Re: [cia-drugs] Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government
Dear Norgesen, Thank you for Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government. This concept is getting both positive and negative reaction. I think both reactions need a deeper historical overview to grasp both the implications and the bigger picture this needs to fit into. Here is a negative one. THE ZIONIST PLAN FOR THE BALKANIZATION OF AMERICA Posted By: Il_Bagattel Date: Saturday, 21 February 2009, 11:33 a.m. (Quote) "...Exactly as the hyperdimensional Luciferians planned. Small feudal states (I believe the neurolinguistic name is "breakaway republics"), kept bickering among themselves and divided along socio-economic lines are much easier to control and rule. This is basic Machiavelli 101. (Unquote and I greatly shortened) He goes on to state a breakup of the US is all part of a horrid secret government plan. The negative view poster is also equating this sign of trend with balkanization. Though the specific I dont think directly referenced in Machiavellis The Prince the concept of dividing areas you wish to control into competing factions and playing one against the other is known. In that sense he equates smaller and smaller independent areas as harmful. A glance at some maps might show this far more case specific. Here is a classic: Central Europe about 1547 (845K) [p.114-115] [1926 ed.] The link is here: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/central_europe_1547.jpg Note the breaking into very small kingdoms. This period was relatively very peaceful except for the slight gooking of Schmalkaldic League. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmalkaldic_League Wars did abound during that century, but there were also strong times of relative peace. The Reformation was still frothing. In times of peace the world tends to reduce, (or balkanize if you wish), into smaller and smaller kingdoms/states. In times of war the world forms into greater and greater alliances until such as WW II only a few countries in the world are neutral. I could add my own comments to the post. However I feel it best that all think how differently the man who wrote it might have aimed the post with more background. The giant question of smaller states vs large alliances gets very complicated. This was brought forth by the situation in Georgia and the Ukraine. On one hand the former Soviet Union WANTED to break up. This was known here in 1984 and there were briefings in the Pentagon in 86 though the curtain did not come down until 89/90. (The Pentagon briefings were very large, 1000s of varied officers and not classified but not too loud.) This was a case where the Soviet/Russian alliance/federation knew the trend was to smaller areas and allowed such. At the same time the West used the opportunity of new governments to go in and buy infrastructures to take over economies. Both the Ukraine and Georgia were, to an extent, examples of this. The war in Georgia showed how the West took over to the point of both military and public relations stupidity. After the recent Georga War the Ukraine saw it in its best interest to more tilt back toward the Russian alliance. However, (in relation to timing Black Sea agreements), Russia quasi-openly stated something to the effect, We know the world needs to go local but for a short time you had best lean on this shoulder. The pro breakup email post, in and of itself, is harder to criticize. Certainly the trend should be noted. It is far better to fit this into the bigger picture. For both protection and sustainability the world, (hopefully!!!), will tend to smaller and smaller governing areas. As much as possible the necessities will be available locally. The small areas will be independent enough to satisfy all. In a sense these smaller areas will be somewhat like Parishes in Louisiana are today. One Parish might be super fundamental Christian so you cant even buy a can of beer. In the next Parish there would be quasi-open prostitution and gambling. Obviously at the same time there would be greater need for global cooperation particularly in survival areas such as population control and enviornment. That is the rub and, yes, it is one heck of a rub. Some envision four international, (non-profit?), corporations: energy, communications, banking/commerce, and police/military. These might have relatively low paid staffs. In fact the presiding officer of one might even do one hour a day emptying trash baskets. As this, (possible/hopeful?), trend continues its course you will see some giant area alliances. One obvious new geopolitical alliance is the AUs announcement of plans for a United States of Africa. There many other lines need be redrawn as it would be far better to base smaller governments on old tribal areas than Colonial Era bicker/settle lines. Thank you again, Norgeson. I do keep abreast of this list every day. Michael
[cia-drugs] Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government
Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government by Lance L. Landon February 19, 2009' OpEdNews States May Be Getting Ready To Dissolve Our Federal Government Could this be an ominous shadow drawing on the end of the United States of America? For years the Federal Government has presumed to be the all-powerful force governing our country, but it just could be that the Federal Government only exists at the pleasure of the state governments and the citizens thereof. States declaring sovereignty sounds like an act of secession and revolution. However the federal government can apparently be dissolved and another one formed anew at the discretion of the states. The existing Federal government may not leave willingly like so many European governments that are replaced routinely and it may engage a military effort with our own soldiers or the likes of a Black Water illegal military invasion to retain total control over us. United States Federal Government laws are often in violation of the Tenth Amendment, which is perturbing, these events. This is predicated on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation, which states that, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation [now Federation] expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” A growing number of states are declaring their sovereignty afforded under the U S Constitution’s Tenth Amendment however the conventional news media are not telling you about what is happening. The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire [2009], Montana [2009], Hawaii [2009], Michigan [2009], Missouri [2009], Arizona [2008], Oklahoma [2008], Georgia [1996], and California [1994] all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty. Some other states have done this in the past but then let the issue go. Additionally, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering similar measures. More well may follow, such as Wyoming and Mississippi. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791 and states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Historically, this was done to reassert the assignment of the remaining rights to the states and the people of our country if they were not specifically delegated by our Constitution to the United States Government. Further, Amendment Nine on the Construction of the Constitution, Ratified on 15 December 1791 states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Arizona State Legislature is currently formulating a bill that declares their state sovereignty. Their bill further asserts their state’s right during martial law to call back servicemen to protect Arizona state, "…if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state …” There is more near the end of this article. A lot of this recent activity has come about due to the reckless demise of the banking system now and also in memory of the past during the great depression that fomented during 1929. There is a Russian academic, Igor Panarin who recently predicted that the United States would break apart into about six separate regions by 2010. Predictions of similar persuasion have been made before, rather they are right or not some big problems may soon ensue. Much of the presidential character of the cabinet assembled by President Obama is representative of that of the previous administration. Obama perhaps is keeping the Adage, “keep your friends close and keep your enemies even closer.” A disrespect for our so-called leaders is met from our so-called leaders disrespect for us the citizens of our country. Should this be the case yet again, this would establish further reason for the states course of recent action It may seem ironic that as we have a President from the land of Lincoln, and one who admires Lincoln, that another civil war could be brewing. It’s further ironic that states are beginning to fight back. Many individuals that were imprisoned by Abraham Lincoln for advocating their free speech on issues of the day. These times may be as exciting and revolutionary as when our country was beginning. Benjamin Franklin said something on the order of, “if we do not hang together, we most certainly will hang separately.” Its also ironic that our revolutionary war was with Great Britain
[cia-drugs] ''FEMA for the Internet" ?
Fearing 'Cyber Katrina,' Obama Candidate for Cyber Czar Urges a ''FEMA for the Internet' Posted by: Keith Epstein on February 18 For all the fears of sophisticated digital intrusions preoccupying many computer security professionals, President Obama’s leading candidates for “cyber czar” also are focusing on an all-too-human vulnerability: The nation’s inability to respond to a full-fledged Internet-borne crisis for lack of a central cyber commander. Former White House cybersecurity official Paul B. Kurtz, in his first public remarks since becoming an advisor to President Obama’s transition team following the election, describes his biggest worry: A “cyber Katrina” in which fragmented bureaucracies and companies fail to share critical information and coordinate responses to cyber intruders attempting to disrupt power grids, financial markets, or any number of now-plausible scenarios involving a Web shutdown. One recent fear is the cascading effects of even a partial Internet blackout that could add to economic anxieties. There’s such electronic insecurity afoot, some are even beginning to suggest building an entirely new global computer infrastructure. “The bottom line is, is there a FEMA for the Internet? I don’t think there is,” Kurtz told an audience of security professionals at a Feb. 18 Black Hat security conference in Virginia. Kurtz’ solution: A trio of key agencies - the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Communications Commission - but overseen by a new national cybersecurity center. Balkanized bureaucracies with incomplete awareness, conflicts, and unclear responsibilities - no single entity aggregates, analyzes and rapidly prescribes action for ongoing threats - “reminds me of the days before 9/11 when I’d be in meetings in the situation room, with NSA and CIA and FBI guys on different screens, and the FBI guys would say, ‘oh, I can’t share this because it’s law enforcement information,” says Kurtz, an infrastructure guardian who has served on White House homeland and national security councils. Kurtz also urges dealing openly with long-taboo subjects such as deploying cyber weapons that can disrupt cyber operations by hackers working for terrorists or other countries – and can be used to minimize the casualties in “kinetic” physical attacks. And he advocates expanded use of intelligence agencies and their operatives overseas to gain information about specific origins and perpetrators of attacks. Already, the National Security Agency is said to be capable of disrupting and shutting down distant servers when necessary, and technology exists to trace sources of electronic intrusions. But well-funded professional hackers and those who work on behalf of nations often can thwart detection. Kurtz, a Safe Harbor security consultant, is one of three people said to be leading candidates to become Obama’s “cyber czar.” The others include DHS’ National Cyber Security Center director Rod Beckstrom, an entrepreneur and author of the “The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations,” and Melissa Hathaway, President Bush’s former top cybersecurity official under former national intelligence director Mike McConnell. Obama tapped Hathaway on Feb. 9 to recommend steps forward on cybersecurity policy within 60 days, but elements of that policy are already emerging into view – though perhaps not one of the most critical elements, exactly who will be in charge and with how much authority. President Obama would consider the nation’s cyber infrastructure – the same networks on which companies, citizens and government agencies depend - a strategic asset, which will probably lead to a push for new standards to be imposed on the private sector as well as rigorous requirements for safeguarding proprietary and national security information. Defense contractors already face the prospect of having to agree to new rules in order to bid for contracts; a draft version of a new kind of contract that would also apply to email networks used by corporations who are engaged in military work has been circulating at the Pentagon. The issue of using intelligence agencies to help trace, identify and deter perpetrators overseas from conducting espionage and other intrusions into U.S. systems is a sensitive one. Within defense and intelligence community circles, there has been talk of a perceived need to develop new supercomputers and monitors capable of eavesdropping on Internet communications – not for the content of messages, but for malicious software attached to them, and to form an early-warning system that issues alerts when identifying disturbing patterns across vast quantities of data moving between U.S. and overseas computers. Meanwhile, there’s increasing talk within government and industry of seeking to develop an alternative, new Internet. To date, U.S. advantages are small; cyber confli
[cia-drugs] Mississippi Passes Legislation Protecting Gun Owners During Martial Law
Mississippi Passes Legislation Protecting Gun Owners During Martial Law Infowars February 11, 2009 Mississippi lawmakers have passed a bill to protect the state’s residents during martial law. On the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi website, Phil Bryant announces the passage of SB 2036. The legislation “restricts the power of a peace officer to confiscate firearms and ammunitions in an emergency or during a time of martial law,” according to the website. It is significant that Lieutenant Governor Bryant mentions the law applies to martial law. Mississippi senator Merle Flowers authored the bill and referred it to the Judiciary on January 6. It passed the Senate on February 4. According to the Mississippi bill status website, the act amends Section 33-7-303 of Mississippi Code of 1972 and “explicitly restrict the power to confiscate firearms and ammunitions in an emergency.” Mississippi passes the law reaffirming the Second Amendment at approximately the same time a number of states are introducing and passing resolutions and bills declaring sovereignty from the federal government and buttressing the Tenth Amendment. http://waronyou.com/topics/mississippi-passes-legislation-protecting-gun-owners-during-martial-law/ http://www.infowars.com/mississippi-passes-legislation-protecting-gun-owners-during-martial-law/
[cia-drugs] Genetically Modfied Seeds: Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach
Genetically Modfied Seeds: Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach by Linn Cohen-Cole Global Research, February 14, 2009 opednews.com - 2009-02-03 People say if farmers don’t want problems from Monsanto, just don’t buy their GMO seeds. Not so simple. Where are farmers supposed to get normal seed these days? How are they supposed to avoid contamination of their fields from GM-crops? How are they supposed to stop Monsanto detectives from trespassing or Monsanto from using helicopters to fly over spying on them? Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto the land taking samples and if they find any GMO plants growing there (or say they have), they then sue, saying they own the crop. It’s a way to make money since farmers can’t fight back and court and they settle because they have no choice. And they have done and are doing a bucket load of things to keep farmers and everyone else from having any access at all to buying, collecting, and saving of NORMAL seeds. 1. They’ve bought up the seed companies across the Midwest. 2. They’ve written Monsanto seed laws and gotten legislators to put them through, that make cleaning, collecting and storing of seeds so onerous in terms of fees and paperwork and testing and tracking every variety and being subject to fines, that having normal seed becomes almost impossible (an NAIS approach to wiping out normal seeds). Does your state have such a seed law? Before they existed, farmers just collected the seeds and put them in sacks in the shed and used them the next year, sharing whatever they wished with friends and neighbors, selling some if they wanted. That’s been killed. In Illinois, which has such a seed law, Madigan, the Speaker of the House, his staff is Monsanto lobbyists. 3. Monsanto is pushing anti-democracy laws (Vilsack’s brainchild, actually) that remove community’ control over their own counties so farmers and citizens can’t block the planting of GMO crops even if they can contaminate other crops. So if you don’t want a GM-crop that grows industrial chemicals or drugs or a rice growing with human DNA in it, in your area and mixing with your crops, tough luck. Check the map of just where the Monsanto/Vilsack laws are and see if your state is still a democracy or is Monsanto’s. A farmer in Illinois told me he heard that Bush had pushed through some regulation that made this true in every state. People need to check on that. 4. For sure there are Monsanto regulations buried in the FDA right now that make a farmer’s seed cleaning equipment illegal (another way to leave nothing but GM-seeds) because it’s now considered a “source of seed contamination.” Farmer can still seed clean but the equipment now has to be certified and a farmer said it would require a million to a million and half dollar building and equipment … for EACH line of seed. Seed storage facilities are also listed (another million?) and harvesting and transport equipment. And manure. Something that can contaminate seed. Notice that chemical fertilizers and pesticides are not mentioned. You could eat manure and be okay (a little grossed out but okay). Try that with pesticides and fertilizers. Indian farmers have. Their top choice for how to commit suicide to escape the debt they have been left in is to drink Monsanto pesticides. 5. Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners across the Midwest. In Pilot Grove, Missouri, in Indiana (Maurice Parr), and now in southern Illinois (Steve Hixon). And they are using US marshals and state troopers and county police to show up in three cars to serve the poor farmers who had used Hixon as their seed cleaner, telling them that he or their neighbors turned them in, so across that 6 county areas, no one talking to neighbors and people are living in fear and those farming communities are falling apart from the suspicion Monsanto sowed. Hixon’s office got broken into and he thinks someone put a GPS tracking device on his equipment and that’s how Monsanto found between 200-400 customers in very scattered and remote areas, and threatened them all and destroyed his business within 2 days. So, after demanding that seed cleaners somehow be able to tell one seed from another (or be sued to kingdom come) or corrupting legislatures to put in laws about labeling of seeds that are so onerous no one can cope with them, what is Monsanto’s attitude about labeling their own stuff? You guessed it - they’re out there pushing laws against ANY labeling of their own GM-food and animals and of any exports to other countries. Why? We know and they know why. As Norman Braksick, the president of Asgrow Seed Co. (now owned by Monsanto) predicted in the Kansas City Star (3/7/94) seven years ago, “If you put a label on a genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” And they’ve sued dairy farmers for telling the truth about their milk being rBGH-free, though r
[cia-drugs] Former Canadian Prime Minister, �give up a little bit of our sovereignty to make the world work� (Video)
Former Canadian Prime Minister, âgive up a little bit of our sovereignty to make the world workâ (Video) Wise Up Journal 20.02.2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDdlY3vqmzg This short clip is from footage that aired on CPAC (Cable Public Affairs Channel), February 10th 2009. The CPAC overlay on the video is titled, âOttawa, Global Governance and the Future of the G20â. Former Canadian Prime Minister (2003-2006), Paul Martin, said, âWhat is going to happen when a Chinese hedge fund goes under? And the results of that tsunami donât stop at the Chinese or Indian border [â¦.] Who is going to deal with that unless we are prepared to understand that in fact we are all going to give up a little bit of our sovereignty to make the world work. I hope that is also something that the G20 comes to deal with. So those are the issues I got to deal with. I think that we are really at the beginning of a very different era. 1944 the great minds of the world, Dexter White, John Maynard Keynes and a bunch, essential laid the foundations Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations. And they built a system that functioned for over 50 to 60 years. I think that itâs time to renew that vision. [â¦.] I think weâve got to take it one step further.â The video below shows the EU calling for a âNew World Governanceâ. You can see Sarkozy (French President holding EU Presidency at the time) and Barroso (EU Commission President) coming out and calling for the setup of a âNew World Governanceâ, âNew Global Orderâ, âGlobal Governanceâ and that crisesâ are the perfect time to lead the public into it, order out of chaosâ¦. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7D21rPpBrk http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=802
