Tag Archives: control

Democratic Rep: Amend Constitution To Allow Control Of Speech

Democratic Rep: Amend Constitution To Allow Control Of Speech

– A Democratic representative is calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow for some legislative restriction of freedom of speech.

“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.

He reportedly made these comments while speaking at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum held last month.

In a video obtained by the website, Johnson asserts that “corporations control … patterns of thinking.”

“They control the media. They control the messages that you get,” he added. “And these folks … are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening.”

Corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution because of the ruling in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” which found that a state law prohibiting corporations from making political campaign contributions using their treasury funds was unconstitutional.

The ruling additionally stated that the spending was a form of political speech that is protected by the First Amendment, according to the official blog of the Supreme Court of the United States.

“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government,” Johnson was quoted as saying by CNS News. “They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case.”

SOURCE

NSA whistleblowers: Government spying on every single American

NSA whistleblowers: Government spying on every single American

Reuters/Jason Reed

The TSA, DHS and countless other security agencies have been established to keep America safe from terrorist attacks in post-9/11 America. How far beyond that does the feds’ reach really go, though?

The attacks September 11, 2001, were instrumental in enabling the US government to establish counterterrorism agencies to prevent future tragedies. Some officials say that they haven’t stopped there, though, and are spying on everyone in America — all in the name of national security.

Testimonies delivered in recent weeks by former employees of the National Security Agency suggest that the US government is granting itself surveillance powers far beyond what most Americans consider the proper role of the federal government.

In an interview broadcast on Current TV’s “Viewpoint” program on Monday, former NSA Technical Director William Binney commented on the government’s policy of blanket surveillance, alongside colleagues Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe, the agency’s respective former Senior Official and Senior Analyst.

The interview comes on the heels of a series of speeches given by Binney, who has quickly become better known for his whistleblowing than his work with the NSA. In their latest appearance this week, though, the three former staffers suggested that America’s spy program is much more dangerous than it seems.

In an interview with “Viewpoint” host Eliot Spitzer, Drake said there was a “key decision made shortly after 9/11, which began to rapidly turn the United States of America into the equivalent of a foreign nation for dragnet blanket electronic surveillance.”

These powers have previously defended by claims of national security necessity, but Drake says that it doesn’t stop there. He warns that the government is giving itself the power to gather intel on every American that could be used in future prosecutions unrelated to terrorism.

“When you open up the Pandora’s Box of just getting access to incredible amounts of data, for people that have no reason to be put under suspicion, no reason to have done anything wrong, and just collect all that for potential future use or even current use, it opens up a real danger — and to what else what they could use that data for, particularly when it’s all being hidden behind the mantle of national security,” Drake said.

Although Drake’s accusations seem astounding, they corroborate allegations made by Binney only a week earlier. Speaking at the Hackers On Planet Earth conference in New York City earlier this month, Binney addressed a room of thousands about the NSA’s domestic spying efforts. But in a candid interview with journalist Geoff Shively during HOPE, the ex-NSA official candidly revealed the full extent of the surveillance program.

“Domestically, they’re pulling together all the data about virtually every U.S. citizen in the country and assembling that information, building communities that you have relationships with, and knowledge about you; what your activities are; what you’re doing. So the government is accumulating that kind of information about every individual person and it’s a very dangerous process,” Binney said.

Drake and Binney’s statements follow the revelation that law enforcement officers collected cell phone records on 1.3 million Americans in 2011. More news articles are emerging every day suggesting that the surveillance of Americans — off-the-radar and under wraps — is growing at an exponential rate.

SOURCE

The Post-Aurora “Rampage” Few Have Heard About

The Post-Aurora “Rampage” Few Have Heard About

Custom Search

William Grigg
lewrockwell.com

One day after a lethal shooting rampage in Aurora, Colorado left twelve people dead and scores injured, another eruption of criminal violence left one dead and several others injured in Anaheim, California. The perpetrators of the second assault were officers from the Anaheim Police Department, who used “non-lethal” rounds — such as rubber bullets, which are reliably lethal at close range – to disperse a spontaneous protest that coalesced after the “officer-involved shooting” of a young man in the neighborhood.

Cell phone video of the police assault shows a wall of officers in riot gear directing “non-lethal” fire at a group of unarmed and terrified civilians — including several small children, who were shielded by a man who appeared to be their father. Another officer unleashed a police dog, which immediately attacked a stroller containing an infant. A bystander who interposed himself — and was mauled by the dog for doing so — probably saved the child’s life.

Those acts, in which private citizens protected the innocent from criminal violence at the hands of the State’s armed servants, were just as heroic as those of the three men in Aurora who died protecting their girlfriends during the shooting rampage.

Local news accounts, which retailed the department’s version of events, described the crowd as “unruly” and the protest as a “near-riot” in which angry citizens “encircled” the officers and “began throwing things, including bottles and possibly rocks, at them,” in the words of a Los Angeles Times report.The police also claimed that “several fires” had been started in trashcans. None of those claims have been been corroborated by video evidence or eyewitnesses. Nor have the police explained why the police gunned down the young man, referred to only as “Stomper,” after he and two others fled when approached by the cops.

Immediately after the shooting, several residents confronted the police to demand answers. The Anaheim PD — sensing an ominous tremor of righteous outrage on the part of a neighborhood that has endured seven “officer-involved shootings” this year — reverted to type as an army of occupation: Within a matter of minutes, the unarmed protesters were outnumbered by heavily armed cops in body armor.

In the wake of the Aurora massacre, the public has been encouraged to believe that because of private gun ownership, every public gathering place can be transformed into the scene of a massacre. The Anaheim police rampage illustrates how quickly the State’s armed enforcement caste — which, according to “gun control” activists, should have a monopoly on firearms — can turn any neighborhood into an urban war zone.

SOURCE

Acxiom Corp: The Faceless Organization That Knows Everything About You

Acxiom Corp: The Faceless Organization That Knows Everything About You

by Soren Dreier

An Arkansas company you’ve probably never heard of knows more about you than some of your friends, Google, and even the FBI — and it’s selling your data.

When you think of the surveillance state, you usually think of snoopy alphabet-soup government agencies like the FBI, IRS, DEA, NSA, or TSA, or cyber-snoops at Facebook or Google, says Natasha Singer in The New York Times.

But there’s a company you’ve probably never heard of that “peers deeper into American life,” and probably knows more about you than any of those groups: Little Rock–based Acxiom Corp. Jeffrey Chester at the Center for Digital Democracy has dubbed Acxiom “Big Brother in Arkansas,” while Gizmodo’s Jamie Condliffe calls it the “faceless organization that knows everything about you.” Here’s what you should know about the company:

What is Acxiom Corp., and what does it do?

The company fits into a category called database marketing. It started in 1969 as an outfit called Demographics Inc., using phone books and other notably low-tech tools, as well as one computer, to amass information on voters and consumers for direct marketing.

Almost 40 years later, Acxiom has detailed entries for more than 190 million people and 126 million households in the U.S., and about 500 million active consumers worldwide. More than 23,000 servers in Conway, just north of Little Rock, collect and analyze more than 50 trillion data ‘transactions’ a year. “In essence, it’s as if the ore of our data-driven lives were being mined, refined, and sold to the highest bidder, usually without our knowledge,” says The Times’ Singer.

What kind of data does it have?

“If you are an American adult,” says Singer, “the odds are that it knows things like your age, race, sex, weight, height, marital status, education level, politics, buying habits, household health worries, vacation dreams — and on and on.” It does more than collect that information, though.

It uses it to pigeonhole people into one of 70 very specific socioeconomic clusters in an attempt to predict how they’ll act, what they’ll buy, and how companies can persuade them to buy their products. It gathers its data trove from public records, surveys you’ve filled out, your online behavior, and other disparate sources of information, then sells it to banks, retailers, and other buyers.

Do other companies do this, too?

Yes, it’s a very competitive and lucrative business — Acxiom reported a $77.26 million profit last fiscal year, and it’s the No. 2 company in the business, after Epsilon. But analysts say that Acxiom has the world’s largest database on consumers.

“There are a lot of players in the digital space trying the same thing,” Piper Jaffray analyst Mark Zgutowicz tells The New York Times. “But Acxiom’s advantage is they have a database of offline information that they have been collecting for 40 years and can leverage that expertise in the digital world.”

SOURCE

CFR Proposes Using Army To Enforce Domestic Law

CFR Proposes Using Army To Enforce Domestic Law

Steve Watson

The Council On Foreign Relations, the elite think tank long associated with globalist policy making and subversion of the principles of the US Constitution, has published an article that proposes using the army to plan and carry out domestic law enforcement missions in the US.

An article in the May/June issue of the CFR official journal, Foreign Affairs, calls for the army to address “challenges in the United States itself” with the justification being to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

The article, written by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno states:

“Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.”

Odierno suggests that major changes within the US now deem it necessary to use the military in such a way. The General points to “declining budgets due to the country’s worsened fiscal situation”; “a shift in emphasis to the Asia-Pacific region”; and a “broadening of focus from counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and training of partners to shaping the strategic environment, preventing the outbreak of dangerous regional conflicts, and improving the army’s readiness to respond in force to a range of complex contingencies worldwide.”

Odierno suggests that the army be “transitioned” into a more “flexible force” by deploying in situations normally reserved for domestic law enforcement officials. He argues that by doing so, troops will be better equipped to deal with conflict elsewhere.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Odierno also specifically singles out The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, noting “Today’s army also has an unprecedented level of integration between its active and its reserve components… Our reserve component soldiers are better than they have ever been, and we will dedicate resources to ensure that some of them will be either deployed or ready to deploy around the globe.”

The article presents a red flag to anyone who has followed the consistent push by the federal government to militarize the police and further integrate the armed forces into domestic law enforcement.

Of course, the use of U.S. troops in law enforcement duties is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

However, despite the constitutional protections outlined in these laws, there has been and is an ongoing push to blur the divisions between military and domestic law enforcement officials.

National Guard troops are routinely involved in ‘urban warfare training’ drills. Usually such drills take place within the confines of military bases, however, more recently heavily armed troops are increasingly seen patrolling residential neighborhoods and even the downtown areas of major US cities.

Such “invasions” are often reported on as nothing to worry about and even as “cool.”

Indeed, back in 2008 the Washington Post reported how 20,000 U.S. troops returning from Iraq would be stationed inside America under Northcom for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011 onwards.

Northcom officials were forced to subsequently issue a denial after the Army Times initially reported that the troops would be used to deal “with civil unrest and crowd control.”

As Alex Jones exposed back in the late 1990’s, U.S. troops have been training to impose martial law for a considerable amount of time. During numerous urban warfare drills that Jones attended and reported on, troops were trained to raid, arrest, and imprison U.S. citizens in detention camps as well as taking over public buildings and running checkpoints. During role playing exercises, actors playing prisoners would scream “I’m an American citizen, I have rights” as they were being dragged away by troops.

The fact that such drills are now set to involve Russian soldiers training on U.S. soil to hunt “terrorists” has also caused consternation.

Federal authorities in the United States have clearly been preparing for domestic civil unrest for a number of years. The Department of Homeland Security recently purchased a staggering 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets as well as bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go’ lights.

In addition, worrying legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act, has paved the way for the incarceration of American citizens under military laws, and numerous leaked and semi-secret documents position the army as partners to domestic federal agencies in quelling unrest in America and even engaging in missions involving the ”resettlement” of US citizens.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

SOURCE

ATF Preparing to Outlaw Shotguns

ATF Preparing to Outlaw Shotguns

The Constitution states that Congress and the federal government shall not infringe upon the right to bear arms. However, we know in the past the federal government has trampled this liberty. Remember the assault weapons ban that banned AR-15s and other rifles?

It appears the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is preparing to pass its own law leaving Congress out of the equation and clearly ignoring the Constitution. This time its shotguns that are under attack.

The Greeley Gazette
notes of the ATF’s coming ban:

The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.

Ironically, many shotguns with “military” features are currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not.
Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns it “will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns.”

The ATF is currently allowing public comments on the study until the end of the month. Those wishing to express concerns about the study can send an email to [email protected]

SOURCE

Could Your Shotgun Soon be Outlawed? Maybe, If the ATF Has Its Way

by Jonathon M. Seidl Jonathon M. Seidl

What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to Dictionary.com it’s “a smoothbore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal.

Could Your Shotgun Soon be Outlawed? Maybe, If the ATF Has Its Way

In a series of fascinating, and eerie, posts over at the blog Beregond’s Bar (and linked on Redstate.com), author “Tom” pens a four-part series on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and their new campaign to change the definition of the term “shotgun.” A change, based on a recent study,* that could soon make some of them illegal. But as Tom points out, the implications for all guns are chilling.

Could Your Shotgun Soon be Outlawed? Maybe, If the ATF Has Its Way

Below are excerpts from the series. Click on the appropriate link to read more.

Part 1, which focuses on changing the term “sporting use” in order to ban certain shotguns:

The Obama administration is seeking once again to do via regulation what they would never be able to do via legislation. This time shotguns are in the crosshairs, specifically certain popular imported weapons.

[…]

Sporting use is one of the three main thrusts of gun control efforts in America. The other two are racism and those who openly advocate complete bans except for military and police. (The complete ban advocates often hide under cover of sporting use, but that and the racist history of gun control are topics for another day.
Click here to find out more!

Sporting use was how the original distinction was made about what weapons would be subject to a special tax in the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, and again in Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The congressional power to tax was used selectively to make ownership of weapons the government didn’t like burdensome and expensive. This was gun control via the back door, as even the ATF admits. As would become the pattern, politicians found that actually dealing with crime and criminals was difficult and expensive. Blaming guns and passing a law to look like they were doing something about it was much simpler.

Part 2, which notes that the administration and the ATF’s definition of “sporting use” includes a list of things that cannot apply to such use. Things that are common in hunting and self-defense:

In this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeking to master the definition of the term “sporting use” to “traditional” sports, things similar to what might have been found in 1934 when the Treasury Department first began regulating firearms. The ATF “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns” (PDF) limits “sporting purpose.”

However, consistent with past court decisions and Congressional intent, the working group recognized hunting and other more generally recognized or formalized competitive events similar to the traditional shooting sports of trap, skeet, and clays.

In order to decide what shotguns fit the “sporting purpose” definition the study comes up with a list of characteristics that aren’t sporting. Nobody has yet taken to bayoneting deer or skeet as far as I know, so I’m not going to raise a big stink about bayonet lugs being on the list of features that aren’t particularly suited for sporting purposes. (Please stop shouting that the Constitution of the United States says nothing about “sporting purpose.” We’ll look at why the “sporting purpose” rule violates the constitution in Part 3.)

One major problem (aside from the constitution) is that many of the features the ATF study group settled on make a shotgun particularly useful for self defense, especially home defense. Here are the characteristics that the study has decided are unsuitable for sporting use:

(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;

(2) bayonet lugs;

(3) flash suppressors;

(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;

(5) grenade-launcher mounts;

(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);

(7) light enhancing devices;

(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);

(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);

(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

Some of these features, such as folding stocks and larger capacity magazines clearly are useful in sports if you include practical shooting sports.

Part 3, which looks at how “sporting use” stacks up to the Constitution and how it came into use:

But there is a far more basic objection that must be raised to this new attempt at regulatory gun ban- Nowhere in the constitution of the United States is there anything about a “sporting purpose.” The second amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like all rights of Americans, the rights exist because you are a person. The Constitution is a contract we have with the central government to protect those rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One of the enumerated rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Nary a “sporting purpose” in sight in the entire document. So where did it come from?

And finally, Part 4, which shows that the ATF’s “sporting use” definition puts all guns, not just certain shotguns, at risk of being outlawed:

One factor that jumps out from the current ATF study is that it differs from the Clinton gun ban in a critical way. The Clinton ban looked at guns and said if it could accept a high capacity magazine and had any 2 other characteristics then it was banned. Thus you could have a magazine and a pistol grip, or a magazine and night sights, and still be legal. Few people missed having a bayonet lug, and grenade launchers and grenades had essentially been banned from civilian hands since the NFA became law in 1934. The current study says that any ONE item on a list, including a magazine that holds more than five rounds or a place to attach a flashlight so you can see the burglar in your home, and the gun is banned.

So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns. The current study refers to the conclusions drawn in prior ATF studies of rifles in 1989 and 1998, and handguns in 1968. It also draws on the NFA and the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968) to justify the “sporting purpose” test, and the narrow interpretation that the ATF places on the test. The justifications are all linked together, like a knitted sweater. Pull on the piece of yarn called “imported shotguns” and you find when it’s unraveled enough that you’re tugging on the “domestic shotguns” yarn. Only now the “imported rifle” bit of yarn is hanging loose, just begging for someone to tug on it. Unravel that a bit and you reach “domestic rifles.” A similar bit of unraveling is likely to happen with the piece of yarn labelled “handgun.”

Each piece is well worth the time it takes to read it. Meanwhile, the ATF is taking comments on its study. Tom lets you know how here.

But here’s the catch: in order to let the ATF know what you think, you have to give it your mailing address.

Interesting.

*According to Tom, the study “spends a lot of time showing that hunting, trap and skeet, and target shooting are sports, but plinking and practical shooting sports are not REALLY sports, and therefore guns that are particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to those sports shouldn’t be allowed into the country.

UPDATE:

Jack Minor of the Greeley Gazette covered the ATF’s study, too. He puts in terms of “military”-style shotguns vs. others. But, he notes, according to the specifications used, “military” could apply to so many shotguns:

The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.

Ironically, many shotguns with “military” features are currently being used in shooting competitions held by the USPSA, IDPA and IPSC. The rules could also result in obscure regulations where an individual would be unsure if he is violating them or not.

Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said if the ATF succeeds with the banning of tactical shotguns it “will be the most dangerous interpretation of the 1968 Gun Control Act ever envisioned and will outlaw thousands of perfectly legitimate home defense shotguns.”

The Most Powerful Man in the World: The Black Pope

The Most Powerful Man in the World: The Black Pope


Black Pope Adolfo Nicolas, Superior General of the Society of Jesus Diabolical Plan for a New World Order.

1. The Superior General of the Jesuits The Black Pope, Adolfo Nicolas and his 6 generals control the “White Pope” Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican.
2. The Illuminati, Zionists, globalist Elites, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg group, Freemasons, Council of 300 and the evil Council of Trent.
3. The Jesuits control the Knights Templar, Knights of Columbus and the Knights of Malta.
4. The CIA, FBI, NSA, ASIO, MI5, MI6, NCIS, FSB, DGSE, Mossad and every intelligence agency in the world are masonic and controlled by the Jesuits.
5. The Jesuits have infiltrated all governments & Leaders like Obama, Rudd, Blair, Jintao, Sarkozy, Peres are only puppets that carry out Jesuit orders.

The”NEW WORLD ORDER” is the GLOBAL TOTALITARIANISM dream that a BANKER called Mayer Amschel Rothschild, helped revive in 1760?s to protect his private bank from global government regulation. His grand blue print is best described by his paid social engineer called Dr. Adam [Spartacus] Weishaupt, Professor of Canon Law in the university of Ingolstadt. Weishaupt adopted the term “Illuminati.” This nightmare is still sought after today by their family’s decedents. Below is the ‘outline’ Weishaupt set out for his banker financier master! Carefully notice the similarities between Karl Marx’s 10 Plank’s of his Communist Manifesto and Weishaupt’s outline. Also, please read Communism & The New World Order.

The blue print for the NWO is:
* Abolition of all ordered governments
* Abolition of private property
* Abolition of inheritance
* Abolition of patriotism
* Abolition of the family
* Abolition of religion
* A global population of 500 million
* Creation of a world government

Mayer Amschel Rothschild 1828 “Allow me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who writes the laws.” [Even a 4 year old can understand that people with control of money…write the laws!]

“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – Woodrow Wilson

So who is this subtle, complete organized power that Wilson is talking about? The answer to that my friends is the Jesuits.

Who are the Jesuits you may ask? Arent they just missionaries, priests and general do-gooders who establish schools, universities and pride themselves in being pillars in the community? If so, then why was The Jesuit Order abolished in over 80 countries in 1773? J.E.C. Shepherd states that “Between 1555 and 1931 the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuit Order] was expelled from at least 83 countries, city states and cities, for engaging in political intrigue and subversion plots against the welfare of the State, according to the records of a Jesuit priest of repute [Thomas J. Campbell]. Practically every instance of expulsion was for political intrigue, political infiltration, political subversion, and inciting to political insurrection.” They are overlords of chaos. In a nut shell the Jesuits are Warlords, Assassins, Teachers, Infiltrators, Tyrants. They tried their hand at global domination with the “League of Nations” but it failed, now they are trying again, under a new name…The United Nations, and its about to work!

What people are not understanding is that the Jesuits command the White Pope and the Vatican City, Obama /Bush’s/ Clinton’s / Blair’s / Peres/ Rudd / Jintao / Sarkozy / Medvedev (and frankly every government on earth) including the the evil Council of Trent, CFR, Illuminati, the Zionists, the Bilderberg group, the Freemasons, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus, the Knights Templar, Council of 300, and every intelligence organization in the world all have ties to the Jesuit Order and more specifically, the Superior General of the Jesuits known as The Black Pope Adolfo Nicolas who as of January the 19th, 2008 succeeded Peter-Hans Kolvenbach as the 30th Superior General of the Jesuit Order.

Additional Information:
http://wikicompany.org/wiki/911:Vatican_%26_Jesuits
http://wikicompany.org/wiki/911:Military_Order_of_Malta
http://wikicompany.org/wiki/911:Pilgrim_Society

SOURCE

Why Is The Department Of Homeland Security Buying 450 Million New Bullets?

The Department Of Homeland Security Is Buying 450 Million New Bullets
Eloise Lee

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office is getting an “indefinite delivery” of an “indefinite quantity” of .40 caliber ammunition from defense contractor ATK.

U.S. agents will receive a maximum of 450 million rounds over five years, according to a press release on the deal.

The high performance HST bullets are designed for law enforcement and ATK says they offer “optimum penetration for terminal performance.”

This refers to the the bullet’s hollow-point tip that passes through barriers and expands for a bigger impact without the rest of the bullet getting warped out of shape: “this bullet holds its jacket in the toughest conditions.”

We’ve also learned that the Department has an open bid for a stockpile of rifle ammo. Listed on the federal business opportunities network, they’re looking for up to 175 million rounds of .223 caliber ammo to be exact. The .223 is almost exactly the same round used by NATO forces, the 5.56 x 45mm.

The deadline for earlier this month was extended because the right contractor just hadn’t come along.

Looks like the Department of Homeland Security means business.

Read more: SOURCE

Border is a clear line; ‘control’ is a gray area

Border is a clear line; ‘control’ is a gray area

Brady McCombs Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Editor’s note: This story first appeared Sunday as an exclusive for our print readers.

Everybody from politicians to Border Patrol officials to regular old Joes in Tucson wants the border secured.

But how we measure that is nebulous.

Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher told Congress in February that the agency’s goal has been to “gain, maintain and sustain operational control.”

While that term – operational control – has become a buzzword, it is not uniformly defined. And the Border Patrol has already discarded it in favor of new performance measures it is developing.

When Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin was asked how he defined a controlled border during a leadership vision series at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., last October, he said this:

“Border security means public safety and the sense in the community that the border is being reasonably and effectively managed.”

Arizona’s longtime Republican Sen. John McCain was asked how he defined operational control during a press conference last month in Tucson.

“Implementation of Jon Kyl and I’s 10-point plan,” he said, touting a proposal for more Border Patrol agents, National Guard troops and several new initiatives.

So how, in lieu of a uniform measurement recognized by all, do taxpayers and legislators gauge progress on border security?

There’s no clear answer.

“It’s certainly legitimate to ask, ‘What’s the return on investment here?’ ” said Doris Meissner, commissioner of the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1993 to 2000 and senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank that advocates for comprehensive immigration changes.

The federal government has invested $15.8 billion since 2005 on border security between the ports of entry, shows budget information from the Department of Homeland Security. Another $12.4 billion has been spent on border security and trade inspection at the ports.

Indicators suggest that the additional agents, fences and technology funded by that money have made the border more secure, said Rich Stana, director of homeland security issues at the Government Accountability Office.

“But that said, there is still a ways to go,” Stana said. “One of the key elements in improving border security is having a reliable measure of how you assess that.”

The question of how the government measures border security has garnered more attention in recent months, highlighted by a hearing of a House committee on Homeland Security and a Government Accountability Office report.

After 15 years of unprecedented spending on border security, and in tight budget times, Congress needs to know what works and what doesn’t, Meissner said.

“It’s been an article of faith that we need border enforcement and we need more of it, and certainly that’s valid,” Meissner said. “But I don’t think we’ve gotten to the point before where one could actually say, ‘Well, how much is enough?'”

Canada is easier to police...

“Operational control”

In the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Congress defined operational control as preventing “all unlawful entries” into the United States.

But Congress’ definition has not been consistent in bills, reports and correspondence since that act, the Border Patrol said in an emailed statement.

In recent congressional testimony, Border Patrol Chief Fisher said the term refers to the agency’s ability “to detect, identify, classify, respond to and ultimately resolve all threats within the theater of operation.”

Using that definition, 44 percent of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border is under operational control, shows a February GAO report. Nearly 70 percent of the 262 miles in Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector fit that category.

The definition in the Secure Fence Act is an unrealistic standard to which no other law enforcement agency is held, said Stana and Meissner.

“It would be very expensive to create that kind of assurance,” Stana said. “You would be talking about something akin to the inner German border during the Cold War, where very few, if any, could penetrate it without fear of losing one’s life.”

The Border Patrol should be asked to manage the border, not prevent every illegal entry, Meissner said.

No matter how you define it, Fisher, Bersin and their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, insist that operational control should not gauge overall border security.

Fisher said, “Operation control is not, in and of itself, a measure of border security.”

“Achieving border security requires a whole-government approach,” the Border Patrol statement said, “whereas the Border Patrol’s ‘operational control’ is a narrow tactical term confined to Border Patrol capabilities in a particular area of the border.”

And now the Border Patrol is replacing the outdated measure with metrics that more accurately reflect the state of border security.

“It’s not necessarily coming up with new metrics as it is about understanding how those metrics apply in today’s border environment,” Fisher said.

The agency expects the new approach to be more cost-effective, the GAO reported, which is a great sign, said Tom Barry, senior analyst at the Center for International Policy in Washington.

“They are aware their budget will be more closely scrutinized than before,” Barry said. “Part of this analysis has to be a cost-benefit evaluation, not just a numbers game. Are these billions worth it?”

The Border Patrol plans to test the new measures in fiscal 2012, which begins on Oct. 1, 2011.

stats can mislead

In the meantime, the Border Patrol is focusing on apprehensions to measure progress.

Napolitano and Bersin often cite a 60 percent reduction in apprehensions in the past six years as one sign the border is more secure.

The reduction, since it’s coincided with the buildup of agents, is a valid measure of effectiveness, Meissner said.

But it shouldn’t be used as the primary method for judging border security because the stat is insufficient and can be misleading, she said.

The same person can be counted multiple times, meaning the yearly total represents the number of arrests – not the number of people caught. And a dip in apprehensions might reflect fewer jobs available due to the economic downturn.

Using apprehensions as a measure of the Border Patrol’s efficiency would be akin to judging a baseball player by his hits without knowing how many times he’s been at bat, said Stana of the GAO.

“You have the number of apprehensions but you don’t know how many people might have been there to apprehend,” Stana said. “You have to have the numerator and the denominator to judge performance.”

New measure coming

In the last decade, the government has vacillated on what it’s trying to accomplish with its border security strategy, said Barry of the Center for International Policy.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the focus was keeping out terrorists. By 2005, it shifted to illegal immigration. In recent years, with the flow of illegal immigrants slowing, border security has become synonymous with preventing spillover violence from Mexico’s raging drug war, Barry said.

In January during a speech in El Paso, Napolitano said, “Our goal is to have a safe, secure border zone that is also hospitable to and fosters legal trade, travel and immigration. Our goal recognizes that the border is not simply a line on a map. It is an entire area, extending into both countries. Moreover, a safe, secure border zone requires vigorous enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws in the interior of our country as well.”

As it creates standards to measure progress, the Border Patrol must define what it aims to accomplish, Stana said. “If there is difficulty getting to performance measures, it may be rooted in the fact that we’re not clearly articulating exactly what it is we want to do,” he said.

For instance, if the agency’s goal is to stop illegal entries close to the border, it could use the GPS coordinates recorded with each apprehension to measure how many were made within five miles of the border, Stana said.

The Border Patrol also could use more in-depth analysis of fingerprints.

Agents should be able to determine how many times a person has been caught, where he’s been caught before, and if he or she was voluntarily returned or formally deported, Stana said.

“Is it the same individual trying five times or is it five individuals?” Stana asked.

The agency should seek outside consultation from analysts and academics on how best to establish new performance measures, Meissner said. Not only would it help make the measures stronger, it would give the agency credibility with legislators and the public.

“If it’s viewed as purely an inside, opaque exercise,” she said, “it won’t have the same kind of influence.”

Contact reporter Brady McCombs at 573-4213 or [email protected]

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_bfe40b78-ef21-538c-93a3-9017c4163dab.html

Mystery scars on Obama’s head prompt another question from conspiracy theorists – has the President had brain surgery?

Mystery scars on Obama’s head prompt another question from conspiracy theorists – has the President had brain surgery?

By Daily Mail Reporter

He has been plagued with questions and doubts concerning his background throughout his first term as President.

Questions like – is Barack Obama actually American? Is he a Muslim? Is he actually an alien from another planet? – have frequently been asked.

The next question circulating on the internet – has President Obama had brain surgery?

President Obama meeting comedian George Lopez as the First Lady looks on. Some observers believe this image shows a distinctive scar which looks like those left after brain surgery. However, there could simply be another explanation such as a bad haircut or birth mark

This enhanced image purports to show the scar running from the top of the President’s head to behind his right ear

This enhanced image purports to show the scar running from the top of the President’s head to behind his right ear

Internet blog sites, conspiracy theorists and forums are awash with rumours as to what those mystery scars on the president’s head are from.

In pictures, Obama appears to have a long scar which goes up the side of his head and over his crown.

Some conspiracy theorists claim they are scars that you would see on someone who has had brain surgery.

But without medical records (along with his school records and birth certificate) no one seems to be able to provide an answer as to the cause of the mystery scars.

Ben Hart, a blogger for Escape The Tyranny a website which presents itself as a Social Network & Forum For Conservatives, said: ‘Obama’s almost done with his first term, and we still know almost nothing about the background of the President of the United States.

‘Whatever happened to create that scar, it was clearly something serious. Was it a brain operation? Has it affected his thinking?

‘No one is allowed to see his birth certificate. He is just one big mystery man, which adds intrigue to what that huge scar is all about.’
The President has a distinct circular scar on the side and back of his head around the crown area
obama scar

One blogger says the surgery might explain why the President has, on occasion, got lost speaking without a teleprompter

He also said that surgery might explain why the President gets lost speaking without a teleprompter, and posted a video of Obama struggling through a speech, repeating his words and getting lost mid-sentence.

More…

Obama may have to produce birth certificate if he wants to run for President in 2012
Not born in the USA: Majority of Republican primary voters still think Obama isn’t entitled to be President
Can he do it? Shock surge of support for Donald Trump’s presidential bid among New Hampshire Republicans

Speculation about different aspects of Obama’s life first gathered momentum when questions over his actual birthplace started to emerge, with many believing he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, as he has stated.

Millions of dollars have allegedly been spent trying to ensure that it is not released to the public, not even the Hawaiian governor has access to it.

Added to that are the fact his medical records have also been sealed.

A spokeswoman from the White House said they were not willing to comment on such claims, saying they were ‘ridiculous’.

Countless neurosurgeons said it is ‘not their place’ to comment on whether or not distinctive scars on the President’s head are as a result of brain surgery.

Others offered explanations such as a bad haircut or even a birthmark though many did agree that the scars are similar to those a produced after major brain surgery.

Without medical records or an admission from the White House, the public may never know the answer to the question, along with the contents of his birth certificate.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373780/Mystery-scars-Obamas-head-begs-question–President-brain-surgery.html#ixzz1J3vyUayP