Corporate Watchdogs's topics - tribe.net

Conspiracy History compilation DVDs torrents

History — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:43:35 GMT

**************************************************

Greetings to all my relations.

This is the last step of our project History Watch. If History is
defined and known by the texts, we can now add to this definition the
recorded events of the filmed archives. Animated images are harder to
deny than printed words. Our objective is to spread out freely some of
the little broadcast, even hidden informations about our collective
History.

We put online a collection of 391 documentaries and other selected and
recut videos, to offer to a wide public the best of the infos
available on the net in english and in french. If you are interested,
you have the time, the right equipment and connection, all you have to
do is open the joint document and decompress it if needed (but normaly
your system should do it automaticaly). You'll find therein nine links
that will open the torrents for the nine DVDs we compiled (around 4.6
Gig each, for a total of a little over 41 G, being over 100 hours of
videos).

Otherwise, you can go directly to btjunkie.com and search for these titles.

11 Septembre 2001 - 9-11
Bush family & friends
Capitalist & Communist regimes
Capitalist conspiracy
Mind Kontrol - Secret Programs
New World Order - Secret Societies
Secret services - cover up - covert ops
Secret weapons - UFO
Terrorism Theories propaganda

Torrents are a system of peer to peer data transfer. The more people
download a torrent, the faster it spreads and the longer it stays on
the net. If you don't have a bittorrent software, we suggest that you
download uTorrent on utorrent.com. If you want to participate in
facilitating the diffusion of these infos about our collective
History, download these torrents on as many computers as possible,
whether it is in cybercafes. It takes one or two minutes to open up
the links and the downloading will keep proceeding on its own.

Please spread this out, take part in this action for social education
on a planetary scale. Thanks.

For more info: watch.history@gmail.com History Watch

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 0 replies

Has anyone here had this experience?

Leslee — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:16:50 GMT

Has anyone here had this experience?

Has anyone here felt that maybe they were being attacked and lied about, by a corporation on tribes? I have reason to believe that might be happening to me. If so how did it play out? Any recommendations? These people play really dirty. I do not wish to do the same. But if there was a way to expose them for who they are that would be great.

http://tribes.tribe.net/depressionhelp

See
On defending Depression Help

DepressionTribe.tribe.net/threa...22d294

http://DepressionTribe.tribe.net/thread/0241f054-1310-4a3b-b175-d1808022d294

I believe they are trying to scare people off from reading our tribe which gives lots of evidence about the drug industry.

Thanks

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 0 replies

Ohio Secretary of State confirms 2004 election could have been stolen

Alexander — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:51:42 GMT

Ohio Secretary of State confirms 2004 election could have been stolen
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
December 14, 2007

Ohio's Secretary of State announced this morning that a $1.9 million official study shows that "critical security failures" are embedded throughout the voting systems in the state that decided the 2004 election. Those failures, she says, "could impact the integrity of elections in the Buckeye State." They have rendered Ohio's vote counts "vulnerable" to manipulation and theft by "fairly simple techniques."

Indeed, she says, "the tools needed to compromise an accurate vote count could be as simple as tampering with the paper audit trail connector or using a magnet and a personal digital assistant."

In other words, Ohio's top election official has finally confirmed that the 2004 election could have been easily stolen.

Brunner's stunning findings apply to electronic voting machines used in 58 of Ohio's 88 counties, in addition to scanning devices and central tabulators used on paper ballots in much of the rest of the state.

Brunner is calling for widespread changes to the way Ohio casts and counts its ballots. Her announcement follows moves by California Secretary of State Deborah Bowen to disqualify electronic voting machines in the nation's biggest state.

In tandem, these two reports add a critical state-based dimension to the growing mountain of evidence that the US electoral system is rife with insecurities. Reports from the Brennan Center, the Carter-Baker Commission, the Government Accountability Office, the Conyers Committee Task Force Report, Princeton University and others have offered differing perspectives that add up to the same conclusion.

Coming in the state that decided the 2004 election for George W. Bush, Brunner's confirmation of the electoral system's vulnerabilities adds huge new weight to the charge that the Buckeye State's vote count was stolen.

In a series of investigative reports dating to well before the 2004 election, the Columbus Free Press and Freepress.org have documented several dozen different means used by the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign to steal the official 2004 vote count.

The final official tally for Bush---less than 119,000 votes out of 5.4 million cast---varied by 6.7% from exit poll results, which showed a Kerry victory. Exit polls in 2004 were designed to have a margin of error of about 1%.

In various polling stations in Democrat-rich inner city precincts in Youngstown and Columbus, voters who pushed touch screens for Kerry saw Bush's name light up. A wide range of discrepancies on both electronic and paper balloting systems leaned almost uniformly toward the Bush camp. Voting procedures regularly broke down in inner city and campus areas known to be heavily Democratic.

In direct violation of standing federal election law, 56 of Ohio's 88 counties have since destroyed all or part of their 2004 election data. The materials were additionally protected by a federal court injunction in the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal civil rights lawsuit (in which we are attorney and plaintiff). To date, no state or federal prosecutions have resulted from this wholesale destruction of presidential election records, including 1.6 million ballots, cast and uncast, needed for definitive auditing procedures. However, two Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) election officials have been convicted of felony manipulation of an official recount. The Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the state's largest newspaper, recently editorialized that there is "no evidence" the 2004 election was stolen, but omitted mention of the destruction of the electoral records by more than half the counties in the state. The Plain-Dealer and other mainstream media have consistently ignored findings by the Free Press and others indicating widespread manipulation and theft of the kind Brunner has now confirmed was eminently do-able within the Ohio system.

Brunner says "the results underscore the need for a fundamental change in the structure of Ohio's election system to ensure ballot and voting system security while still making voting convenient and accessible to all Ohio voters." Among other things, she advocates replacing touch-screen machines with optical-scan units that include a paper balloting system.

The study was managed by the Battelle Corporation, and conducted by Columbus-based MicroSolved Inc., SysTest Labs of Denver along with a consortium of academic subcontractors. It was reviewed by a dozen county officials, and included scrutiny of voting systems produced by Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Hart Intercivic and Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold).

Brunner is the Democratic successor to Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell, who administered the 2004 election as Secretary of State while also serving as state co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. The report comes as part of her pledge to guarantee a fair and reliable vote count in the upcoming 2008 presidential election.

Under Blackwell, Ohio spent some $100 million installing electronic voting machines as part of the Help America Vote Act, passed by Congress in the wake of the scandals surrounding the 2000 election. Former Ohio Congressman Bob Ney, HAVA's principle author, now resides in a federal prison, in part for illegalities surrounding his dealings with voting machine companies.

Blackwell, who was defeated in a 2006 race for the Ohio governorship, outsourced web hosting responsibilities for the 2004 vote count to a programming firm that also programmed the web site for the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. Blackwell's chosen host site for the state's vote count was in the basement of the Old Pioneer Bank Building in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where the servers for the Republican National Committee, and the Bush White House, were also located.

Brunner has now recommended that all Ohio's voting be done on optical scan ballots, with reliance on central tabulation. Voters with disabilities could use AutoMark machines with bar coding devices that allow the marking of ballots with little or no additional assistance.

"It's a testament to our state's boards of elections officials that elections on the new (federally) mandated voting systems have gone as smoothly as they have in light of these findings," Brunner said.

Conversely, it is also a testament to the ease with which the 2004 election was stolen by election officials who had clear conflicts of interest aimed at keeping George W. Bush in the White House.

--
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008 (www.freepress.org) and of WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO? (The New Press) with Steve Rosenfeld. THE FITRAKIS FILES are available at www.freepress.org, where this article first appeared. Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030, is at www.solartopia.org.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2920

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 0 replies

The Aim of the Financiers: A One-World Government with a One-World Currency

Project — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:17:21 GMT

The Aim of the Financiers: A One-World Government with a One-World Currency
By Alain Pilote

The following article is one of the appendices of Louis Even's new book, "In This Age of Plenty":

The basic flaw of the present financial system is that the banks create money as a debt, charging interest on the money that they create. The obligation for the debtor countries to repay the banks money that the banks did not create, money that does not exist, brings about unpayable debts. The Financiers know quite well that it is impossible for these countries to repay their debts, that the present financial system is defective at its base, and that it can only bring about crises and revolutions. But this is exactly what they want!

As Clifford Hugh Douglas, the founder of the Social Credit school, said: "The Money Power does not, and never did, want to improve the money system - its consequences in war, sabotage and social friction are exactly what is desired.". Why?

It is because the Financiers believe that they are the only ones capable of governing mankind properly, and in order to be able to impose their will upon every individual and control the whole world, they invented the present debt-money system. They want to bring every nation in the world to such a state of crisis that these countries will think they have no alternative but to accept the miracle solution of the Financiers to save them from disaster: complete centralization, a single world currency, and a one-world government, in which all nations will be abolished, or forced to give up their sovereignty.

The Trilateral Commission
There are three major economic areas in the world: Europe, North America, and the Far East (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). If, under the pretext of having to join forces to be able to face economic competition with the two other economic regions, the member countries of each of these three regions decide to merge into one single country, forming three Super-States, then the one-world government will be almost achieved.

This is exactly what is taking place now, and being promoted by the Trilateral Commission, founded in July, 1973, by David Rockefeller, the chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank of New York. The official aim of the Trilateral Commission is "to harmonize the political, economic, social, and cultural relations between the three major economic regions in the world (hence the name "Trilateral"). This aim is almost achieved in Europe with the Single European Act that was implemented in 1993, requiring all the member countries of the European Community to abolish their trade barriers, and to hand over their monetary and fiscal policies to the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium. By 1999, all these countries are supposed to share only one currency, the "Euro".

As regards the North American area, the merger of its member countries is well under way with the passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), first between Canada and the U.S.A., ant which later also included Mexico. (By the next ten years, it is supposed to include all of the Americas) There is a strong pressure to force these countries to harmonize their fiscal policies, and as it happened in Europe, economic union will inevitably lead to political union.

In front of these two gigantic economic powers, the countries of the Far East will have no choice but to join forces together and merge, to be able to compete with North America and Europe in the field of international trade.

One-world currency -- the "Mark of the Beast"??

To consolidate their power, the Financiers also want to eliminate every existing national currency, and to install a one-world currency. In the 1970s, Dr. Hanrick Eldeman, Chief Analyst of the Common Market Confederacy in Brussels, unveiled a plan to "straighten out world chaos": a three-story computer located in the administrative building of the headquarters of the Common Market, in Brussels, Belgium. People who work there call it "the Beast". The plan implies a system of digital enumeration of each human being on earth. Thus the computer would give each inhabitant of the world a number to be used for each purchase or sale. This number would be invisibly tattooed by laser (or implanted with a microchip) either on the forehead or on the back of the hand. This would establish a walking credit card system.

And the number could be seen only through infrared scanners, installed in special verification countries or in business places. Dr. Eldeman pointed out that by using three entries of six digits each, every inhabitant of the world would be given a distinct credit card number.

This reminds us strangely of what Saint John the Apostle wrote in the Book of Revelation (13:16-18): "And he (the Beast) shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and slaves, to receive a mark on their right hands, or on their foreheads, and that none might buy or sell, unless he carried this mark, which was the beast's name, or the number that stands for his name. Here is wisdom; he that has understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six hundred and sixty-six".

That man will be the Pope of Rome who will be incarnate by Satan as he incarnate the Serpent, a man-like creature, in the garden of Eden, and Judas Iscariot in the days of Christ's flesh. The main title and claim of the Pope is "Vicarivs Filii Dei" which means "In place of the Son of God", or "Substitute for the Holy Ghost". The letters of this title with numeric values in the old Roman system add up to 666. Thus:
V = 005
I = 001
C = 100
A = 000
R = 000
I = 001
V = 005
S = 000

F = 000
I = 001
L = 500
I = 001
I = 001

D = 050
E = 000
I = 001
Total = 666

Debit cards
A few decades ago, before the invention of computers and microchips, such a system would have seemed far-fetched, a product of science fiction. But now everyone knows about the existence of debit cards with which you can buy anything in stores, without the need to carry any cash on you, the amount of your purchase being debited automatically from your bank account. The avowed goal of the banks is to eliminate all cash, and to force people to use debit cards as the only means of payment.

There is always the risk of losing one's debit card, or of having somebody else illegally use it. So here comes the ultimate solution: to link people personally to their card, so there is no way they can lose it or have it stolen! And there you have it: a micro-computer chip can be implanted under your skin, or a three six-digital unit can be tattooed on your skin...just as described in Saint John's Book of Revelation.

Actually, the mark in the right hand signifies obeying the will, and the mark in the forehead implies receiving the doctrine of the "Beast". The Beast will be the Pope of Rome who will be incarnate by Satan when he is cast down to earth at the close of the Gentile dispensation.

Everything will be in place for a government that wants to control everybody's move, since they will know everything about you: all that you buy, where and when you buy it, who you phone, how much money you have, will all be inscribed on this card. And if, for whatever reason, you are classified as an "undesirable person" or as an "enemy of the State" by the government, they will only have to erase your number from the central computer, and you will no longer be able to buy or sell (and thus be condemned to disappear before long).

The Illuminati
This quest for a world government has been going on for a long time. For example, on Feb. 17, 1953, Financier Paul Warburg said before the U.S. Senate: "We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." This quest for world domination can be traced back to the creation of the "Illuminati", a secret society, in 1776. Their leader, Adam Weishaupt, wrote out the master plan to bring about the subjection of the whole human race to an oligarchy of Financiers. The word "Illuminati" is derived from Lucifer and means "holders of the light".

As surprising as it may seems, the insignia of the Order of the Illuminati appears on the reverse side of U.S. one-dollar bills. The first time it appeared was in 1933, by order of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the beginning of the New Deal (the name given to Roosevelt's political reforms of that time).

One can read at the base of the 13-story pyramid, the year 1776 (MDCCLXVI in Roman numerals). Most of the people think that it represents the date of the signing of the American Declaration of Independence, but it actually memorializes the foundation of the Order of the Illuminati, which was on May 1, 1776. (Note the Zionist-Communist May Day connection).

The pyramid represents the conspiracy for the destruction of the Catholic Church (and all existing religions"), and the establishment of a one-world government, or a United Nations dictatorship. The eye radiating in all directions, is the "all-spying" eye that symbolizes the terroristic, Gestapo-like, espionage agency that Weishaupt set up to guard the "secret of the Order and to terrorize the populace into the acceptance of its rule". The Latin words "ANNUIT COEPTIS" translate to "Announcing the creation or beginning". Below them, "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" translates to a "New secular order" and the year is written in Roman numerals at the base of the Pyramid.

Manly Palmer Hall explained the symbolism otherwise. He said, Annuit Coeptis means "He (NOT the Christian God) has smiled upon our endeavours". The capstone or triangle signifies science, NOT spirituality, and that the scroll underneath, bearing the inscription "Novus Ordo Seclorum" indicates the nature of the enterprise: a "New order of the ages", an order of science and knowledge as opposed to Christian (morality) superstition and fear.

This insignia was adopted by the U.S. Congress as the reverse of the seal of the United States on September 15, 1789. (The obverse side of the seal bears the eagle, which is used as the official seal and coat of arms of the U.S.A., and which is also shown on the reverse side of the U.S. $1.00 bills).

The appearance of this insignia of the Illuminati on U.S., one-dollar bills in 1933 meant that the followers of Weishaupt regarded their efforts as beginning to "be crowned with success," and that they totally controlled the U.S. Government.

The pyramid is a symbol of the Knights Templar of Freemasonry and a Zionist symbol and the Hexgram is used by Royal Arch Masons which is part of York Rite Masonry also a Zionist symbol. The two seals of the "Great Seal" combines symbolism of all Masonic Orders. The Eagle is a symbol of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

Proof the Great Seal is Masonic
First outline the pyramid with a triangle. Now take the pyramid and draw a line under the base of the capstone and extend it left to right extended to the A in ANNUIT and the S in COEPTIS. Now draw lines from the end of this line down to the last O in ORDO so you will finsih the Hexagram also called the Jewish Star of David.

Draw circles around all five letters to which the Hexagram points. These letters make the word MASON. The 32 feathers on the left wing of the eagle signify the 32 degress of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. The right wing has 33 feathers for the extra 33rd honary degree and inner head of the Scottish Rite. George Washington himself on the front of the One Dollar Bill was a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Mason. The 9 tail feathers indicate the 9 additional degrees of the York Rite of Freemasonry. There are13 olives and 13 leaves on the olive branches, 13 arrows in the other eagle's claw, 13 stripes on the shield, 13 stars above the eagle in the form of a Hexagram, 13 letters in "E PLURIBUS UNUM", 13 letters in "ANNUIT COEPTIS", 13 rows of bricks in the pyramid. The 33rd degree Grand Lodge of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry is located exactly 13 blocks north of the White House above an upside down pentagram oulined by the road layout which rests on the White House. See this link: http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1040.html

The use of the Hexagram and the Pentagram and even the 7 pointed star stems from Jewish Cabalism or mysticism which was adopted from paganism. The placement of the symbols on the American money etc. is no different then to displaying a cross on the back of a one dollar bill. But you will never see these religious symbols removed because the ACLU only attacks what it sees as Christian. Separation of Church and State is a farce. The law requiring the "Separation of CHURCH and State" might as well say "Separation of Christondom and State" because only religions calling themseves "Christian" use buildings called "Church".

Albert Pike was the founder of the KKK and one time leader of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry Southern Jurisdiction. He himself protested the suggestion that Masonry was Christian and said that "if Masonry was Christian why were most of the people who had possession of it during the early days of the USA Hebrew"?

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Garage/4803/IWJindxf.html
http://www.hourofthetime.com/majestyt.htm
http://www.cuttingedge.org/fmcorner.html

A Luciferian conspiracy
To say that the Illuminati is a "Luciferian" conspiracy" is not only a stylistic device, but it is literally true, since the leaders of the Illuminati are actually worshipers of Satan, and their final objective is to have the whole world bow down to him. Through his hellhounds, it is Satan himself who continues his revolt against God by endeavoring to foil God's plan on earth, and to snatch from God as many souls as possible.

Just like Satan, the Financiers think that they are smarter than God, and that they are the only ones who can lead mankind properly. The members of the Illuminati are people of every race and creed, but who all lust for money and power.

Recognizing the powers involved
In the conclusion of his book "Pawns in the Game", which denounces the plot of the Illuminati for world domination, William Guy Carr explains what must be done to stop this plot.

First, we must as individuals recognize the spiritual powers involved, and realize that we are not only facing terrestrial powers, but also spiritual ones; that it is basically a fight between God and Satan. We must choose who we will serve, who we will fight for: God or Satan.

Second, we must take practical steps to counteract the plan of the Financiers which, in Mr. Carr's own words, can be done only through a monetary reform: "The electors must insist that the issue of money, and the control thereof, be placed back in the hands of the Government where it rightfully belongs."

The necessity for Social Credit
The prayers and sacrifices to obtain the assistance of Heaven are certainly necessary to thwart the plan of the Financiers. But a technique, a temporal means, is also necessary to thwart the plan of the Financiers. This means is the Social Credit reform, conceived by the Scottish engineer, Clifford Hugh Douglas, the only reform that the Financiers really fear, and that would put an end to their power to control all the nations. ("Social Credit" means social money - money created without debt by society, issued with new production, and withdrawn from circulation as production is consumed - instead of having a banking credit, as it is the case today - money created as a debt by private banks.)

Douglas first thought that once his discovery and its implications would be brought to the attention of the governments and of those in charge of the economy, they would hasten to implement it. But Douglas soon made another discovery: the Financiers, who ruled the economy, were absolutely not interested in changing the financial system, and its flaws and consequences (wars, waste, poverty, social friction etc.,) were absolutely what they desired, and even fostered deliberately, in order to impose their solution of a one-world government. So the Financiers did everything they could to stop and silence the Social Credit idea: a conspiracy of silence in the news media, or deliberate falsification of Douglas's doctrine, in order to render it vulnerable; calumnies and ridicule against the apostles of "Michael". Douglas wrote in his book "Warning Democracy":

"So rapid was the progress made by the Social Credit ideas between 1919 and 1923 both in this country (Great Britain) and abroad, and so constantly did ideas derived from them appear in the pages of the press, that the interests threatened by them became considerably alarmed, and took what were, on the whole, effective steps to curtail their publicity. In this country the Institute of Bankers allocated five million pounds (then the equivalent of 24 million dollars) to combat the 'subversive' ideas of ourselves and other misguided people who wished to thinker with the financial system. The large Press Associations were expressly instructed that my own name should not be mentioned in the public press, and no metropolitan newspaper in this country or the United States was allowed to give publicity, either to correspondence or to contributions bearing upon the subject. In spite of this Canadian Parliamentary Inquiry at which I was a witness (in 1923) managed to expose on the one hand the ignorance of even leading bankers of the fundamental problems with which they had to deal, and on the other hand the lengths to which the financial power was prepared to go to retain control of the situation."

One must not forget to mention here that the best way that the Financiers found to stop the advancement of the Social Credit idea was the creation of political parties falsely bearing the name "Social Credit", to make people think that voting for a new party is sufficient to change the system, whereas what is needed is the education of the people (by having them subscribe to the "Michael Journal"), to force the elected representatives to serve the population, instead of serving the Financiers. Fortunately, all the so-called "Social Credit parties" are dead and buried now, but they did a lot of damage and spread confusion in the minds of the people while they existed.

"The psychological moment"
Douglas predicted that the present debt-money system of the Bankers would become unworkable and fall by itself, because of all of the unpayable debts that it creates. All the countries in the world are struggling with skyrocketing debts and heading for disaster, even though everybody knows these debts can never be paid off. Other factors announce the inevitable fall of the present system: automation, for example, which makes full employment impossible.

Douglas said that "a psychological moment" will come, a critical moment when the population, given the gravity of the situation, and despite all the power of the Financiers, will have suffered their debt-money system long enough, and will be disposed to study and accept Social Credit. Douglas wrote the following in 1924, in his book "Social Credit":

"The position will be tremendous in its importance. A comparatively short period will probably serve to decide whether we are to master the mighty economic and social machine that we have created, or whether it is to master us; and during that period a small impetus from a body of men who know what to do and how to do it, may make the difference between yet one more retreat into the Dark Ages, or the emergence into the full light of a day of such splendor as we can at present only envisage dimly. It is this necessity for the recognition of the psychological moment, and the fitting to that moment of appropriate action, which should be present in the minds of that small minority which is seized of the gravity of the present times."

Louis Even, at the end of an article written in 1970 and entitled "Social Credit, yes - Party, No", repeated this idea of Douglas:

"The Social Crediters of the Michael Journal maintain, along with Douglas, that as regards Social Credit, the most effective work to do is to enlighten the population on the monopoly of financial credit, attributing to it the bad fruits of which it is the cause in the lives of people, of families, of institutions; and, in front of these bad fruits, to expose the doctrine of genuine Social Credit, which is so brilliant and in keeping with common sense. They also endeavor to develop within themselves, and to also radiate, a Social Credit spirit, which is clearly in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel: a spirit of service and not of domination, not of an insatiable pursuit of money or material goods, which is of the same nature - with a less powerful means - as the spirit of the barons of High Finance.

"Whether the collapse of the present financial system, under the weight of its own enormities, or events that have been foretold many times by privileged souls - events one certainly cannot doubt of when one sees the present decadence of moral standards, apostasy, the paganization of affluent nations that used to be Christian - occur soon, in either case, the living or the survivors of those events won't be without a light to establish a social economic system worthy of its name."

The point to remember in all of this is that the present financial system, which creates money as a debt, is the main means of the Financiers to establish a one-world government. Debt finance is the bridge that leads us from a free society to complete dictatorship. And the only thing the Financiers fear, the only thing that can stop them in their plan of world conquest, is the reform of the present financial system, the establishment of an honest debt-free money system, along the lines of the Social Credit philosophy. Then one realizes all the importance of the Social Credit solution, and the importance of spreading it an making it known. This is why Soviet foreign Minister Molotow had said to Dr. Hawlett Johnson, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the 30s: "We know all about Social Credit. It is the one theory in the world we fear."
Alain Pilote.

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 2 replies

Did RAND Corporation Pen the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?

Alexander — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:16:11 GMT

Did RAND Corporation Pen the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?
Published on Friday, November 23, 2007.

AddThis Social Bookmarking Widget

By Kurt Nimmo

According to Jessica Lee of Indypendent and Kamau Karl Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was penned with plenty of help from the RAND Corporation.

“Rep. Jane Harman, Democrat from California, has had a lengthy relationship with the Rand Corporation,” Lee tells Democracy Now, although she was unable to determine if RAND wrote the bill. On the 12th anniversary of the OKC bombing, Rep. Harman, as chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, introduced the bill in the House of Representatives.
“The ‘Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007' seeks to address the roots causes of radicalization, and would establish a grant program to provide funds to States to foster badly needed vertical information sharing from the Intelligence Community to the local level and from local sources to state and federal agencies,” explains Harman’s website. “It also creates a Center of Excellence for the Prevention of Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism to examine the social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of domestic terrorism and to propose solutions, and promotes international collaboration on strategies to combat radicalization."

Franklin mentions Brian Michael Jenkins, an “expert” on “terrorism, counterinsurgency, and homeland security,” according to RAND. Jenkins is “someone who helped the United States in counterinsurgency measures in Vietnam,” states Franklin. “In addition to that, he wrote a book, and in his own book” Jenkins declared that “in their international campaign, the jihadists will seek common ground with leftists, anti-American and anti-globalist forces, who will in turn see radical Islam comrades against a mutual foe.”

In short, according to Kamau Karl Franklin, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is more about domestic political activism than Islamic terrorism, although it appears Jenkins—and neocons such as the former Marxist David Horowitz—are attempting establish a link between the two, an absurdity at best, as the best way to discredit both the antiwar and patriot movements.

According to a Center for Constitutional Rights factsheet, RAND is a key player in the “domestic terrorism” prevention effort detailed in this draconian bill. A RAND study “Trends in Terrorism,” Chapter 4 on “homegrown terrorism,” advocates “special attention to environmentalist, Anti-globalization activist and anarchists as potentially new terrorist in the making.”

Not surprisingly, RAND is intimately connected to the global elite and the military-industrial-intelligence complex: “The interlocks between the trustees at Rand, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were so numerous that the Reece Committee listed them in its report (two each for Carnegie and Rockefeller, and three for Ford). Ford gave one million dollars to Rand in 1952 alone, at a time when the chairman of Rand was simultaneously the president of Ford Foundation,” notes SourceWatch (Rene Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, p65-66). “Two-thirds of Rand’s research involves national security issues. This is divided into Project Air Force, the Arroyo Center (serving the needs of the Army), and the National Defense Research Institute (providing research and analysis for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the defense agencies).”

As Lee Rogers notes, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, in its effort to flush out “terrorists,” including those opposed to the sort of globalism supported by Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations, will perform an end-run around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The bill “states in the first subsection that in general the efforts to defeat thought crime shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of the United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. How does this protect constitutional rights if they use vague language such as in general that prefaces the statement? This means that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to abide by the Constitution in their attempts to prevent so called homegrown terrorism.”

This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and it is clear that all 404 representatives who voted in favor of this bill are traitors and should be removed from office immediately. The treason spans both political parties and it shows us all that there is no difference between them. The bill will go on to the Senate and will likely be passed and signed into the law by George W. Bush. Considering that draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have already been passed, there seems little question that this one will get passed as well. This is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group of traitors at all levels of government.

“With overwhelming bipartisan support, Rep. Jane Harman’s ‘Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act’ passed the House 404-6 late last month and now rests in Sen. Joe Lieberman’s Homeland Security Committee. Swift Senate passage appears certain,” write Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson for the Baltimore Sun. “Not since the ‘Patriot Act’ of 2001 has any bill so threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

Harman’s “proposed commission is a menace through its power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths, an authority granted to even individual members of the commission—little Joe McCarthys—who will tour the country to hold their own private hearings. An aura of authority will automatically accompany this congressionally authorized mandate to expose native terrorism.”

Ms. Harman’s proposal includes an absurd attack on the Internet, criticizing it for providing Americans with “access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda,” and legalizes an insidious infiltration of targeted organizations. The misnamed “Center of Excellence,” which would function after the commission is disbanded in 18 months, gives the semblance of intellectual research to what is otherwise the suppression of dissent.

While its purpose is to prevent terrorism, the bill doesn’t criminalize any specific conduct or contain penalties. But the commission’s findings will be cited by those who see a terrorist under every bed and who will demand enactment of criminal penalties that further restrict free speech and other civil liberties. Action contrary to the commission’s findings will be interpreted as a sign of treason at worst or a lack of patriotism at the least.

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates “thought police,” it defines “homegrown terrorism” as “planned” or “threatened” use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of “political or social objectives.” That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.

As Shaffer and Robinson note, examples of “resulting crackdowns on such protests include the conviction and execution of anarchists tied to Chicago’s 1886 Haymarket Riot.” Additionally, we might add that the FBI’s COINTELPRO—targeting civil rights, antiwar, and national liberation movements—may serve as a template for “insidious infiltration of targeted organizations.” Although the official history would have us believe COINTELRPO was shut down in the 1970s, events since that time reveal the government is still in the business of illegally going after Americans who exercise their constitutional right to petition the government. For more on these recent events, see Brian Glick’s COINTELPRO Revisited: Spying and Disruption.

Thus it makes perfect sense that the corporate media—compromised by the CIA under Operation Mockingbird beginning in the 1950s—would employ the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly to characterize the antiwar, truth and patriot movements—and even supporters of Ron Paul—as potentially violent advocates of “domestic terrorism.” No doubt, in the weeks and months ahead, we should expect more such propaganda as Harman’s “proposed commissions,” little more than federally mandated inquisitions, get up to speed.
Finally, as noted above, it is only a matter of time before the so-called Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 becomes law. The bill has been referred to the Senate where it awaits scrutiny from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and is almost certain to pass.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/231107RAND.htm

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 0 replies

Website: Corporate Connections

Abraxas2k12 — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 03:20:03 GMT

http://www.TheyRule.net

The site allows you to build maps of various interconnections between corporations, think tanks, government, etc. I haven't played with it much yet, but it looks pretty neat.

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 2 replies

presidential directive at whitehouse.gov gives Bush imperial powers

Alexander — Tue, 22 May 2007 17:57:54 GMT

presidential directive at whitehouse.gov gives Bush imperial powers

Just heard about this presidential directive from their own website. This means any event that is considered a disruption of the nation or its normal routine (from the mega-quake in Cascadia to the even a computer virus) then Mr Bush can declare this emergency with 90s imperial rule. They can even take over Native American Reservations or anything else deemed important for military stragedy. Add to this this week's ruling on environmentalism as possibly ecoterrorism.

One news report with the actualy whitehouse.gov announcement:

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild
May 18, 2007

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial
branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.

She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”

The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”

from http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

___ actual presidential directive from whitehouse.gov:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

White House News

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of

the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and

responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall

continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of

the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between

and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing

on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and

assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an

official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate

support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its

agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 0 replies

Leading Democrats say "No to Impeachment of Bush.. it is off the table"

Alexander — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:27:47 GMT

Leading Democrats say "No to Impeachment of Bush.. it is off the table"

Conyers Toes Party Line: No Impeachment
Something Is Extremely 'Rotten In The State Of Denmark'

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, November 10, 2006

The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of
their victory is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Presumed to become
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today
said that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."

"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to
distort my position on impeachment, " Conyers said in a statement
released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker
(Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the
table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment
is off the table."

Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the
grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The
Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception,
Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War"
and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance. "

For a while Conyers was the darling of left leaning bloggers and
readers everywhere:

At this site, we are especially proud of the new Conyers
Report, "The Constitution in Crisis." By purchasing this book, you
have the opportunity to own a part of history and help the
Congressman hold the Bush Administration accountable. Your
assistance in helping Congressman Conyers become the next Chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee will bring us one step closer to
getting the American people the answers from this Administration
that they deserve.
- www.afterdowningstr eet.org

Conyers is so admirable. One of the very few in Congress who still
has integrity and principles. It is too bad that he does not get
more MSM coverage but why would they do that? He might upset the
Republican and Corporate plans for total control and could expose
their nefarious doings.
He is risking much by not following the official DNC program too, in
addition to challenging the Bushies.
- Huffington Post

In december 2005, upon release of the report, Conyers stated:

The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima
facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the
allegations are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated.
Legal violations span from false statements to Congress to
whistleblower laws... The Report also concludes that these charges
clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct... In response to
the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have
introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee
with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush
Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible
impeachable offenses.

So Conyers was already underway with setting up investigations into
impeachable offences, but now he says that impeachment is off the
table? Clearly he has been given orders to toe the party line or
face the consequences.

Despite the fact that 86% want to see the President impeached,
leading Democrats have already ruled this out. The same leading
Democrats that voted for the war in Afghanistan, for the Patriot
Act, for Homeland Security and against a bill that simply condemned
torture of prisoners in Iraq.

After Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, Conyers is the latest Democrat
to show us their true colours once in power.

Conyers and the other Democrats highlight precisely why we need to
regroup, consolidate and redouble our efforts in light of the
theatrical shift of power in Washington to the left. Because as soon
as this happened, overnight, the truth movement lost a great deal of
support from those that believe the job is now done.

Taking note of many reader comments over the past few days I have
noticed a startling uprise in the amount of negative and dismissive
feedback from some readers. Evidently those who expected us to be
out dancing in the streets at the news of a Democrat landslide in
Washington have been bitterly disappointed.

We have never once suggested that the solution to a corrupt and
fascist Neocon leadership is a passive and capitulating Democrat
sideshow leadership, so why is it any surprise that we are
continuing on the same course as before?

Comments such as the following emphasize my point:

"You can only have it one way. What the hell is up with you people.
The whole time the Bush regime was in power you begged for change.
Now you have it, but your still complaining. "

Yes we are seeking change, but not a simple change of personnel as
we have witnessed this week. As we reported yesterday "There's no
doubt about it, to see frothing Neo-Cons who have been strutting
around like John Wayne for the past five years finally eat humble
pie is a breath of fresh air, but let's not be so deluded as to
think that the Neo-Con agenda, which took decades to craft, was
simply brushed aside by the victory of a party that has supported
Bush every step of the way on major issues."

Seeing Bush on TV admitting he'd took a hell of a beating was great,
for about five minutes, then he started laughing and joking about it
and talking about pushing forward to work closely with a new crowd.

Is rolling over and going back to sleep going to get Bush impeached?
Should we shut down the websites now and go save the whales or
something else we'd all love to be doing if we didn't have to
relentlessly keep fighting to stop our leaders killing our freedoms?

Within hours the Democratic elite have shown us that they don't give
a damn about holding the Bush administration up to scrutiny. With no
effective opposition in the form of a political party it is up to
the people to continue to demand justice and to continue to attempt
to reign in those who have heinously abused their power.

Thomas Jefferson described Congress as "a body to which the people
send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question
everything and yield nothing."

In light of this how can any representative say something like
impeachment is 'off the table?'

found at
http://www.infowars .net/articles/ november2006/ 101106Rotten. htm

Nancy Pelosi on YouTube and Howard Dean

Nancy Pelosi on the YouTube saying "NO TO IMPEACHMENT... ITS OFF THE TABLE"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R-4vw2qw3Wc
or
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mAGCgY4PDNA

Howard Dean Says No Impeachment Of Bush
Lapdog Democrats to waste two years on minimum wage and mass illegal amnesty, no to Iraq inquiry, no to police state rollback, no to bringing troops home

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, November 9, 2006

Howard Dean last night said there would be no impeachment proceedings against President Bush under a Democrat controlled Congress, echoing the pledge of Nancy Pelosi to protect the administration that lied a nation into a war and dismantled the very fabric of America.

Here's the exchange from Dean's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night.

STEWART: "How long in your mind do you feel it's gonna be before power corrupts you absolutely?"

DEAN: "Well, you know...."

STEWART: "The last guys did it in three and a half days, what are you guys aiming for?"

DEAN: "Longer than that."

DEAN: "I know half the audience wants us to impeach the President and all that kind of stuff but we're not gonna do that - we're not gonna do that."

Dean is toeing the party line first crystallized by Nancy Pelosi when she told the 60 Minutes program, "Impeachment is off the table....it's a pledge....it is a waste of time."

When will jubilant mindless liberals realize that their darling Democrats have been installed as ringers to halt the momentum of the anti-war and 9/11 truth movements while committing to shielding the Bush administration for the very crimes and misdemeanors that supposedly cost them the House and Senate in the first place?

Democrats have already clearly stated how they intend to "get to work" over the next two years - by helping Bush push through a mass amnesty for illegal aliens - something his own republican House even prevented him doing - and also wasting time on the non-issue of the minimum wage.

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens help rollback the devastation the Bush administration has wrought on the U.S. Constitution?

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens bring the troops home?

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens re-instate the nine amendments to the Constitution that were abolished under the Military Commissions Act?

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens do anything to can the unconstitutional domestic eavesdropping program?

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens do anything to claw back the out of control deficit?

We were told the Republicans were abandoned because of corruption and Iraq and yet the Democrat shills have completely avoided specifics about how they intend to address these issues and on the question of impeachment have vowed to protect Bush. Empty rhetoric about a "policy change" in Iraq is nothing more than hot air betrayed by a legacy of Democrat support for keeping the troops in the quagmire - exemplified no better than Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, who both support imperial jaunts in the name of the "war on terror."

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has already stated that Blair's government will not co-operate with any move to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and she needn't worry because the Democrats are not going to even try it.

The Associated Press reports that Pelosi and Bush have already proclaimed reconciliation and are now "making nice" and devising how they can work in tandem. Tuesday's vote and its superficial euphoric aftermath was not about a populist reaction to six years of abuse and deceit - it was a sad indictment of the fact that a majority of Americans, particularly the establishment left, still buy the hoax that the Republicrats and the Democons are anything more than two different CEO's bidding for control of Slavery Incorporated.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/091106deansaysno.htm

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 0 replies

Six Questions on the American “Gulag” for Historian Kate Brown

Alexander — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:38:07 GMT

Six Questions on the American “Gulag” for Historian Kate Brown
Posted on Friday, September 22, 2006. Kate Brown is Associate Professor of History at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Her book, A Biography of No Place: From Ethnic Borderland to Soviet Heartland won the American Historical Association’s George Louis Beer Prize. As a historian of Soviet history, she has sifted through an array of declassified NKVD and KGB documents about the abuse of prisoners in the Gulag. Her article, “Out of Solitary Confinement: The History of the Gulag,” will be published in Kritika vol. 8, no. 1 (Winter 2007). Brown recently answered a series of questions about the American penal and detention system, especially as it has developed post-9/11. By Ken Silverstein.
Sources1. In 2005, Amnesty International charged that the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo makes the prison “the Gulag of our times.” After public outcry and a media attack, Amnesty retracted the charge. Is the metaphor appropriate?

Soviet arrests were designed to inspire terror. Some people were taken off the street. Others were surprised in their beds in late night roundups. In Soviet prisons, detainees were stripped, searched, and led into special rooms where they were told to face the wall and assume stress positions. Most people were rounded up with no real evidence and without prior investigation. Interrogators withheld food, water, medical assistance, communication with relatives, and sleep until detainees agreed to talk. The most resistant detainees were beaten while handcuffed or tied.

Granted such liberty in dealing with prisoners, some Soviet officers started to enjoy themselves. They made up games, forcing prisoners to dance, smearing glue on their heads, stripping them naked, pouring frigid water over them. Sometimes guards had too much fun and a prisoner died. Then prison-appointed doctors, who often participated in the interrogations, wrote up fictive autopsy reports. Declassified FBI and U.S. Army detailing abuses detainees in U.S. detention centers uncannily echo Soviet NKVD reports. They recount late-night roundups of civilians and describe prisoners held in chambers of extreme heat or cold, chained naked to the floor without food and water for days on end, defecating on themselves, beaten (some to death), forced to dance, to lick their shoes and body parts, to crawl around, and to bark like dogs. American doctors and psychiatrists helped devise methods of inflicting pain and fear to elicit confessions, and they signed false reports when detainees died in custody.

2. Didn't the Soviets lock up far greater numbers of people than are now being detained by the United States?

Indeed, American editorialists grounded their rejection of the Gulag metaphor in numbers. Soviet officials routed millions through the Gulag over several decades (3.7 million according to archival records). In the American case, we are talking about a mere 500 prisoners in Guantanamo, and roughly 30,000 in U.S. detention centers in Iraq. Human Rights Watch estimates that 50,000 people are currently held in domestic prisons without charges. It is undoubtedly true that the torture of tens of thousands is better than the torture of millions. But this defense becomes rather weak, not only if one believes in universal civil liberties and human rights, but also if one considers history. The methods of detention and interrogation used by investigators in Iraq and Cuba derive from CIA manuals issued in 1963 that assumed that the detainee would not be a Muslim extremist but a Soviet agent. The methods practiced and propagated during the Cold War have migrated to the “war on terror” so seamlessly that American soldiers photographed their human-rights violations and shared the photos with no idea they were incriminating themselves.

3. How does the American system compare with the Soviet in respect for due process and legal norms, and in terms of punishment and the treatment of prisoners?

Both Soviet and American laws banned torture of prisoners, guaranteed habeas corpus, and limited the range of punishments a prisoner could receive. In both countries, abuses occurred nonetheless—not in isolated instances, but in the “migration” of practices across great distances, which suggests systemic violations of the laws.

We know, in fact, about Soviet and American abuses in astonishing detail because government investigators went to prisons with notebook and camera and emerged appalled at what they saw. The purpose of those investigations, one would imagine, would be to expose illegal detention and torture in order to stop it. But despite the nearly annual Soviet investigations into abuses, the Gulag continued unhindered for nearly three decades. Despite FBI and Army investigations in Iraq and Cuba, the White House persists in justifying the use of secret CIA prisons in undisclosed foreign locations to sequester terrorist suspects without charge. Rather than exposing abuses in order to end them, official Soviet and American investigations served the purpose of placing the blame for institutionalized abuse on individuals—U.S. Army privates, Soviet prison guards, and NKVD security officers. Finding individuals to blame absolved the governments which had set up the conditions for torture. Scapegoating individuals also enabled Soviet and American ideologues to reiterate yet again their societies’ commitment to justice and civil rights, despite all evidence to the contrary.

4. The Bush Administration is targeting non-citizens it accuses of being terrorists. Didn't the Soviets mostly imprison and abuse their own citizens? So isn't it true that, in the American case, the “gulag” is a response to a real or perceived national security threat, while the Soviets were simply seeking to crush dissent?

During the Cold War the idea arose that the Gulag was primarily an instrument of terror to crush dissent. But declassified Soviet documents do not bear this out. By far, most of the people who landed in the Gulag were there for garden-variety offenses: theft of property, assault, hooliganism, and white-collar crime. They were not influential intellectuals who posed a threat to the regime, but poor, uneducated, and culturally marginalized peasants who broke draconian laws in order to make a living. The search for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan has also targeted the weak and vulnerable. United States Army officials admit that 90 percent of the civilians detained in Iraq were later released without charges. The dragnet in Afghanistan also seems to have netted civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The detention of people who turn out to be innocent bystanders gives a new definition to the phrase “non-combatants.”

5. Have American government officials been more willing to take responsibility for abuses than their Soviet counterparts?

Long after the abuses were made public, Vice President Dick Cheney denied any mistreatment of detainees at Guantánamo. He said that the detainees “have been well treated, treated humanely and decently,” adding, “Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment, but if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who had been inside and released to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated.” With his bald-faced denial of torture, Cheney illustrated how Guantánamo shares aspects of the Gulag. His performance mimicked that of the famed Soviet writer Maxim Gorky, who several months after smiling broadly for a photo in front of the notorious Solovetsky Labor Camp, lied with sanctimony when refuting reports of Soviet camp abuses. In an article published in Pravda on March 5, 1931, Gorky wrote that “convict labor” was “a petty, foul slander” aimed at economically isolating and weakening the USSR. “The Soviet regime,” Gorky said, “does not employ convict labor even in prisons.”

When a state goes to the trouble of sanctioning the torture of civilians for purposes of political control, government officials do not willingly own up to these practices. And those who expose abuse are discredited as slanderers, and accused of “peddling lies” and ultimately of abetting the enemy.

6. Does the tolerance for abuses committed during the “war on terrorism” have any implications for the health of democracy at home?

The President’s broad new powers in the signing statements that enable him to override Congress have corroded the American system of checks and balances. American law enforcement agencies can now wiretap American civilians and detain citizens and permanent residents without charges, and consequently without evidence. Last week the House passed legislation to build a 700-mile Israeli-style fence on the U.S.–Mexico border and to deploy there many of the surveillance technologies tested in Iraq. Perhaps the domestic installation of wartime technologies and military surveillance in civilian settings has become acceptable to us because we have become accustomed, as Soviet citizens did during the endless Stalinist purges, to open-ended wars—wars with no opening salvo and no concluding treaty. Whether or not one agrees that American detention centers and secret prisons are the “Gulag of our time,” the comparison deserves serious consideration. It might help us shine a torch into the dark corners of repression, where the totalitarian qualities of our own society lurk, before the scale of violence ascends to Gulag dimensions.

found at http://harpers.org/sb-six-questions-kate-brown-1158926209.html

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 0 replies

Booklists

Dustin (El Guapo) — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:12:01 GMT

I was wondering, if anyone had a few nonbiased books they might suggest for reading. That deals with the rise of corporations in america, after the civil war

posted in Corporate Watchdogs - 3 replies

Power to the People

Alan — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:34:17 GMT

Is it really possible to have a peoples party at this point in time? A party who's candidate was chosen, and supported by the American people?
Yes... it really is possible. And high time if you ask me.
When I was in school they told me I could be anything I wanted. Even the president of the United States. But they never taught me how. Oh sure, we had a class president and all that, (and I seem to remember something about a cartoon bill that kept getting vetoed or something), but somehow I just don't think it's the same thing. But I have asked dozens of people (smart ones too) if they new how to go about being president if they chose to. None of them had the slightest clue. Not that I would ever want to be the president. I can't even ballance my own check book, (or remember if that cartoon bill ever got passed or not) let alone trying to balance the budget for a nation. However, I have met quite a few people along my journeys that I thought had all the attributes I would like to see in a president. Strong, responsible, honorable people, always seeming to naturally look out for the needs of others, less fortunate, and weaker than themselves, while at the same time accomplishing great feats of productivity, (including balancing their check books). Ive met them in all walks of life. All shapes, sizes, sexes, and colors. Proud Americans, all of them. According to our constitution they have the right to run for president. The only question is... how? Well check it out...
A Letter to Michael Moore
Hey Mike,
I hope all is going good with the new project. I can't express to you how much I appreciate your work. You both inspire me and give me hope that someday we the People will find our voice again and take our country back. On that note, I have a great Idea I’d like to share with you. This is an idea I’ve spent serious time thinking about. I’d like to humbly ask for your help. The idea needs shepherding from someone of your caliber. So here it is…

“The People’s Party”
A reality television game show
by Alan Abbott
Contestants will compete for a chance to run for President of the United States for the People’s Party.
Possible contestants, chosen from the general public, are asked (via television & radio) to send in a video tape or DVD, 3 minutes or less explaining why they or the person they are nominating should be considered as a presidential candidate.
The show will be run Documentary/American Idol/ style. The cameras follow each contestant on their quest. Throughout the campaign contestants and their entourage travel together, eat together, stay at the same hotels, and share the same campaign headquarters in the convention rooms at the hotels where they stay.
The American public will have the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice by telephone and the contestants with the lowest number of votes steps down each week.
The winner of the show wins the candidacy for the Peoples Party, and actually runs for president of the United States of America.

That is the basic idea. I see it as an entertaining way to empower the people to establish their own party, educate the public about what it takes to run for president. Most importantly, it will give the people a chance to take their country back.

I have been developing the show for over a year and have a lot more material. I didn’t want to bombard you with it all right now. I have made several trips to and from L.A. (from Maui) trying to contact you through “more appropriate means” than e-mail, but to no avail. So here we are.

This is actually the second e-mail I have sent you, but I fear the first may have gotten lost in the crowd, as I know you try to respond to all your e-mails. So just to give you a heads up, I am going to ask a few friends to give me a hand in getting your attention. After all, election time is around the corner, and I’d like you to be given the first opportunity to give the country back to the people. Hope you don’t mind. Please feel free to e-mail me or call me at; 808-264-0984. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Alan

We The People
Really can make this happen. More impossible dreams have come true. But we have to work together. Together... the American people can do anything.
I am asking all of you to please copy this entire post and send it to michael@michaelmoore.com then send it to everyone you know.
Michael Moore is my first choice, but I know he is not everybody's cup of tea. Do you have someone in mind you like better for the task of producing, directing, and/or hosting The Peoples Party? Copy and send this entire post to them, and tell them so. But please keep in mind that the show, and everything written here is copywritten so please don't try to pass it off as your own, you'll just get yourself in a lot of trouble. Do however feel free to share with as many people as you want. In fact please do
I sent this letter to Michael Moore on May 19th, 2006 but Mikes a busy guy. He is currently shooting another feature documentary, and I'm sure the shooting schedule is very labor intensive. Not ot mention the amount of e-mails the guy must get every day. Then when he does finaly get a chance to read them, I'm sure he has a priority list of some kind. Either way, he has not returned this e-mail yet.
But Michael is not the only person that is important to reach. If we are going to make a difference we have to work together, and spread the word to everyone.
Thank you all very much.
Sincerely, Alan
Power To The People

michael@michaelmoore.com
thealanabbott@icqmail.com
profile.myspace.com/index.cfm

Corporate Watchdogs's topics - tribe.net

Conspiracy History compilation DVDs torrents

Has anyone here had this experience?

Ohio Secretary of State confirms 2004 election could have been stolen

The Aim of the Financiers: A One-World Government with a One-World Currency

Did RAND Corporation Pen the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?

Website: Corporate Connections

presidential directive at whitehouse.gov gives Bush imperial powers

Leading Democrats say "No to Impeachment of Bush.. it is off the table"

Six Questions on the American “Gulag” for Historian Kate Brown

Booklists

Power to the People

we live in an overpackaged world