Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
How often have you heard people refer to America as a Democracy? When was the last time that you heard America referred to as a Republic, or better yet . . . a Constitutional Republic?
There is a very good reason that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic, and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution do not even mentioned the word “democracy”.
Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people’s freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life. Isn’t that where we are today?
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner — We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.
A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.
The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extremes of either tyranny or mobocracy; but what exists in America today is a far cry from the Constitutional Republic our forefathers brought forth.
Today we have a mobocracy occurring in our streets all across America. Sadly, such mobocracy or ‘mob rule’ was endorsed and encouraged by Sen. John McCain who praised the recent wave of pro-illegal immigration demonstrations by saying, “if the protesters hang tough they will succeed in forcing Congress to liberalize immigration laws. If such demonstrations continue, I think we will have a bill for the President to sign soon . . . The more debate, the more demonstrations, the more likely we will prevail.” He was of course referring to the Senate’s massive illegal-alien amnesty bill S. 2611 which did in fact, pass. Was S. 2611 passed to appease the mob? If so, it is a perfect example of rule by mobocracy, which is a fundamental flaw of a democracy.
Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . . .
Not only is our Constitution being ignored, the exact opposite is being encouraged by John McCain and seconded by all those who voted for S. 2611 in the Senate. If you want to preserve the Constitutional Republic you should vote out of office every single senator that voted for S. 2611.
Politicians, like all public servants, take an oath to serve, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. They don’t pledge allegiance to a political party, and ideology or and a specific group or individual.
However, rule by mobocracy is only a tiny part of what is happening here in America. The larger problem we are facing is related to those who would support and approve of mob rule. It is called tyranny. What is tyranny? Simply put, we are being governed by tyrants who have usurped the will of the people. Our government has become a raging bull elephant, no pun intended, and is totally out of control. We are well on the road to fascism, which was defined by Mussolini as the combining of capitalism and Communism.
There is underway . . . a betrayal of the American people by a government cabal who are bent on destroying our sovereignty in order to create a North American Union. The miscreants include many who function at the highest levels in our government. Many hold membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission and pursue a subversive agenda. The cabal is deliberately circumventing the U.S. Congress and ‘We the People’ in blatant violation of our Constitution. Collectively they are committing treason. If you continue to believe that the illegal alien invasion is the biggest threat to America, you will never understand that there is something far more dangerous to our country called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP).
I urge you to educate yourself. If you have access to a computer you need to read what your own government has posted on their official websites such as the Whitehouse.gov, SPP.gov, State.gov and Canada.USembassy.gov. You will be aghast at the nearly complete destruction of our sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Constitution, laws, Republic, and freedoms they have already achieved. This heinous ongoing treason has been engineered by an entrenched cabal of legislators, courts, military brass, and government employees in this and prior administrations. The tyranny is being facilitated by hundreds of people embedded at all levels of the executive branch and Congress constituting a so called ‘Shadow Government’ who are working in concert to dismantle this country in plain sight. Their agenda was engineered by the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) and kept secret by a deliberately silent media who work in collaboration by treating the America people like mushrooms. We are kept in the dark and fed you know what . . . mislead by their propaganda.
If you don’t have a computer, get one. It is the last bastion of freedom to information and knowledge left to ‘We the People’. Be advised that the Congress is working hard to eliminate, curtail and control your access to the Internet as we speak.
Why is it Most Americans are Unaware of the CFR Organization?
David Rockefeller, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for 15 years (1970-1985), also founded and is the honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission. His father John D. and brother Nelson purchased and then donated the land beneath the UN for $8.5 million dollars, then claimed it as a charitable deduction.
As for how the machinations of the CFR have remained unnoticed . . . in 1991 in Baden-Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller gloatingly said: “We’re grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government..” . . . Are you?
CFR member Richard N. Gardner, who in a 1974 article titled: “The Hard Road to World Order” wrote: In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than the top down [and require] . . . an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.
And what does David Rockefeller say about his work?
For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interest of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists ‘ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
What colossal arrogance! Like other globalists, he loses sight of man’s humanity and the very fundamental nature of what it is to be human. Mankind will always resist subjugation and will always struggle to have and maintain their freedoms; after all, for us Americans, it is the very essence of what it is to be an American.
The Council on Foreign Relations has placed its membership in policy-making positions with the State Department and other federal agencies. Every Secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F. Byrnes, has been a member of the [CFR] council. The trend continued as both Condalezza Rice and Colin Powell are members of the CFR.
Some others who have spoken out about the ‘Shadow Government’:
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, USN (Retd.), who was a member of the CFR for sixteen years. He wrote, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common–They want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States.”
Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962) said: “The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.”
In a speech given on February 23, 1954, Senator William Jenner warned America: “Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded.”
In fact, the Constitution is far more than ‘outmoded,’ according to President Bush who rebuffed GOP leader’s request to soft pedal some parts of the ‘Patriot Act’ by saying: “I don’t give a goddamn . . . I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” Then, responding to an aid who stated: “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” Bush screamed back: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face . . . It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
As for the ‘bureaucratic elite’ of wealthy globalists who function as the ‘Shadow Government’ . . . their ultimate goal is a so called New World Order, which of course is not new but is, in reality, a One World Order. To that end, Franklin Delano Roosevelt managed to condemn their monopolist lust from the grave in a message found enshrined on his memorial in Washington, DC:
THEY (WHO) SEEK TO ESTABLISH SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE REGIMENTATION OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS BY A HANDFUL OF INDIVIDUAL RULERS CALL THIS A NEW ORDER. IT IS NOT NEW AND IT IS NOT ORDER.
If you think about it, by sending our manufacturing base to Mexico or other foreign countries, the globalists have forced America to become global when in the past we were self-sufficient and produced all we needed for ourselves and exported our excess around the world. Now we are dependent on countries like Communist China, etc., to supply stores like Wal-Mart with nearly all of its merchandise.
The Shadow Government has begun their ‘race to the finish’ and has become ever more arrogant and bold. They have concluded that they are so close to complete conquest that they are ever more blatantly flouting our Constitution and laws than you can ever imagine in your wildest of dreams of hell on earth.
Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D. is a Researcher, Author and Founder of StopTheNorthAmericanUnion.com
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.
FEMA Continuity of Government Plans Prep Total Takeover of Society, Dispatching Military Domestically Under Economic Collapse Emergency.
December 18, 2011
Leading GOP candidate Ron Paul has warned in recent interviews that the amendments passed in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are not only dangerous, but authorize the establishment of total martial law inside the United States. Not only does the bill, in sections 1031 and 1032, declare the unconstitutional right to detain Americans indefinitely without trial, but it authorizes an Internet offensive and online Pentagon takeover under the pretext of cybersecurity and stopping online piracy.
Yes, America has been declared a battlefield, and average Americans portrayed as potential enemies. One front of that battle continues to be the 2012 elections, where a real battle of ideas is underway.
National polls show the Texas Congressman is consistently in 1st or 2nd place in Iowa, where he threatens to win the caucus that leads the GOP primary. A victory there would represent a significant upset to the war-loving status quo. This is exactly why the lapdog media have already begun pre-scripting the justifications for ignoring the historical significance of the Iowa caucus if Ron Paul wins. This is more than just politics as usual– the party lines are at stake, and Dr. Paul’s ideas represent a real change in the system. Those in power simply do not want to see him win.
CALL TO ACTION: Help Get This Vital Video Warning Out to All Americans, and Every Patriot Who Can Help Stop This Tyrannical Takeover Before It’s Too Late
It has happened before in history, and America is in no way immune from a descent into outright tyranny.
Once again, the Cassandra songs voiced here at Infowars.com and other alternative news outlets for years and years have only proven true, as tyranny predictably marches on. It was never about making predictions, but reading the writings on the wall. We have all been warned, and it’s all really happening. Real preparations for martial law and WWIII have taken place– including recent calls to staff emergency detention camps ready for use if an national emergency is signaled over civil unrest and a takeover goes red hot.
Among the many prescient films put out by Alex Jones is Police State 4: The Rise of FEMA, which accurately warned that various emergency provisions have long worked in conjunction to build a framework for martial law takeover inside America. And again, it has all come to pass, incrementally ratcheting up assumed powers over the people– from TSA at the airports, to highway checkpoints and now, the claimed power to indefinitely detain anyone the feds view as a threat to national security.
Now, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and portions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) have openly declared “offensive war” on the Internet, implementing Pentagon censors & spies and instituting a Kill Switch to selectively shut down content on the basis of suspicion or accusation, without a vehicle for recourse, appeal or the burden of proof. Indeed, a chief lobbyist for the SOPA legislation, former Senator Chris Dodd (now head of the Motion Picture Association), admits that it is modeled on China’s ‘great firewall’.
See articles below for more information.
December 18, 2011
Just when you thought the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) couldn’t possibly be more dangerous than has already been exposed with its declaration of global war, Martial Law, legalized bestiality, indefinite detention of Americans, and the $662 billion more spent; it has now been revealed that it also serves as a declaration of offensive cyber war.
Buried in the recently passed NDAA is a provision, perhaps just as dangerous as its other transgressions, that permits the Pentagon to wage an offensive cyberwar “to defend our Nation, Allies and interests.”
Section 954 of the NDAA titled Military Activities in Cyberspace received no debate in Congress as well as in the media. The section states clearly:
Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests.
Even though there was virtually no debate about this provision by Congress or the press, the intention of action was expected. In July of this year, the Pentagon announced their strategy to treat cyberspace as an “operational domain” in their Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.
“The United States reserves the right, under the laws of armed conflict, to respond to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified military response at the time and place of our choosing,” said Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn at a speech announcing the new strategy.
The Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace (PDF) claims that “Hackers and foreign governments are increasingly able to launch sophisticated intrusions into the networks and systems that control critical civilian infrastructure.” [Read full article]
December 18, 2011
WASHINGTON — A group of prominent architects of the Internet added their voices Thursday to those opposing legislation in the US Congress intended to crack down on online piracy.
In an open letter to Congress, more than 80 engineers, inventors and software developers expressed concerns about the bills introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Their letter came a day after the founders of Google, Twitter, Yahoo! and other Internet giants voiced opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act being considered in the House and the Senate version known as the Protect IP Act.
The legislation has received the backing of Hollywood, the music industry, the Business Software Alliance, the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce and other groups.
Timothy B. Lee
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Universal Music Group has responded to Megaupload’s request for a temporary restraining order barring the music giant from further interference with the distribution of its “Mega Song.” UMG insists that it had a right to take down the video—not under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as Megaupload had assumed, but under a private contractual arrangement between UMG and YouTube.
UMG’s filing raises more questions than it answers. Most obviously, the firm has not explained why it took down the video in the first place. But the filing also raises deeper questions about UMG’s effort to essentially opt out of the DMCA takedown rules. UMG seems to believe it can take down videos even if it doesn’t hold the copyright to them, and that when UMG takes a video down from YouTube, the owner of that video can’t avail herself of even the weak protections against takedown abuse provided by the DMCA. [Read full article]
December 15, 2011
In addition to kidnapping Americans and tossing them into Camp Gitmo without recourse or trial, the draconian NDAA bill passed in the House yesterday contains language that will allow the Pentagon to wage cyberwar on domestic enemies of the state.
The following language is in the final “reconciled” bill that will now travel to the Senate and ultimately Obama’s desk where it will be signed into law despite earlier assertions that he would veto the legislation:
Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to–
(1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and
(2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
In July, the Pentagon released its cybersecurity plan. It declared the internet a domain of war but did not specify how the military would use it for offensive strikes. The report claimed that hostile parties “are working to exploit DOD unclassified and classified networks, and some foreign intelligence organizations have already acquired the capacity to disrupt elements of DOD’s information infrastructure.” In addition, according to the Pentagon, “non-state actors increasingly threaten to penetrate and disrupt DOD networks and systems.”
“If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” an official said prior to the release of the official document. “The US is vulnerable to sabotage in defense, power, telecommunications, banking. An attack on any one of those essential infrastructures could be as damaging as any kinetic attack on US soil,” Sami Saydjari, a former Pentagon cyber expert who now runs a consultancy called Cyber Defense Agency, told The Guardian in May. [Read full article]
KBR seeks sub-contractors to outfit “emergency environment” centers
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The revelation that Halliburton subsidiary KBR is seeking sub-contractors to staff and outfit “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States follows preparations over the last three years to deal with riots inside the United States that have already spread throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
As Infowars reported last night, a document sent to us by a state government employee confirms that Kellogg Brown & Root Services are looking to activate camps built for FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers across the United States.
This follows the Senate’s passage of Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act which allows American citizens to be snatched off the street and held in detention camps without trial.
In 2006, KBR was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned.
Since 2006, the world has been beset by riots and civil unrest as a result of the fallout from the economic collapse. From the United Kingdom, to continental Europe, to the Middle East and North Africa, almost every corner of the globe has experienced social dislocation.
Now U.S. authorities are preparing for such eventualities on home soil, with major police departments like the NYPD staging “mobilization exercises” to train police to prepare for civil disorder in the United States.
Warnings and preparation for civil unrest coming to the United States have been voiced on a regular basis.
Back in 2008, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were earmarked for “homeland patrols” with one of their roles including helping with “civil unrest and crowd control”.
In December 2008, the Washington Post reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011 onwards, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.
A report produced that same year by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warned that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it termed “strategic shock.”
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell “purposeful domestic resistance”. [Read full article]