We should enable, and motivate Those living south of the border, to secure freedom in their native countries. From Nafta to the NAU… The plan to erase the borders is going as planned. ~ JB
I am for immigration reform because I am against allowing 12 million more illegal immigrants into our country. If we do nothing, 12 million more illegal immigrants will come. We must be in favor of reform—smart reform that starts with border security.
Characterizing that position as “amnesty” is simply untrue.
What we have now is a lawless border. Current policy is a beacon for more illegal immigrants. The Obama administration’s lawless executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage more illegal immigration—unless we act now with real, strong, verifiable border security.
I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first. I will only support reform that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress, not the president.
My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law.
My “Trust but Verify” plan will ensure that our border is secure. Under my plan, national security and border security will move as the first element of any reform and would require annual votes of Congress to establish that the border is truly secure. No other reform could go forward until this happened.
In addition to increased border security, our nation needs to modernize our visa system. We need to know who comes and goes on travel, student, and other temporary visas. There must be a workable system to ensure that visitors don’t use travel visas as a way to enter the country then disappear. This will address the problem of visa over-stayers.
National security has to be a cornerstone to any border security and visa reform initiative. Our nation needs to look back at the September 11th Commission Report and study the recommendations regarding terrorists’ use of visas to commit acts of violence against America. The 9/11 hijackers used visas to enter the country and to stay here while planning attacks.
Strong border security includes using cutting edge technology. Satellites, physical barriers, screening to bar criminals and terrorists from entry, increased patrols on the border—and yes, surveillance drones—all should be part of a comprehensive plan to physically protect the border. My plan is to take specific measures at the border and then have the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s Office produce a report to Congress on the progress of border security.
My plan takes border security a step further than anybody else in Congress. Under my plan, Congress will vote every year on border security. If Congress votes that the border is not secure, elements of immigration reform will cease to go forward and visa programs will be slowed. If Congress does not think the border is secure after five years, every element of immigration reform will be stopped.
Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Throughout history, our nation has been flooded with immigrants who have moved here with a flavor for the home country, yet they have assimilated into what we know today as America. That idea, and the American Dream, must be protected and preserved.
Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States. Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation. As a libertarian-minded senator, I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to this country with a couple dollars in his pocket, and then through hard work, make the American Dream a reality.
I do not support amnesty, which is why I don’t support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.
I support legal, not illegal, immigration. We must embrace immigration and immigrants, and we must recognize that our country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make better lives for themselves. However, our current system is broken, and we cannot move towards reform until our border is truly and fully secure.
Michelle Rindels and Martin Griffith | Guest Contributors,
The US Independent
The married couple who police say killed three people in Las Vegas, including two officers, had been kicked off a ranch where anti-government protesters faced down federal agents earlier this year, rancher Cliven Bundy’s son said Monday.
Ammon Bundy told The Associated Press that Jerad and Amanda Miller were asked to leave his father’s ranch after being there for a few days this spring.
He said that while details were still sketchy, the Millers’ conduct was the problem. He called the couple “very radical” and said they did not “align themselves” with the protest’s main issues.
“Not very many people were asked to leave,” he said. “I think they may have been the only ones.”
Here is video of Jerad speaking to reporters during the Bundy Ranch Standoff
Police said earlier Monday that they were looking into whether the Millers were at the Nevada ranch during the standoff.
Assistant Sheriff Kevin McMahill said the two suspects had ideology that was along the lines of “militia and white supremacists” and that law enforcement was the “oppressor.”
Police believe the shootings were an isolated act and officers were still looking for a motive, McMahill said.
The two officers were having lunch Sunday at a pizza buffet in a strip mall when the Millers fatally shot them at point-blank range.
The attack at a CiCi’s Pizza killed officers Alyn Beck, 41, and Igor Soldo, 31, who were both husbands and fathers. Jerad Miller yelled, “This is a revolution!” McMahill said.
Both suspects fired multiple shots into Beck. They then placed a note, a yellow flag that said “Don’t tread on me,” and a swastika on the officers’ bodies, McMahill said at a news conference.
The deadly rampage in the aging shopping center about 5 miles northeast of the Las Vegas Strip unfolded in a matter of minutes.
The suspects then fled on foot to a nearby Wal-Mart, where Jerad Miller fired a single shot upon entering, police said. A patron at the store who carried a firearm confronted Jerad Miller, not realizing that he was accompanied by Amanda Miller, who shot and killed the man, police said. He was identified as 31-year-old Joseph Wilcox of Las Vegas.
“Joseph died trying to protect others,” Sheriff Doug Gillespie said.
As terrified customers fled the store, the Millers went to the rear and hunkered down for a firefight with police, McMahill said. Though they exchanged gunfire, ultimately, Amanda Miller shot and killed her husband, and then shot herself, police said.
Police were called at 11:22 a.m. to the pizzeria. Shots were reported five minutes later at the Wal-Mart.
Bundy and his supporters, some of them armed militia members, thwarted a Bureau of Land Management roundup of his cattle near Bunkerville in April. The BLM says Bundy owes more than $1 million in grazing fees and penalties for trespassing without a permit over 20 years, but he refuses to acknowledge federal authority on public lands.
Ammon Bundy said his family “has had no quarrel” with Las Vegas police and disavowed the Millers’ actions.
“The only thing worse than tyranny is anarchy, and we certainly recognize that,” Bundy said.
The Millers moved to the Las Vegas area in January, police said. Amanda Miller had worked at a Hobby Lobby craft store in Las Vegas, the chain store said in a written statement, but was no longer employed there.
Jerad Miller, 31, was convicted of felony vehicle theft in Washington state, police said. He also had a criminal record in Indiana.
Miller and his 22-year-old wife were married in August 2012, according to a marriage license on file in Indiana.
Americans face a new crisis; police violence against citizens is escalating, blurring the line between criminal and public servant.
Escalating violence against American citizens by police has reached a bifurcation point, Americans are feeling the heat and are beginning to realize something must be done to deescalate police or soon America will join the ranks of hell holes of police crime and violence like Mexico, Haiti, Russia, Uzbekistan and elsewhere where police are independent gangs; violent and undisciplined and devolving into something closer to pirates – stealing property directly from their victims.
Horror stories of police murdering, beating, raping and plundering citizens are daily news in a cities large and small. One city, Albuquerque, NM is now murdering more people per capita than NYPD during arrests, yet NYC is 14 times more populated.
According to sources [1,2]:
“The APD routinely kills more suspects per capita than the NYPD, which serves a metro area 16 times the size of Albuquerque and has 34,000 officers to the APD’s 1,000. Since 2010, the APD has been involved in 37 shootings in which 23 people died. Between 2010 and March 2012, the APD was involved in 18 fatal shootings to the NYPD’s 22 in the same time period. No officer involved in any of the cases has been prosecuted or even fired, despite a body trail that suggests a department with wildly inappropriate use-of-force.” 
Albuquerque may be the top of the list of police murders, but police departments around the country are beginning to exhibit similar behavior and the increasing number of police brutality and violence incidences, all seemingly happening at the same time in unrelated areas of the country, begs the question why?
Recent headlines from sites like policebrutality.info highlight outrageous, egregious escalation of police brutality and violent gang like behavior, here are just a few recent headlines:
- GRAPHIC VIDEO: Homeless Man Shot During Camping Arrest
- Cop Pulls Gun on 11-year-old Building Tree Fort
- Cops Who Shot Innocent Women Will Be Sent Back Into Field
- SWAT Team Invades Florida Home Without Permission
- Texas Cop Rapes a 19-Year-Old Girl
- California Cops Burn Man’s Genitals For Littering
- NYPD Cop Breaks 10-Year-Old’s Leg for Filming Him
- Cop Who Beat Special Needs Student Accused of Rape
A survey of headlines from thegovernmentrag.com regarding police state activities reveals more of the same:
- VIDEO: SWAT team throws concussion grenade into baby playpen during no-knock raid
- Police give elderly man drug charges after pharmacy issues incorrect prescription
- 6 CLEVELAND POLICE OFFICERS CHARGED IN FATAL CHASE
- Cops Beat Veteran to Death after Traffic Stop for No FrontLicense Plate
- If You Are Doing Nothing Wrong You Have PLENTY to Fear – 30 Examples
- Woman Swallows Tylenol, Gets Beat By Cops
- Albuquerque Police Promote Cop Who Burned Off Homeless Man’s Ear to Use of Force Instructor
- Police Officer Shoots Puppy After ‘Fearing For His Safety’
Escalating police violence and brutality is being witnessed and suffered by people around the country in towns large and small; the police are now far more dangerous to people than criminals.
There are numerous reasons for this type of police behavior with root causes to be found in a manufactured culture of fear and outsourcing of self responsibility to costumed authority groups with exaggerated legitimate authority.
Police are not arbitrators or representatives of a loving government acting in the capacity of surrogate parents; they are representatives of the state, looking for crimes committed against the state and the fines and fees that will result. Protection of people and their property are low priority, optional functions of police; for further proof see this article: “Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone” [B]
Whatever you do don’t call the Police
Headlines like the one above are clear indicators American’s are failing in their duty as self responsible people and are voluntarily abdicating their rights and individualism.
Calling the police to solve family problems or other non life threatening issues is like inviting a Vampire into your home to help with a paper cut.
Americans have been pre-prepared for this abuse of police powers for decades; television and movies glorifying police powers go back into nineteen fifties. The events of 9-11 catapulted the glorification of police and firefighters and other ‘officers and authorities’, including using military as ‘homeland’ protectors, into the position of a new religion.
TV shows depict people calling the police for all domestic problems; calling police in situations that historically and traditionally have never involved police or government social workers or any other agency of a soulless State.
Photo: AP Press, 2011
Collectivism is a psychologically damaging idea promoted and indoctrinated by enslavers; the idea we are our brother’s keeper and government or the ‘authorities’ are the Biggest Brother. Collectivist doctrine encourages insinuating the State into the family structure of the organic human family.
Collectivism is a weaponized cultural virus-as-meme introduced by some to control all others. Collectivism is the mesmerizing mantra of a false culture working secretly at transferring individual responsibility and rights to a collection of nameless people for purposes of enslavement.
It is the promulgation of previously and tirelessly repudiated collectivist doctrine via national information channels such as public education, movies, books, magazine articles, news channels and via public drama depicted in reality shows and authority glorifying TV shows that normalizes appealing to a nameless servant of a cold and armed State to solve problems historically and naturally solved by family and friends.
Police and firefighters and military are now promoted as heroes in the news and police dramas airing on cable TV channels. The issue is not whether police and firefighters have dangerous jobs or, from time to time, that they may act heroically, the issue is about presenting police and other so-called ‘authorities’ as a category of heroes. Presenting workers in these professions as heroes and always the good-guy is psychologically dangerous because it sets up a false representation of reality.
Historically government police and military and ‘officials’ of a collectivist culture have been the most brutal and eventually evolve to be populated with the worse kinds of human beings – the opposite of good guys, in fact: the worst of mankind.
“Collectivism holds that an individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group… and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by brute force — and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism “ – Ayn Rand [emphasis added]
Police and other uniformed ‘officials’ are public servants voluntarily serving and functioning in a position which has historically screened for certain personality characteristics; characteristics that were once thought to include superior morals, and a motivation to serve and protect others with intelligence levels sufficient to power a strength of will to think and act according to the rule of law and civilized behavior.
In America, the police officer must be aware of and act consistent with the fundamental principals of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions in their State of employment.
These are not the qualifications of a hero, rather the qualifications of honest, dedicated, fair, intelligent and morally sound individuals.
With television, the main stream corporate media, movies and the indoctrination of public education presenting the ‘authority‘ figure as a super hero with perceived ‘legitimate dominion’ over the lives of the Citizen, it is easy to see how this mentally unhealthy contradiction of reality has empowered and embolden those given such exaggerated importance and authority.
Photo: L- AP Press, 2012; R- Shock Mansion
Federalization and Militarization of Police
It is clear the United States Federal government is encouraging and paying for city police, Sheriff’s and State police departments to train more like military soldiers than public safety and peace officers. The federal government is providing training, weapons, and military hardware to police departments in an unprecedented effort to create police departments rivaling the characteristics of military armies.
A recent article on a website highlighting South Carolina news “noted Richland County Sheriff’s department receiving extra training as the “U.S. military carry out secretive – and noisy – joint exercise” 
The article quoted the Sheriff as saying this joint exercise was “Due to Sheriff Leon Lott’s longstanding commitment to making sure that deputies are trained and prepared for every event and potential threat and his desire to assist the military to ensure their preparations;” 
Justification for training police in the tactics of the military always defaults to statements like Sheriff Lott’s above, citing a need to be prepared for every event and potential threat. It is important to point out, police are not soldiers and are not payed or required to fight against foreign hostile enemies or in the case of ‘every possible threat’. Police are civilian peace keepers, law enforcement officers and servants of the community; police are NOT Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines.
Training police to fight and react to civilian threats in a manner consistent with a military response to an opposing enemy can only lead to escalating police violence against Citizens. Military tactics are based on delivering catastrophic blows to a non-citizen enemy, using superior force and fire power while shooting first and asking questions later.
In an article recently published in the “The New American”, an interview in the Wall Street Journal is cited with writer Radley Balko , author of the “Rise of the Warrior Cop”, in which Balko notes “police are really becoming an internal military, freed from the bounds of limited equipment and limited authority the new police have become more like an occupying army, according to Balko”:
Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.
According to The New American, “Balko rightly connects the menace of the martial police with the decline in liberty and a disintegration of legal boundaries between sheriffs and generals”:
Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe’s emperors and monarchs.
Training police as warriors is like having a standing army with no enemy; an enemy must be invented to continue to funding, training and justifying the army.
Photo Retrieved: Alder Law
WAR IS DECLARED!
“When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader” Plato
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . .” James Madison
The so-called “War on Drugs” has been a long standing excuse for escalating police violence and escalating military training and tactics of police. The “War On Drugs” was instrumental in building police SWAT teams and for adding military hardware to traditional police equipment, including automatic weapons, tanks and heavily armored vehicles.
The “War On Drugs” was originally packaged and sold to Americans as a way to minimize the use of illegal drugs, punish those selling ‘illegal’ drugs and work against the overall drug supply. However it is clear the ‘Drug War’ objective has not been achieved; drug use has remained the same year after year since 1970, while the cost of the “War” has risen each year – now totaling at least $1.5 trillion dollars and rising drug-war related violence has turned inner cities into war zones. 
The ‘War on Drugs’ continues to consume more than 40 billion dollars per year, while destroying communities, families and lives of children. Children begin receiving drug related indoctrination in most 5th grade curriculums, promoting premature interest in drugs and the drug culture and eventually turning a percentage of those children in addicts and convicts. This indoctrination is to feed the war on drugs and is not an accidental by-product of creating a drug prohibition (Graphic: Stonerdays).
A secondary consequence of the War on Drugs is the world’s largest prison population, according to University of Chicago economist Gary Becker :
“The total number of persons incarcerated in state and federal prisons in the U.S. has grown from 330,000 in 1980 to about 1.6 million today. Much of the increase in this population is directly due to the war on drugs and the severe punishment for persons convicted of drug trafficking. About 50% of the inmates in federal prisons and 20% of those in state prisons have been convicted of either selling or using drugs. The many minor drug traffickers and drug users who spend time in jail find fewer opportunities for legal employment after they get out of prison, and they develop better skills at criminal activities.”
It is now clear that the “War on Drugs” is an abject failure and serves only to keep the prices of drugs high, while encouraging distribution and trafficking of narcotics through criminal organizations both in the governments and outside.
The “War On Drugs” is part of a medical monopoly to restrict the selling and distribution of legal and illegal drugs by only members of select group of pharmaceutical and illegal drug cartels; cartels cornering the market for mind altering and medical substances.
The “War On Drugs” serves to grow police forces and is a fuel for corruption and is also the source of funding for opposing gangs; monopoly prices activate market forces escalating tactics required to capture and hold market share. Rising drug profits covers the cost of escalating violence .
The “War On Drugs” is an excuse for escalating violence in cities and near the border with Mexico and is responsible for exploding prison populations in America and a massive growth in the prison industrial complex, including profitable private prisons operated as slave labor camps for inmates.
The wildly successful “War On Drugs”, successful because of the profitability to a select group of insiders, is a fantastic failure in terms of stated goals.
Photo: AP Press
A War to End All Wars
Consistent with the Federal government’s ever escalating war on American people, a new war has been launched; a new lifeline feeding the rise of the police state and an ever more brutal and violent attack on Americans: The “War On Terror.”
There are two levers for moving men: Interest and Fear. Napoleon Bonaparte
Fear is the master manipulator; fear is the tool used for creating violent and spiteful police departments like the one in Albuquerque New Mexico. Police departments relying on exaggerated and false predictions of ‘home grown’ terrorism, have been panicked into preparing for some kind of war against America loving, patriotic, traditional values holding Americans.
To help feed this fear, the Federal government, and their pseudo-intellectual and complicit agents such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, are fostering a false narrative pretending traditional Americans will soon attack the government. Headlines, such as one above, chillingly expose the government’s continuing fanning of the flames of false flag fear.
To be ‘ready’ for these “home grown terrorist”, police forces are also hiring former military and former mercenary officers trained in active and live combat to engage the ‘enemy’ in a military fashion. While traditional police officers, seeing their police force transformed into military units and recoiling from the horror of escalating police violence, are quitting police departments, leaving these departments with fewer and fewer traditionally trained and non-war traumatized officers.
According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts former assistant secretary of the Treasury and past editor of the Wall Street Journal :
“The police have been militarized and largely federalized by the Pentagon and the gestapo Homeland Security. The role of the federal government in equipping state and local police with military weapons, including tanks, and training in their use has essentially removed the police from state and local control. No matter how brutal any police officer, it is rare that any suffer more than a few months suspension, usually with full pay, while a report is concocted that clears them of any wrong doing.
In America today, police murder with impunity. All the psychopaths have to say is, “I thought his wallet was a gun,” or “we had to taser the unconscious guy we found lying on the ground, because he wouldn’t obey our commands to get up.” 
After the False Flag attack on America during 9-11, fear of terrorism was seeded, grown and promoted – beginning first with a manufactured fear of Arabs and middle Eastern turban wearing men and then transforming into fear of terrorist in the form of white, Christian, Constitutional, limited government advocating, Citizens as Sovereigns – traditional Americans.
Using the hysteria of pretended eminent terrorist attacks, (according to dailyKos the odds of dying as a result of terrorism are 1 in 20 MILLION, you have better odds of dying from a lightning strike or a shark attack or legal execution), the police have been transformed into brutal, unresponsive to citizen safety, wrecking balls – threatening to tear away the line between criminals and police. 
According to Paul Craig Roberts :
The facts seem to support the case that police in the US commit more crimes and acts of violence against the public than do the criminals who do not wear badges. According to the FBI crime Statistics http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/summary in 2010 there were 1,246,248 violent crimes committed by people without police badges. Keep in mind that the definition of violent crime can be an expansive definition. For example, simply to push someone is considered assault. If two people come to blows in an argument, both have committed assault. However, even with this expansive definition of violent crimes, police assaults are both more numerous and more dangerous, as it is usually a half dozen overweight goon thugs beating and tasering one person.
The police situation in the United States is only going to get worse. The coming deliberate and artificially created banking and financial collapse will bring on exceedingly more difficult times for a large section of the American population. Growing unemployment, made worse by a usurped Federal government’s withdrawal of unemployment benefits and a reduction of food stamp purchasing power will lead to civil unrest and an explosion of unaccountable police violence.
The time is now to take steps to ‘deescalate’ the police and stop the violence and end the military occupation of cities and towns and countrysides.
Graphic: US Prison Culture
We the People Declare
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. -Declaration of Independence
All it takes to push back tyranny is to actually push back. Do this alone or with a group of friends and family. Contact your city, county and state government ‘officials’ demanding they make changes to the governing policies of police departments.
Letters written to civilian elected ‘officials’ with governing powers, such as your local County Commissioners, Sheriffs, city councils and state level representatives is also required, so the ‘officials’ understand you are withdrawing consent for growing abuse and violence of police and other armed agencies of the government.
This is a short list of demands a Citizen can rightfully make of their local police departments:
Reduce antagonizing and aggressive appearance of police forces.
Note: Philipp Zimbardo in his book the “Lucifer Effect” noted “a legitimate-seeming authority figure” donning masks or costumes (uniforms and badges and sunglasses and external symbols of authority) “were significantly more likely to torture, mutilate, and kill their enemies than warriors in cultures that didn’t engage in self-disguise.” [A]
- Police and public servants should not be wearing sunglasses when speaking to a citizen
- Eliminate muscle cars and tinted windshields
- No military style black full tactical or full armor outfits
- Have police fully pull off highways during a traffic stop — reducing danger to the officer and allowing traffic to flow freely around stopped vehicles.
- Reduce intensity of blue lights so other motorists can see during a night time traffic stop
- Eliminate potentially disastrous police protocol and behavior
- Zero tolerance for the high speed chase
- Limit the number of officers and units responding to routine police calls
- Eliminate NO KNOCK warrants and forced entry before notification
- Severely limit SWAT team use to precisely defined situations
- Make department heads responsible for excessive force
- Fire officers with history of violence against citizens and offenders
Return or refuse to accept out of place and hyperbolic military hardware
- No tanks or MRAPs or other former military armored vehicles
- No automatic weapons of any kind
- No exotic weapons systems ( sound cannons, microwave weapons etc )
Refuse military training and Federal training and drills with scenarios depicting stereotyped historically honored American groups as ‘home grown terrorists’
- No racial group scenarios as drill themes.
- No drills with scenarios demonizing historically honored American groups including but not limited to :
- Gun Owners
- Constitution Supporters
- Political party affiliation groups such as the Tea Party
- Other religious groups
- No school “live action” drills terrorizing school children with blood and blank ammunition — These ‘drills’ are psychologically damaging to children and must be stopped.
Organize citizen Review Boards for police force activity guidance and criticism
- Create citizen review boards external from police for providing guidance and police policy review
- Create citizen review boards for examining cases of police brutality and excessive violence
Photo retrieved: L-Car and Driver, R, AP Press.
As a citizen it is possible to create public, but external and without public funding, group to monitor police behavior and recommend policy changes when required. In fact, according to Human Rights Watch, “Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States :
“A study of 17 law enforcement agencies found that citizen review boards sustain police brutality complaints at a higher percentage than do the police themselves, suggesting that such boards operate more fairly…” 
To force police departments to become accountable, citizens can form county and city Citizen Review Boards to advocate punishment and replacement of leaders in police organization hierarchy when brutality and violence against citizens and offenders becomes egregious.
Citizen review boards are typically met with “considerable opposition from the law enforcement community” , but such resistance is like an employee telling the owner how he wants the company run.
Through activism, citizens can insist police departments revamp hiring guidelines to favor non military, non mercenary applicants over those having served in repeated combat missions.
Police are paid by citizens and according to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the powers of government, including the police departments are delegated to the government by the people and FOR the people.
Police and other ‘authorities‘ serve the people – they are not surrogate mothers or fathers or masters – they are servants which have become dysfunctional and inconvenient.
Police forces like the one in Albuquerque New Mexico can be brought under control by firing those in current positions of leadership and publicly advertising for replacements meeting the new police standards as described above. Officers with histories of violence against citizens should be removed immediately with failure to do so probable cause for civil law suits against these departments.
Many citizens have learned to fear the law enforcement system as violence and physical assault by police is now a daily occurrence. In addition to the physical violence, there is the economic violence as states, counties and towns now swarm on motorists like ticks seeking blood – using so-called moving violations, victimless crime, as major source of revenue; civil asset forfeiture and the ubiquitous DWI/DUI leading the top 5 ways to plunder during a traffic stop.
Police forces feeding on people is clearly creating rising tensions between the public-as-food and the police-as-predator with ever escalating violence and confrontation as the natural consequence.
It is incumbent on citizens to tell local systems of government using police as a major source of revenue generation will not be tolerated and those holding public office will be removed at the next election unless the predation stops. These same government representatives must also be put on notice: police brutality is a crime and these criminals will be prosecuted and, using the principle of vicarious liability, all those in the chain of command above those directly in charge will also be prosecuted.
42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly referred to as “section 1983″ provides:
Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
Bringing charges against police in civil suits for assault and brutality is a way to punish officers outside the internal affairs process of police departments. Many people are brutalized by police which is then justified with resisting arrest charges. Civil suits bringing police videos and witnesses to bear against trumped up ‘resisting’ charges are absolutely necessary to stop this kind of rampant police abuse.
All we have to do to stop the police violence is do something — little efforts by many people have the cumulative force of large efforts by smaller groups. Everyone can DEMAND more accountable and less aggressive police forces.
Finally, it is important for all people to withdraw consent for increasing police intrusion in our lives. Do not call the police unless it is a life threatening situation. Dialing 9-11 involves giving up your self responsibility each time it is dialed. Solve your own problems, ask your family and friends for help — break down the barriers preventing strong family and friend relationships and excommunicate the third party, unrelated, ‘bigger brother’.
 Human Rights Watch, “Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States,” June 1998, <http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo22.htm > (last accessed Aug. 4, 2003).
General References :
“The Lucifer Effect” , Phillip Zimbardo : http://www.amazon.com/The-Lucifer-Effect-Understanding-People/dp/0812974441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402074654&sr=8-1&keywords=the+lucifer+effect
“Virus of the Mind” , Richard Brodie. : http://www.amazon.com/Virus-Mind-The-Science-Meme/dp/1401924697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402074699&sr=8-1&keywords=virus+of+the+mind
“The Virtue of Selfishness”, Ayn Rand: http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Centennial-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402074837&sr=1-1&keywords=virtue+of+selfishness
OR “Brave New World”….
Young people hand over their private details to internet companies and on social networking site too readily because they have not read 1984 by George Orwell, an academic warns
Young people willingly give-up their privacy on Google and Facebook because they have not read George Orwell’s ‘1984’ unlike previous generations, a leading academic has warned.
Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at Sheffield University, said that large corporations were hovering up private information and modern generations did not realize it was wrong.
He said that older people who had grown up reading George Orwell’s 1984 about ‘Big Brother technology and ‘ authoritarianism’, were in a better position to resist the creeping erosion of privacy.
Professor Sharkey, speaking at Cheltenham Science Festival, said: “I’m 65, I don’t want to be targeted. I am very uncomfortable with it. It seems to me that our privacy is gradually being violated and eroded without us noticing.
“I am part of the generation which all read 1984 – I think we are less happy about giving up our privacy.
“But the younger generation aren’t really thinking about it. The services that Google and Facebook give us are so good that people are willing to trade off their privacy for them. If you grow up with that, that is what you know to like.”
Technology commentators have become increasingly concerned that Google has recently purchased a collection of artificial intelligence and robotics companies.
They fear it will give the technology giant unlimited access to private information.
Google recently paid £1.9billion for Nest Labs, a firm which makes internet–connected heating systems, allowing people to control their thermostats from afar.
Although supporters ague that having greater control over home applications can only be beneficial, others are worried that it enables firms to collect data about energy use and living habits.
Google also spent £300 million on Deep-Mind, a British artificial intelligence firm which specialises in quickly building up a profile of an individual based on their internet activity.
He said: ‘Google has a policy where they keep our entire history. They know far too much about us.
“At the moment it doesn’t seem harmful. But because governments can get hold of this information, they can monitor you, things might change quite dramatically.
“You give away that much information – you can now take little bits of data, put in a simple little algorithm, and it can put it all together and build up a big picture about us.”
He warned that soon Google would know ‘where you are all of the time.’
“The problem with any technology is that once it goes into the wild, once it starts picking up momentum and getting critical mass, we have no idea how it will be used, no idea. It is quite worrying,” he added.
Here 13 things you need to know about the American POW who is coming finally home, in the words of Hastings’ 2012 feature.
1) Bowe grew up near Hailey, Idaho, the son of California expats and ski bums Jani and Bob Bergdahl, who lived “nearly off the grid” on 40 acres, home-schooling Bowe and his sister Sky in a demanding curriculum:
Devout Calvinists, they taught the children for six hours a day, instructing them in religious thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. “Ethics and morality would be constant verbiage in our conversations,” his father recalls. “Bowe was definitely instilled with truth. He was very philosophical about perceiving ethics.”
2) Obsessed with Bear Grylls and Man vs. Wild, Bowe sought at age 20 to join the French Foreign Legion.
He traveled to Paris and started to learn French, but his application was rejected. “He was absolutely devastated when the French Foreign Legion didn’t take him,” Bob says.
3) Seeking adventure, instead, in American uniform, Bergdahl enlisted in the Army in 2008. His intensity alienated fellow soldiers. A friend from his unit, Jason Fry, recalled Bowe’s fierce independence and his prophetic warning:
“He wanted to be a mercenary, wanted to be a free gun,” says Fry. “He had a notion he was a survivalist, claimed he knew how to survive with nothing because he grew up in Idaho…. Before we deployed… him and I were talking about what it would be like,” Fry recalls. Bowe looked at his friend and made no bones about his plans. “If this deployment is lame,” Bowe said, “I’m just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan.”
4) Bergdahl’s unit in Afghanistan — part of the Obama surge — was beset by deficits of leadership, “a collapse in unit morale and an almost complete breakdown of authority.”
The unruly situation was captured by … a British documentary filmmaker [whose] footage shows a bunch of soldiers who no longer give a shit: breaking even the most basic rules of combat, like wearing baseball caps on patrol instead of helmets.
5) As his tour dragged on, the hellish reality of war — including seeing an Afghan child run over by an American truck — weighed on Bergdahl, who came to see America’s presence in Afghan as “disgusting.”
“I am sorry for everything here,” Bowe told his parents. “These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid…
“We don’t even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks.”
6) After receiving an email from his father exhorting him to “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE,” Bowe slipped out of his unit’s barracks on June 30th, 2009. One man versus the wilds of Afghanistan, Bergdahl was equipped with just a knife, water, a digital camera and his diary. Barely 24 hours later, he’d be taken prisoner. Bergdahl’s capture is recorded in radio intercepts later released by WikiLeaks:
“WHAT HAPPENED. IS THAT TRUE THAT THEY CAPTURED AN AMERICAN GUY?”
“YES THEY DID. HE IS ALIVE.”
7) Bergdahl could have been freed in a prisoner exchange almost immediately, but the American officer in charge did not pull the trigger on a prisoner swap:
Tribal elders from the nearby village…had been asked by the Taliban to arrange a trade with U.S. forces. The insurgents wanted 15 of their jailed fighters released, along with an unidentified sum of money, in exchange for Bowe. The officer hedged, unwilling or unable to make such a bargain, and no deal was struck.
8) There was an official cover-up — one that included White House pressure on the New York Times and AP to keep Bergdahl’s name out of the papers.
[T]he Pentagon also scrambled to shut down any public discussion of Bowe. Members of Bowe’s brigade were required to sign nondisclosure agreements [forbidding] them to discuss any “personnel recovery” efforts – an obvious reference to Bowe…. As Bowe’s sister, Sky, wrote in a private e-mail: “I am afraid our government here in D.C. would like nothing better but to sweep PFC Bergdahl under the rug and wash their hands of him.”
9) At one point during his captivity, Bergdahl escaped:
For his part, Bowe does not appear to be a willing hostage. [In] August or September [of 2011], he reportedly managed to escape. When he was recaptured, he put up such a struggle that it took five militants to overpower him. “He fought like a boxer,” [said] a Taliban fighter who had seen Bowe.
10) Negotiations to bring Bergdahl home have been in the works for years — with Obama originally imagining the prisoner swap as an election-year overture toward a durable peace with the Taliban.
President Obama [has] announced that the United States will now pursue “a negotiated peace” with the Taliban. That peace is likely to include a prisoner swap – or a “confidence-building measure,” as U.S. officials working on the negotiations call it – that could finally end the longest war in America’s history. Bowe is the one prisoner the Taliban have to trade. “It could be a huge win if Obama could bring him home,” says a senior administration official familiar with the negotiations. “Especially in an election year, if it’s handled properly.”
11) But the swap didn’t have the backing of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, who weren’t ready to negotiate an end to the war, preferring the bloody path of counterinsurgency operations.
…Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are very wary about making a swap for Bowe. “Panetta and Hillary don’t give a shit about getting him home,” says one senior U.S. official involved in the negotiations. “They want to be able to say they COINed their way out of Afghanistan, or whatever, so it doesn’t look like they are cutting and running.”
12) The negotiations were also impeded by Senator John McCain, who was typically level-headed in this exchange with future Secretary of State John Kerry.
McCain, who endured almost six years of captivity as a prisoner of war, threw a fit at the prospect of releasing five Taliban detainees.
“They’re the five biggest murderers in world history!” McCain fumed.
Kerry, who supported the transfer, thought that was going a bit far. “John,” he said, “the five biggest murderers in the world?”
McCain was furious at the rebuke. “They killed Americans!” he responded. “I suppose Senator Kerry is OK with that?”
13) The bureaucratic clusterfuck in Washington had even led Bergdahl’s heartbroken father to seek his own negotiations with Bowe’s captors — explaining Bob Bergdahl’s beard and controversial command of conversational Arabic and Pashto.
Bob has considered going over to Pakistan – he’s grown a bushy beard, and he has sent his own YouTube video, directed at the Taliban, asking for his son’s release. “I’ll talk to them,” he says. “I’ll bring him home myself.”
Elections Pushed Ahead in Ukraine, Obstructed in Syria, so Mass Murder Can Continue – the West’s Weaponization of “Democracy”
Early polls began for Syria’s presidential election, as the country begins turning the tide against foreign-backed terrorists and restoring order throughout much of the country. It was impossible for the Western media to cover up tens of thousands of Syrians around the world queuing up in impressive numbers to cast their votes in support of both President Bashar al-Assad and other candidates participating in the election. Despite eagerness to vote, the US, UK, EU, and others have decided to condemn the elections and even go as far as obstructing overseas polling.
In Reuters’ article, “Tens of thousands of Syrians abroad vote in early poll,” it reported:
Expatriates and those who have fled the war were casting their ballots at dozens of Syrian embassies abroad ahead of next week’s vote inside the country that opponents have dismissed as a farce as the fighting rages in its fourth year.
Several countries that oppose Assad, including France, have blocked the voting but Syrian government media said people were still able to participate in many countries.
Reuters would continue with anecdotal, unsubstantiated reports to undermine the legitimacy of the elections before reporting:
The European Union has said holding an election “in the midst of conflict, only in regime-controlled areas and with millions of Syrians displaced from their homes would be a parody of democracy, have no credibility whatsoever, and undermine efforts to reach a political solution”.
“Holding elections in the midst of conflict, only in regime-controlled areas” being a “parody of democracy” and therefore having “no credibility whatsoever” might have been a credible assessment by the European Union if it hadn’t just fully endorsed as credible, elections in Ukraine held under precisely the same conditions. Indeed, the EU along with the US and rest of NATO, hailed recent elections in Ukraine as a success and immediately recognized pro-Western billionaire oligarch Petro Poroshenko as the new “president” of Ukraine.
However, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) own report cited as proof that elections were “in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms,” in fact reveals the exact same conditions inside of Ukraine the EU claims make the Syrian elections a “parody.”
In the report, it admits that elections there were nearly no voting occurred in the eastern most oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk. In the west where the only semblance of voting took place, the OSCE report admits opposition parties were regularly harassed, assaulted, and even driven from campaigning before the May 25 polls. And even as polls took place, the regime in Kiev was overseeing ongoing military operations in the east of the country that included armored vehicles, helicopters and even air raids.
What the OSCE describes during Ukraine’s recent elections is quite a “parody of democracy.” In fact, the elections in Ukraine are more of a parody in documented reality than what the EU claims are taking place in Syria.
In Syria, the legitimate government of the country, which has ruled Syria for decades, is steering the nation back into order after years of deadly destabilization organized from abroad. The victor of the conflict and the territorial integrity of Syria is not in question. In Ukraine, elections were organized by violent usurpers who ousted the elected government in a bloody coup spearheaded by literal Neo-Nazis. They then launched military campaigns against the rest of the country in a bid to consolidate power before organizing rushed elections for the sole purpose of legitimizing their otherwise illegitimate unelected grip on power.
However, the regime in Kiev was unable to consolidate power before May 25 and in fact, the country is so divided, operations in the east look more like a foreign military occupation than internal policing. The EU’s decision to uphold Ukraine’s elections is an attempt to lend Kiev badly needed legitimacy ahead of continued and more intensified efforts to consolidate power. That the EU in turn is not only condemning Syria’s elections, but actively blocking Syrians abroad from voting, illustrates the overall lack of legitimacy of the European Union itself. It also calls into question the myriad of institutions it uses to prop up such self-serving, biased policies.
And while the EU’s hypocrisy swings wildly across the two most extreme ends of the spectrum, there is one common denominator between its position regarding elections in Ukraine and Syria. Both positions, for and against elections, help perpetuate campaigns of mass murder backed by the West in pursuit of its extraterritorial interests. In Ukraine, the Kiev regime’s assault on the nation’s east is fully backed by the West with many members of NATO already providing material support to ongoing operations. In Syria, since 2007, the West conspired to use sectarian extremists both inside Syria’s borders and beyond them, to overthrow the government in Damascus. In 2011, this conspiracy was fully realized in a deadly conflict that has killed tens of thousands and left parts of Syria in ruins.
By preventing elections from moving ahead in Syria that would grant President Bashar al-Assad a renewed mandate or place into office another candidate who had rejected armed militancy, the West can continue portraying the conflict as a popular uprising, continue destabilizing the country, and perhaps even successfully push forward the “political transition” (read: regime change) it had sought since at least as early as 2007.
The West has managed to weaponize humanitarian aid in Syria, and now, even the concept of voting as a means to perpetuate bloodshed and geopolitical instability. While the West cites an ever increasing list of threats that endanger global stability it must rise to confront, it is clear that they themselves have become the masters of turning anything and everything into a source of contention and protracted, deadly violence – even elections
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
By Gary North
It has been a year since Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA.
I appreciate what Snowden did. His decision to leak the stolen documents has done the conservative movement an enormous favor. It has blown to smithereens the greatest single myth of conservatism: “If the American people knew about this, there would be an uprising.”
No, there wouldn’t.
Here is a variation: “If the voters knew what is being done to them by the Conspiracy, they would throw out the conspirators at the next election.”
No, they wouldn’t.
I have heard variants of these arguments for 50 years. Conservatives don’t learn. They think that by exposing the Bad Guys, they will defeat the Bad Guys. They’re wrong.
Snowden has proven, as no one in my era has better proved, that exposure of the Bad Guys in government has no negative effect on them.
If exposure does come, and the public does nothing to thwart the hidden Bad Guys, then the Bad Guys no longer have to worry about further exposure. It will be old news. At this point, they can do even more to secure their position of power. The pressure blows over. There may be a time of bad publicity, but this does not change anything fundamental.
Before Snowden, the best examples were the big bankers, who were bailed out a taxpayers’ expense in 2009. They got richer. The public knows. The public groused a little. Did this hurt the bankers? No. They got bonuses for their failures. Congress bailed out the big banks, and there were no negative public sanctions on either Congress or the big banks. It’s business as usual.
The voters know. The voters have done nothing. It’s old news.
But Snowden’s revelations have gone far beyond the big bank bailouts of 2009. They have thrown light on a power grab by the government that is perpetual. It was generally hidden. James Bamford’s book, The Puzzle Palace (1983), did good work. It had no negative effect on the NSA. But he did not have incontrovertible evidence. Snowden did, and he released it. He got worldwide publicity.
The NSA is more powerful than ever. From now on, any further exposure is old news. No harm, no foul.
THE NSA NOW HAS CARTE BLANCE
Glenn Greenwald is the reporter who blew the NSA’s cover by reporting on the revelations of Edward Snowden in June 2013. Today, about a year after his first story appeared in the Guardian, he has written a book about the event.
Has the NSA’s budget been reined back from $50 billion a year to, say, $25 billion a year? No. It is nice that we learned that the NSA’s budget is $50 billion a year, but it is completely irrelevant in terms of doing anything about it. Congress is still paying the money, and the NSA is still spending it.
Has the spying center in Utah been shut down? No. It is going to come online as promised. It has all kinds of snafus associated with it, as any government bureaucracy does. But Congress has in no way reined it in. The public has not demanded that Congress rein it in.
Is there any indication of a mass political movement inside either of the two political parties to bring the NSA under control, let alone abolish it? No. The public doesn’t care one way or the other. All the public needs to know is that the NSA is stopping terrorism, and the rest of it is irrelevant. The public says A-OK. No problem.
Has the public adopted encryption systems for e-mail? No. Greenwald talks about the fact that, when Snowden first contacted him, he refused to encrypt his own e-mail. That was what Snowden required. Greenwald admits he didn’t know anything about encrypting e-mail. He makes the obvious point that almost no reporters ever encrypt their e-mail.
Here’s the reality: (largley…) nobody cares. The NSA now knows this. It can issue its denials. Nobody in Congress is going to call the NSA’s bluff. The only way to stop a bureaucracy is to cut its funding, and there is no attempt in Congress to cut the NSA’s funding. I don’t think this is simply because Congressmen know that they can be blackmailed forever by the NSA. I’m sure they can be. But I think the basic reason is this: the voters back home don’t care. If the voters don’t care, and Congress is dealing with a massive bureaucracy that defends itself in terms of protecting the public against terrorism, then why take the political risk? There is no positive political payoff, and there is potentially a serious series of negative political payoffs.
Around the world, it is getting cheaper and cheaper to monitor people’s movements. In major cities, but especially London, there are surveillance cameras everywhere. Nobody cares.
The longer the procedures go on, the less likely there is any possibility of reversing them. The tradition is accepted. The practices become customary. They become part of our basic acceptance.
That which we do not think about is immune from reform, let alone abolition. If we don’t think about it, the bureaucrats have free rein.
THE IRS SET THE STANDARD
The day that the American public accepted the income tax was the day that they surrendered their financial liberty. Whether they knew this at the time is irrelevant today. The fact is, the federal government says it has the right to monitor every single financial transaction that we make, and nobody objects. This is true virtually all over the world. The public accepts the idea of the income tax, and the income tax is inherently a grant of privilege to the state to investigate every aspect of our lives.
We have to prove, in an IRS court, that we did not make the amount of money that the IRS says that we made. The only reason we are allowed to submit our IRS tax forms is to assert a claim that the IRS has to challenge in court when it assesses our taxes. The IRS goes along with us most of the time. It figures we’re scared to death, and will not lie too much. It figures correctly. The IRS can confiscate our bank accounts at any time, and we have to prove that the IRS has made a mistake. The burden of proof is on us. Common law does not govern the IRS.
When the IRS can do this, why should we worry about the NSA? When we have surrendered this much authority to the IRS, why should we care that the NSA monitors our e-mails? Compared to monitoring all of our financial transactions, the monitoring of our e-mails is nickel and dime stuff. Nobody cares.
The public surrendered its liberty on the issue of privacy when it accepted the government’s official statement in 1913 the 16th amendment had been passed. It had not been legally passed, but this was irrelevant, because the federal government wanted it to be passed. The United States government announced that it had been passed. From that point on, privacy in principle disappeared in the United States.
This is why the NSA is not going to be in any way hampered by Edward Snowdon, except in terms of bad publicity. But bad publicity does not lead to a change of congressional policy, especially with respect to the budget of the NSA. So, the NSA is going to get away with it, just as it has always gotten away with it.
If anything, Snowden has helped the NSA. Why is that? Because now it is clear that the public really doesn’t care. The NSA has been able to weather the storm with no problem in terms of its budget, which means that the NSA now has carte blanche, and Congress knows it. The public knows it to the extent that the public cares, but really the public doesn’t care.
The NSA now has full rein over every aspect of our privacy. A year has gone by, and nothing has changed. This is a grant of legitimacy to the NSA that it did not have before Snowden’s revelations. Before, the NSA worked in secrecy from the public. Now the NSA knows that the worst possible light can be thrown on the NSA’s activities, and nothing is done to roll back the NSA. It has survived Snowdon’s revelations, and now it can continue without any major threat to its operations.
I’m glad that Snowden did what he did, because I wanted to hear evidence that backed up what James Bamford wrote about the NSA over two decades ago. It was nice to see that Bamford’s warning was validated by Snowden’s relations. But nobody cared about Bamford’s book, and nobody really cares about Snowden’s revelations — not enough to cut the NSA’s budget.
Snowden’s revelations serve as a mirror. We looked into the mirror, and we saw what manner of people we are. We just don’t care. We didn’t care in 1913, so why should we care today?
Once the voters concluded that they could force the rich to pay more in taxes than they did, privacy ended. Envy was basic to the grant of power to the IRS. Envy is alive and well. Privacy isn’t.
As long as there is an IRS, there will be an NSA.
Until the voters’ minds change regarding big government, exposure of major infringements on our liberties has no effect in rolling back the state.
If voters accept the interventionist state, they are glad to hear about the Bad Guys. “They are making us safer.” “They are protecting us from terrorists.” “We need them.” “The loss of our privacy is the price of liberty. It’s worth paying.”
The variant regarding the NSA: “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.”
“Your papers, please. You have nothing to fear if you have not done anything wrong.”
This assumes that the state is benign. It assumes that the state only goes after bad guys.
There has been no uprising of the American people to defend their privacy.
If you think I am exaggerating, I have two words for you: Lindsey Graham.
Now, the NSA can really get busy. “No more Mr. Nice Guy.”
The only thing that can roll this back is a budget crisis. To think that anything else can roll it back is naïve. Budget cuts can do it; nothing else can. It is going to take the fiscal crisis of the federal government to roll the system back. Nothing else will.
May 3, 2014
We are told the first MERS virus case has now arrived in the US. The CDC and the World Health Organization have a new potential pandemic to hype.
As I’ve documented in past articles, we’ve been down this road before. Swine Flu, West Nile, Bird Flu, SARS. All duds. All hyped to the sky…and then the case numbers are miniscule.
You could take all the deaths from these “epidemics” and put them in one small footnote of the assessment that, every year, between 300,000 and 500,000 people around the world die from ordinary regular seasonal flu.
Yes, seasonal flu, about which there is no hype.
But even, you see, with regular seasonal flu, there are gigantic lies.
In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which spelled out a massive delusion, and created tremors throughout the halls of the CDC.
Here is a quote from Doshi’s report:
“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”
You see, the CDC has created one category that combines flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.
This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.
But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.
Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.
Doshi continues his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.
This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure. However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.
In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.
“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”
Press outlets are now reporting that the MERS virus has caused 401 cases of illness in the whole world, and 93 deaths. On this basis, the pandemic hype is beginning. Again.
Prices for agricultural produce in U.S. supermarkets will be up this summer. Why? Drought, plus government planning. Call it a drought of liberty.
Utility rates in California will rise.
Small businesses in the state will be hit hard.
There will be 50% unemployment in some agricultural towns.
Farmers are not planting. The water costs too much.
Is all this possible? More than possible. Likely.
The outrageous strategy to destroy Russia
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s former adviser, embodies the continuity of U.S. foreign policy whether it is democratic or republican. A great admirer of Henry Kissinger, Brzezinski has always defended, praised and shown an absolute respect for the master’s two diplomacy concepts: the balance of the powers theorized by Metternich and George Kennan’s containment doctrine. Zbigniew Brzezinski recommends how Russia should be militarily weakened and intimidated. He is convinced that the best way to achieve it is by destabilizing its border regions, a political strategy that aroused the interest of former presidential candidate John Kerry’s team who recruited his son Mark Brzezinski as its foreign policy adviser.
- Zbigniew Brzezinski
Based on George W. Bush’s speech during year 2000 presidential campaign, a rigid, even aggressive attitude towards Vladimir Putin’s Russia would have been expected -according to his adviser “hawk” Wolfowitz’s doctrine. But, instead, we have seen an unprecedented approach in the political relations of these two great nations. And this has happened after September 11, 2001.
For many observers and analysts there was an agreement between Putin and Bush not to criticize Russian military operations in Chechnya whereas Putin would ignore American interventions and interferences in the Middle East.
This explanation does not really value September 11 facts. It actually considers them as an abstraction and the same with Kremlin’s position on this. We can say that Republican administrations have always attached too much importance to the Middle East whereas Democrat’s political tradition on foreign policy has been more focused in Eurasia.
To design its strategy towards the former USRR and then on the Easter states, recently emancipated from the Soviet influence, Democrats have trusted -since Jimmy Carter took power- a brilliant, unscrupulous and anti-Russian man: Zbigniew Brzezinski.
This well-known professor’s doctrine has many followers outside of the Democratic Party because it has defined the actual imperative of the empire’s survival and prosperity: the conquest of Eurasia.
This professor was born in Warsaw in 1928, the son of a Polish diplomat. At the age of ten, Brzezinski immigrated to Canada when his father was distinguished. He did his degree and his master at the University of Mc Gill, Montreal, and then his PhD at Harvard in 1953. After that, he became an American citizen and married the daughter of Czechoslovakia’s former president Eduardo Benes.
Between 1966 and 1968 he was a member of the Council of Policy Planning of the State Department where he developed the “peaceful involvement” strategy towards the Soviet Union in the framework of the Cold War. In October 1966, he convinced President Johnson to modify the strategic priorities in order to have the “thawing-out” before the German reunification.
During 1968 presidential campaign, Brzezinski was the head of the working party in charge of democratic candidate Hubert H. Humphrey’s foreign policy, who would lose to Richard Nixon.
The Inspiring Leader of the Trilateral Commission
At the beginning of the 1960s, Brzezinski distinguished himself as an analyst when prophetically announced the appearance of bigger actors in the world power. He was talking about Europe and Japan whose economies have had a rapid growth after WWII.
In an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine in 1970, he talked about his vision of this “new world order”. «A new and more daring vision is needed – the creation of a community of developed countries capable of efficiently handling the problems of mankind. Apart from the U.S. and Western Europe, Japan should be included (…) A good start would be a council formed by representatives of the U.S, Western Europe and Japan, which will hold regular meetings among the heads of governments and less relevant personalities.»
In 1970, Brzezinski also proposed new ideas in his new book Between two Ages  where he explained that the moment to balance world power had arrived and it had to be in the hands of a new global political order based on a trilateral economic tie between Japan, Europe and the U.S. The revolution in production techniques and the transformation of the heavy industry into electronics had to cause a disruption of political systems and a new generation of power elites. David Rockefeller, excited about these concepts, hired him to create the Trilateral Commission and appointed him director. The commission was officially established in 1973 and gathered important personalities related to world trade, the international banking system, governors and the big European, Japanese and American media.
When the first oil crisis took place, the main concern of these world finance masters was to get rid of the foreign debt of developing countries by strengthening the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It was also about strengthening and extending U.S.’s hegemony – by that time vulnerable due to its military defeat in Viet Nam- in every geographical boundary of the Eurasian continent where they were very influential after WWII
This mission, if analyzed from an outsider’s point of view, depicts Brzezinski as a peace advocate, a man in favor of multilateral relations and diminishing world tension (Cold War) and -to the eyes of the extreme right- as a man inspired by Marxism.
The best to be done in order to implement the plans of the Trilateral Commission was to make one of its members the President of the United States.
President Carter and the Double-Dealing
Since the creation of the Trilateral Commission, shepherd Jimmy Carter was among the members of Rockefeller-Brzezinski’s team. He has opened the first trade offices of the state of Georgia in Brussels and Tokyo and this turned him into the ideal model or the founding concept of the Commission.
For his nomination as an election candidate and to the presidential election in 1976, Rockefeller used his relations in Wall Street and put Brzezinski to work, whose academic influence assisting democratic candidate Jimmy Carter was very helpful for wining the election. And, of course, when Carter won the elections, Brzezinski was appointed national security adviser. 
- Brzezinski examining the weapon
of a pakistani officer
As president, Carter stated the reduction of the military nuclear arsenal of the two blocks (U.S. -USRR) as a priority. However, the Soviet SS-20 missile crisis aimed at Europe forced Carter to deploy the Pershing missiles, an action that ruined his efforts, whether they were sincere or not, and caused the reciprocal distrust of the two countries.
It can be affirmed that by that time, the Soviet block had good reasons to believe that its adversary was involved in double-dealing: the U.S. military defeat in Viet Nam forced it to keep certain reserve in the strategic and military fields whereas Brzezinski was working on his war plan to set a trap for the Soviet Union and force it to come into a peripheral conflict.
The destabilization of the Afghan communist regime and the financing and delivering of the first weapons to anticommunist Jihad followers in 1979 caused, as expected, the intervention of the Red Army in Afghanistan. Brzezinski had the support of Pakistan intelligence and espionage services, the fearful ISI.
When the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur interviewed Brzezinski in 1998, he admitted that the equipping of Bin Laden’s anti-Soviet troops was before the Russian invasion and was aimed at provoking its reaction:
Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director, Robert Gates, says in his memoirs: the American secret services assisted Afghan mujahedeen six months before the Soviet invasion. By that time, you were President Carter’s adviser and you played a key role on this. Do you confirm it?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of the story, the CIA began to assist mujahedeen in the year 1980, that is, after the invasion of the Soviet army against Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the truth that remained secret until today is quite different: it was on July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed his first order on the secret assistance to Kabul’s pro-Soviet regime opponents. That day I wrote a memorandum to the President in which I told him that that assistance would cause the Soviet intervention (…) we did not force the Russian intervention, we just, conscientiously, increase the intervention possibilities.
NO: When the Soviets justified their intervention by affirming they were fighting against a secret American interference nobody believed them, though they were telling the truth. Don’t you regret it?
Z. Brz.: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. Its objective was to lead the Russian to the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it? The very same day the Soviets crossed the Afghan border I wrote the following to President Carter: «This is our chance to give Russia its Viet Nam» (…).
N.O.: Aren’t you sorry either for favoring Islamic fundamentalism and providing weapons and consultancies to future terrorists?
ZBrz.: What is the most important thing when you look at world history, the Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire? Some excited Islamists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? 
When Brzezinski talked about «some excited Islamists» in this interview, he did not underestimate Al Qaeda’s power. He just described the reality of what the neo-conservatives has turned into a myth while justifying their world crusade. It is obvious that none of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations would be so categorical.
Objective Alliance with China and Unconditional Support to the Shah of Iran
Even when Nixon and Kissinger were cautious about besieging the Soviet Union and restored relations with China, a number of Carter’s closest advisers did not support this rapprochement Brzezinski had in mind.
When Carter became President, he stated he would establish a dialogue with the USRR and keep the People’s Republic of China at a distance. But, his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, opposed Brzezinski anti-Russian obsession and Carter had no choice but to conciliate its administration’s antagonism.
Usually, the mediator between these two poles was Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. future ambassador to the UN and John Kerry’s foreign policy adviser during his campaign, along with Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew’s son. According to Cyrus Vance and some others in favor of establishing the dialogue, like democrat renegade Averell Arriman, the triangular logic of besieging would only lead, at its best, to a misunderstanding with the USRR, not to mention war.
- Meeting between the Shah of Iran, Alfred Atherton, William Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, president Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1977
They recommended dialogues on disarmament and cooperation with the Soviet Union to neutralize the Third World conflicts. The re-establishment of relations with China kept on; Brzezinski even completed a joint program of strategic cooperation and managed to have good personal relations with Deng Xiaoping, something that has really helped him nowadays.
Brzezinski’s distrust towards the USRR can be perceived again in his attitude towards Iran, which under the Shah’s regimen was considered as a bastion against the Soviet influence in the Middle East. Brzezinski promised Shah his support until the last moment and requested U.S. military intervention to keep him in power even when part of Carter’s administration, led by his Secretary of State, opposed it.
However, Washington’s concrete actions were implemented according to the state Department’s point of view and despite all negotiations with the generals that defeated Shah to guarantee a moderate regime in the country; it was Khomeini who took power after a popular seafloor spreading. Khomeini joined Carter at Camp David negotiations in 1977 and played a key role in the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt without even being present in the most important debates. However, when the USRR was the main topic, he was always there.
The Russian Threat and the American Supremacy
In 1989, Brzezinski quit his job at Columbia University where he taught since 1960 to work on Ukraine’s independent status plan. This marks the beginning of his compromise to prevent the resurgence of Russia as a superpower. He defended Russia’s integration to the Western system and the “geopolitical multiparty system” in the territory of the former Soviet Union.
He also developed a “plan for Europe” that included NATO’s expansion to the Baltic republics, a dream that came true when three of them joined NATO in 2002. During the 90s he was the special envoy of the American President to promote the most important oil infrastructure project of the world: the Baku-Tbilissi-Ceyhan pipeline which was his best opportunity to prevent the resurgence of Russia. He has also been, since 1999, the president of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, whose headquarters are located at the Freedom House facility. This position allows him to intervene in peace negotiations between the Russian government and independence fighters led by Mashkadov. However, the truth behind these good will “democratic” activities is to assist independence followers to maintain a war in the area, like the Afghan one, to weaken Russian and to keep it away from the gains of the Caspian Sea.
Brzezinski’s doctrine («The power ruling Eurasia will control two of the most economically advanced and productive areas of the world») is related to NATO’s expansion to the East, something the Clinton’s Administration actively worked on. But, how could they sell NATO to Europeans? «The European region located in the Western border of Eurasia and next to Africa is much more exposed to the risks of the increasing global disorder than a more politically united, military powerful and geographically isolated America (…).
The Europeans will be more exposed to risk if an imperialist chauvinism encourages Russia’s foreign policy», said Brzezinski to National Interest magazine in year 2000.  The whole thing is quite clear: the deployment of NATO’s forces around Russia was a preventive measure. If Russia’s reaction is to be defensive, it means that it is planning to restore its empire and totalitarianism.
Brzezinski has been working also as a consultant for BP-Amoco and Freedom House in Azerbaijan. His objective is to worship Heidar Alyiev’s image and in a New York Times interview he characterized the dictator as a «nice guy».  Brzezinski justifies Aliyev’s Anglo-Saxon support by explaining that after seven decades of communist government nobody can expect Azerbaijan and the former Soviet republics to become democratic nations in such a short period of time.
Even when Aliyev’s political repression increased during the last few years and the gains from the Caspian Sea diminished, Azerbaijan was still considered by Freedom House as a “partially free” country. In 1999, Secretary of State and Brzezinski’s disciple, Madeleine Albright, invited Heidar Aliyev to NATO’s anniversary ceremony. On their part, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine organized some joint military maneuvers, sponsored by NATO’s “Association for Peace” program, on April 16, 1996. 
Despite his activities as BP-Amoco and Freedom House’s consultant, Brzezinski assisted a system of funds and NGOs (non governmental organizations) in support of the former Soviet top-classes, intellectuals and elites.
As an initiative of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, whose chairman was Brzezinski, a meeting between the main leaders of the Chechnya movement was held from August 16 to August 18, 2002 in Lichtenstein, two months after the one held in Bassaiev and Maskhadov, where an agreement was signed on the mutual direction of the “Armed Forces of the Ichkeria Republic of Chechnya”. The participants concluded that Chechnya should not longer be a part of Russia, that a real autonomy was necessary and the time to negotiate with Maskhadov had arrived. But, was Beslán’s hostages event, as claimed by Bassaiev, part of Chechnya independence demand process or part of Russia’s destabilizing process? 
Several questions could be raised if we take into account that the main consequence of this action was a tightening of tensions between North Odessa and neighboring Inguchia, that is, a much more relevant balkanization of the region.
- Mark Brzezinski
Nowadays, Brzezinski is very active in CSIS but he still the brain of the Democrats foreign policy program, something that is quite evident in candidate Kerry and his partner John Edwards’s obsession with Russia. Following Mark Brzezinski’s advises they chose as their main priority Russia’s nuclear disarmament in a moment in which it has recovered the same oil production it had before its demise and is benefiting widely of the current oil prices which has allowed it to double its defense budget. Therefore, Russia’s nuclear arsenal is not, as John Kerry says, a present-day threat.
Kerry’s real objective is related to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s strategy of Russia’s subordination but, from now on, it will be much more difficult to convince the world public opinion of Russia’s evil and totalitarianism.  Therefore, it is necessary to provoke its reaction as was done with the Afghan case in 1979, because Russia will have no problems with its energy supply in the next decades, a real concern the U.S. has. This is why in some recent Wall Street Journal and Novaya Gazetta interviews, Brzezinski characterized Vladimir Putin as «Russian Benito Mussolini».
 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era, Harper publishing house, 1971. French Edition, Révolution technetronique, Calman-Lévy publishing house, 1971.
 The Trilateral Commission will also lead French President Giscard d’Estaing to choose one of its members, Raymond Barre, professor of economics and political unexperienced, as Primer Minister.
 Brzezinski included in his team Madeleine K. Albright (whose father served in Czechoslovakia during Eduard Benes’s government, Brzezinksi’s father in law) and the two theorists of The Clash of Civilization, Bernard Lewis and Samuel P.Huntington.
 Le Nouvel Observateur, No. 1732, from January 15 to January 21, 1998, p.76.
 Quoted in George Szamuely : «Bribing Montenegro – It didn’t work», antiwar, June 15, 2000.
 «Freedom spells B-A-K-U», Counterpunch Magazine, 1999.
 See: «Freedom House, quand la liberté n’est qu’un slogan», Voltaire, September 7, 2004. Article written in French that will soon be published by Red Voltaire.
 Marivilia Carrasco : «Beslan: responsibility of slaughter points towards the Anglosaxons», Voltaire, September 19, 2004.
Read the rest at Voltaire. net