“American officials have not offered any technical evidence to back up their assertions of Iranian authorship of the latest attacks.” – The New York Times

(ActivistPost) – The New York Times ran a story Friday from an unnamed source about an unconfirmed story with unnamed victims. Why would the paper of record run such a story? Propaganda of course.

Any chance the officialdom can demonize Iran while simultaneously inflating the fear of cyber attacks, they’ll take it, even if it’s completely fabricated.

The NYT article New Computer Attacks Traced to Iran, Officials Say is pure propaganda. Take a look at some of the excerpts to determine what is supposed to be news.

American officials and corporate security experts examining a new wave of potentially destructive computer attacks striking American corporations, especially energy firms, say they have tracked the attacks back to Iran.

The targets have included several American oil, gas and electricity companies, which government officials have refused to identify. The goal is not espionage, they say, but sabotage. Government officials describe the attacks as probes looking for ways to seize control of critical processing systems.

Investigators began looking at the attacks several months ago, and when the Department of Homeland Security issued a vaguely worded warning this month, a government official told The New York Times that “most everything we have seen is coming from the Middle East.”

They said the evidence was not specific enough to conclude with confidence that the attacks were state-sponsored, but control over the Internet is so centralized in Iran that they said it was hard to imagine the attacks being done without government knowledge. (emphasis added)

As always, no evidence was provided: “American officials have not offered any technical evidence to back up their assertions of Iranian authorship of the latest attacks,” and “The White House would not confirm that Iran was the source.”

The official White House stance is:

“mitigating threats in cyberspace, whether theft of intellectual property or intrusions against our critical infrastructure” was a governmentwide initiative and that the United States would consider “all of the measures at its disposal — from diplomatic to law enforcement to economic — when determining how to protect our nation, allies, partners, and interests in cyberspace.”

The only news in the story is that the New York Times unequivocally confirms that the Stuxnet attack on an Iranian nuclear enrichment plant was indeed a joint Israeli-American operation, and they admit this alleged attack by Iran may be blowback.

The Obama administration has been focused on Iran because the attacks have given the Iranian government a way to retaliate for tightened economic sanctions against it, and for the American and Israeli program that aimed similar attacks, using a virus known as Stuxnet, on the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant.

That effort, code-named Olympic Games, slowed Iran’s progress for months, but also prompted it to create what Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps calls a cyber corps to defend the country.

Iran emphatically denies any such attacks. When accused of cyber attacking a Saudi oil company earlier this year, Iran U.N. spokesman said Iran “never engaged in such attacks against its Persian Gulf neighbors” but added, “Unfortunately, wrongful acts such as authorizing the 2010 Stuxnet attack against Iran have set a bad, and dangerous, precedent in breach of certain principles of international law.”

Jumping the gun to accuse state-sponsors of cyber attacks by unnamed sources, and with no evidence, seems to be a trend by the establishment to compile uncorroborated data points to reinforce future propaganda and justify taking possible action.

“Government officials also say Iran was the source of a separate continuing campaign of attacks on American financial institutions that began last September and has since taken dozens of American banks intermittently offline, costing millions of dollars,” writes the NYT.  Of course, that alleged denial of service attack on banks by Iran never had any evidence either.

Also, in November 2011, the DHS and the media got caught inflating a supposed cyber attack on a U.S. water plant. According to the Washington Post, “Foreign hackers targeted U.S. water plant in apparent malicious cyber attack, expert says.” The “expert” said it was a “big deal” that foreign hackers were involved because other plants could be affected; the expert called it “unconscionable” that America wasn’t prepared. Oh, and this “expert” happens to run a cyber security company that is salivating over potential government contracts.

That fear-mongering story also had no “credible corroborated data” and the “original source of the information was unknown and impossible to immediately verify.” Yet, it was still force-fed through the mainstream media. Finally, after intense alternative media scrutiny, the Feds were forced to admit that it was not a cyber attack that caused the water pumps to fail after all.

This new non-story is just a drip-drip reminder that CISPA must be passed so that the U.S. government can hijack the Internet to combat the shadowy hacker threat from Iran and China. The establishment creating the problem-reaction-solution story-line has never been clearer.

Source: Activist Post

Related posts:

1. Iran Launches Week-Long Straits Of Hormuz Naval Drill On Friday, Next To US Aircraft Carrier
2. Chuck Hagel Green Lights Israeli Attacks On Syria and Iran
3. Intelligence Asset Anonymous Declares Cyber War on Syria

(GreenMedInfo) – Nothing can replace exercise, but turmeric extract does a pretty good job of producing some of the same cardiovascular health benefits, most notably in women undergoing age-associated adverse changes in arterial health.

Despite the general lack of interest by conventional medical practitioners in turmeric’s role in preventing heart disease, there is a robust body of published research on its remarkable cardioprotective properties, with three dozen study abstracts on the topic available to view on our database alone: turmeric’s cardioprective properties.

Last year, we reported on a study published in the American Journal of Cardiology that found turmeric extract reduces post-bypass heart attack risk by 56%. Now, we would like to bring attention to a remarkable study published in the journal Nutrition Research in 2012 that revealed that curcumin, the primary polyphenol in turmeric and which gives the spice its golden hue, is as effective in improving vascular function in postmenopausal women as a moderate aerobic exercise training regimen. [1]

The 8-week long study involved 32 postmenopausal women who were assigned into 3 groups: a non-treatment control, exercise, and curcumin. Researchers ascertained the health of the inner lining of their blood vessels (known as the endothelium) by using ultrasound to measure flow-mediated arterial dilation, a well-known indicator of arterial elasticity and therefore endothelial function.

A disturbance of the endothelial function is considered a key cause of the development of atherosclerosis.[2] Anything, therefore, that can prevent, reduce or reverse endothelial dysfunction therefore may reduce morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease.

Subjects in the curcumin group received 150 mg turmeric extract per day, for 8 weeks, supplying 25 mg of collodially dispersed nanoparticle curcumin. Their diet and exercise habits were unchanged during the study period.

Subjects in the exercise group underwent aerobic exercise training more than 3 days per week (2-3 supervised sessions and additional home-based training). Over the course of the 8 week exercise program involving cycling and walking, they engaged in between 30-60 minute long sessions, ranging in intensity from 60% of their individually determined maximal heart rate in the initial phase of the trial, to 70-75% maximal heart rate in the latter half.

After eight weeks of intervention, flow-mediated dilation increased significantly in both curcumin and exercise groups, compared to the control. The researchers concluded:

The present study showed that regular ingestion of curcumin or regular aerobic exercise training significantly improved endothelial function. The magnitude of improvement in endothelial function to the same extent, suggesting that curcumin may prevent the age-associated decline in endothelial function in postmenopausal women.“

did look at the combined effect of curcumin and exercise in postmenopausal women in improving heart muscle stress tolerance, finding that “regular endurance exercise combined with daily curcumin ingestion may reduce LV [left ventricular] afterload to a greater extent than monotherapy with either intervention alone in postmenopausal women.” Chronic heightened left ventricular afterload can contribute to pathological hypertrophy of that region of the heart, and is associated with elevated blood pressure an aortic valve disease. These findings clearly indicate that combining exercise with turmeric (or curcumin) would produce the most benefit.

Another ‘side benefit’ of using turmeric with exercise is the fact that it an ideal remedy for reducing exercise-associated pain and inflammation. It has already been found quite effective in relieving symptoms associated with osteoarthritis, the details of which are discussed here: Turmeric Extract Puts Drugs For Knee Osteoarthritis To Shame.

For additional research on the benefits of turmeric and curcumin visit our research page on the topic, which includes over 1500 study abstracts: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/curcumin

For additional research on over 80 natural substances which prevent, reduce or reverse endothelial dysfunction visit our page on the topic: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/disease/endothelial-dysfunction

Resources
[1] Nobuhiko Akazawa, Youngju Choi, Asako Miyaki, Yoko Tanabe, Jun Sugawara, Ryuichi Ajisaka, Seiji Maeda. Curcumin ingestion and exercise training improve vascular endothelial function in postmenopausal women. Nutr Res. 2012 Oct ;32(10):795-9. Epub 2012 Oct 15. PMID: 23146777

[2] M Toborek, S Kaiser. Endothelial cell functions. Relationship to atherogenesis. Basic Res Cardiol. 1999 Oct ;94(5):295-314. PMID: 10543305

This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo.  Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.

Related posts:

1. Turmeric equals exercise in its ability to prevent aging
2. Still Believe Nature Got It Wrong? Top 10 Health Benefits of Marijuana
3. Seven spices, food medicines and home remedies that could save your life

(SJLendman) – His doublespeak duplicity reflects the last refuge of a scoundrel. He’s the worst in recent memory. Perhaps the worst ever. Forked tongue rhetoric can’t disguise it.

Throughout his tenure, he governed lawlessly. He’s done so at home and abroad. He spurns rule of law principles and other democratic values.

Nothing suggests change. Business as usual continues. War on humanity is policy. Rogue leaders govern that way. Obama threatens everyone.

On May 23, he spoke at Washington’s National Defense University. He defended what he urged changing four years earlier. More on his Thursday address below.

On May 21, 2009, he spoke at the National Archives. He addressed national security. He said America can’t be safe “unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.”

The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights – these are not simply words written into aging parchment.

They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.

(O)ur government made a series of hasty decisions.

(O)ur government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.

(W)e set (aside fundamental) principles as luxuries that we could no longer afford.

In other words, we went off course. (Americans) called for a new approach – one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

We must act, he said, “with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.”

(D)ecisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach.

He called doing so “neither effective nor sustainable.”

He pledged change. He said he took steps to prohibit torture. He ordered Guantanamo closed, he claimed.

He made other high-minded promises. He “swore an oath to uphold the Constitution,” he said. He systematically spurned it. He did so across the board. He represents the worst of rogue leadership.

His Thursday address reflected same old, same old. It was beginning-to-end demagogic boilerplate. We’ve heard it throughout his tenure. He repeats it ad nauseam.

Promises made are broken. Defending the indefensible doesn’t wash. CODEPINK Women for Peace co-founder Medea Benjamin challenged him.

She interrupted his speech. She did so several times. She called on him to close Guantanamo, release cleared detainees, and stop killer drone attacks.

“Will you apologize for the thousands of Muslims that you killed,” she asked? “Will you compensate the families of innocent victims?”

Can you tell the Muslims that their lives are as precious as our lives?

Can you take the drones out of the hands of the CIA?

Can you stop (drone) strikes that are killing people on the basis of suspicious activity?

You are commander in chief! You can close Guantanamo today! You can release all cleared detainees.

It’s been 11 years. Abide by the rule of law. You’re a constitutional lawyer.

Speaking truth to power has a price. Benjamin was forcibly removed. She was detained. She was interrogated by Secret Service, military and FBI personnel. She was then released.

Asked why she challenged Obama, she said:

We have been so disappointed with Obama. We expected him to to make serious changes like taking drones out of the hands of the CIA, stopping the signature strikes, apologizing to innocents who have been killed, families of the innocent, and announcing that he, as Commander-in-Chief, would close Guantanamo, so when he did not I felt compelled to speak out.

Obama defended drone strikes. He did so disingenuously. Extrajudicial killing is lawless. Weasel words fell short of explaining his failure to close Guantanamo. What he said didn’t wash.

He lied. He blamed Congress for his own transgression. He bears full responsibility. He can close Guantanamo today. He can do so with a stroke of his pen.

As president and commander in chief, he’s fully authorized to do so. Congress has no say. He can order all uncharged prisoners released. Indefinite detention is lawless.

He claimed a nonexistent terror threat. The only ones are those he and complicit allies invent. They’ve done so throughout his tenure. They continued what Bush officials began.

In 2009, Obama promised change. He spurned what he pledged to uphold. He did what core supporters thought impossible. He exceeded the worst of his predecessor.

He turned truth on its head. He claimed extrajudicial murder is legal. On 9/11, America was attacked, he said. Doing so was state-sponsored terrorism. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were wrongfully blamed.

Days later Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was introduced. Congress passed it near unanimously. Bush signed it into law. America’s “war on terror” began.

Police state laws were enacted. Multiple direct and proxy wars were launched. They’re lawless. They target humanity. They remain ongoing. Obama continues what he promised to stop.

Rule of law principles don’t matter. Diktat authority is policy. Obama’s weasel words belie his actions. His promises aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. He broke every major one made.

Nothing ahead suggests change. Straightaway in office he promised Guantanamo closure. Nothing whatever’s been done to do so.

Innocent victims remain imprisoned. Indefinite detention is policy. So are lawless military commissions. America maintains a global gulag. Extraordinary renditions fill it. Torture continues.

Drone killing is prioritized. More of the same is planned. No one’s secure anywhere. US citizens are vulnerable. Summary judgment is policy. Attacks can occur anywhere. US soil is unsafe. There’s no place to hide.

Secrecy prevents public disclosure. Promised transparency’s nonexistent. What’s most important continues out of sight and mind. Media scoundrels suppress what demands highlighting.

Obama reflects the worst of rogue leadership. War on terror policy continues. It does so when no threat exists. It’s lawless and unconscionable.

Obama’s heading America for full-blown tyranny and ruin. He threatens humanity. Doublespeak duplicity reflects it. His speech didn’t surprise. Same old, same old remains policy. Nothing he said suggests otherwise.

Following his address, the Center for Constitutional Rights responded as follows:

(U)nless (Obama) takes immediate steps to resume transfers and ultimately close (Guantanamo), his administration will not escape the ‘harsh judgment’ of history.

Lifting the ban on Yemeni transfers fell short. So far it’s rhetoric, not policy. “(W)e are disappointed by (Obama’s) comment that cleared men will only be released ‘to the greatest extent possible.’ ”

Obama’s “equivocation is troubling. After eleven years of detention without charge or trial, all of the men President Obama does not intend to give fair trials should be released and reunited with their families.”

Anything short of that threatens to worsen a potentially deadly crisis unfolding at Guantanamo.

Targeted drone strikes remain policy. Reasserting the right is “legally flawed and dangerous.”

Whether or not the United States can use lethal force under the laws of war is not a matter of policy preference – it is a matter of law and facts.

Continuing current policy in any forms “sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations and other countries.”

Hundreds of activists endorsed a New York Times ad. It called on Obama to “Close Guantanamo Now” and “stop the torture.”

Presidents cannot be allowed to arrogate to themselves the power of judge, jury and executioner.

Fundamental civil liberties have been eviscerated.

It is up to the people to stand up for principle and morality when their institutions and public officials refuse to do so.

End the War Crimes and Violations of Fundamental Rights!

Nothing Obama said suggests change. Business as usual remains policy. War on humanity continues. No end in sight appears likely.

New world order harshness threatens everyone. It’s a clear and present danger. It’s much too great to ignore.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

Related posts:

1. US drone strikes being used as alternative to Guantánamo, lawyer says
2. Obama: Bring Gitmo Home
3. 4 Years After Vow to Close Gitmo, Why Has Obama Signed NDAA Bill Barring Transfer of Its Prisoners?

(EndTheLie) – Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has introduced legislation that seeks to extend Fourth Amendment protection to electronic communications, which if successful would be a major move to protect online privacy.

This comes after it was revealed that both the IRS and the FBI claimed they did not need a warrant to spy on the electronic communications of Americans.

However, some might be skeptical given Paul’s much-criticized apparent flip-flop on the drone issue.

Nonetheless, Paul has made some much needed statements about the lack of protection given to the private electronic communications of the American people.

“In today’s high-tech world, we must ensure that all forms of communication are protected,” Paul said in a press release. “Yet government has eroded protecting the Fourth Amendment over the past few decades, especially when applied to electronic communications and third party providers.”

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect the American people from unreasonable search and seizure, though that has been undermined quite a bit.

The Fourth Amendment usually requires warrants to be issued based on probable cause, but that too has been increasingly eroded under the guise of fighting terrorism.

“Congress has passed a variety of laws that decimate our Fourth Amendment protections,” Paul said. “In effect, it means that Americans can only count on Fourth Amendment protections if they don’t use email, cellphones, the Internet, credit cards, libraries, banks or other forms of modern finance and communications.”

Paul’s legislation, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, or S. 1037, would require law enforcement to obtain warrants when seeking access to personal data online including emails, chat logs, online banking records and more.

“Basic constitutional rights should not be invalidated by carrying out basic, day-to-day functions in a technologically advanced world, and this bill will provide much needed clarity and reassert Fourth Amendment protections for records held by third parties,” he said.

As WebProNews points out, Paul’s legislation was introduced only a month after the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2013, introduced Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Unlike Leahy’s bill, however, Paul’s bill would ensure all online data held by third parties is protected by the Fourth Amendment,” according to Zach Walton of WebProNews.

This type of reform seems to be gaining steam, with Attorney General Eric Holder even supporting an update of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Paul also introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2013, a bill that aims to “protect an individual’s right to privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.”

Such legislation seems to be increasingly palatable in Washington, at least to a degree, and has gained traction in state legislatures around the nation.

It will be interesting to see how these bills fare in a climate that remains hostile to limiting government power.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

This article first appeared at End the Lie.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCYTV Monday nights 7 PM – 9 PM PT/10 PM – 12 AM ET. Show page link here: http://UCY.TV/EndtheLie. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com

Related posts:

1. IRS Violates Fourth Amendment
2. Rand Paul: If Obama Tries To Legislate or Contravene Second Amendment We Will Sue
3. Paul and Cruz Pledge to Defeat Anti-Second Amendment Bill in Senate

(TruthStreamMedia) – A fresh report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that 20 percent of American children now have mental health issues.

Here are some of the report’s highlights:

• The most prevalent mental health diagnosis of children studied between the ages of three and 17 was Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), followed by depression, behavioral issues, and anxiety.
• Anxiety rates were considerably higher in this new study than data collected on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2001 to 2004.
• Suicide was the second leading cause of death among children aged 12–17 years in 2010. Of children who committed suicide, more than a quarter (26.4%) were receiving treatment for a mental health disorder.
• Children with health insurance had more ADHD and anxiety, whereas uninsured children were more likely to report substance use disorders.
• It is estimated nearly $247 billion is spent on childhood mental disorders each year.

The release of this study comes just months after President Obama signed 23 Executive Orders for gun control which involve a large focus on mental health issues in youth and referring adolescents to mental health treatment.

The CDC does admit its study’s limitations in the fine print:

Changes in estimated prevalence over time might be associated with an actual change in prevalence, changes in case definition, changes in the public perception of mental disorders, or improvements in diagnosis, which might be associated with changes in policies and access to health care.

So semantics and politics have a lot to do with the data on mental health diagnoses. As Mike Adams from Natural News reports, the new DSM-V psychiatry manual used by the majority of psychiatrists in this country has classified every human emotion as a mental disorder through what basically amounts to a laughably illegitimate process:

Here’s how modern psychiatry really operates: A bunch of self-important, overpaid intellectuals who want to make more money invent a fabricated disease… By a show of hands, they then vote into existence whatever “symptoms” they wish to associated… Thus begins the call for “treatment” for a completely fabricated disease. From there, it’s a cinch to get Big Pharma to fabricate whatever scientific data they need in order to “prove” that speed, amphetamines, pharmaceutical crack or whatever poison they want to sell [will treat the disorder].

The CDC has previously released reports that one in 10 U.S. adults are clinically depressed and a whopping one in five Americans adults are taking psychiatric drugs in this country.

A study published in the 2010 Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry found a rise in the number doctor’s visits where children were being prescribed more than one psychotropic medication. The researchers concluded:

Although little is known about the safety and efficacy of regimens that involve concomitant use of two or more psychotropic agents for children and adolescents, multiclass psychotropic pharmacy is becoming increasingly common in outpatient practice.

In fact, one study even found the fast growing segment of the population to be described antidepressant medication was preschoolers. All told, America takes 60 percent of the world’s psychotropic drugs.

So, are we all just insane or is there something else to it? Why are so many Americans on psychotic medications and so many of our children in need of ‘treatment’ for mental health problems?

MELISSA MELTON is a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com where this article first appeared. She is an experienced researcher, graphic artist and investigative journalist with a passion for liberty and a dedication to truth. Her aim is to expose the New World Order for what it is — a prison for the human soul from which we must break free.

Related posts:

1. Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5
2. Radical increase in kids prescribed Ritalin
3. Nature’s Prozac: Nutrition for Mental Health

(SJLendman) – They didn’t surprise. Media scoundrels support his worst policies. His neoliberal harshness is endorsed. His alliance with monied interests gets no coverage.

His crimes of war, against humanity and genocide go unmentioned.

His partnership with Israel against Palestine isn’t explained. His systematic disdain for rule of law principles gets ignored.

Responses to his Thursday speech were largely positive. Challenging them follows below.

New York Times editors headlined “The End of the Perpetual War,” saying:

For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.

(T)here is no underestimating the importance of that statement.

Obama “told the world that the United States must return to a state in which counterterrorism is handled primarily by law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.”

He “announced important shifts in the policy of using unmanned drones” to kill targeted individuals.

He “called on Congress to remove the restrictions (on) transfer(ing) detainees from the prison in Cuba.”

He “pledged to create new protections for Americans’ civil liberties.”

He said a ” ‘free press is essential for our democracy.’ ”

There have been times when we wished we could hear the right words from Mr. Obama on issues like these, and times we heard the words but wondered about his commitment.

This was not either of those moments.

On May 23, Washington Post editors headlined “Obama renews his anti-terrorism strategy,” saying:

He’s (f)our years wiser.” (H)e argues (that) the world (is) a very different place” than when he took office. He’s “rethinking” post-9/11 policies.

He renewed his vow to close Guantanamo, urging Congress to stop making the work more difficult.

WaPo editors endorse drone killings. They do so despite violating core international, constitutional, and US statute laws.

They “offer an important means of self-defense, in many cases less dangerous to civilians than is more traditional military force.”

His intention to have the Pentagon replace the CIA in the execution of (drone) attacks is also welcome.

“This war, like all wars, must end,” said Obama. “True,” said WaPo editors, “but America’s enemies will have a say in the timing.”

Chicago Tribune editors headlined “Obama won’t ground aerial strikes that kill terrorists. Good.”

Drone strikes exterminated many sworn enemies of this country without risking US lives on the ground or in the air.

“He’s right” to continue them. Contrary to what’s know, Tribune editors claim “(t)he drone campaign has been extremely and surgically effective, targeting militants across Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and parts of Africa. It has killed wide swaths of al-Qaida leadership.”

The United States risks losing the advantage of surprise if individual drone strikes become entangled in slow-motion bureaucracy back home.

We fear US warriors shrinking from what in effect are battlefield decisions because they have one eye on Congress, or judges, or some other overseer who is not their commander in chief.

Shifting from war to peace isn’t possible, claim Tribune editors. “(W)e’re not there yet. That’s why the US needs to keep those drones flying.”

The Wall Street Journal headlined “Obama Resets War on Terror,” saying:

Obama defended his “reliance on airstrikes by unmanned drones and argued for new restrictions on their use.”

“He also said he would resume steps to shrink and eventually close the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

He said post-9/11 congressional “Authorization for the Use of Military Force should be revised and eventually repealed to recognize that al Qaeda is a terror organization on the path to defeat.”

No matter that Washington invented Al Qaeda. It’s used strategically as both enemy and ally. Sometimes it’s done simultaneously in different theaters. It’s longstanding policy.

Obama said drone strikes “will only target suspected terrorists who pose a ‘continuing and imminent threat to the American people.’ ”

No threat whatever exists. The Journal stopped short of explaining. Evidence shows only 2% of those killed are so-called “high-value” targets.

His alleged guidelines include requiring “a near certainty” to avoid civilian deaths or injuries.

“Obama signaled an openness to more oversight.”

His administration is the most secretive in US history. Transparency is verboten. Obama-style reset is new wine in old bottles.

The Los Angeles Times headlined “Obama puts restrictions on drone program.”

What followed repeated much of what’s said above.

The speech set a new road map for US policy and a clear pivot for Obama.

It masks business as usual. Expect no substantive change in war on terror policy.

Nation magazine tried having things both ways. It gave John Sifton op-ed space. He’s Human Rights Watch’s Asia advocacy director. Longstanding HRW policy supports Western imperialism.

Sifton headlined “Obama Rejects Perpetual War, but Questions Remain About Targeted Killings,” saying:

Obama’s speech “contained a number of significant announcements.”

He pledged “resum(ing) releases of Guantanamo prisoners ‘recommended for transfer.’ ”

He promised “to clarify the process and improve transparency” on drone policy.

(M)ost significant was pledg(ing) to ‘engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force.’

President Obama today seemed to mark the beginning of the end of the worldwide ‘war on terror.’

Of course, he did no such thing. He promised change straightaway in office. America “went off course,” he said. He pledged a new direction. Business as usual continued.

Sifton called rejecting perpetual war “notable.” At the same time, “serious questions remain,” he said.

Obama maintained that America’s still at war with Al Qaeda and “unspecified ‘associated forces.’ ” He stopped short of defining what who they are.

Until he does so, his “current formulation leaves open the possibility of unlimited, unending use of military force anywhere in the world.”

He left unexplained how he’ll engage Congress. “(M)any of (his) current standards seem to remain in place.”

(W)hile President Obama’s pledges to rein in lethal operations could prove a step in the right direction, until limitations are put in place, the boundaries for the use of US military force remain disturbingly undefined.

Throughout his tenure, Nation magazine largely endorsed Obama’s agenda. Criticism when expressed most often was muted. Lawless policies are mostly ignored or glossed over.

Accountability’s been largely unaddressed. It’s longstanding Nation magazine policy. It pretends to support rule of law principles, equity, justice, peace, and other democratic values. Often it falls woefully short.

It’s a virtual voice for Democrat party politics. On issues mattering most, both parties support each other’s agenda. Duopoly power runs America. Monied interests control it.

Supporting Obama and other Democrats endorses what demands condemnation. Nation magazine and other faux progressives do it consistently.

They betray loyal followers in the process. They aid and abet lawless state policy. They remain unaccountable. Supporting wrong over right happens too often.

Doing so violates journalistic ethics. “Thoroughness and honesty” are mandated. It matters most on major issues.

People have a right to know. Legitimate journalists are obligated to tell them. Most fall woefully short. Faux progressives are worst of all. They spurn much of what they claim to support. Why they’ll have to explain.

Fact Check on Media Responses to Obama’s Speech

Perpetual war is official US policy. Historian Charles Beard (1874 – 1948) called it “perpetual war for perpetual peace.”

Historian Gore Vidal used Beard’s phrase. He titled his 2002 book Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, saying:

(O)ur rulers for more than half a century have made sure that we are never to be told the truth about anything that our government has done to other people, not to mention our own.

His same year book titled Dreaming War compared GW Bush’s imperial ambitions to WW II and the 1947 Truman Doctrine. It promised war, not peace.

Throughout his tenure, Obama waged multiple direct and proxy war. They continue out-of-control. He plans more of the same. Nothing he said Thursday suggests otherwise.

He spurns rule of law principles. He hardened police state ruthlessness. He’s waged war on human rights and civil liberties.

He’s done so on press freedom, whistleblowers, Occupy Wall Street, anti-war dissent, and others challenging rogue governance.

He falsely claims Congress restricts his right to close Guantanamo and release uncharged prisoners. He’s fully authorized to do both on his own.

Saying “(t)his war, like all wars, must end” masks longstanding imperial policy. America’s business is war. It’s institutionalized. Obama intends continuity. His record reflects it.

His alleged shift in drone killing policy reflects doublespeak duplicity. Anyone can be targeted anywhere, any time for any reason or none at all.

It doesn’t matter whether Pentagon or CIA officials pick targets. Extrajudicial killing is lawless. Nothing whatever justifies it. Deciding who lives or dies reflects tyranny. So does spurning rule of law principles.

Noncombatant civilians are especially vulnerable. Evidence shows only 2% of victims are so-called “high-value” targets.

Others reflect so-called “collateral damage.” Edward Herman once called it “genocide with sincere regrets.”

In her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt said crimes of state aren’t committed by fanatics or sociopaths.

“(T)errifyingly normal” people are responsible. They’re “neither perverted or sadistic.”

They “accepted the premises of their superiors and their state.” They did so to continue current and/or longstanding policies.

It’s true up the chain of command. It’s up to where the buck stops.

Obama reflects the worst of what she meant. He spurns popular concerns. His record reflects broken promises. He’s done so across the board.

He proved he can’t be trusted. Rhetoric substitutes for real change. Believing it’s forthcoming is fool’s hope. Business as usual remains policy. Nothing suggests otherwise.

Note: High-minded rhetoric is meaningless. Policies alone matter. Obama’s record speaks for itself!

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

Related posts:

1. Obama’s Inaugural Speech: Under the Microscope
2. Obama’s War Speech Interrupted by Peace Activist
3. Obama pushes gun control in personal speech in old Chicago neighborhood

Benjamin responded, ”I think killing innocent people with drones is rude,” Benjamin replied. “I think keeping innocent people in detention for 11 years is rude. I think not respecting the lives of Muslim people who are killed is rude. There are a lot of rude things about our policies. Speaking out is actually not rude.”

Related posts:

1. Obama Admits to Killing Four Americans with Drones
2. Obama’s War Speech Interrupted by Peace Activist
3. Talking to the President ABOUT DRONES and KILLING CIVILIANS!

Four criminal misdemeanor charges are aimed at Vernon Hershberger for providing fresh food to his community through a contractual agreement with members. Paraphrased by Derrick J Freeman the “crimes” include:

1. distributing milk from his “Grazin’ Acres” dairy farm without a milk producer’s license,
2. operating a retail food establishment without a state license,
3. operating a dairy plant without a state license, and
4. violating a “hold order” placed on his dairy products after the state raided his farm.

Prosecution (State) tried to drive home the twisted view that Vernon’s family and barn was a “retail operation,” instead of the membership agreement where the members (who are owners) thereof put in a lot of the hard work there, like a co-op. Also, there have never been complaints. The 2010 armed raid was initiated by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP).

Again, there is no other way to provide farm fresh foods in Wisconsin – so of course, no matter what, he is a law breaker. They are charging him in part for not having licenses and calling it retail. There is no such thing as a raw milk license in Wisconsin and so how could he ever operate this Grade A facility that they want to smear? The State argued that some license was available for $265 and why didn’t he “just get it” and pay the price?

In the last arguments, Defense told the jury they could vote by conscience and to send Vernon back to his family as a free man. Defense gave the jury a crash course in abuse of government authority ”which led to creation of jury system: ‘Conscience of the community.’” They referenced Orwell’s “Newspeak” for the lack of logic: 3 years of battle and all the State really could argue was a farmer “filing the wrong paperwork.” And Prosecution had 1,000 pages of data but did not interview one member. Defense called that a “Sad use of power & pathetic waste” and compared the trial to Prohibition.

The judge looked at the jury and around 7 pm said: “(you) must base your verdict on the law I give you.” So the judge thinks he gives the law. Can’t even put into words what an assassination of justice it is that a judge would even say that. Later the judge read “instruction NOT to be swayed by conscience.” Prosecution echoed Reynolds, probably fearing how they looked, and told the jury it is not about whether Vernon is a good man or not . . . also accusing Defense of mis-characterization of crimes saying: “The words that matter here are the instructions on the law. Law comes from judge.” (Source)

VERDICT: NOT guilty on first three counts;

GUILTY on last count of violating holding order.

That last count held the maximum penalty which now includes one year in jail and $10,000 in fines.

This was a completely uphill battle for three years with a judge, State, and agents clearly going after him with bias – even obfuscating truth to the jury. Food freedom advocates, including Vernon and his family, are hailing it as a victory. On three counts, the jury voted by conscience and it sets a precedent dealing with license requirements versus membership agreements.

Do you wonder why Vernon cut the tape and continued distributing foods after the State destroyed them (including his family’s personal food) and closed his pantry? First he went to jail on $500 bail and had to sign an agreement to stop. He obeyed. Then he thought about it and prayed. Something was impressed upon him that it would be wrong, and worse, to stop feeding his neighbors. So he acted on conscience and continued distributing – plus his family was only left with a two-day’s supply of food and they were probably hungry!

Everything happens for a reason.

Reporting from David Gumpert:

Hershberger holding order guilt irony: if he hadn’t violated order, wouldn’t have gotten criminal trial & jury that acquitted on licensing.

During that armed raid, agents stole his computer and personal files, but of course there is no punishment for that and no recompense. The judge declared that the armed raid and seizure of property is NOT of use of force. It’s incredible that anything positive came from this kangaroo court case. It’s upsetting to think they might extract jail time and exorbitant fines for daring to disobey a detrimental holding order.

As more details emerge, including potential jail sentence, we will share accordingly.

Popeye from FederalJack.com and I had an exciting discussion and we even had a surprise call in from food freedom warrior Liz Reitzig at Baraboo. Listen HERE.

Special thanks to Derrick J Freeman’s live Tweeted updates

Source: Activist Post

Related posts:

1. Breaking: No Mention of “Liberty” Allowed During Hershberger Raw Milk Trial
2. The trial of Vernon Hershberger, another raw milk farmer facing prison time for producing real food
3. Hershberger Trial: List of Things You Can’t Say and Wear Gets Bigger

(OrganicPrepper) – If you ever wanted to be a hero and save the world, today is the day to do it.

Source: The Organic Prepper

Related posts:

1. Top 10 reasons to join the March Against Monsanto tomorrow! (Saturday, May 25, 2013)
2. March against Monsanto taking place everywhere May 25
3. Millions against Monsanto: Putting Words into Action

They didn’t just vote it down, they did it overwhelmingly: 71 to 27. Let’s be clear—this wasn’t a bill that would have mandated the labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients. No, it was far less provocative. This measure would have simply said it was okay for states to decide to do that for themselves.

“The concept we’re talking about today is a fairly commonsense and non-radical idea,” said the amendment’s sponsor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) according to the Huffington Post. “All over the world, in the European Union, in many other countries around the world, dozens and dozens of countries, people are able to look at the food that they are buying and determine through labeling whether or not that product contains genetically modified organisms.”

Vermont and more-recently Connecticut have both decided to label foods in their state. But they are concerned big-wigs like Monsanto will sue, particularly in light of this failure of a decision in the Senate.

One of the many senators who voted against what would seem to be commonsense and non-radical, Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) says that labeling GMO foods runs counter to what we “know” about them. This knowledge, she says, is that GMO foods are safe, no more dangerous than their “conventional counterparts.”

Apparently ignoring any of the research that runs to the contrary of that being put out by Monsanto-supporters, Sen. Stabenow talks about GMO crops as if they are the answer to the world’s prayers. That they are able to “resist crop diseases and improve nutritional content.” Stabenow and others like her must be getting their briefs directly from those within Monsanto itself.

Even more telling about where her (and others like her) allegiances lie, Stabenow said labeling GMO ingredients would “interfere with the FDA’s science-based process to determine what food labeling is necessary for consumers.” In other words, if it doesn’t come from Monsanto or the FDA, she doesn’t want to hear it.

She doesn’t want to hear about the study that showed GMO-fed rats developed mass tumors and died premature deaths. Senators like her don’t seem to care that research has shown GMO corn to be a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Apparently, studies linking GMO crops to lung damage, cancer, organ damage, and immune suppression aren’t “good enough” for the FDA, so they aren’t “good enough” for lawmakers.

The fact is, most processed foods on our store shelves contain GMO ingredients (usually corn or soy). Another fact, most conscientious consumers would like to know which foods are safe and which are not. But, with their decision to not grant states the right to decide for themselves, lawmakers have shown us (once again) where their loyalties lie.

This post originally appeared at Natural Society

Related posts:

1. Washington state launches groundbreaking ‘Label It Wa’ grassroots GMO labeling campaign
2. Whole Foods announces mandatory GMO labeling by 2018; here’s how it happened
3. Oregon set to ban GM salmon and mandate GMO labeling

TED Talk: Wade Davis on Endangered Cultures from Wade Davis on Vimeo.

Related posts:

1. Down The Rabbit Hole with Popeye – Julia Davis: Top Priority The Terror Within
2. Music: Jimmy Davis – A Prayer
3. Democrats Crank Up Death Panel Talk Following Obama Win

Microsoft‘s next-generation console has applied for a patent offering users Xbox 360-like achievements for watching specific content and adverts, reports Gamesindustry International.

The console’s Kinect 2 will also employ DRM measures to prevent more people than the license allows viewing the content at one go, as per another patent filed last year.

If Kinect senses too many people in the room, it will prompt the users to upgrade the license.

“Television viewing tends to be a passive experience for a viewer, without many opportunities for the viewer to engage or have interactive experiences with the presented content,” the application for the achievements reads. Full article here

Related posts:

1. New Xbox Won’t Let You Play (Unless It Can Spy On You)
2. Samsung TVs Can Be Hacked to Spy on Viewers
3. New DVR will use camera and microphone to target advertisements based on recordings of users

SWAT teams originated in the late 1960s, but their use greatly expanded in the 1980s as the Reagan administration doubled down on the drug war. In 1988 the Byrne Grant Program passed Congress, allocating substantial funding for anti-drug policing. As money was awarded for drug arrests, resources shifted toward drug raids, increasingly using SWAT teams for this purpose. Meanwhile federal programs were introduced increasing training and cooperation between the military and domestic law enforcement to battle drug crime.

Other Reagan-era policies encouraged the transfer of surplus military hardware to law enforcement, which in the 1990s became firmly established by the Clinton Administration’s 1033 Program, incorporating millions of pieces of equipment designed for war zones into domestic policing agencies.

Read more

Related posts:

1. ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation
2. Video: SWAT police gunpoint raids in Boston Were Conducted “House After House”
3. Civilian Militia Expands to 38 States To Protect Constitution – Alexander Higgins

Only conspiracy kooks produce real evidence

(PCR) – Have you ever wondered how the government’s misinformation gains traction?

What I have noticed is that whenever a stunning episode occurs, such as 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing, most everyone whether on the right or left goes along with the government’s explanation, because they can hook their agenda to the government’s account.

The leftwing likes the official stories of Muslims creating terrorist mayhem in America, because it proves their blowback theory and satisfies them that the dispossessed and oppressed can fight back against imperialism.

The patriotic rightwing likes the official story, because it proves America is attacked for its goodness or because terrorists were allowed in by immigration authorities and nurtured by welfare, or because the government, which can’t do anything right, ignored plentiful warnings.

Whatever the government says, no matter how problematical, the official story gets its traction from its compatibility with existing predispositions and agendas.

In such a country, truth has no relevance. Only agendas are important.

A person can see this everywhere. I could write volumes illustrating how agenda-driven writers across the spectrum will support the most improbable government stories despite the absence of any evidence simply because the government’s line can be used to support their agendas.

For example, a conservative writer in the June issue of Chronicles uses the government’s story about the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, to argue against immigration, amnesty for illegals, and political asylum for Muslims. He writes: “Even the most high-tech security systems imaginable will inevitably fail as they are overwhelmed by a flood of often hostile and dangerous immigrants.”

The writer accepts all of the improbable government statements as proof that the brothers were guilty. The wounded brother who was unable to respond to the boat owner who discovered him and had to be put on life support somehow managed to write a confession on the inside of the boat.

As soon as the authorities have the brother locked up in a hospital on life support, “unnamed officials” and “authorities who remain anonymous” are planting the story in the media that the suspect is signing written confessions of his guilt while on life support. No one has seen any of these written confessions. But we know that they exist, because the government and media say so.

The conservative writer knows that Dzhokhar is guilty because he is Muslim and a Chechen. Therefore, it does not occur to the writer to wonder about the agenda of the unnamed sources who are busy at work creating belief in the brothers’ guilt. This insures that no juror would dare vote for acquittal and have to explain it to family and friends. Innocent until proven guilty in a court has been thrown out the window. This should disturb the conservative writer, but doesn’t.

The conservative writer sees Chechen ethnicity as an indication of guilt even though the brothers grew up in the US as normal Americans, because Chechens are “engaged in anti-Russian jihad.” But Chechens have no reason for hostility against the US. As evidence indicates, Washington supports the Chechens in their conflict with Russia. By supporting Chechen terrorism, Washington violates all of the laws that it ruthlessly applies to compassionate Americans who give donations to Palestinian charities that Washington alleges are run by Hamas, a Washington-declared terrorist organization.

It doesn’t occur to the conservative writer that something is amiss when martial law
is established over one of America’s main cities and its metropolitan area, 10,000 heavily armed troops are put on the streets with tanks, and citizens are ordered out of their homes with their hands over their heads, all of this just to search for one wounded 19-year old suspect. Instead the writer blames the “surveillance state” on “the inevitable consequences of suicidal liberalism” which has embraced “the oldest sin in the world: rebellion against authority.” The writer is so pleased to use the government’s story line as a way of indulging the conservative’s romance with authority and striking a blow at liberalism that he does not notice that he has lined up against the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence and rebelled against authority.

I could just as easily have used a left-wing writer to illustrate the point that improbable explanations are acceptable if they fit with predispositions and can be employed in behalf of an agenda.

Think about it. Do you not think that it is extraordinary that the only investigations we have of such events as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing are private investigations, such as this investigation of the backpacks: http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/05/20/official-story-has-odd-wrinkles-a-pack-of-questions-about-the-boston-bombing-backpacks/

There was no investigation of 9/11. Indeed, the White House resisted any inquiry at all for one year despite the insistent demands from the 9/11 families. NIST did not investigate anything. NIST simply constructed a computer model that was consistent with the government’s story. The 9/11 Commission simply sat and listened to the government’s explanation and wrote it down. These are not investigations.

The only investigations have come from a physicist who proved that WTC 7 came down at free fall and was thus the result of controlled demolition, from a team of scientists who examined dust from the WTC towers and found nano-thermite, from high-rise architects and structural engineers with decades of experience, and from first responders and firefighters who were in the towers and experienced explosions throughout the towers, even in the sub-basements.

We have reached the point where evidence is no longer required. The government’s statements suffice. Only conspiracy kooks produce real evidence.

In America, government statements have a unique authority. This authority comes from the white hat that the US wore in World War II and in the subsequent Cold War. It was easy to demonize Nazi Germany, Soviet Communism and Maoist China. Even today when Russian publications interview me about the perilous state of civil liberty in the US and Washington’s endless illegal military attacks abroad, I sometimes receive reports that some Russians believe that it was an impostor who was interviewed, not the real Paul Craig Roberts. There are Russians who believe that it was President Reagan who brought freedom to Russia, and as I served in the Reagan administration these Russians associate me with their vision of America as a light unto the world. Some Russians actually believe that Washington’s wars are truly wars of liberation.

The same illusions reign among Chinese dissidents. Chen Guangcheng is the Chinese dissident who sought refuge in the US Embassy in China. Recently he was interviewed by the BBC World Service. Chen Guangcheng believes that the US protects human rights while China suppresses human rights. He complained to the BBC that in China police can arrest citizens and detain them for as long as six months without accounting for their detainment. He thought that the US and UK should publicly protest this violation of due process, a human right. Apparently, Chen Guangcheng is unaware that US citizens are subject to indefinite detention without due process and even to assassination without due process.

The Chinese government allowed Chen Guangcheng safe passage to leave China and live in the US. Chen Guangcheng is so dazzled by his illusions of America as a human rights beacon that it has never occurred to him that the oppressive, human rights-violating Chinese government gave him safe passage, but that Julian Assange, after being given political asylum by Ecuador is still confined to the Ecuadoran embassy in London, because Washington will not allow its UK puppet state to permit his safe passage to Ecuador.

Perhaps Chen Guangcheng and the Chinese and Russian dissidents who are so enamored of the US could gain some needed perspective if they were to read US soldier Terry Holdbrooks’ book about the treatment given to the Guantanamo prisoners. Holdbrooks was there on the scene, part of the process, and this is what he told RT: “The torture and information extraction methods that we used certainly created a great deal of doubt and questions in my mind to whether or not this was my America. But when I thought about what we were doing there and how we go about doing it, it did not seem like the America I signed up to defend. It did not seem like the America I grew up in. And that in itself was a very disillusioning experience.” http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-guard-islam-torture-608/

In a May 17 Wall Street Journal.com article, Peggy Noonan wrote that President Obama has lost his patina of high-mindedness. What did Obama do that brought this loss upon himself? Is it because he sits in the Oval Office approving lists of US citizens to be assassinated without due process of law? Is it because he detains US citizens indefinitely in violation of habeas corpus? Is it because he has kept open the torture prison at Guantanamo? Is it because he continued the war that the neoconservatives started, despite his promise to end it, and started new wars?

Is it because he attacks with drones people in their homes, medical centers, and work places in countries with which the US is not at war? Is it because his corrupt administration spies on American citizens without warrants and without cause?

No. It is none of these reasons. In Noonan’s view these are not offenses for which presidents, even Democratic ones, lose their high-minded patina. Obama can no longer be trusted, because the IRS hassled some conservative political activists.

Noonan is a Republican, and what Obama did wrong was to use the IRS against some Republicans. Apparently, it has not occurred to Noonan that if Obama–or any president–can use the IRS against opponents, he can use Homeland Security and the police state against them. He can use indefinite detention against them. He can use drones against them.

All of these are much more drastic measures. Why isn’t Peggy Noonan concerned?

Because she thinks these measures will only be used against terrorists, just as the IRS is only supposed to be used against tax evaders.

When a public and the commentators who inform it accept the collapse of the Constitution’s authority and the demise of their civil liberties, to complain about the IRS is pointless.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously the editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.

Source: Infowars

Related posts:

1. The Institutionalization of Tyranny – Paul Craig Roberts
2. Attack On Sovereignty – Paul Craig Roberts
3. While Left And Right Fight, Power Wins – Paul Craig Roberts

(FireDogLake) – President Obama’s speech, presenting his vision of a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy, included welcome rhetoric about the importance of constitutional principles, including Due Process and rights to dissent. It may represent the high watermark for civil liberties since his inauguration five years ago.

It is disappointing, given his thoughtful words, that he ignored so many inconvenient truths. From extrajudicial assassination to free speech and freedom of the press, from the need to address root causes of terrorism to partnership with American Muslims, the president promoted important principles but papered over reality.

The reaction by Republican senators was even worse. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) foolishly suggested that “The president’s speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory,” and suggested doubling down on many of the same failed Bush-era policies from which President Obama finally signaled long overdue independence yesterday.

Due Process: Gitmo

The president forcefully spoke about the need to close Guantánamo Bay, and also lifted his moratorium on releasing Yemeni detainees whom the government has cleared for release, despite the clamor among conservative lawmakers who prefer to indefinitely detain anyone accused of terror without trial.

Yet the president’s words reflected important principles that his own administration has routinely violated. Col. Morris D. Davis, the former chief military prosecutor at Guantánamo who resigned his position to challenge torture (and serves on the BORDC advisory board), agreed that “It’s great rhetoric. But now is the reality going to live up to the rhetoric?”

The president criticized restrictions on resettling detainees cleared for release imposed by Congress early in his administration. But he has the authority to resettle those detainees through a separate process, if he were willing to certify the release of particular individuals—which he has avoided in order to avoid the political risk.

Due Process: Drone strikes

President Obama also pledged more congressional oversight of drone strikes, responding to sustained controversy and reiterating a promise from his State of the Union address in January that he has yet to fill.

Noting the 2014 drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan, he also suggested the diminishing need for force protection. That, in turn, could lead to a reduction in “signature strikes,” untethered attacks in which the CIA essentially kills at random based on nothing more than suspicious activity and inflames anti-US sentiment. If nothing else, the president explained a preference to shift drone strikes from the unaccountable and secret CIA to the (also secret, though at least somewhat accountable) Pentagon.

Most importantly, the president acknowledged for the first time in public that civilian casualties—which he predictably downplayed—run the risk of creating new enemies.

On the one hand, he claimed that drone strikes are less lethal, and less prone to civilian casualties, than conventional warfare.

On the other hand, according to an independent study, only 5% of deaths from drone strikes were actually senior terror leaders, suggesting that what the press conveniently calls “targeted killings” are in fact essentially random. Signature strikes, in particular, reveal the rose tint in the president glasses: these are the antithesis of targeted killings, but rather knee-jerk assassinations based on mere suspicion. The CIA often doesn’t even know who it kills, let alone whether they are actually involved in terrorism.

Perhaps most revealing were the president’s comments about assassinating US citizens without trial. This particular subject sparked widespread controversy earlier this year, when Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) mounted a filibuster specifically to force the administration to resign the authority to kill Americans at home using drones.

Now, as then, the response is rhetorically welcome but substantively empty. Just as Attorney General Eric Holder’s letter to Sen. Paul made promises that ultimately appear implausible in light of the actual facts, President Obama’s assurances that drone strikes are closely targeted belies the competing fact that four US citizens have died in drone strikes, while only one was reportedly targeted. If the CIA has killed four times the number of US citizens than it has intended, how can we maintain the pretense that drone strikes avoid collateral casualties?

At root is a surprising willingness to redefine Due Process to exclude a right to judicial review. A canard—that the executive branch can provide Due Process without judicial review—pervades the drone program. But that view makes a mockery of over 800 years of legal precedent establishing the need for judges to check and balance executive detention orders. For a constitutional law professor to advance so revolutionary claim should disturb any observer, regardless of political perspective.

The First Amendment: freedom of the press

President Obama also reiterated his recent call for a reporter shield law to enable the press to do its job without interference from prosecutors. This suggestion lends itself to criticism on the grounds of both hypocrisy and insufficiency.

A reporter shield law is important, but the president’s speech ignored both his own administration’s attacks on the press (which he needed no legislation to have curtailed), as well as its vindictive, predatory, and authoritarian crackdown on government whistleblowers (like Thomas Drake, or Bradley Manning, or John Kiriakou) who have resigned their careers to inform the public about government abuses.

The First Amendment: rights to dissent, assembly, and speech

President Obama also recognized that the ham-fisted security measures for which he and his predecessor are both known run the risk of “alter[ing] our country in troubling ways,” before pledging a “proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home.”

As a seeming illustration, he allowed an extended (and quite thoughtful) interruption from the audience, noting that the opportunity for a citizen to challenge her president reflects the vitality of liberty in America.

But his rhetorical respect for dissent stands in sharp contrast with the actual actions of federal agencies. Recent investigations have documented a vicious crackdown on dissent executed by the FBI, in partnership with police agencies around the country, to violently suppress the Occupy and peace movements.

At the same time, the IRS was discriminatorily auditing conservative groups, as well as transpartisan constitutionalist groups, including the organization I lead, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

Letting a heckler interrupt a speech is no substitute for respecting the public’s rights to assembly, speech, and the press. Words are welcome, but they are far from enough.

Praising American Muslims while abusing us

President Obama’s comments regarding American Muslims were also welcome, but again, ignored the harsh reality on the ground.

He reiterated that the US is not at war with Islam, praised the support of American Muslims for US counterterrorism operations, and indeed, play a key role in winning the battle for hearts & minds abroad. He even reminded listeners that terrorism in America has been instigated by anti-government Christians more often than by Muslims.

Yet during the president’s tenure, the FBI has infiltrated mosques around the country, lied to communities—and courts—about it, recorded sexual encounters to enable blackmail, and bribed unsophisticated Muslims of all races into government-initiated plots in order to inflate both its own institutional reputation and the threat of domestic terrorism (while conspicuously ignoring real plots, like the Boston marathon bombings).

Restoring First Amendment rights—for the press, dissidents, and religious minorities—will require wide-ranging changes at the FBI that few in Washington have discussed.

Real counter-terrorism

Perhaps most remarkably, the president explained that “Force alone cannot make us safe,” before noting the overwhelming and untenable costs of war, and the greater opportunity to achieve lasting security by winning not just battlefields, but also hearts & minds.

But the president—like his predecessor—has long ignored many of those opportunities. On the one hand, he explained how building roads, schools, and hospitals can undermine terrorist recruitment, in sharp contrast to the torture and drone strikes that encourage it.

But giving weapons to dictators, protecting American textile manufactures through discriminatory tariffs, enabling terror networks to fund themselves through the black market opportunities created by the failed war on drugs, and destabilizing global food markets by encouraging domestic agricultural overproduction through corporate subsidies, all play an enormous roles in enabling terrorism. Yet none of these subjects are even discussed in these terms in Washington.

If his rhetoric matched reality, the president’s speech would have been world historical, repudiating a decade of lawlessness and restoring the best in America. And it was excellent, even if occasionally duplicitous. The question now is whether it was anything more than words, and whether the Administration will convert the president’s welcome rhetoric into long overdue action.

That, in turn, depends in part on whether Congress grows more assertive in asserting its checks & balances on executive power. Fortunately, we can each encourage that result.

Source: firedoglake.com

Related posts:

1. Kucinich: Obama administration has refused to release memos legally justifying drone strikes [VIDEO]
2. Inside Look at Life Amid Drone-Filled Skies – Noor Mir
3. Drone Strikes On Christmas Eve Mark Obama Tripling Of Bombardment In 2012

Obama statements at the National Defense University

(LibertyCrier) – The United States is in fact an Orwellian Tyranny that merely chooses not to implement full tyrannical measures. It only makes this decision because it does not yet have sufficient power to completely control the masses, i.e. we have not been made sufficiently docile, nor sufficiently dumbed down, fattened, sickened, and disarmed. When the government does have that power, and it will soon enough, it may then be too late to effectively resist.

During a speech on May 23 at the National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington D.C. in which Barrack Hussein Obama was called to the carpet by Medea Benjamin, one of his employers, for his actions relating to men who are illegally imprisoned by the United States Government, he stated: “Now, even after we take these steps one issue will remain, just how to deal with those Gitmo detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks but who cannot be prosecuted, for example, because the evidence against them has been compromised or is not admissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing Gitmo I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.”

Think about this, the man who claims to be the President of the United States has just admitted that he is refusing to order the immediate release of prisoners that the government admits it has no evidence against. Yet in the same breath Obama states that the government “knows” the men committed crimes! How can the government know that somebody has committed a crime yet simultaneously have no evidence against him?! And worse yet, how can it continue to unlawfully imprison that person?! How can Obama announce that these men are guilty when they have never been found guilty in a court of law?! Barrack Hussein Obama has just announced to the world that he has the authority to unilaterally declare that someone is or is not guilty of a crime. The executive branch of government has now officially partially assumed the proper and constitutionally delegated role of the judicial branch. Also notice the Orwellian Double Speak as he claims that it is possible to “deal” with this issue consistent with the rule of law, while simultaneously violating the rule of law! The two practices are mutually exclusive and completely incompatible, yet he states that they work together. This is a whole new level of new speak and double speak. Non-evidence is actually evidence, tainted evidence is reliable evidence, illegal evidence is legal evidence, violating the law is upholding the law, and usurping the Constitution is adhering to the rule of law! This is the definitive definition of new speak and tyranny!

Also, let us not gloss over the fact that Obama refers to this situation as a “legacy problem” in a clear attempt to insinuate that he holds no responsibility for and is in no way accountable for this unlawful practice. Indeed, George W. Bush implemented this unconstitutional practice, but Obama continued it despite his crystal clear campaign promises to the contrary. From the moment that Obama took office and failed to order the immediate civilian trial or the release of every prisoner, he not only proved himself to not be a man of his word, he also immediately assumed culpability and responsibility for the actions of his predecessor and for every day thereafter that those human beings are denied their inalienable and God-given rights. In legal parlance this is called conspiracy after the fact, and it is a criminal offense.

At this moment all doubts as to the Orwellian and tyrannical nature of this dictator and of the United States Federal Government have been evaporated! There is now no room for doubt on where we stand! Who among us will idly stand by as men, against whom there is no evidence, rot in prison? How many American Citizens does this include? How long until this new legal standard is incorporated into and utilized in domestic criminal courts at the local, state, and federal levels? Or has it already been introduced and continues to be so incrementally? A close examination of the criminal justice system clearly demonstrates that this is indeed the case at every level of government, from traffic courts, to tax courts, to criminal courts, and “adjudicated hearings” conducted by the likes of the EPA, the NLRB, et al.

The judicial tyrants on the Supreme Court and other federal courts have bent over backwards to allow every form of illegally, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally obtained evidence by police and other government agents to be admissible in courts and used against the accused, essentially eviscerating the Fourth Amendment. They have also steadily chipped away at the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront you accuser, and the right to present evidence on your own behalf, while simultaneously increasing the so-called right of government law breakers to be immune from criminal and civil prosecution for their criminality, brutality, and lawlessness. No wonder so many people in government are afraid of an armed citizenry. An armed man is a citizen whereas an unarmed man is a subject. Or put another way, an armed citizenry will get to the point where they won’t take this abuse anymore and agents of the state will find that engaging in immoral and unconstitutional actions will more likely than not result in them being shot and killed by those whom they are oppressing, whereas an unarmed citizenry that finally gets to the point where they can’t take it anymore will have no choice but to roll over and take it-hard. History and the current world are replete with these kinds of societies.

All the while the one party system in Congress not only allows this to happen, but actively funds it with your money. Think about it. You spend on average 33% of every hour you work, every day you work, every week you work, every month you work, and every year you work, working to support these policies and practices. And when you are not working you are paying compound taxes that amount to an average of 33% of the costs for the goods and services that you consume and utilize every day. Essentially, the government says that it owns one-third of your life, whether you like it or not. At one time that figure was 0%, 1%, 5%, etc. One day it will be well over 50% and perhaps even 90%-100%. And there won’t be a damn thing you can do about it because by then you will have been fattened up, dumbed down, and disarmed. Perhaps we are getting what we deserve for allowing our government to do what it does to the sovereign peoples of foreign lands.

Keep in mind that the fact that most of these men are foreigners is not ok. The rights to habeas corpus, trial by jury, and due process are universal human rights that apply to all men. Remember that the Constitution does not grant these rights to Americans, it merely recognizes these preexisting rights which apply to all men by the nature of their very existence. As such, our government is obligated to apply these rights to all human beings with whom it interacts or comes into contact. If you have not yet attained a post-conventional stage of intellectual and moral development where just doing the right thing for the sake of doing what is right, is enough for you; then allow me to appeal to your selfish pre-conventional stage of intellectual and moral development and point out that it is also in your own best interest to oppose this tyranny because there is a direct inverse relationship between a government’s exertion of power over foreigners and foreign lands, and the amount of domestic freedom at home. As the exertion of foreign power increases, freedom at home decreases. This is because policies, procedures, practices, techniques, and technologies are invariably directed inward as opposed to exclusively outward. Proof of this is found throughout history but more recently is found in both of the Patriot Acts, both of the Military Commissions Acts, the NDAA, the de facto nullifications of the Posse Comitatus Act and of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the actions of C.I.A. personnel within the United States, as well as the events at Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Boston, and the general militarization of local and civilian law enforcement.

And what will become of the prisoners that Obama has found guilty by public proclamation? My guess is a combination of the following: Secret Star Chamber type trials that invariably find everyone guilty, executive orders finding them guilty-this would merely formalize Obama’s public pronouncements of guilt, life in prison, death, handing over to third parties that will agree to do what we tell them to do to the prisoners-including murdering them. People like me will soon follow.

“Freedom is not bestowed upon by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.” -Benjamin Franklin.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” -Lord Acton.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” -Benjamin Franklin.

What are you waiting for? How much more of a clarion call do you require before you wake up and before you take action? Must you literally find yourself, a loved one, or a friend, dead, nearly beaten to death, about to die, or unjustly imprisoned, before you are ready to take action, and then wishing that you had already done so because at that point it will be too late?

Source: libertycrier.com

Related posts:

1. North Korea and the United States: Will the Real Aggressor Please Stand Down?
2. Lobbyist Demands Approval For “Lethal” Drones Within United States
3. And so it begins: New York government confiscates ‘private’ records of psychiatrists in chilling Orwellian mental health sweep

See Also: (Rys2Sense) – Video: Boston to London are these “lone wolf” attacks?

Short answer is no

Related posts:

1. Modern terrorism how the CIA NATO use rent-a-terrorist – Ryan Dawson
2. Pearl Harbor did FDR know? – Ryan Dawson
3. Just Stop Killing People – Ryan Dawson

See Also: (Corbett) – Video: Meet John Kerry, Skull and Bones Ambassador

Story #1: Portland voters reject water fluoridation
http://ur1.ca/e0dlw
Syrian Rebel ‘Cuts Out Soldier’s Heart And Eats It In Horrific Propaganda Video
http://ur1.ca/e0dn1
Tami Canal on #MarchAgainstMonsanto
http://ur1.ca/e0dnf

Story #2: British Soldier Literally Butchered On London Street
http://ur1.ca/e0dnr
Syrian rebel ‘cuts out soldier’s heart and EATS it’ in horrific propaganda video
http://ur1.ca/e0do5

Story #3: Jury deliberations to begin in first case of 26 malpractice suits involving robot surgery
http://ur1.ca/e0dp1
Predator Drone Court-Martialed For Afghani Civilian Deaths
http://ur1.ca/e0dpc
Obama Adminstration Formally Admits Killing Four Americans In Drone Strikes
http://ur1.ca/e0dpn
Who is Accountable when Drones Kill?
http://ur1.ca/7yq98

Visit http://NewWorldNextWeek.com to get previous episodes in various formats to download, burn and share. And as always, stay up-to-date by subscribing to the feeds from Corbett Report http://ur1.ca/39obd and Media Monarchy http://ur1.ca/kuec Thank you.

Previous Episode: Scandal Week, Angelina Eugenics, Mini-Bilderberg
http://ur1.ca/e0dq4

Related posts:

1. Pharaoh Morsi, African Blackwater, Droning On – New World Next Week
2. Scandal Week, Angelina Eugenics, Mini-Bilderberg – New World Next Week
3. Big Brother Buses, G7 Currency War, Executive Cybersecurity – New World Next Week

See Also: (WRH) – Video: Changing the Story

Also: (WRH) – Video: Stage Management for Your Reality and Kokesh Take Two

Also: (WRH) – Video: Locking Down the Media and Crazy Kokesh

Related posts:

1. Just Accept What We Tell You & Believe & All Shall Be Well – Michael Rivero
2. Boston Full Court Press – Michael Rivero
3. Money Junkies in Withdraw – Michael Rivero

In Free to Learn, developmental psychologist Peter Gray argues that our children, if free to pursue their own interests through play, will not only learn all they need to know, but will do so with energy and passion. Children come into this world burning to learn, equipped with the curiosity, playfulness, and sociability to direct their own education. Yet we have squelched such instincts in a school model originally developed to indoctrinate, not to promote intellectual growth.

See Also: (Freedomain) – Video: Why, Oh Why Did I Have a Child?

Related posts:

1. Communicating Philosophy to Friends and Family – Stefan Molyneux
2. An Atheist’s Guide to Political Freedom! – Stefan Molyneux
3. Bitcoins, Siblings and the Supernatural – Stefan Molyneux