Overall Contents for All Blogs and Posts
http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart1.blogspot.com/
Most posts are alphabetized by subject starting at the bottom of each blog except for the first one. To get a feel of the overall intent of the blogs and posts please read the first post below.
Introduction and an Idea of how to navigate through the blogs and posts.
Contents for Sources of Funding for New World Order
From Soft to Hard Tyranny
Government Officials Speak out on Corruption and/or the New World Order Part 1
Government Officials Speak out on Corruption and/or the New World Order Part 2
Contents for Health Care Trends
Contents for Hidden Powers, Hidden Interests
Introduction
Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward A New World Order Part 1
Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward A New World Order Part 2
http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart2.blogspot.com/
Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward A New World Order Part 3
National Debt
The above 3 posts Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward a New World Order, Part 1, 2 and 3 contain just the links from all the posts with very little political commentary or analysis.
http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart3.blogspot.com/
News About the Fed, Banking and Finance Part 1
News About the Fed, Banking and Finance Part 2
Quotes Over Time About Monetary Policy and Banking and Finance in Relationship to Liberty and Tyranny
Slow Response/Gulf Oil Spill
Social Security and Other Entitlements
Solutions
Symbols of Occult Power
The Modern Art and Science of Enslaving Others
The Constitution Verses Tyranny
The Relationship Between The Military Industrial Media Complex, Defense Spending, Semi-permanent and Permanent War and the Rise of Tyranny
http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart4.blogspot.com/
Trends Toward a Tyrannical New World Order Part 1
Trends Toward a Tyrannical New World Order Part 2
Trends Toward a Tyrannical New World Order Part 3
The United Nations in Relationship to the New World Order Part 1
The United Nations in Relationship to the New World Order Part 2
http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart5.blogspot.com/
Barter and Local Currency Survey
Members, Activities and Meetings
http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart6.blogspot.com/
The War on Food
The War on Food Part 2 This section has a lot more in depth scientific studies.
In all the blogs the titles for each of the articles are colored coded red, orange, green or black based on my subjective belief of how likely they are to be true.
Red title and bold font means I believe the article is very likely to be true and is very important!
Red title and regular font means I believe the article is very likely to be true but is less important.
Orange title and bold font means the article is likely to be true and is important!
Orange title and regular font means the article is likely to be true but is less important.
Green title and bold font means I believe the article could be true and is very important!
Green title and regular font means I believe the article could be true but is less important.
Black title and bold font means I have no opinion on the article because I have not researched it so I have no opinion on its veracity. However it is important!
Black title and regular font means I have no opinion on the article because I have not researched it so I have no opinion on its veracity or truthfulness. It is of lesser importance.
Trends Toward a New World Order Part 2 Contents
2010 Financial System Reform Act Fatally Flawed 61 Senators Perpetuate To Big to Fail 36
See also Fed/Large Banks retain Death Grip of United States f or More Sinister Reason for Senators Perpetuating To Big to Fail on page 44 of the File News About the Fed
According to Rasmussen Poll 75% of Americans Want Congress to Audit the Fed 39
Obama has list of Americans to be Assassinated/MSNBC 40
Lawmakers Read the Bills Before You Vote 41
Why Lawmakers Don’t Read the Bills and Why are They are Getting so Long and Complex 40
FBI Bugging Cellphones 43
Seizure of Emails and 6th Amendment to Constitution 43 Technology in Cell Phones, I Pods and Computers can be Used to Track You and/or Down Load Your Personal Info/Wall Street Journal December 17t2010 43 See the related articles in this file on pages 26 and 27 called Michigan Police Extract Cell phone data from Citizens and Little Brother is Also Watching. How you can Spy on Others
Enemy Belligerent Act/Americans Could be Detained With No Due Process 45 Was Obama Planted As President? 45
How the CIA and Reagan Took Down the USSR 48
DNA Testing to Check for Alcohol Tolerance etc. 48
Taxpayers Large Losses Bailing out Chrysler and Gen Motors 48
Rule by Fear or Rule by Law. Legislation and Actions Taken Which Could Lead to Martial Law 48
Global Small Arms Treaty May Threaten Your Right to Self Defense 53
Page 36 Continued
2010 Financial System Reform Act Fatally Flawed 61 Senators Perpetuate Too Big to Fail
This article in the Motely Fool, 5/17/2010, discusses the financial reform package passed by the Senate. Although there are some good aspects in the package, I believe it is fatally flawed in that megabanks considered too large to fail are going to be allowed to remain. So since these banks are too big to fail they will probably make risky decisions knowing if the taxpayers don’t bail them out the whole economy collapses. Sometime in the future we will probably bail them out again. Below the article shows the senators who voted against retaining To Big to Fail Banks and Against Maintaining Too Big to Fail Banks. Both Arizona Senators voted to keep the big banks. The table also shows how much $ was given to their campaigns by financial sources. .
61 Senators Perpetuate "Too Big to Fail"
Recs
175
"We've ended the too-big-to-fail debate. No longer do I expect any argument to be made that this bill exposes the American taxpayer."
Sen. Christopher Dodd spoke these words after the Senate voted to pass amendments to his financial reform bill, clarifying that taxpayer money would not fund future bailouts.
Unfortunately, the Senate hasn't fixed the underlying problem that gives rise to bailouts: "too big to fail."
We all remember how this works: Enormous, risky, interconnected banks know it's safe for them to take huge gambles. If the bets pay off, they collect big bonuses. If they fail, taxpayers will pick up the tab -- because otherwise, the economy implodes.
Nothing has changed in banking. Citigroup (NYSE: C), Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), and JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM) each hold more than $1 trillion of kindling on their balance sheets. Together with Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), they control 63% of the nation's GDP (in assets). Wall Street continues to hold our economy hostage. The Senate is promising that the United States won't pay ransoms in the future; but in the ultimate political ransom, it neglected to ban hostage-taking.
Unless we end "too big to fail," banks know that the market cannot hold them responsible for their mistakes. The next time that such a catastrophically huge bank into trouble, we'll face the same dilemma we had in September 2008: bail it out, or risk economic collapse.
OK, so why not just end "too big to fail"?
The SAFE Banking Act recently came up for a vote. This amendment, which would have limited the size of bank liabilities to the $300 billion to $400 billion range, was literally "a vote to end too big to fail."
It didn't pass.
Why did 61 senators vote to preserve -- instead of fix -- the problem? It can't be because megabanks are better for the economy -- there are no efficiencies of scale in banking beyond $100 billion. Nor is it because megabanks charge lower fees to their customers -- they don't.
Instead, Donny Shaw of A New Way Forward discovered that senators who voted to perpetuate "too big to fail" received an average of $3.5 million in campaign contributions from the financial sector during their career -- twice what those who voted in favor of the bill received.
Now, 33 senators did stand up to lobbyists by voting for this amendment. But just as it's important to hold banks responsible for their failures, it's only fair that we hold politicians responsible for theirs. And the vote on this critical issue was buried in a busy news day that included the market flash crash -- presumably in order to shield the 61 senators who voted with Wall Street.
So without further ado, here are the names of the 33 senators who voted to end too "big to fail" -- and of the 61 who voted to preserve it, thus making future economic catastrophes more likely.
The 33 "Yes" votes to end "too big to fail"
Page 38
Senator
|
Career $ From Finance
|
Senator
|
Career $ From Finance
|
Sen. Mark Begich [D-AK]
|
$412,637
|
Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]
|
$2,260,576
|
Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D-NM]
|
$1,059,499
|
Sen. Blanche Lincoln [D-AR]
|
$2,447,809
|
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
|
$2,765,288
|
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
|
$721,157
|
Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
|
$1,620,430
|
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
|
$1,301,068
|
Sen. Roland Burris [D-IL]
|
$4,900
|
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
|
$1,687,337
|
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
|
$1,878,690
|
Sen. Mark Pryor [D-AR]
|
$1,345,008
|
Sen. Ben Cardin [D-MD]
|
$2,756,636
|
Sen. Harry Reid [D-NV]
|
$4,389,858
|
Sen. Bob Casey [D-PA]
|
$1,355,841
|
Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV]
|
$2,213,734
|
Sen. Tom Coburn [R-OK]
|
$1,078,264
|
Sen. Bernie Sanders [I, VT]
|
$181,095
|
Sen. Byron Dorgan [D-ND]
|
$1,455,834
|
Sen. Richard Shelby [R-AL]
|
$5,371,330
|
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
|
$3,055,424
|
Sen. Arlen Specter [D-PA]
|
$6,406,258
|
Sen. John Ensign [R-NV]
|
$2,589,370
|
Sen. Debbie Stabenow [D-MI]
|
$1,899,835
|
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
|
$990,917
|
Sen. Tom Udall [D-NM]
|
$1,062,336
|
Sen. Al Franken [D-MN]
|
$1,022,598
|
Sen. Jim Webb [D-VA]
|
$563,161
|
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
|
$2,534,445
|
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
|
$1,222,607
|
Sen. Ted Kaufman [D-DE]
|
$0
|
Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]
|
$2,658,024
|
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
|
$615,682
|
TOTAL
|
$60,927,648
|
The 61 "No" votes to preserve "too big to fail"
Senator
|
Career $ From Finance
|
Senator
|
Career $ From Finance
|
Sen. Daniel Akaka [D-HI]
|
$556,295
|
Sen. Mike Johanns [R-NE]
|
$697,621
|
Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
|
$4,940,775
|
Sen. Tim Johnson [D-SD]
|
$3,143,865
|
Sen. John Barrasso [R-WY]
|
$295,932
|
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
|
$18,112,577
|
Sen. Max Baucus [D-MT]
|
$4,790,487
|
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
|
$734,117
|
Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN]
|
$4,393,347
|
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
|
$73,950
|
Sen. Michael Bennet [D-CO]
|
$835,796
|
Sen. Jon Kyl [R-AZ]
|
$3,741,994
|
Sen. Kit Bond [R-MO]
|
$3,255,538
|
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
|
$2,500,584
|
Sen. Scott Brown [R-MA]
|
$1,015,364
|
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
|
$3,478,817
|
Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]
|
$1,336,269
|
Sen. George LeMieux [R-FL]
|
$0
|
Sen. Richard Burr [R-NC]
|
$2,988,952
|
Sen. Joe Lieberman [I, CT]
|
$10,084,996
|
Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
|
$2,311,778
|
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
|
$33,474,029
|
Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]
|
$3,483,860
|
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO]
|
$863,393
|
Sen. Thad Cochran [R-MS]
|
$662,234
|
Sen. Mitch McConnell [R-KY]
|
$5,247,103
|
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
|
$2,273,113
|
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
|
$4,151,772
|
Sen. Kent Conrad [D-ND]
|
$2,507,437
|
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]
|
$875,690
|
Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]
|
$3,150,750
|
Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]
|
$3,213,078
|
Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]
|
$4,597,492
|
Sen. Ben Nelson [D-NE]
|
$2,844,056
|
Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
|
$1,779,063
|
Sen. Jack Reed [D-RI]
|
$2,897,782
|
Sen. Chris Dodd [D-CT]
|
$14,367,412
|
Sen. James Risch [R-ID]
|
$228,711
|
Sen. Michael Enzi [R-WY]
|
$1,087,043
|
Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS]
|
$1,647,286
|
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
|
$3,657,556
|
Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]
|
$15,918,336
|
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
|
$2,334,456
|
Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL]
|
$2,158,535
|
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
|
$1,951,429
|
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D-NH]
|
$1,046,765
|
Sen. Chuck Grassley [R-IA]
|
$2,605,399
|
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
|
$1,700,184
|
Sen. Judd Gregg [R-NH]
|
$1,070,249
|
Sen. Jon Tester [D-MT]
|
$603,993
|
Sen. Kay Hagan [D-NC]
|
$585,694
|
Sen. John Thune [R-SD]
|
$3,636,776
|
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
|
$2,481,543
|
Sen. Mark Udall [D-CO]
|
$1,781,168
|
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX]
|
$4,694,038
|
Sen. George Voinovich [R-OH]
|
$2,770,340
|
Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]
|
$1,477,202
|
Sen. Mark Warner [D-VA]
|
$2,632,766
|
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D-HI]
|
$1,453,487
|
Sen. Roger Wicker [R-MS]
|
$1,263,098
|
Sen. John Isakson [R-GA]
|
$3,849,408
|
TOTAL
|
$218,312,780
|
Page 39
As one senator recently noted, "banks ... frankly own this place."
· I don't know about you, but to me, this arrangement seems outrageous. It's not how free markets or democracies are supposed to work. If you want to let your senators know how you feel about banks gutting Wall Street reform, click here for their contact information. Here is the link to the above article: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/05/17/61-senators-perpetuate-too-big-to-fail.aspx
· Perhaps a more sinister reason exists for Congress passing Too Big to Fail! Consider the following. 9/28/2008, The House of Representatives voted down the 700 Billion dollar Bailout Bill. On 9/29/2008 the Stock Market suffers its highest point drop ever wiping out 1.2 trillion in market value and its biggest percentage drop since the crash of 1987 according to The Washington Post. The bail out was passed shortly after this drop. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092900271.html?nav=rss_email/components
· In May of 2010 Congress was considering breaking up the Big banks and a bill to Audit the Federal Reserve. On May 6, 2010 the market dropped over 700 points in 10 minutes. Some claim it was faulty computer program errors. Others claim it was precision guided High Frequency Trading. The next day on 5/7/2010, the Congress rejected the plan to break up the banks and gutted the bill to Audit the Fed. www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6455ZG20100506 http://www.alternet.org/story/146777/ http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/05/17/61-senators-perpetuate-too-big-to-fail.aspx In essence perhaps Congress was blackmailed or terrorized to back down to the large banks and the Federal Reserve. For an in depth analysis of this darker sinister possibility go to the file, News About the Fed to the article High Frequency Terrorism: How the Big Banks and Federal Reserve Maintain Their Death Grip Over the United Sttaes on page 44. Also see the next article How I know the Federal Reserve is Killing Us on page 46.
· According to Rasmussen poll conducted in July 2009, Congress’s watering down of the Audit the Federal Reserve went against the wishes of 75% of the American public. www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/july_2009/75_favor_auditing_the_fed
Page 40
President Obama has list of Americans Targeted for Assassination Due to Alleged Ties to Terrorism MSNBC June 28th 2010.
According to Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com., President Obama has targeted these American Citizens for assassination alleging that they support terrorism. These Americans would be assassinated without evidence, charges being filed or being tried in court. According to our constitution, Americans can not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In the past when the U.S. government charged an individual or individuals of aiding or being terrorists, 72% of the cases were thrown out of court because the court deemed that the cases did not have merit. Based on the above evidence, who would allow the president to determine who could be assassinated without due process of any kind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtWPOQSorEg
Page 41
Lawmakers, read the bills before you vote, July 12, 2009, The Boston Globe
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / July 12, 2009
Here is a summary of some important points in the article written by Jeff Jacoby on July 12, 2009 in the Boston Globe
· Congress frequently votes on huge and complex bills without being provided time to read the bills. Often bills are presented just hours before they are to be voted on. Congress voted on the 787 billion dollar stimulus bill in February of that year with only 13 hours to master its 1,100 pages. A 300 page ammendmant was added to the Cap and Trade Bill at 3 A.M. on the day that the bill was to be voted on by the House of Representatives. However, there still was not a complete copy of the bill even when it was to be voted on,
· Both parties are guilty of this practice of rushing bills through Congress without reading them. The 341 page Patriot Act was introduced in the House on 10/21/2001 and voted on on 10/24/2001. It was adopted by the Democratic controlled Senate on 10/25/2001 and signed by President Bush on 10/26/2001.
· A group called Let Freedom Ring is asking Congress members to sign a pledge stating that they will not pass any health care bill unless it is available on line for the public to review for at least 72 hours. Liberal groups also are attempting the same thing in a group ReadTheBill.org. A Libertarian group called Downsize D.C. urges Congress to pass its Read The Bills Act
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com. 
.
.
Here is a link that will take you to the article if you are willing to pay for the article. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/12/lawmakers_read_the_bills_before_you_vote/
Does anyone remember government and history classes in elementary school, junior high and high school? I remember being told that our system of government was so much better than the communist system because we had a legislative system that created and debated and passed bills that enough of them agreed on. However in the communist system a small group of leaders designed the bills and their legislatures rubber stamped and passed the bills. Today how is our Congress any different from these communists when they don’t even read their bills?
Now here’s an interesting bill that might slow down our slide toward tyranny. It demands that Congress place any bill they are going to debate or vote for, on line 72 hours before they actually conduct a vote. Plus we request that they actually read the bills that they vote on. The nerve of us! Personally I like the strict libertarian stance of placing a bill on line a week in advance but what do I know. If you are conservative there’s a website for you. If you are the flip side of
Page 42
the coin you may enjoy the liberal version. Strangely enough conservatives and liberals are rooting for the same bill HR554. Now if you are somewhere off the planet as I perhaps the libertarian site would be most comforting. Good luck and may the force be with you.
Why Lawmakers Don’t Read the Bills and Why are The Bills
Getting so Long and Complex
A December 21, 2009 Zogby Poll indicated that over 80% of Americans believe Congress passes lengthy complex bills so they can hide spending for or legislation in favor of special interests groups. Because of the complexity and length of the bills constituents do not catch these hidden favors until it is too late, after the bills are passed. http://cnsnews.com/node/58866
The following notes were taken from a Slate article at http://www.slate.com/id/2225820/
Some bills are very long but the average size of a bill passed by the 109th Congress according to the Senate library, is about 15 pages. But major bills can run over 1,000 pages. Such bills included the stimulus bill, 1,100 pages and the climate bill was 1,200 pages. Budget bills are often longer than the other bills.
Since 1948 the number of bills Congress passed has gone down but the length of each bill has gone up. In 1948 about 2,000 pages of total legislation was passed while in 2006 over 7,000 pages of legislation was passed. The average length of a bill went from 2.5 pages to 15.2 pages today. Part of the reason also for the increasing number of pages of legislation is perhaps the growing size and complexity of the Federal agencies over time.
One reason bills may be getting longer is because bills are getting harder to pass so Congress members try to put as much in a bill as they can.
Do Congress members actually read bills? They are more likely to read the bills they have expertise in while reading the summaries or most important parts of other bills. Congressmen also hire policy specialists to read, analyze and summarize bills in the policy specialist’s area of expertise. Congressmen will then read the analysis and summary and decide how to vote.
Congress members simply can’t read all the bills for other reasons as well if Ezra Klein from the Washington Post is correct. Here are some main points he says. I put his words in italics.
Bills are written in arcane language sometimes only lawyers can understand Unfortunately bills can represent Congressional over reach but also they reflect the complexities of the subject.
For example you often see the following in bills.
(c) General Definitions- Except as otherwise provided, in this division:
(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- The term ‘acceptable coverage’ has the meaning given such term in section 202(d)(2).
(2) BASIC PLAN- The term ‘basic plan’ has the meaning given such term in section 203(c).
(3) COMMISSIONER- The term ‘Commissioner’ means the Health Choices Commissioner established under section 141.
Here is more of the same thing:
Section 1171 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d) is amended -- (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘with reference to’ and all that follows and inserting ‘with reference to a transaction or data element of health information in section 1173 means implementation specifications, certification criteria, operating rules, messaging formats, codes, and code sets adopted or established by the Secretary for the electronic exchange and use of information’;
Page 43
By Ezra Klein | September 22, 2009; 9:02 AM ET The article is at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/why_bills_are_long.html
The growing size and complexity of bills may result from the growing complexity of life and our Federal government but this does not give me comfort because the main people who have the ability to fashion and structure the bills are the elites and the interests that represent them. They have the money to elect people who represent their interests. They have the money to hire lobbyists to represent their interests. They have the money to hire the people to see that nothing gets into a bill that hurts their interests. The can hire people who can craft bills in language that seems innocuous but end up hurting the interests of the vast majority of people but not the rich hidden elites. On the other hand the rest of us do not have vast amounts of money to hire people to see that our interests are not being harmed during the legislative process.
What is worse however, the party in power in Congress with some of the bills gives members far too little time to read and discuss the bill before voting on it.
Here is another complaint regarding Senators not
reading the bills they vote on from Senator Rand Paul. If the link below does not work, google
Senator Rand Paul Speaks Out Against Senators Voting without Reading the Bills.
6/29/12 was the date he spoke.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/svGDZOW-brA?rel=0 It is a very understandable explanation explanation of why our Federal government is too large
Cell Phones Bugged GOV Seizing Emails Without Warrants
The following video link below was sent January 1, 2009 by a apocalyptic group called Nearing Midnight. It provides evidence that government is slowly chipping away at our freedoms. The first part of the video explains how cell phones can be bugged in about 10 minutes and ways to tell if your cell phone is bugged. The second part of the video discusses how government investigators for over 20 years have seize emails without search warrants possibly violating the 6th amendment to the Constitution and Federal law which guarantees that everyone has a right to a lawyer and conversation between them is confidential.
In a letter to Congress dated March 2006, the Bush Administration seemed to be unconcerned about the above when it was discussing its secret surveillance programs designed to stop terrorists
“…does not specifically target the communication of attorneys… calls involving such persons would not be categorically excluded from interception…”
Technology in Cell Phones, I Pods and Computers can be Used to Track You and/or Down Load Your Personal Info/Wall Street Journal December 17th 2010
This link takes you to an article about how Ipod and Smart Phone applications can give information about you to advertisers without your knowledge or consent. It has links to several other Wall Street
Page 44
Journal articles covering issues relating to privacy and technology. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576020083703574602.html Here is some interesting info from the various articles.
· In the above link, the journal describes how applications on your smart phone or Ipod without your permission send info about you to other companies. Types of info they send include age, demographic data, interests, shopping patterns and hobbies. This information is sent so companies can target adds to people whom are interested in their adds and are more likely to respond to the add by buying the product that the add is selling. Targeting adds in such a way is much more cost effective. Companies engaging in such practices usually do not put a persons name but use an id on the computer or phone to target where to direct adds. In this way groups of people can be categorized into specific groups but no one is singled out by name! Thus companies feel they are not violating individual’s privacy. Others object that their information is still being used without their knowledge or consent. A related article explains how Face Book is doing the same for some of the applications on its sight.
· However in the following link, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560243259416072.html this organization actually went farther and also used names of people and collected lots of data on the people in order to target campaign literature to those voters it felt would most favorably respond to their literature. Again using the data to target campaign material to those who would respond favorably so money is not spent on people who would not care or agree with the literature they were proposing. This group would be effectively living the phrase, “Don’t cast your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot.”
· Government regulations require that cell phones have tracking devices. On the positive side, missing people have been found and law enforcement rescued kidnapping victims by tracking their cell phones. It is public knowledge now that if you dial 911 from your cell phone, police can trace the call’s location with the GPS device in the phone. On the negative side, according to the Justice Department 25,000 Americans were victims of GPS stalking often by cell phones. Cell phone companies have an application that you can get so you can know the location of your spouse or children within a radius of about 100 feet. When women flee to domestic abuse shelters often one of the first things that the staff do is to disconnect the battery from their cell phones so their husbands won’t track them to that location. Here is a link to that article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383522318244234.html
Page 45
· About a third of the way down in this file, an article titled Michigan Police Extract Cell Phone Data in Routine Traffic Stops shows how our privacy can be abused. There is some evidence that our government has wire tapped some citizen’s cell phones without their knowledge or read their emails. Some claim in the Wall Street Journal articles that our government can access data from our phones and computers without our knowledge and consent now. In the article right above this one, the second Bush administration did engage in these activities especially after 9/11. If we are not vigilant about how this technology is used, it could be employed to set up and maintain a police state.
Enemy Belligerent Act/Americans Could be Detained With No
Due Process
Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator John McCain recently introduced a bill S. 1381 also known as the Enemy Belligerent Act. After reading the bill, it is about 13 pages long, it looks like if it passes Americans can be detained and held without due process or trial indefinitely without trial under some circumstances. Some of the bill is vaguely written so it is not entirely clear who the belligerents are in all circumstances. Here is a liberal website that is very upset and concerned about this bill. Enemy Belligerent Act
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-2010
They give a summary of the act that seems pretty spot on. The actual act can be found at the Library of Congress Thomas website at the following link. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s3081:
Was Obama Planted As President? This high government official claims he was at a Russian Party in Moscow in 1992, where a communist claimed that Obama was a communist and was being groomed to be President by a World Communist Movement. At this time few people knew Obama. The following paragraph is a note from my email source in Tucson
Those on my list may remember this; I sent this out as soon as the story broke in 2008, before the November election. At that time I e-mailed Mr. Fife to confirm that he in fact did write this. Much to my surprise, he wrote me back! He DID write this piece, and at that time in 2008 he was very busy, making the talk show rounds.
Remember that this was BEFORE Rev. Manning's investigators discovered Obama's CIA-Russia connection.
Tom Fife was a government contractor with an active security clearance who took notes on his trips for Defense Intelligence Agency debriefings within the Department of Defense. In 1992, following an astounding conversation at a dinner party in Moscow, he took down notes for future reference. It was long before the world ever heard the name “Barack Obama.” According to the following link www.americanfreepress.net/html/global_elite_picked_obama_171.html
Page 46
Global Elite Picked Obama Long Before Voters
By Tom Fife, Edited by David J. Smith 7/3/10
During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid-1994, I (Tom Fife) was making frequent trips to Moscow in the process of starting a software development, joint venture-company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was V. M.; he had a wife named T. M. V was a levelheaded scientist, while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing communist cause.
Early in 1992, the American half of our venture was invited to V & T’s Moscow flat, as we were about to return to the states. As the evening wore on, T developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge - one her husband tried to quietly rein in.
The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this: “You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government, and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice president and you didn’t do it.”
The general response went along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice president, but the president and vice president as a ticket.
“Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon,” she said. The concensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she, black or not.
“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon, and he will be a communist?” she said. “Well, you will, and he will be a communist.”
One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”
“Yes, it is true,” she replied. “This is not some idle talk. He is already born, and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’ You don’t believe me, but he is real, and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a mixed baby! And he’s going to be president.”
She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. “It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black, so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent, and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a communist. He is being guided every step of the way, and he will be irresistible to America.”
She was obviously happy that the communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America. They would give us a black president, and he’d be a communist to boot. She made it obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world communism. She always asserted that communism was far from dead.
She was full of details about him (Barack) that she was eager to relate. She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”
Since I had dabbled in languages. I knew a smattering of Arabic. I commented: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for ‘blessing.’ That seems to be an odd name for an American.” She replied quickly, “Yes. It is ‘African,’” she insisted, “and he will be a blessing FOR WORLD COMMUNISM. We will regain our strength and become the No. 1 power in the world.”
She said something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for communism. America would have to be CONVERTED to communism, and Barack was going to pave the way.
So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?
… It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it DOES SHOW one thing that I think is important. It shows that Soviet Russian communists KNEW of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came to me personally from one of THEM (communist) long before America knew he existed.
Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30-plus years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.
Page 47
Who Is Tom Fife?
Tom Fife was a government contractor with an active security clearance, who took notes on his trips for Defense Intelligence Agency debriefings within the Department of Defense. In 1992, following an astounding conversation at a dinner party in Moscow, he took down notes for future reference. It was long before the world ever heard the name “Barack Obama.”
Students of revisionist history will remember that Bill Clinton disappeared from Oxford University in England for a while in 1970 and surfaced in Moscow purportedly to be trained in communism.
Thank you,
The Editor
David J. Smith
At the following link you can see an interview of Tom Fife discussing the prediction of the communist woman that Obama would be a communist president. These discussions occurred when he was at the party in 1992. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJty-It1cS0
Page 48
How the CIA and Reagan helped take down the Soviet Union. Washington Post Thursday February 26, 2004
CIA slipped bugs to Soviets
Memoir recounts Cold War technological sabotage
The Washington Post
|
By David E. Hoffman
updated 10:13 p.m. MT, Thurs., Feb. 26, 2004
This article discusses how near the end of the cold war an informant in the Soviet Union gave documents to the French detailing how Soviet agents had stolen vast amounts of technological and scientific information from the U.S. and utilized it in their defenses. The documents also listed areas where Soviet spies were attempting to gain information. The French president turned this information over to the Americans. Reagan gave William Casey the Director of the CIA the OK to provide the Soviets the software and other information they were looking for but the material would be flawed in that after a wile it would go haywire and self destruct. The article claims that this destructive defective technology that the Soviets thought they stole actually accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/airforcesecurityservice/message/39046
Controversial DNA Testing to be Offered By UC Berkley
Article sent 5/18/10
UC Berkley to offer incoming freshman this summer DNA testing to check alcohol tolerance, lactose intolerance and ability to assimilate folic acid. How do we know hackers or others might not obtain data? Later sometime after this article UC Berkley backed down because of the controversy surrounding the issue.
The results of the test will be put in a secure online database where students will be able to retrieve their results by using their bar code. Later I heard UC Berkley withdrew the plan because of its controversial nature.
Tax Payers Lose on Bailout to Chrysler and General Motors
5/18
WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department said Monday it will lose $1.6 billion on a loan made to Chrysler in early 2009. Taxpayer losses from bailing out Chrysler and General Motors are expected to rise as high as $34 billion, congressional auditors have said. On the other hand supposedly Banks have paid off bailouts leaving Government and Taxpayers with profit.
Rule by fear or rule by law?
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Terrorism And the Rule of Law Sent Monday 5/17
Monday, February 4, 2008 San Francisco Chronicle Written by Lewis Seiler and former Congressman Dan Hamburg of the watchdog group Voice of the Environment, Inc.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at
Page 49
undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Page 50
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
I attempted to investigate Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg’s concern about section 1042 of the 2007 Defense Act concerning the use of armed forces in a public emergency. He believes it gives the President the right to declare martial law. I went to government tracks website and looked up the text of the bill. The section had been changed to section 1072. In the section it does give the president the authority to use armed forces as he sees fit! Note how difficult certain segments are to understand or how one needs to refer to subsection X of a different bill or this clause replaces something in a previous bill etc. Here is a link to the entire 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5122enr.txt.pdf
SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMER- GENCIES.
(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
‘‘(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.— (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to—
‘‘(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that—
‘‘(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
‘‘(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
‘‘(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
‘‘(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that—
‘‘(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; orH. R. 5122—323
‘‘(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. ‘‘(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State
shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
‘‘(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.’’.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE.—Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting ‘‘or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws’’ after ‘‘insurgents’’.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT.—The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
‘‘CHAPTER 15—ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER’’.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—(A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
‘‘15 Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order ....................................... 331’’.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:
‘‘333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.’’.
(b) PROVISION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 152 of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies
‘‘(a) PROVISION AUTHORIZED.—In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.
‘‘(b) COVERED SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.—The sup- plies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preserva- tion of life and property.
‘‘(c) LIMITATIONS.—(1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section—
‘‘(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and
‘‘(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.
Page 51
H. R. 5122—324
‘‘(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equip- ment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military prepared- ness or ongoing military operations or functions.
‘‘(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES.—The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).’’.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies’’.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 12304(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking ‘‘No unit’’ and all that follows through ‘‘subsection (b),’’ and inserting ‘‘Except to perform any of the func- tions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section’’.
They were concerned about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that allows for secret imprisonment and secret trials for those accused of terrorist acts, or supporting those engaging in terrorist acts. Consider the following part of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 passed by House and the Senate. You can see the entire act at the following link. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf
§ 948b. Military commissions generally
‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combat ants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS UNDER THIS President. CHAPTER.—The President is authorized to establish military commissions under this chapter for offenses triable by military
commission as provided in this chapter. ‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS.—The procedures for mili
tary commissions set forth in this chapter are based upon the procedures for trial by general courts-martial under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). Chapter 47 of this title does not, by its terms, apply to trial by military commis sion except as specifically provided in this chapter. The judicial construction and application of that chapter are not binding on military commissions established under this chapter.
‘‘(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—(1) The fol lowing provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter:
‘‘(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts- martial relating to speedy trial.
‘‘(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compul sory self-incrimination.
‘‘(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial investigation.
Applicability. ‘‘(2) Other provisions of chapter 47 of this title shall apply to trial by military commission under this chapter only to the extent provided by this chapter.
‘‘(e) TREATMENT OF RULINGS AND PRECEDENTS.—The findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military commis sions under this chapter may not be introduced or considered in any hearing, trial, or other proceeding of a court-martial convened under chapter 47 of this title. The findings, holdings, interpreta tions, and other precedents of military commissions under this chapter may not form the basis of any holding, decision, or other determination of a court-martial convened under that chapter.
‘‘(f) STATUS OF COMMISSIONS UNDER COMMON ARTICLE 3.— A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary ‘judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples’ for pur poses of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
‘‘(g) GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.
Here are parts of the act that jump out at me right away in terms of how this act threatens my sense of liberty and freedom. First the president, and the Secretary of Defense who works for him, determine the nature and make up of these tribunals. I fear this expansion of presidential power.
The next section stipulates that unlawful combatants as determined by the president I presume no longer have a right to a speedy trial. The taking away of this right occurs for anyone that the president or his agents determine are unlawful combatants be they foreigners or American citizens. Such persons can be detained indefinitely without having to prove in a court of law that their liberty should be taken away. To grasp the profound threat to our rights and liberties one must consider the concept of habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus according to the Center for the Preservation of Habeas Corpus, is an ancient law derived from Anglo Saxon common law that states that an individual’s liberty cannot be taken away without just cause proved before a court! By the time of the Magna Carta almost 800 years ago this principle was a well established part of English Law. Consider
Page 52
this quote in the Magna Carta itself, “… no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled in any way destroyed except by the lawful judgment of their peers or by the law of the land.
The Bush Administration by violating an individual’s right to a speedy trial violates Habeas Corpus that has been a foundation of English and American law for more than 800 years as well as violating our Constitution. Unfortunately because of my profound lack of
knowledge concerning history and the law I was unaware of this profound violation while it was occurring. The concept of rendition I believe also profoundly violates this concept. For those who do not know what rendition is, it is the practice of sending captured prisoners to other countries to be interrogated so United States laws and the laws of the Geneva Convention regarding the rights and protections of prisoners of war do not protect the prisoners
Concentration Camps article http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87757
First steps to disarming our citizens?
Page 53
Global Arms Treaty May Impair Our Right to Self Defense
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 3:43 PM
Subject: *MUST*! B.O. Admin. Shreds 2nd Amendment
According to the article in the Thursday May 27th 2010 Washington Times, the Obama administration supports the small arms treaty that the U.N. is trying to pass. According to the U.N. guns used in conflict kill 300,000 a year. Countries signing the treaty would be expected to greatly reduce the trade in guns resulting in these deaths. Second Amendment defenders feel these regulations would strictly limit gun ownership and not all insurgencies are bad especially those eliminating corrupt or evil governments. During the 20th century the 15 worse regimes killed 150 million people who were not armed and unable to defend themselves. That works out to 1.5 million people a year, far less than the 300,000 the U.N. complains about. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/the-un-gun-grabber/
No comments:
Post a Comment