Think SOPA and PIPA have been buried?  Think again.  The federal government is NOT going to give up until they get full congressional approval on internet censorship measures and open legal license to enforce those measures.  For now, they have relegated their attacks to a relatively small number of sites, mostly dealing in downloadable media.  However, as SOPA went down the tubes due to mass civil fury, the feds have come back more quietly with the ACTA, an international treaty which would actually create an unelected unaccountable regulating body like the WTO to govern the spread of “copyrighted material”.  This is nonsense of course.  The true goal of SOPA, PIPA, and now the ACTA, is to destroy the creative commons known as the internet and replace it with a bureaucratically controlled facsimile.  The issue of copyright infringement is a civil affair, not a federal one, and should have nothing to do with the federal government, but they have latched onto creative piracy as a false rationalization for web regulation.  This cannot be allowed to stand.  Once this kind of control is given strong enough precedence, things will never be the same.  The internet and the alternative media is all we have left to fight the information war, and it must be protected at all costs.

Recently, I published an article covering the January 22-26multi-agency exercises being conducted in the Los Angeles area.

As I outlined in the article, this is in fact part of a broader trend of joint military-police drills (which often include other agencies, hence the “multi-agency” label) that have been occurring across the United States.

It seems hard to ignore the fact that the armed forces of the United States are training for urban warfare, not urban warfare in the Middle East, but instead here in our own nation.

This is becoming painfully clear due to the fact that the military trains for what they think they’re going to do.

If they are planning to fight in the desert, they would train in the desert and obviously if they are going to be fighting in a metropolitan setting in the United States, they would train in an American city.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what we are witnessing: increasing amount of training in urban American environments.

The Los Angeles drill is just a microcosmic example of this, and one of the more disturbing developments is the announcement of a “mock city roughly the size of downtown San Diego” which has been erected recently at the Twentynine Palms military base.

This is located northeast of San Diego and cost the taxpayer $170 million with the intention of training American military forces to wage urban warfare.

According to the Marine Corps, the facility boasts a staggering 1,560 buildings.

Read the rest by clicking here.

Top Ten Questions for Willard “Mittens” Romney.

1.   Congratulations on releasing your 2010 personal income tax returns.   They show that you made $21.7 million dollars in 2010, placing you and Ann in the top 1% of the richest 1% of Americans.   Thank you for making this public.  The question is, why doesn’t the LDS “Mormon” Church you belong to do the same?   Why is their corporate “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report” (CAFR) such a closely guarded secret? As a past Mormon Bishop and Stake President, do you feel this “veil of secrecy” by LDS Inc. is in any way acceptable – especially given the fact that the LDS  Church maintains complete and total TAX EXEMPT STATUS not only on the Federal Level, but also from State and Local property taxes?   Isn’t it true that a prerequisite for MAINTAINING TAX EXEMPT STATUS is full disclosure of all finances to the public as requested?   Please explain why you think the LDS Church should not be above the TAX LAWS!

See http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/ND10-1TithingShort.pdf

2.   What is your relationship with Ms. Orit Gadiesh, and what will be her cabinet position in your Administration? Wikipedia informs us: Orit Gadiesh (Hebrew: ????? ?????) is an Israeli-American corporate strategist and chairwoman of management consulting firm Bain & Company.  Research Ms. Gadiesh further and one learns that  prior to joining Bain & Company, and before working closely with Mitt Romney, Ms. Gadiesh served in the office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army. Currently, her impressive resume lists that she sits on the board of directors of the Peres Center for Peace, an organization headed by yet another former chief of staff of the Israeli military, Lt. General Amnon Lipkin-Shahak.  Avner Azulay, a top-level MOSSAD operative, the managing director of the Marc Rich Foundation, is also on the executive board of the Peres Center.   Ms. Gadiesh headed up your “transition team” when you occupied the Governor’s mansion of Massachusetts in 2002.   Is Ms. Gadiesh your MOSSAD/CIA “Handler” Mr. Romney?   Is it just a strange coincidence that she has shadowed your every step – from Harvard, to Bain & Company, to the Governor’s Office?

Orit Gadiesh – High Level MOSSAD Agent and Chairman of Bain Capital. Could she be Mitt Romney’s CIA/MOSSAD “Handler”?

3.  According to a report on MSNBC, you have announced that Israeli/Americans Michael Chertoff and “Rabbi” Dov Zackheim are your “top advisers”.  Don’t you realize that Chertoff means “Child of the Devil” in Yiddish, and is the man responsible for the “Full Body Scanners” at airports?   Don’t you know that Rabbi Zackheim, as Pentagon “comptroller” – was responsible for over $2 TRILLION in missing funds?  Don’t you know that the section of the Pentagon “attacked” on 9-11 destroyed the evidence and “paper trail” of these missing TRILLIONS?    Why aren’t you prosecuting these rogues instead of seeking their advice and counsel?  See http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/06/8188821-romney-unveils-advisers-on-natl-security-and-foreign-policy

“Rabbi” Dov Zackheim – Mitt’s Advisor Prime Architect of 9-11 False Flag?

Michael Chertoff – Mitt’s Advisor and Major Player in Bush’s Rogues Gallery

4.   Please tell us about your special relationship with Cofer Black (Mr. BlackWater) and Michael Hayden if you would be so kind?   According to the MSNBC story above:

“Hayden, who along with Chertoff will co-chair Romney’s working group on counter-terrorism and intelligence, also has a distinguished (but also controversial) background in national security. As director of the National Security Agency — and then later the CIA — he was embroiled in the debate over warranttless wiretapping following 9/11, which he later argued before Congress was a legal and necessary step to protect the United States against further terrorist strikes.

Black, another former member of the CIA, is listed as one of Romney’s special advisers. He left government service in 2004 after a long CIA career and two years as the  State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism issues, and then became a vice chairman for the private security firm Blackwater — a position is not mentioned in the short biography provided by the Romney campaign.”    

Could you kindly please tell the American people how your presidency will be any different than King George W.’s disaster, given that you are clearly reassembling the same goon squad?

5.  Please Mr. “Mittens”, tell America specifically: what qualified you to be a featured speaker at the MOSSAD’s (IDC) “Institute of Policy and Strategy” Herzliya Conference in 2007?  Will you provide America with a transcript of your speech at this top globalist insider conference?  Tell us, sir, do you concur fully with the IPS CHAIRMAN, General Daniel ROTHSCHILD’S statement:  “In many respects, the hometown of the Institute, Herzliya, named after Theodore Herzl, the visionary of modern Zionism, epitomizes the belief that Israel and the Jewish people must take charge of their destiny to actively shape events and processes critical to the future of Israel. This belief guides the Institute’s work.”  – In short, will you put Israel first, ahead of America?   See http://www.herzliyaconference.org/eng/?CategoryID=431

Mr. Mittens Speaking at MOSSAD Zionist Conference, 2007 – the Epitome of Esau/Edom!

6.  What did you promise the Edomite (Jewish) Crown family of Chicago, in order to get their endorsement and blessing over their former “Golden Boy” – Barack Hussein Obama?  Did you promise an attack, or even a war with Iran?

Henry, Lester, and Susan Crown of Chicago. These Edomites made their fortune selling munitions during WWII. The Crown family is the face of military-industrialist behemoth, General Dynamics.

Russell Means wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Means

Russell Means International Movie Database page:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0575184/

Russell Means on the Alex Jones Show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQtrxLS92A

Russell Means at his YouTube Channel on Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKiRheypcs

Reinforcing the fact that Chris Dodd really does not get what’s happening, and showing just how disgustingly corrupt the MPAA relationship is with politicians, Chris Dodd went on Fox News toexplicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they’d better pass Hollywood’s favorite legislation… or else:

“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,”

This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of an extremely angry public is a really, really, really tone deaf response from Dodd.

It shows, yet again, that he just doesn’t get it.

Read more here.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step.

As he has previously, Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.

..”We have common cause here” with Israel, he said. “And the better approach is for us to work together.”

Panetta’s remarks on CBS’ Face the Nation, which were taped Friday and aired Sunday, reflect the long-held view of the Obama administration that Iran is not yet committed to building a nuclear arsenal, only to creating the industrial and scientific capacity to allow one if its leaders to decide to take that final step.

The comments suggest the White House’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear strategy has not changed in recent months, despite warnings from advocates of military action that time is running out to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear-armed state.

Iran says its nuclear program is only for energy and medical research, and refuses to halt uranium enrichment

Several Republican candidates have called for a tougher line against Iran, saying they believe it is committed to building the bomb. “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” said Mitt Romney. “And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Rick Santorum has said that the U.S. should plan a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and “say to them that if you do not open up those facilities and close them down, we will close them down for you.”

Iran has opened two dozen of its facilities to international inspectors, but has refused in defiance of the U.N. Security Council to suspend its uranium enrichment.

A leading hardline Iranian newspaper reported Sunday that Iran has begun uranium enrichment at a new underground site well protected from possible airstrikes.

Kayhan daily, which is close to Iran’s ruling clerics, said scientists have begun injecting uranium gas into sophisticated centrifuges at the Fordo facility near the holy city of Qom.

In a talk at a Brookings Institution forum in December, Panetta said an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would “at best” delay Iran’s nuclear program by one or two years. Among the unintended consequences, he said, would be an increase in international support for Iran and the likelihood of Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces and bases in the Mideast.

Panetta did not discuss the issue directly on Sunday’s “Face the Nation.” But Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, appearing with the defense secretary, said that he wanted the Iranians to believe that a U.S. military strike could wipe out their nuclear program.

“I absolutely want them to believe that’s the case,” he said.

Panetta did not rule out launching a pre-emptive strike.

“But the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them to force them to do the right thing,” he said. “And to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”

Panetta said if Iran started developing a weapon, the U.S. would act. “I think they need to know that — that if they take that step — that they’re going to get stopped.”

Dempsey also said that Iran has the military power to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time” if it decides to do so, but that the U.S. would take action to reopen waterway. “We can defeat that,” he said.

Panetta said closing the strait would draw a U.S. military response. “We made very clear that the United States will not tolerate the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz,” he said. “That’s another red line for us and … we will respond to them.”

A number of experts say Iran is unlikely to close the strait, through which Gulf oil flows, because the action could hurt Iran as much as the West.

But a second Iranian newspaper, the Khorasan daily, on Sunday quoted a senior commander of the powerful Revolutionary Guard force as saying Tehran’s leadership has decided to order the closure of the strategic oil route if the country’s petroleum exports are blocked.

Iranian politicians have issued similar threats in the past, but this is the strongest statement yet by a top commander in the security establishment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/panetta-iran-is-seek…

by Seth King, DailyAnarchist

As I sat and watched tonight’s GOP Presidential debate in South Carolina it became clear to me that despite much greater name recognition than four years prior, Congressman Ron Paul’s message of non-interventionism will continue to fall on deaf ears. As a minarchist this phenomena was both infuriating and incomprehensible. As an anarchist, however, it makes perfect sense.

Large swaths of the American public have reason to favor military adventurism abroad. Perhaps they hold evangelical beliefs that the state of Israel must be defended at all costs to life and treasure. Or maybe they legitimately fear nuclear weapons in the hands of suicidal madmen. Regardless of their reasoning, or lack thereof, they genuinely desire to wage war in the middle east and around the globe.

On the other end of the spectrum there are many who favor, possibly naively, diplomacy and trade over sanctions and war. Perhaps they feel that pre-emptive war increases the number of one’s enemies instead of reducing them. They may also feel they can no longer afford the costs of slaying dragons abroad.

But no matter where one finds themselves in the political spectrum concerning foreign policy there will be winners and losers. An either/or decision must be made at the federal level. The problem, however, with this winner-take-all system is that there will always be differences of opinion in the course of action to take. And it will necessarily cause much strife among the populace as it does so clearly today.

What minarchists fail to understand about this paradigm is that even under the most favorable conditions, a popularly elected President Paul, there will be losers in the political system: the individuals who desire to wage war abroad. One must account for the fact that the righteousness of their cause is completely irrelevant in this hypothetical scenario, just as it is when the political losers are the non-interventionists. Such is the nature of representative democracy.

A much more reasonable approach in dealing with conservative hawks would be to offer no resistance to their crusading, but that any attempt to forcefully extract resources or human labor from unwilling participants to wage said war would be viewed as an act of war itself. This ultimatum gives the opposition an out. It allows for a win-win situation for all individuals of a geographical area, such as the so-called United States. Individuals eager to fight can do so, whereas those who do not may abstain.

Attempting to use the political means to convert hawks will always be a fruitless venture. They outnumber the non-interventionists in both major parties, among independents, and even in corporate lobbying power. So long as they have this sort of influence in the halls of Congress they will unabashedly require dissenters to fund their foreign aggression.

But as minarchists are keenly aware of the risks to both liberty and treasure in funding and fighting foreign wars, so too are they ironically unwilling to accept the risks associated with disobedience to the war machine. It is clear to minarchists that the United States is on the brink of bankruptcy and gaining no ground fighting foreign wars. They refuse to admit to themselves, however, that the federal government would be powerless to simultaneously wage an all out war on the very people that are currently financing the losing wars abroad.

Congressman Paul will never be able to convert the mass of conservative hawks, or the liberal spendthrifts, to change their ways. Only individuals willing to add an even greater strain to the already unstable system by withdrawing their financial and moral support can create genuine reform.

They’ve yet to write the final chapter on how the path taken by Iceland in the wake of the financial crisis (i.e., letting its banks fail and allowing its currency to plunge while consumer prices soared, all of which seems to have led to a much swifter recovery) compares to the path chosen by the rest of the world (i.e. printing money, propping up the banks, and lots of can-kicking), but this Washington Poststory brings readers up to date.

Iceland’s journey from financial ruin to fledgling recovery is a case study in roads not taken and choices not made by other countries faced with calamity in recent years.

By the time the United States and Europe began to wrestle with the fallout of the global financial crisis in 2008, this tiny island nation was experiencing full-fledged meltdown. Its bloated banks failed. Its currency collapsed. The prime minister invoked God’s help, and protesters filled the streets.

Iceland did what the United States chose not to do — allow its biggest banks to fail and force foreign creditors to take a hike. It did what troubled European nations saddled with massive debts and tethered by the euro cannot do — allow its currency to remain weak, causing inflation but making its exports more desirable and its prices more attractive to tourists.

Three years later, the unemployment rate has fallen. Tourism has increased. The economy is growing. The government successfully raised money from investors in the summer for the first time since the crisis.

It’s tempting to conclude that this country of 318,000 people simply handled the crisis more adeptly than others, like a pick-your-own-ending book in which Icelanders chose correctly. There is a sliver of truth in that, but the full story is more complicated.

There’s much more to this report and it’s well worth reading in its entirety.

If nothing else, it should be interesting to see how Iceland is doing three, five, or ten years from now as compared to other Western nations. According to the latest data from The Economist, the Iceland economy has been booming lately, though, for some reason, projections for the New Year are very U.S.-like.

 

Read more at The Mess That Greenspan Made

The New American magazine recently reported Oklahoma’s proposal of a State constitutional amendment which prohibits their courts from using “international law” and “Sharia law”. The amendment was purportedly proposed as a preemptive strike to prevent courts from ruling cases “unfavorable” to the ideas upon which the constitution of the United States was ratified. While those in Oklahoma may have good intentions, this amendment displays at least some ignorance as to the role and function of the courts as well as an overly-vague use of terms; and ironically, the amendment undermines the foundation of our country—the thing they want to save.

The Oklahoma constitution amendment proposal states,

“The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression” (emphasis added).

‘International Law’ Preclusion

Those who drafted and supported this amendment presumably had good motive to “preserve” the Supreme Law of the Land. However, the jurisprudence adopted and used in the United States before and after 1787 demonstrate the study of human nature as the source of law. This study of law was described as the Laws of Nature, Law of Nations, Common Law, Universal Law, International Law, and the like.

To preclude a judge from considering “international law” distorts our own history and founding. A study of the Federalist Papers reveals as much that international and common law, use, and customs were used to formulate our own constitutional structure and governmental form.

For a judge to interpret and apply the fundamental law (constitution), he must study and understand the words and sense of the constitution as meant and intended by the makers and ratifiers of the constitution. The constitution’s words and sense derive from a universal understanding given the historical, political, legal, and cultural context as the words were used.

While this rule of construction will largely preclude the courts from reaching outside American jurisprudence to form its judgment, there are conceivable cases where the court should and must look outside America’s short history to expound or understand concepts and terms. Were a court precluded from considering “international law”, the court would not be able to understand the true meaning and sense of words and usages in the United States Constitution. Thus, the ACLU’s position is correct when it states that “preventing courts from considering international law violates the [United States] Constitution and undermines the ability of courts to interpret laws and treaties.”

I go back to my usual soapbox concerning the seeds and roots of America’s founding. These roots go back thousands of years and encompass a wide and large school of thought from the story of Adam and Eve (i.e. Hebrew) and classical republicanism (i.e. Rome and Greece), to the Enlightenment Period (i.e. Europe). Under the Oklahoma amendment, the courts would be prohibited from considering these classic sources.

These studies of human nature, government, and society gather knowledge not from anachronistic and myopic approaches. English common law, which is still used in America, derives from the study of natural law and to some extent, Biblical revelation, which had nothing to do with territory, culture, or statutory scheme.

Common law mostly dealt with observation, reason, and logic—to explain, obtain, and maintain the rights of mankind. In addition, common law’s historical context goes back to our days as English colonies. In a sense, the United States still operates under a form of international law with common law precepts and concepts, which were developed over thousands of years in foreign countries.

The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, yes. That is a given. But that cannot preclude a court from looking at international law to understand concepts as meant and intended in 1787 upon the constitution’s ratification or to explore some other vague or obscure meanings given unforeseen and novel facts.

‘Sharia Law’ Preclusion

At the expense of getting criticized for this particular critique, objective persons must put aside personal feelings or emotions, which may unjustifiably sway reason. That being said, the New American magazine article observes and concludes the following concerning Sharia law’s harmful impact on society and implicitly the United States:

“For fuller context of the controversy, one need understand that Sharia, which means ‘path’ in Arabic, is the sacred law of Islam. As noted above, the precepts of Sharia have two sources: the Koran and the writings of Mohammed. Sharia is the code that is responsible for thestoning of adulteresses; the caning of rape victims; and the restrictions on dress, rights of inheritance, and marital status of women. Institutional acceptance of this legal code has expanded rapidly, and frightfully to some, in Europe.”

Since I am a Christian, my observations here may appear counter-intuitive to some. Still, when I read this comment, I cannot help but to respond by saying, the Bible demonstrates these same kinds of laws particularly for Israel’s society in the Old Testament. There is no need to go into theological detail here, nor is my comment meant to invoke a detailed discussion of the differences between the Bible and Sharia law. Distinctions will be admittedly conceded.

The point to understand is this: if one is going to propose a constitutional amendment like this, he should consider the Bible, among other religious references, was used in weaving the United States’ fabric—the Bible containing both international law and illustrations disagreeable to American jurisprudence.

So, if a judge uses the Old or New Testament to support a decision disagreeable to our American jurisprudence, would anyone propose an amendment to exclude the Bible from being used in support of the courts’ decisions? I think not; and rightfully so.

This illustrates that a constitution, established for secular and civil purposes, will have a very difficult, if not impossible, time excluding ideas and sources of knowledge—regardless of their origin—from being explored in cases of judicial review.

For the court to fulfill its duty to “say what the law is”, the court must be able to use the universal thought of ideas to explore and ascertain words, usages, meanings, and understandings. That is not the danger.

The danger is when courts impose and force their own interpretation and conjectures of the constitution contrary to the makers. If Oklahoma wants to protect the rule of law, their amendment should address judiciary rules of constitutional construction (e.g., Amend. 11, U.S. Const.), not prohibit the use of resources, ideas, and concepts.