices, as well as a wonderful diversion for the Central Banks, who have been engineering the current financial meltdown for the last few years. Not all industry analysts are convinced of the bank's claims though. The explanation for the losses met with skepticism from Ion-Marc Valahu, head of trading at Amas in Switzerland commenting, "I have a hard time buying the fact that a trader was able to set-up a secret trade for £3.6 billion($7 billion)."

As it turns out, Societe Generale also has a $3 Billion exposure to the sub-prime mortgage market and thus a potential target for consolidation. Due to the recent wild mortgage and derivatives free-for-all (and like most major banks today), Societe Generale is already heavily leveraged out via modern-day "margin buying". Current value of the world's floating derivatives and futures market in estimated conservatively at $300 Trillion, and sooner or later, the finger of institutional fraud will be pointed at every major player right up the global financial pyramid. Today's story serves only to plug a temporary hole in the banking industry's already hemoraging public profile.

Lack of oversight in the world of international finance and the looming markets crisis means that Societe Generale's claims today may never be investigated properly, but insiders believe that today's announcement will simply pave the way for the bank's part in an acquisition move, further consolidating overall industry share holdings.

Societe Generale's was founded in 1864 and until today, was one of France's most prestigious blue-chip companies.

Source

 

NASCO: Ron Paul Is "Confused" About NAFTA Superhighway

North America's SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), often referred to as a principle player in the proposal for a "NAFTA superhighway", has hit out at presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, branding him as "confused" and stating that it's business "has nothing to do with any of his concerns" over the increasing move towards a North American Union.

In a letter published in the Des Moines Register, NASCO's executive director, Tiffany Melvin, J.D., responds to a piece penned by Ron Paul last November, entitled Renew Devotion to Freedom, Limited Government, in which the Congressman referred to the proposed NAFTA highway, stating:

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and through Kansas City. One proposed path takes the superhighway right through Iowa. This superhighway can be built only by sacrificing family farms through eminent domain.

Melvin and NASCO respond with the following:

Paul states the NAFTA superhighway will cut a wide swath through Iowa. For decades, I-35 has carried international trade with Canada, the United States and Mexico. Since the enactment of NAFTA, people have referred to the existing I-35 with the slogan "NAFTA superhighway" because it is a major north-south artery that moves a substantial amount of international trade.

Recently, there have been rumors of a new NAFTA superhighway - a giant new highway being planned to link the three countries - and North America's SuperCorridor Coalition Inc.'s promotional map has been used erroneously as proof that a blueprint of the proposed giant highway is, in fact, a reality.

NASCO can state unequivocally that plans for a new giant NAFTA superhighway do not exist. Our map depicts existing transportation infrastructure not drawn to scale, but enlarged for promotional purposes.

Paul is confused and has tied separate initiatives together into a sinister plot to destroy the sovereignty of the United States. NASCO has nothing to do with any of his concerns. NASCO is good for Iowa.

There is no dispute over the existence of the NAFTA superhighway, NASCO admits that it already exists in the form of I35 and other connecting roads. NASCO is claiming that the proposal to link Canada, the US and Mexico does not exist on the basis of semantics by insinuating that NAFTA trade corridors do not incorporate the building of a "new" superhighway by NASCO itself.

Although this convoluted word play has constituted enough to deflect most mainstream hack journalists in recent months, it has not swayed those who have actually researched the North American Union agenda in its entirety, and that includes Ron Paul and other members of Congress and State Houses of Representatives.

NASCO describes itself as a "non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America."

It has received $250 million in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation to adapt existing roads as part of one NAFTA trade corridor. Reports indicate that proposals include a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. One glance at the map of the NAFTA Super Highway as produced by NASCO makes clear that the design is to connect Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into one transportation system.

Toll roads are to be placed upon existing roads in Security Prosperity Partnership agreements that bypasses Congress, agreements between the bureaucracies of the US and Mexican governments, to raise capital to build the Superhighway that will go South of Texas and into Mexico.

Security Prosperity Partnership documents reveal that out of 85 interstate highways, 83 of them are slated to go under this agreement and toll roads are going down on them already. The money from this operation with further fund the dismantling of US sovereignty by seizing the infrastructure at it's very heart in a bloodless coup.

The highway is to be linked to the Trans-Texas Corridor the first leg of the highway which will connect Mexico with the US. This is being overseen by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) which is a member of NASCO. The Trans-Texas Corridor is a separate part of the physical infrastructure but is being built as part of overall plans to deepen the integration of Mexico, the United States, and Canada in a North American economic community that is a precursor to further union.

The NAFTA corridor movement also involves CANAMEX, another trade organization that promotes a Western tri-lateral route utilizing I-19, I-10, I-93 and I-15 in the states of Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Montana to link the three countries in trade. See below (click to enlarge).

Another non-profit group, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI), identifies four bands of NAFTA corridors (Pacific, West, East and Atlantic), all relying primarily upon internationalizing north-south existing interstate highways into NAFTA trade corridors. See below.

The NAFI website states the following:

"Following the implementation of NAFTA, coalitions of interest have been formed in order to promote specific transport channels, to develop the infrastructures of these channels and to propose jurisdictional amendments to facilitate the crossing of borders. These coalitions include businesses, government agencies, civil organizations, metropolitan areas, rural communities and also individuals, wishing to strengthen the commercial hubs of their regions."

"The North American trade corridors are bi- or tri-national channels for which various cross-border interests have grouped together in order to develop or consolidate the infrastructures. The North American corridors are considered multimodal in the sense that they bring into play different modes of transport in succession."

"The infrastructures may include roads, highways, transit routes, airports, pipelines, railways and train stations, river canal systems and port facilities, telecommunications networks and teleports."

The government of the province of Alberta, Canada, highlights the four trade corridors on its own website, referring to NASCO's arm as "the NAFTA superhighway". The Province's Infrastructure and Transportation division helpfully published online the map of the NAFTA Superhighway seen opposite.

They also provide detailed information regarding their involvement with the aforementioned CANAMEX Trade Corridor, stating:

CANAMEX was one of the first north-south corridors designated as a High Priority Corridor under the National Highway Systems Designation Act. Actively pursued by Alberta since the early 1990's, the CANAMEX Trade Corridor links Canada, the United States and Mexico and stretches 6,000 km from Alaska to Mexico, truly a pan-American corridor.
The goals of the CANAMEX Trade Corridor are to:

• Improve access for the north-south flow of goods, people and information
  
• Increase transport productivity and reduce transport costs
  
• Promote a seamless and efficient intermodal transport system, and
  
• Reduce administration and enforcement costs through harmonized regulations.

Of course, as we have highlighted, such improvements and efforts to increase the flow of traffic requires immense funding (hence the tolls roads which come with their own threat to freedom of movement) and will incorporate enlargements to existing road networks. Enlargements that DO constitute the "building of a new" Superhighway and WILL threaten anyone who owns property wherever the enlargements need to be made.

The architects of this North American unification are not just in name merging agencies, laws and regulations, they are physically getting rid of the borders by buying off and lobbying the politicians at the state level, who then hand the roads over to international bodies and their subsidiary companies.

An article in MIT's Technology Review magazine, for June 30, 2006, provides in-depth insight as to how the Spanish company Cintra has become a leading player in superhighway toll road projects in both Canada and the US In 1999 Cintra, working in conjunction with Australia's Macquarie Bank, won a 99-year contract to operate Toronto's Highway 407 toll road, now already built and operating in 2007, which happens to run along Canada's premier NAFTA trade corridor.

Cintra is also contracted to operate toll roads in Indiana and on the Trans-Texas Corridor.

At the end of January we reported on the revelation that one of Cintra's conglomerate partners, the afore mentioned Macquarie, has agreed to buy dozens of newspapers in Texas and Oklahoma that have up until now been harsh critics of the Trans Texas Corridor superhighway. This indicates a clear example of influence peddling pointing to racketeering, and a desperate lunge to silence dissent against the sellout of American infrastructure and the North American Union.

Further evidence of the future planning for the various roads comprising the "superhighway" can be found in Canadian policy documents. Firstly a document prepared last year for the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada entitled Embracing the Future: The Atlantic Gateway and Canada's Trade Corridor states:

Since the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement was signed with the US, later expanded to become NAFTA, Canadians have reoriented their trade links away from a national focus (east-west) to a North American focus (north-south).... As globalization proceeds, not as an offset to US-Canada trade or NAFTA enlargement and integration, but as a close complimentary advantage, Canada must adjust its thinking and design transportation strategies accordingly....

Again we see a call for "an adjustment of thinking" in accordance with NAFTA enlargement and integration.

A second Canadian policy document was signed on July 30 this year by the governments of Canada, Ontario, and Quebec which announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the development of the Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor. The official press release stated:

Canada's New Government has developed a National Policy Framework for Strategic Gateways and Corridors to advance the competitiveness of the Canadian economy in the rapidly changing field of global commerce.... Future federal gateway and corridor strategies will be guided by this framework, focused on transportation systems of road, rail, marine and air infrastructure of national significance to international commerce.

The Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway and Trade Corridor represents the North Eastern portion of the "NAFTA superhighway" depicted on NASCO's map of existing road networks.

The mainstream media will keep telling you none of this is real, that its on a par with invading space aliens and that if you believe in any of it you are totally crazy. And NASCO, who as we have shown are a major player, will keep using semantics to insinuate anyone who talks about it is "confused" or has "erroneously tied them into a sinister plot".

Of course, as with a great deal of the agenda for a North American Union, there is no all encompassing "sinister plot", it operates very bureaucratically, yet without Congressional oversight, and is unfolding piecemeal for everyone to see. However, this does not mean it has not been carefully planned is not a threat to the Sovereignty of America, Canada and Mexico.

The agenda is being driven by elitist private interests operating in cooperation with the globalist think tanks and lobbyists who have usurped the overriding interests and responsibilities of our governments for their own corporate gain and the power that brings to them. They consequently have no duty to the prosperity of the countries involved and the people who populate them, despite being intimately involved in the fundamental operation of the infrastructure.

For NASCO to therefore declare that their business "has nothing to do with any of his concerns" when referring to Ron Paul's exposure of such activity represents the height of arrogance and insults the intelligence of any free thinking person living in America, Canada and Mexico.

Source

SS Agents Confront We Are Change Activist after Clinton Confrontation

We Are Change Philly is reporting today that Temple University student Nick Carangi, founder of Philly911Truth, was visited by the Secret Service after he confronted the Bilderberg selected president, Bill Clinton, at a Hillary fund raiser. "Two agents questioned Nick about the confrontation and his participation at the Drexel Debate. They asked him if he would use violence" to defend the Constitution, according to the main We Are Change website. Carangi responded by stating that he never considered using violence.

SS agents Charles Holiday and Timothy O'Conner grilled "Nick on his recent activities," including videos he has produced and "implied that his future professional career could be effected as his mother listened in disbelief in the same room." Of course, confronting activists in a family setting is a common enough intimidation tactic used for decades by the Secret Service, the FBI, and local police in order to chill free speech and squash political activism.

On the Alex Jones radio show this afternoon, Carangi described how the SS visited him at his mother's home after he shook hands with Clinton and asked the former president about his Bilderberg and New World Order connections. "How dare you," Carangi had mocked Clinton, a reference to Clinton's response to a previous demand at a public appearance by We Are Change that the events of September 11, 2001, be investigated.

In addition to attempting to embarrass activists before family members and threaten to destroy their careers, COINTELPRO tactics directed against "domestic enemies" have ranged from the "trivial to the life endangering," including the promotion of "factionalization within groups and between groups," the "dissemination of propaganda," the use of "federal, state, and local agencies in selective law enforcement" and "other use (and abuse) of government processes," the dissemination of "derogatory information to family, friends, and associates; contacting employers," as in the case of Nick Carangi. According to the final report issued by the Church Committee in 1976, this latter technique is particularly effective and "distressing."

"Nick, a senior sociology major, was left feeling bewildered that exercising his constitutional rights could warrant this type of treatment," We Are Change concludes. "What constitutes a threat to a former president? Questions about Bilderberger involvement evidently."

Indeed, simply asking questions outside of the narrow, politically correct parameters established by our rulers is considered treason, as Mr. Carangi discovered. In the days ahead, as more people wake up and begin ask questions of their appointed rulers and their selected minions such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, we should expect more such intimidation techniques to be employed.

Source

 

Bush Authorizes Full Access to U.S. Roads for Even More Mexico-Based NAFTA Trucks

Statement of Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen

In a stealthy maneuver, the Bush administration has boosted the threat to the public by increasing the number of Mexico-based trucking firms allowed access to all U.S. roads as part of the reckless North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trucking "pilot program." The Department of Transportation recently revealed an increase in the number of NAFTA trucks permitted to all U.S. highways – now 10 carriers, sending as many as 55 trucks throughout the country.

The last time the Bush administration made a public announcement about the number of Mexico-based carriers allowed to participate in the NAFTA trucks pilot program, there were only three carriers.

It has long been the tradition by this administration to bury bad news like this by sending out press releases on Friday afternoon, but in this case, the Department of Transportation (DOT) reached a new low: not sending any press release at all, but simply updating a Web page.

Both houses of Congress have passed versions of the DOT spending bill that includes provisions to shut down this dangerous folly. Unfortunately for all members of the public who must travel every day on the nation's roads, the White House has threatened to veto the final bill. It is high time for President Bush to get out of the way and let the Senate vote on the final bill before any more lives are put at risk.

In 2001, a NAFTA tribunal ordered the U.S. to permit access to all U.S. roads for Mexico-domiciled trucking companies. The Clinton administration refused to comply with the NAFTA tribunal, citing serious safety and environmental concerns with Mexico's trucking fleet. The Bush administration has tried since 2002 to enforce the NAFTA order to open U.S. highways to unsafe trucks. Congress has intervened repeatedly to stop the Bush administration. In September, the Bush administration tried to meet NAFTA's dictates by launching a pilot program to allow up to 100 motor carriers from Mexico full access to U.S. highways. However, the project violates a 2001 congressional mandate that Mexico-domiciled trucking companies meet U.S. safety standards regarding hours of service, driver training and licensing, and vehicle safety before being allowed access to the nation's roadways.

A lawsuit filed by several groups, including Public Citizen, alleging that the pilot program doesn't meet congressional requirements is still pending in the Ninth Circuit.

Source

Denying the North American Union

Now that Alex Jones, Jerome Corsi, and others have exposed the plot to establish a "North American community," that is to say eradicate the national sovereignty of the United States, Canada, and Mexico in favor of a "United Nations of America" based on the European Union, the corporate media and globalist apologists have kicked into over-drive with a propaganda effort to deny reality.

"Nobody is proposing a North American Union," declared Robert Pastor, correctly identified as the father of the NAU and author of "Towards a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New," a book published by the Council on Foreign Relations Press in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales. Pastor may insist the elite of the three countries, at the behest of transnational corporations, are not interested in a merged superstate, but his argument betrays the fact the former national security advisor dreams of an American version of the European Union.

Pastor is an advocate of NAFTA on steroids, or "NAFTA Plus." According to Miguel Pickard, in "the early 1990s, when NAFTA negotiators were still wrangling over arcane language, Pastor was proposing ways to 'improve' the treaty. According to Pastor, NAFTA was off to a bad start, since negotiators were mostly seeking to dismantle trade tariffs. For Pastor it was crucial to find ways of integrating the three countries, similarly (but with important differences) to what the Europeans had done since the 50s. Years later, Pastor would bemoan that NAFTA's promise had gone unfulfilled, since it lacked a 'grand vision' for the three countries, i.e., a much richer perspective than the emphasis put on trade." In other words, NAFTA was simply a trade treaty minus the "grand vision" of global integration.

But there is a problem with Pastor's "grand vision," namely the people of the United States, Canada, and Mexico are reluctant to give up their national sovereignty.

Pastor, in a conversation with Jerome R. Corsi, "was careful to distinguish that his proposals were designed to create a North American Community and that he never has proposed to create a North American Union as an EU-style regional government," thus Pastor's insistence "nobody is "proposing a North American Union."

But this is, to say the least, deceptive. "The idea seems to be to put new structures in place that change the look of the landscape," writes Corsi. "[WorldNetDaily] pointed out to Pastor that this step-by-step approach is the same approach taken to create the European Union. The memoirs of Jean Monnet, regarded as the architect of European unity, finally disclosed he had used a strategy of deceit, knowing his plan to form a European Union would never succeed if it were openly disclosed."

"Pastor in an article entitled 'NAFTA is Not Enough,' argued for an incremental process that could head toward the creation of the NAU, all the while providing cover for participating politicians and governments to deny that creating the NAU was their goal," Corsi argues in a News with Views editorial. In the article, Pastor provides key details on how this stealth process works:

While the three governments of North America are unlikely to step into the debate on long-term goals at the current time, nongovernmental organizations, research institutes, and universities should fill the void with new ideas and old-fashioned cross-border dialogue.

Short of this sort of shadowy incrementalism, the NAU project may be dropped on the fast track by other means, according to Corsi. "Dr. Pastor seems to prescribe that a fear formula is all that is needed for the American people need to begin begging SPP to produce the NAU right now. Pastor openly writes as if the next 9/11 terrorist attack or a future outbreak of some health epidemic such as the avian flu could be just what the NAU doctor ordered as the prescription for the American people to abandon sovereignty in favor of super-regional government control, all in the interest of 'security' leading to 'prosperity.' Or, is it 'prosperity' which necessitates more 'security' via surrender to Big Brother government?"

In predictable fashion, the corporate media is tasked with characterizing those who document the emerging NAU as tinfoil hatters, nut cases, mental patients, conspiracy theorists, etc.

For instance, neocon Charles Krauthammer told Fox News: "I love this stuff because if you ever doubt your own sanity, all you have to do is read this stuff and realize that you're okay" (see video), while "conservative" Michael Medved lamented what he calls the "paranoid and groundless frenzy… fomented and promoted by a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists, who claim the existence of a top secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one big super-state," never mind the above, well-documented. "I'm sorry to sound cynical and intolerant about this stupidity, but I'm furious, actually – ashamed to be part of a proud medium (conservative talk radio) that increasingly encourages this paralyzing, puerile paranoia," apparently a reference to Alex Jones and others who continue to flesh out the "incremental" conspiracy Medved refuses to acknowledge.

Drake Bennett writes for the Boston Globe:

Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes. But belief in the NAU — that the plans are very real, and that the nation is poised to lose its independence — has been spreading from its origins in the conservative fringe, coloring political press conferences and candidate question-and-answer sessions, and reaching a kind of critical mass on the campaign trail. Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul has made the North American Union one of his central issues.

Government officials of the sort, no doubt, that told us Saddam Hussein was about use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or that the air at Ground Zero in New York was safe to breathe.

Finally, it is no mistake the Boston Globe has rolled Ron Paul into its diatribe of transparent denial, as Paul must be roundly discredited and characterized as a kook, primarily because a Paul presidency would most certainly put an end to Robert Pastor's dream of an American version of the European Union once and for all.

Source

Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty Would Give the UN Control Over Everything About the Oceans

The Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would give total regulatory jurisdiction over the world's oceans and seas to a United Nations body, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Follow this link to the original source: "25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"

On October 31 the authoritative Capitol Hill news publication, CQ Today, stated:

The Senate is likely to ratify a 1982 U.N. treaty governing the use of the world's oceans despite grumbling from a few conservative GOP senators.

That's right. After 25 years of stalemate, the Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would give total regulatory jurisdiction over the world's oceans and seas to a United Nations body, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

This is the same UN famous for its corrupt oil-for-food scandal. This is the organization that consistently votes against American interests.

In order to understand just how comprehensive and sweeping are the powers over the oceans that LOST would confer on the UN, read what was said at an official UN celebration of the 25th anniversary of LOST on Oct. 17:

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ... is perhaps one of the most significant but less recognized 20th century accomplishments in the arena of international law.... Its scope is vast: it covers all ocean space, with all its uses, including navigation and overflight; all uses of all its resources, living and non-living, on the high seas, on the ocean floor and beneath, on the continental shelf and in the territorial seas; the protection of the marine environment; and basic law and order.... The Convention is widely recognised by the international community as the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and the seas must be carried out. ("25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," Oct. 17, 2007; emphasis added.)

In short, the LOST treaty provides the legal framework within which all activities on, over and under the oceans and the seas must be carried out. In other words, the LOST treaty would give the UN jurisdiction over everything concerning the oceans and seas of the earth.

Everything would certainly include military and commercial uses of the oceans and seas. How do you think the anti-American UN would rule on U.S. Air Force planes and U.S. Navy ships using the oceans for military purposes? What would this mean for our national security? How about our commercial airliners flying over the oceans? How about the necessary transportation between our mainland states and Hawaii? And, on and on.

We would not have veto power protection in the UN's International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea like we do in the Security Council. We'd have one vote among a membership of over 150 nations.

For confirmation of just how bad it would be for the Senate to ratify LOST, take a look at these two videos of recent Senate hearings, featuring one of LOST's most articulate critics, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.): (1) DeMint on Law of the Sea Treaty: Part 1; (2) Round 2: DeMint on Law of the Sea Treaty.

This vote on LOST is arguably the most important vote the Senate will cast this year. The John Birch Society is urging its members and allies, especially the leaders and members of other organizations that also believe in preserving American sovereignty and security, to phone their senators within the next few days in opposition to the LOST treaty. Click here for a link to your senators' phone numbers and talking points for the calls.

If enough Americans contact their senators, we can stop LOST just like we stopped amnesty back in June. However, fewer organizations are involved in this fight, so those of us who understand the long range threat posed by surrendering our sovereignty to the UN need to step up our activism and get the job done!

Our personal freedom and security depend on preserving American sovereignty and security by winning this fight against LOST!

Source

 

Homeland Security Retreats From Facets of ’Real ID’

The Bush administration is easing its demand for tough national standards for driver's licenses, acting at the behest of state officials who say the "Real ID" plan is unworkable and too costly, officials familiar with the new policy said.

While Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff hailed an agreement with New York last week on more secure state identification cards for citizens as a sign that "the tide is moving more rapidly in favor of Real ID," his department is preparing to extend deadlines for the second time in a year and ease or take over responsibility for new security measures, the officials said.

Chertoff had earlier announced that DHS would waive the original May 2008 deadline and set a new target of 2013 for getting all 245 million U.S. driver's licenses to comply with a national standard. Now, DHS may extend the original deadline by a decade, to 2018 for drivers older than 40 or 50 to reduce the costs associated with a projected surge of customers at state motor vehicle departments, the officials said.

In a recent meeting, DHS policy official Richard C. Barth told state officials to expect Real ID's price tag to fall by "billions of dollars" as DHS eases previous demands that the new licenses be renewed every five years, that expensive, tamper-resistant materials be used to create the ID cards, and that each state develop its own document verification systems, those officials said.

In an interview Friday, Barth's boss, DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart A. Baker, said the department is finalizing long-awaited regulations for a 90-day White House budget review, and has "listened hard to the states' concerns about possible costs and disruptions to their licensing procedures, and we are going to make changes in response to those concerns . . . and still provide the security the country expects."

Full article here.

Source

Why would they consider extending the deadline for 40 - 50 year olds? Simple; older people are less likely to bite the hand that feeds them.

We must continue to fight this anti-American Nazi style identification garbage so that we may remain a free country.

No, you do not need to see my papers!! I am an American! My social security number proves it!!

 

Sarkozy Touts ’Mediterranean Union’ Plan

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has reiterated his plan to set up a Mediterranean Union, a loose grouping of countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, in 2008 -- a move that is likely to raise eyebrows in some parts of Europe.

"I invite all the heads of state and government of countries bordering the Mediterranean to meet in France in June 2008 to lay the foundations of a political, economic and cultural union founded on the principles of strict equality", Mr Sarkozy said during his visit to Morocco on Tuesday (23 October).

He added that "in the Mediterranean will be decided whether or not civilisations and religions will wage the most terrible of wars...whether or not the North and the South will clash".

The idea of a Mediterranean Union is not a completely new one -- it was floated by Mr Sarkozy leader during the French presidential campaign in spring of this year.

Under the plans, the group should tie southern Europe with Northern Africa as well as Israel and its Arab neighbours and tackle topical issues such as counter-terrorism, immigration, energy, trade, water and sustainable development.

However -- after offering Turkey that it could be the backbone of the club -- the project has been widely seen as another attempt to give Ankara an alternative for its bid for full EU membership.

Mixed reactions

According to the European Commission, it is "good" to have initiatives promoting regional cooperation, however, they "should build on existing structures".

There are fears that France's proposal would try to bypass the 12-year-old Barcelona process, designed to foster dialogue between the EU bloc and ten countries on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean -- Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. Libya has observer status since 1999.

"It is a successful process", the commission spokesperson said on Thursday (25 October), indicating the executive body will want more details on any new union.

According to media reports, some EU capitals are also set to seek clarification of Mr Sarkozy's ideas, with a few even indicating it may be part of his efforts to push his own country's interests in the region.

Only seven EU countries -- Cyprus, Greece, France, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain -- would be part of the new bloc, the rest would have a role of silent observer.

In his speech in Morocco, Mr Sarkozy himself drew a rather blurry picture of the project.

On the one hand, he called on Mediterranean people "to do the same thing, with the same goal and the same method" as the 27-nation EU bloc has done, but at the same time, he said it would not be based on the EU model.

Source

 

Soviet Union

European Union

North American Union

South American Union

Mediterranean Union

Asia Union

 

The New World Order in motion.

 

 

U.K. Kids Get RFID Chips In School Uniforms

Ten schoolchildren in the United Kingdom are being tracked by RFID chips in their school uniforms as part of a pilot program.

If the program proves successful as a way to hasten registration, simplify data entry for the school's behavioral reporting system, and ensure attendance, Trevor Darnborough, whose company, Darnbro, filed for a patent on securing RFID tags to clothing, hopes other schools will be interested, according to the Doncaster Free Press.

The chipped children are enrolled at Hungerhill School in Edenthorpe, England, a secondary school for ages 11 to 16.

David Clouter, a parent and founder of Leave Them Kids Alone, a children's advocacy group, condemned the plan. "With pupils being fingerprinted and now this it seems we are treating children in a way that we have traditionally treated criminals," he told the Doncaster Free Press.

"The system is not intrusive to the pupil in the slightest," Hungerhill teacher Graham Wakeling told the Doncaster Free Press. He also said that all the patents of the children in the trial supported the tracking effort.

Video surveillance is already commonplace in the United Kingdom, and a growing number of schoolchildren are fingerprinted for administrative and security reasons. Since 2001, nearly 6,000 pupils have been fingerprinted in the United Kingdom, the Daily Mail reported earlier this month, with 20 new schools embracing the practice every week.

In a blog post about the report, security expert Bruce Schneier quipped, "So now it's easy to cut class; just ask someone to carry your shirt around the building while you're elsewhere."

Source

Scholars explain president’s plan for a North American Union

Those who seek to understand what's behind the chatter about President George W. Bush's Security and Prosperity Partnership as a possible prelude to a North American Union, similar to the European Union, should read the 35-page White Paper published recently by the Hudson Institute called "Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership."

The Washington, D.C., think tank is blunt and detailed in describing where the Security and Prosperity Partnership is heading.

Here's how Hudson defines the Security and Prosperity Partnership's goal: "The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America."

The key words are "economic integration," a phrase used again and again, into a North American "single market," another phrase used repeatedly.

"Integration" with Mexico and Canada is exactly what North American union means, but there's a big problem with this goal. "We the people" of the United States were never asked if we want to be "integrated" with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, concept of government's role, economic system and standard of living.

Here's how Hudson explains the Security and Prosperity Partnership's process: "The most important feature of the SPP design is that it is neither intended to produce a treaty nor an executive agreement like the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that would require congressional ratification or the passage of implementing legislation in the United States. The SPP was designed to function within existing administrative authority of the executive branch."

Hudson explains further: "The design of the SPP is innovative, eschewing the more traditional diplomatic and trade negotiation models in favor of talks among civil service professionals and subject matter experts with each government. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States."

Indeed, the Security and Prosperity Partnership is very "innovative." The arrogance of the Security and Prosperity Partnership's "design" to give the executive branch full "authority" to "enforce and execute" whatever is decided by a three-nation agreement of "civil service professionals," as though it were "law," is exceeded only by its unconstitutionality.

The Hudson White Paper admits the problem that the Security and Prosperity Partnership completely lacks "transparency and accountability." Hudson freely admits "the exclusion of Congress from the process"; constituents who contact their Congressmen discover that members know practically nothing about the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Hudson states that, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, one of the U.S. challenges is "managing Congress." Is Congress now to be "managed," either by executive-branch "authority" or by "dozens of regulators, rule makers, and officials working with their counterparts" from Mexico and Canada?

The Hudson White Paper reminds us that the 2005 Council on Foreign Relations document called "Building a North American Community" bragged that its recommendations are "explicitly linked" to SPP. The Council on Foreign Relations document called for establishing a "common perimeter" around North America by 2010.

Hudson praises the Council on Foreign Relations document for "raising public expectations" about what the Security and Prosperity Partnership can accomplish. Hudson explains that, while immigration is not an explicit Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda item, "mobility across the border is central to the idea of an integrated North American economic space."

"Harmonization" with other countries is another frequently used word. One of the Security and Prosperity Partnership's signature initiatives is "Liberalizing Rules of Origin."

The Hudson Paper reveals the Security and Prosperity Partnership's cozy collaboration with "some interest groups and not others." Translated, that means collaboration with multinational corporations, but not with small business or citizen groups.

After the heads of state of the United States, Mexico and Canada met in Waco, Texas, in March 2005 and announced the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership by press release, the North American Competitiveness Council emerged as "a private sector forum for business input" to Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups. But, according to Hudson, it wasn't merely "private" because it was "given official sanction."

After the three amigos met in Cancun, Mexico, in 2006, President Bush provided taxpayer funding for a think tank called the Center for Strategic and International Studies to meet secretly and produce a report called "The Future of North America." That document's favorite catchword is "North American labor mobility," which is a euphemism for admitting unlimited cheap labor from Mexico.

The Hudson White Paper states that "SPP combines an agenda with a political commitment." That's exactly why those who want to protect American sovereignty don't like the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Among the people who take the Security and Prosperity Partnership seriously are Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., who introduced a House resolution opposing a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway, similar resolutions introduced into the state legislatures of 14 states, and California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter's amendment to prohibit the use of federal funds for Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups, which passed in the House by a vote of 362-63 on July 24.

The Hudson white paper suggests that it might be "necessary" for the Security and Prosperity Partnership to change its name and acronym. It is unlikely that a change of name will silence the American people who are outraged by the Security and Prosperity Partnership's goals and process.

Source

 

Vicente Fox Admits Plan For Single NAFTA Currency

Former Mexican president wants North American Union based on EU

RELATED: Ex-Mexican prez: Yes, there will be an amero

Mexico's former president, Vicente Fox, made an astounding admission last night on CNN's Larry King Live when he acknowledged the plan for a NAFTA single currency, a "euro-dollar" as King labeled it.

Fox also vowed to help unite the Americas beyond a trade agreement, following what he described as "a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA".

The comments follow Fox's appearance on The Daily Show in which he advocated the creation of a North American Union based on the model of the European Union.

Watch the video.

TRANSCRIPT FROM CNN.com.

KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"

FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...

KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?

FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.

In a recent appearance on The Daily Show With John Stewart, Fox also expressed his desire for a North American Union based on the model of the European Union.

Source