February 9, 2012
The mysterious hacktivist group Anonymous has captured the following clip from a Department of Homeland Security video feed. It shows King Dung Beetle Napolitano and her minions during a DHS feeding frenzy, eating their favorite dish.
Of course, the above is obviously satire, but you get the point.
January 15, 2012
Investigative journalists in Chile have uncovered a number of previously unreported political executions under General Pinochet’s reign of terror, including the execution of the Nobel Prize-winning poet Pablo Neruda.
More than 3,000 Chileans were “disappeared” after the CIA-plotted coup in Chile.
Investigative journalists at ArchivosChile patched together files from the Legal Medical Service, the General Cemetery, the Civil Registry and the Military Prosecutors. They discovered 890 politically motivated deaths between Sept. 11 and the end of December 1973, according to the Santiago Times.
Chile’s bloody coup was planned and orchestrated by the CIA after the Chilean people made the mistake of democratically electing a socialist, Salvador Allende. It was later revealed that then president Nixon had ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream” in Chile to “prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him.”
Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State, played an instrumental role in the coup. He chaired the 40 Committee, a high-level enter agency group, that ordered the CIA to destabilize the country and plot a military coup installing a military dictatorship that lasted 17 years.
“The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves,” he said at the time. “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.”
Following he coup and the murder of Allende, Pinochet and his military created DINA, the Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional. DINA served as the primary secret police organization for political repression in Chile under the military dictatorship.
DINA not only tortured political opponents, but also assassinated them. In 1976, working with the CIA, the French OAS and the Italian fascist terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie, DINA assassinated former Chilean minister Orlando Letelier and American political activist Ronni Moffitt in Washington, DC.
Pinochet’s regime also initiated Operation Condor, a program for the joint monitoring and assassinating of dissident refugees in much of Latin America. Operation Condor was given tacit approval by the United States and resulted in the murder of thousands of activists, including an estimated 30,000 socialists, trade-unionists, and relatives of activists in Argentina.
The United States now has its own version of Operation Condor under the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on December 31, 2011 by Obama. In addition to issuing a carte blanche to indefinitely detain citizens – in Chile, they are called the desaparecidos, the disappeared – the legislation reinstates “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture. It compliments an earlier decision that Americans are legitimate military targets and may be assassinated – as cleric Anwar al-Awlaki allegedly was – on orders of an executive branch that has since the Bush years increasingly resembled an imperial presidency.
“The Bush regime operated as if the Constitution did not exist. Any semblance of constitutional government that remained after the Bush years was terminated when Congress passed and President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act,” writes Paul Craig Roberts today.
We now live in a military dictatorship little different than the one that ruled Chile. As of yet, the military is not “disappearing” Americans in large numbers and herding them into sports stadiums little different than the National Stadium in Santiago where 40,000 political prisoners were detained under Pinochet’s CIA-enabled reign of terror.
Political prisoners held at a sports stadium in Chile.
How long before the military in America sets up its own Caravan of Death – a notorious roving death squad in Chile – or establishes counterparts to Colonia Dignidad, the ship Esmeralda or numerous other torture and execution centers in Chile?
We are one false flag terror attack away from a full-blown Chile-style police state. The establishment media assures us the next attack will not come from al-Qaeda cave dwellers, but rather domestic “extremists” and “lone wolf” terrorists.
The Department of Homeland Security and the globalists at the Council on Foreign Relations assure us that the coming terror will resemble Oklahoma City in 1995 – in other words it will be perpetuated by “rightwing extremists,” defined by the DHS, MIAC and “fusion centers” around the country as returning veterans, Second Amendment activists, constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters.
Following that event, the police state apparatus the state has meticulously crafted over the last twenty years will be put into full motion and it will make anything Pinochet and his military did to the people of Chile pale in comparison.
By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com
Mitt Romney, who finished first in New Hampshire last night, got a raw deal from the mainstream media (MSM) and his Republican opponents about a comment that was totally taken out of context. It was reported that Mitt Romney said, “I like to fire people.” That would make you think he was some sort of cold hearted person who doesn’t care about people. What Romney actually said was in the context of health care providers and being able to fire companies who give you bad service. Romney actually said, “I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me.” (Click here to hear Romney for yourself.) I agree with Romney on this one. This was a totally false representation of what Governor Romney said, and everyone who carried this story and used this in a campaign should be ashamed.
Yesterday, FOX News came to Romney’s defense and rightly so. FOX gave wall-to-wall coverage defending this injustice, but the “Fair and balanced” network does not apply its righteousness evenly. What about Congressman Ron Paul? Many on the MSM and FOX have ignored the presidential candidate. Some on FOX, such as Judge Andrew Napolitano, have given the Congressman a fair shake, but many have not. Where was FOX when The CBS “Early Show” left out Ron Paul in a poll done by Suffolk University right after the Iowa Caucuses? Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford said, “A new Suffolk University poll shows him (Romney) with a commanding lead in New Hampshire at almost 30 points above his rivals.” (Click here and see this biased report from CBS.)
CBS should fire Crawford, the network’s “Chief Political Correspondent,” for two reasons. Reason one, for being politically biased in leaving Dr. Paul out of her story even though he held second place in the Suffolk University poll! The second reason CBS should fire Crawford is because she is an idiot who can’t do second grade math. The poll totaled only 65% without Paul. If you are going to do someone in, at least be clever, but I digress. Why aren’t the people at FOX defending Paul, a Republican? I think it is because many on that network do not want him to get the GOP nomination. FOX News made a lot of time to talk to Rick Perry, who finished dead last, but Congressman Paul, who finished a respectable second, got about a minute at around 11:20pm and then was talked about a little more after that. “Fair and balanced”? FOX should retire that slogan. If you are a news organization, you cannot be “Fair and balanced” to only the people you like.
I don’t think either party wants Paul to be the GOP candidate. Republican and Democratic special interests know both will take a hit under a President Paul. Republicans, like Romney, will not rein in the banks, stop the ongoing bailouts or truly clean up the kleptocracy we call a financial system. Obama surely won’t either because he said to reporter Steve Kroft, last December, on “60 Minutes, “I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal.” Kroft didn’t bother to challenge the President, even though he did an expose’ on widespread and systemic mortgage fraud earlier last year. (Click here for more of this disgusting story.)
I think Romney will end up the GOP nominee, but I have serious doubts he can defeat Obama and his nearly $1billion war chest. It will also take more than money to replace the President. Romney’s main strength is corporate America and its “Super PACs.” Paul probably would have a better chance of winning. Paul gets about 50% of the youth vote. It’s hard for the GOP to comprehend that young people respect Paul, and he’s 76 years old! I think it is also safe to say that liberal Democrats will not vote for Romney, but Paul on the other hand, would take some votes away from the President’s base. I mean, let’s face it, a candidate that wants less war and less of the Federal Reserve will appeal to liberals disillusioned with Obama. Also, consider the “Indefinite Detention” bill the President just signed into law on New Year’s Eve. The ACLU says this legislation guts the Constitution, and you just can’t get more liberal than these folks. The left is not happy with Obama’s unyielding support for Wall Street which is a big campaign donor. Wall Street knows how to rig the game and contributes just as much to the Republicans. Mitt Romney is their GOP poster boy. So, if Romney gets the Republican nomination, and it’s not over just yet, the choice will be Obama and more of the same.
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
NOTE: First, it should be remembered that the Obama White House pressured Congress to add the controversial language to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin. Second, Signing Statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the character of the chief executive and does signal a dangerous trend in de facto rule by “executive fiat”– and does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written. From Wikipedia: the Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor’s Note: Legal-loophole language for Congress’ prior language not giving deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
|Written by Joe Wolverton, II|
|Friday, 30 December 2011 10:48|
A dictator enjoys unrestrained power over the people. The legislative and judicial branches voluntarily cede this power or it’s taken by force. Most of the time, it’s given up easily, out of fear in time of war and civil disturbances, and with support from the people, although the dictator will also accumulate more power with the use of force.” Those prescient words of Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) are taken from his book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. The tyrannical assumption of power by the President and the cession of unheralded power to him by the Congress has taken place precisely as Dr. Paul warned.
(NaturalNews) A key chemical of one of the most horrifying elements of the Vietnam War — Agent Orange — may soon be unleashed on America’s farmlands. Considered by world nations to be a “Weapon of Mass Destruction” (WMD), Agent Orange was dropped in the millions of gallons on civilian populations during the Vietnam War in order to destroy foliage and poison North Vietnamese soldiers. The former president of the Vietnamese Red Cross, Professor Nhan, described it as, “…a massive violation of human rights of the civilian population, and a weapon of mass destruction.”
A key chemical in that weapon — 2,4-D — is just months away from being dropped on agricultural land across the United States. Dow AgroSciences, which along with DuPont and Monsanto is heavily invested in genetically engineered crops, has petitioned the U.S. government to deregulate a variety of GE corn that’s resistant to 2,4-D, which comprises 50% of the recipe of Agent Orange.
NaturalNews broke this story yesterday and published the details:
If the petition is approved by Washington, it would turn America’s corn fields into chemical warfare zones targeted for mass pesticide poisoning with 2,4-D chemicals. The corn, of course, would be immune to 2,4-D, so it would uptake the chemical and transport it right into the structure of the corn kernels, creating “Agent Orange corn bombs” that would be chemically unleashed when consumed by human beings.
This is just the latest example of how industrial chemical giants and GMO companies of the world are committing acts of genocide against innocents. The introduction of 2,4-D-resistant GE corn is, essentially, an act of war against humanity.
FOOD CROPS SPRAYED WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Agent Orange, which contains roughly 50% 2,4-D, is also cited in numerous war crimes lawsuits. Even the BBC has reported on it:
The use of such chemicals on civilian targets is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention, the 1927 Geneva Convention, and the 1949 Geneva Convention (http://www.iadllaw.org/en/node/353).
The International Tribunal of Conscience in Support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange has published a document briefly describing the war crimes committed by the U.S. government in its use of Agent Orange: http://www.iadllaw.org/files/charge…
That document states:
The chemical warfare waged by the United States against Vietnam though the use of Agent Orange and other dioxin laced chemicals from 1961 to 1971 has caused severe, massive and prolonged consequences for the environment, ecology and health of the people of Vietnam.
Shocking pictures of Agent Orange victims can be seen at the following pages (WARNING, extremely graphic):
Watch the video of children affected by Agent Orange:
Hear the Agent Orange song by Country Joe. Visit: http://countryjoe.com/jukebox.htm and click on “Agent Orange Song” on the top left. You’ll be able to hear the full song.
Even walking around America today, many Americans are born as mutants thanks to the chemicals used in foods, medicines, lawn care and personal care products. That crime against humanity is about to be made far, far worse with the unleashing of 2,4-D on America’s farmlands.
The gross deformities, birth defects, neurological disorders and physical retardation we have seen in Vietnamese children affected by Agent Orange could soon arrive at America’s doorstep thanks to 2,4-D.
Dow, of course, is widely regarded as one of the most evil corporations on the planet, having already poisoned countless victims with toxic chemicals. Remember the Bhopal pesticide factory explosion in India? That was Union Carbide, owned by Dow. It killed thousands of people, maimed tens of thousands and injured over half a million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal…).
Read more about Bhopal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/…
Remember: If chemical weapons are used to produce food, then those who consume such foods become casualties of war.
Food production was once an honorable art, but at the hands of greed-driven globalists, it quickly became a system of profit seeking and then a tool for corporate domination over the People. Now it has become a weapon of mass destruction, and it is being used to decimate the health of both the population and the farmlands.
FEMA Continuity of Government Plans Prep Total Takeover of Society, Dispatching Military Domestically Under Economic Collapse Emergency.