Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
March 11, 2009

The U.S. Army dispatched soldiers to patrol the streets of Samson, Alabama, a small southern town where a rampaging gunman killed 10 people on Tuesday. This obvious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting the federal uniformed services from exercising state and local law enforcement was completely ignored by the corporate media with the exception of Reuters and the London Telegraph (see photo and video).

	From Reuters: “U.S. Army soldiers from Ft. Rucker patrol the downtown area of Samson, Alabama after a shooting spree March 10, 2009.”

On September 30, 2008, the Army Times reported the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, a component of Northern Command, would be “on-call” in response to “natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.” The Army Times article reported the military would be used for “crowd and traffic control” and be issued “nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.” According to the article, “expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one..” (Emphasis added.)

In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a bill containing controversial provisions granting the president the ability to use federal troops inside the United States in emergency situations. These changes (in Section 1076) were included in the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

In 2008, Congress restored many of the earlier limitations on the president’s ability to deploy troops within the United States, but Bush issued a signing statement indicating he was not bound by the changes.

“The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington,” James Bovard wrote for the American Conservative on April 23, 2007. “Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it.”

The dispatch of troops to Alabama in response to a local law enforcement situation represents a further erosion of Posse Comitatus and the continued federalization of state and local law enforcement.

A Telegraph video on the shootings in Alabama propagandizes against the right to own
firearms in the United States and the Second Amendment.

Finally, the corporate media in Britain has exploited the situation in an effort to denigrate the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights. In a transparent propaganda piece (see video above), the Telegraph states that “mass shootings have become a feature of life in the U.S. in recent years. Guns are widely available for purchase in a country that prides itself on the right to own weapons for self defense and hunting.” Britain has some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the world.

After Britain’s government banned guns in 1997, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. “A recent study of all the countries of western Europe has found that in 2001 Britain had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime,” historian Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote for the fall 2004 issue of Journal on Firearms & Public Policy.

Infowars
March 10, 2009

The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people.

The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery.

We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order’s plans. It’s not about Left or Right: it’s about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation.

Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you.

Watch The Obama Deception and learn how:

- Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law.

- Obama’s handlers are openly announcing the creation of a new Bank of the World that will dominate every nation on earth through carbon taxes and military force.

- International bankers purposefully engineered the worldwide financial meltdown to bankrupt the nations of the planet and bring in World Government.

- Obama plans to loot the middle class, destroy pensions and federalize the states so that the population is completely dependent on the Central Government.

- The Elite are using Obama to pacify the public so they can usher in the North American Union by stealth, launch a new Cold War and continue the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The information contained in this film is vital to the future of the Republic and to freedom worldwide. President Barack Obama is only the tool of a larger agenda. Until all are made aware, humanity will remain captive to the masters of the New World Order.

Barry Grey

WSWS

March 10, 2009

In an extensive interview conducted last Friday with the New York Times and published on Sunday, President Barack Obama outlined policies on national security and foreign affairs that underscore the essential continuity between his administration and that of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The interview made clear that the new administration has embraced the basic political and ideological framework of the Bush administration to justify military aggression and illegality internationally and attacks on democratic rights within the United States—the so-called &quotglobal war on terror.”

In its report on the interview, the Times itself took note of the continuity between the policies of the two administrations, writing: &quotThe president spoke at length about the struggle with terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere, staking out positions that at times seemed more comparable to those of his predecessor than many of Mr. Obama’s more liberal supporters would like. He did not rule out the option of snatching terrorism suspects out of hostile countries.”

Further on, the newspaper commented, &quotMr. Obama signaled that those on the left seeking a wholesale reversal of Mr. Bush’s detainee policy might be disappointed.”

In the course of the interview, Obama took pains to rebut suggestions that his policies were in some way &quotsocialistic,” going so far as to call back the interviewer later in the day to reaffirm his commitment to &quotfree market principles.” (See “A specter haunts the ruling elite“)

Asked whether the US was presently winning the war in Afghanistan, Obama said &quotNo,” and proceeded to outline his policy of expanding the Afghan war and extending it into Pakistan. He said: &quotAt the heart of a new Afghanistan policy is going to be a smarter Pakistan policy. As long as you’ve got safe havens in these border regions that the Pakistani government can’t control or reach, in effective ways, we’re going to continue to see vulnerability on the Afghan side of the border.”

Last month Obama announced the deployment of an additional 17,000 US troops to Afghanistan, the first installment of a military escalation that is expected to double the US troop presence in the country to 60,000 in the coming months. At the same time, the Obama administration has stepped up missile attacks across the border in Pakistan, and has gone beyond such attacks by the Bush administration by targeting for the first time anti-government Pakistani Islamist forces that are not involved in cross-border raids on US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

In response to a question from the Times, Obama suggested that US would be open to negotiating with certain anti-US Islamist and Taliban factions in Afghanistan in an attempt to break them away from more hard-line Taliban forces. He justified this option by referring to the &quotsuccess” of a similar tactic employed in Iraq by then-US commander in Iraq and current chief of the US Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus.

Petraeus, as part of the Bush administration’s military &quotsurge” in Iraq, combined the bribing of some Sunni tribal leaders with intensified military violence against so-called &quotincorrigible” elements and devastating attacks on civilian populations in hostile regions. The aim was to isolate and destroy the most implacable opponents of the American occupation and the US puppet regime in Baghdad.

In an effort to deflect a suggestion by the Times interviewer that he was &quotmore liberal than you suggested on the campaign,” Obama cited his own policy in Iraq. &quotI think it would be hard to argue, Jeff,” he said. &quotWe have delivered on every promise that we’ve made so far. We said that we would end the war in Iraq and we’ve put forward a responsible plan.”

&quotResponsible” is a code word for delaying any significant draw-down of US troops until the end of the year, in line with the demands of the military, and abandoning his campaign pledge to withdraw one combat brigade a month and all &quotcombat” forces within 16 months. In the plan for Iraq that Obama announced last month, a residual force of up to 50,000 so-called &quotnon-combat” troops will remain in Iraq at least until the end of 2011.

At another point, to counter any suggestion that he was a &quotsocialist,” Obama touted his commitment to slash spending and impose fiscal austerity, making clear, however, that the military budget would not be targeted. &quotWe’ve essentially said that, number one, we’re going to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to the lowest levels in decades,” he said.

On the illegal and anti-democratic methods employed by the US in pursuit of the &quotwar on terror”—the kidnapping of alleged terrorists and their transfer for interrogation (torture) to third countries (rendition), the indefinite detention without charges or trial of so-called &quotenemy combatants,” warrantless domestic spying—Obama indicated that the substance of the Bush administration’s policies would be continued.

Asked about striking a &quotbalance” between national security and civil liberties, Obama gave his stamp of approval to the role of top Bush intelligence officials who oversaw massive domestic spying, rendition, secret CIA torture centers and illegal detentions, including of legal residents and US citizens. He suggested that while in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there may have been abuses, by the time he took office these excesses had been corrected.

He said: &quotI think the CIA, for example… took steps to correct certain policies and procedures after those first couple of years. I think that (former CIA director) Admiral Hayden and Mike McConnell at DNI (director of national intelligence) were capable public servants who really had America’s security interests in mind when they acted, and I think they were mindful of American values and ideals…”

The Times interviewer cited public statements by Obama’s CIA director, Leon Panetta, that the Obama administration would continue the practice of rendition. Asked why the new administration would continue the policy, Obama suggested it was justified in relation to &quotdangerous” Al Qaeda operatives who surfaced in countries with which the US had no extradition treaty and which would be loathe to prosecute.

Declaring that his administration was conducting a review of rendition policy to somehow make it compatible with international law, and reiterating his verbal renunciation of torture, he said, “… we ultimately provide anybody that we’re detaining an opportunity through habeas corpus to answer to charges.”

The Times reported that Obama aides subsequently told the newspaper that &quotMr. Obama did not mean to suggest that everybody held by American forces would be granted habeas corpus or the right to challenge their detention. In a court filing last month, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration position that 600 prisoners in a cavernous prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan have no right to seek their release in court.

&quotInstead, aides said Mr. Obama’s comment referred only to a Supreme Court decision last year finding that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.”

Obama’s interview with the Times is the latest demonstration of the fraudulent character of his campaign rhetoric of &quotchange” and his anti-war posturing, and underscores the impossibility of effecting any real change in government policy under a political system dominated by two parties of American imperialism.

Infowars
June 20, 2008

Does the local pool supply company need to be regulated against government provocateured patsies, mental deficients, and shoe-bombers?

The Ministry of Homeland Security thinks so.

It’s yet another fine example of government using the phony baloney war on terror to terrorize business. CBS reports:

The federal government will tell 7,000 businesses next week that they are considered high risk-terrorist targets because they house large amounts of chemicals.

The sites — which range from major chemical plants to universities, food processing centers and hospitals — will need to complete a vulnerability assessment so the government can decide how to regulate their security measures in the future.

Of course, this is just the beginning. Before it’s over, just about every business will be required to have “security measures” regulated by the government. It’s the nature of government to regulate and strangulate the life out of every independent venture. In the past, the tried to do this with myriad government agencies, from the EPA to HHS, but now they have the perfect excise — a phantom al-Qaeda that attack about every decade or so, if that.

U.S. intelligence officials say terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, favor chemical attack methods because of the severe consequences they can inflict.

“I’m trying to complicate these guys’ lives,” said Bob Stephan, assistant secretary of infrastructure protection at the Homeland Security Department.

Imposing varying security measures at sites across the country not only secures the materials inside the sites, but it creates a more difficult operation for the terrorists, he indicated.

It is also a control freak’s dream.

In the near future, however, carbon emissions and saving the planet — that is, taxing and regulating you to death — will make the war on fake terror look like a walk in the park.

Patrick Wintour
The Guardian
May 8, 2008

Police should be harassing badly behaved youths by openly filming them and hounding them at home to make their lives as uncomfortable as possible, the home secretary will say today.

The crime initiative is part of a government strategy to win back voters by proposing more radical approaches to tackling deep seated problems.

In a speech in London the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, will acknowledge that the number of antisocial behaviour orders being issued is falling, but will argue that there has been a shift to the use of parental orders instead.

As part of the crackdown on bad behaviour, she will urge police forces across the country to follow the example of Essex police, who have mounted four-day “frame and shame” operations by filming and repeatedly stopping identified persistent offenders on problem estates.

Read entire article