062509 News As Talked About On The Harry Thomas Show week in review

Another document designating Americans as terrorists has surfaced. The document, entitled “Crisis Controlled: Assessing Potential Threats of Violence,” authored by Trooper John R. Wright, is posted on the official website of the Commonwealth of Virginia, under the Department of Human Resources Management.

In March, the Virginia State Police and the Virginia Fusion Center produced a report entitled “2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment.” In response, Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine ordered an investigation of the fusion center. The report designates university-based students groups as terrorist groups.

Presented in slideshow format, the latest document lists gun rights, pro-life, constitutional issues, tax protesters, and “anti-government groups” as domestic terror threats. Anarchists, separatists, “single issue,” and religious cults are listed along with al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, al-Jihad, Aryan Nations, neo-Nazi, skinheads, black separatists, and the Klu Klux Klan.

The Black Bloc anarchists are a notorious government front. In keeping with the well-documented “strategy of tension” technique pioneered by the CIA-NATO contrivance Gladio, so-called anarchists (who were police agents provocateurs) engaged in violence during the anti-globalist Genoa protests in 2001. As Alex Jones documents in his film Police State 2: The Takeover, the Black Bloc anarchists in Seattle during the WTO protests of 1999 were effectively infiltrated and provocateured by the authorities. During the Montebello globalist summit in Quebec in 2007, several “anarchists” were outed as police agents.

Trooper John R. Wright’s slideshow weighs heavily on “protective measures” against these manufactured threats. He tells us that terrorists will try to “fit in” and cites Timothy McVeigh, Luke John Helder (the so-called mailbox bomber), and Sarah Jane Olson as examples of people who on the surface appear to be average citizens. Sarah Jane Olson, aka Kathleen Soliah, was a patsy member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a classic government created terror group. McVeigh’s connection to the government is noted above.

Wright urges citizens to actively become snoops and instructs them to consider innocuous behavior as suspected terrorist activity. People who avoid community contact and value privacy are to be considered possible terrorists, as well as those who make “unusual purchases” or have “numerous visitors/meetings.”

In other words, if you listen to Alex Jones, have an anti-NWO bumper sticker on your vehicle, or wear certain clothing you may be reported to the Virginia State Police as a possible terrorist worthy of “subsequent investigation.”

“Crisis Controlled: Assessing Potential Threats of Violence” is another example of an orchestrated effort by police agencies — now fully federalized and under the sway of the Department of Homeland Security — to designate legitimate and constitutionally protected opposition to government policies as violent terrorist activity.

On June 15, Steve Watson reported on a Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course that characterized Americans exercising their First Amendment right as terrorists. The ACLU contacted the DoD regarding its Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course, which advises personnel that political protest amounts to “low-level terrorism.”

“The ACLU points out that although in and of itself the classification of protest as terrorism is deeply disturbing, it is even more alarming when viewed in the context of the Pentagon’s long term efforts to crack down on organized dissent,” write Watson.

The Pentagon training course flagging protesters as terrorists came on the heels of the Department of Homeland Security’s “extremism” report. In the DHS report, pro-life, Second Amendment, anti-illegal immigration and “antigovernment” activists are characterized as terrorists.

An earlier report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009, specifically described supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructed the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

The MIAC report was subsequently pulled after Alex Jones went public with the story. An anonymous police officer in Missouri had sent the MIAC report to Jones.

The Virginia State Police need to receive complaints about this latest document. The Virginia State Police “Terrorist Tip Hotline” is 1-877-4VA-TIPS. The telephone number to the Virginia State Police administrative headquarters is (804) 674-2936. The administrative office handles questions concerning Department policy and procedure (email address: bonnie.crowder@vsp.virginia.gov). Please contact the Virginia State Police and politely indicate you do not appreciate the police urging citizens to become snoops and characterizing lawful behavior as terrorism.

A report posted on the Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet website mentions the Kentucky chapter of the Constitution Party. The 2006 report, entitled “Hate Crime and Hate Incidents in the Commonwealth,” characterizes the paleoconservative political party as a patriot group and associates it with the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist organizations.

The report cites “hate crime” statistics produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, organizations that have made a cottage industry out of conflating the patriot movement and racist groups.

“What remains of the Patriot scene today is generally harder core, with an increasing number of groups influenced by the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology favored by some American neo-Nazi groups. Many others have embraced another radical theology, Christian Reconstructionism,” the SPLC claimed in 2001. Patriots entertain “outlandish conspiracy theories and childish fascination with guns, as a collection of nuts, people lacking basic reasoning skills whose arguments were naïve at best.”

On February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri issued the “MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement.” It specifically mentions former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin as potentially dangerous “militia members.” MIAC profiled people opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, income taxes, the United Nations, and other issues of concern to paleoconservatives and libertarians as possible terrorists.

The report was sent anonymously to Alex Jones and subsequently received national attention. In response to negative publicity, Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder called on Governor Jay Nixon to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation into the report.

The ADL and SPLC were instrumental in both the MIAC report and the Department of Homeland Security’s report on “rightwing extremism.” In April, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered a keynote speech at an ADL conference in Washington. She admitted the agency has received “training” on “hate” groups from the ADL.

The Kentucky report lists the Constitution Party in a table along with Take Back Kentucky, Ranch Rescue, and the Kentucky State Militia. “Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the ‘New World Order’ or advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government or conspiratorial doctrines,” a caveat below the table states. “Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. This list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement officials and news reports. Source: Southern Poverty Law Center.”

If patriot groups are not racist, why are they included in a report that concentrates on “hate crimes” and the Ku Klux Klan?

As previously noted on Infowars and Prison Planet, the SPLC and the ADL are in the business of demonizing the patriot and larger paleoconservative and libertarian movement as dangerous terrorists on the radical and “extremist” fringe of the American political landscape. Including the Constitution Party — now considered a mainstream political party — in a report dwelling on the Imperial Klans of America and the neo-Nazi American National Socialist Workers’ Party is part of a concerted effort to delegitimize and stigmatize the patriot movement.

In this KTVI Fox news piece, the ADL characterizes the Constitution Party as a “fringe right-wing political party” with “extremist roots.”

The Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet needs to remove this obvious and defamatory propaganda from its website immediately (or at minimum remove mention of patriot groups from this SPLC-ADL produced report). The Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet’s office secretary may be reached at (502) 564-7554.

A sinister bill working its way through the House may eventually serve as a companion piece to the Department of Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremist” report that labels veterans and advocates of the Second Amendment as dangerous terrorists — H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York.

On April 29, with little fanfare or corporate media coverage, H.R. 2159 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The entire bill can be read on the Govtrack website.

A similar bill was introduced in the Senate in 2007 but did not make it out of committee.

As noted above, the DHS has compiled a long list of folks the government considers terrorists. The bill, if enacted, would allow the attorney general, a documented gun-grabber, to deny millions of Americans due process. “[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, tells WorldNetDaily.

On May 1, 2009, Infowars reported on the existence of another DHS document, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon.” It adds more suspected terrorists to the government’s list, including people working in the alternative media, anarchists, pro-life activists, skinheads, lone terrorists, members of the militia movement, “decentralized” terrorists, and others.

The DHS reports were distributed to “federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”

Earlier this week, a man was stopped in Louisiana and detained by police for the crime of displaying a “Don’t tread one me” bumper sticker on his car. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group, according to The American Vision website. “Don’t tread on me” was originally displayed on a flag designed by general and statesman Christopher Gadsden during the Revolutionary War. It is depicted as a terrorist symbol in the DHS “Rightwing Extremist” report.

During Holder’s shoo-in confirmation hearings earlier this year, Stephen Halbrook, Second Amendment attorney, detailed Holder’s vehement opposition to the right to bear arms. Holder’s role in the Waco massacre and Ruby Ridge were expected to be brought up during the hearings but were not.

Shortly after 9/11, Holder penned a Washington Post op-ed entitled “Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists.” In the article, the future Attorney General argues that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also states that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by various government entities. In order to make his point, Holder makes the ludicrous hypothesis that Osama bin Laden would be able to purchase an unregistered firearm at a gun show in America.

The government now possesses the appropriate “watch lists” and has designated specific categories of Americans as domestic terrorists. If H.R. 2159 becomes law the Obama administration and the Justice Department will go after opponents to their far-reaching plan to disarm the nation and deliver it defenseless into the clutches of bankers and corporatists determined to reduce a once proud constitutional republic to the status of a fuedalist backwater.

New FTC guidelines would allow government to scrutinize content of websites, “patrol what bloggers say and do”

The Federal Reserve refuses to disclose where trillions of dollars in bailout money went and yet the FTC is more concerned about snooping into the financial affairs of bloggers who make a few bucks off affiliate relationships, according to new guidelines set to be introduced later this year that would give the government a foot in the door to regulate and shut down blogs for making “false claims”.

“New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest,” states an Associated Press report.

Furious that struggling families are supplementing their income by having housewives write blogs about cooking, or individuals posting political opinions and funding their operation by carrying affiliate links to Amazon books, the new FTC regulations would ensure that “Any type of blog could be scrutinized, not just ones that specialize in reviews,” according to the report.

The proviso that “any type of blog could be scrutinized” frames this assault on free speech in a wider context that just individuals making claims about products advertised on their websites.

The proposed guidelines (PDF) state that “deceptive speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” and that “The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the government can restrict, or even ban, such speech.” Of course, the issue of whether such speech is deceptive will be decided by the government itself.

The definition of “false claims” is so loose that it could hand the feds the power to shut down any website on a whim based on the flimsiest of pretexts. The AP report notes that the new guidelines would create a system to “patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online”.

As the Cryptogon website points out, in reality this has little to do with the FTC’s concern for fair business practices and everything to do with the government getting a foot in the door for their overarching agenda to regulate and control blogs and free speech on the Internet.

“What has happened is that bloggers have blown the support columns out from underneath traditional media and the people who run the show don’t like that.”

“The fact that some of us are able to survive by maintaining blogs must have come as an incredible shock to fat bastards in boardrooms across the land. That we are not “regulated” is unthinkable in the Soviet hive mind that governs the political economy of the United States.”

This is all about creating a chilling atmosphere and preventing people from creating their own websites by establishing a mountain of red tape and bureaucracy around the currently simple process of writing and maintaining a blog.

The ultimate endgame is to mimic the Chinese Internet system of total government regulation and censorship via the implementation of a registration process whereby every blogger will be assigned a number and given permission to blog by the government. If the blogger expresses an opinion deemed unsavory by the authorities then their registration credentials will be terminated and their ability to login to their own blog will be removed.

The European Commission is once again calling for the United States to let go of ICANN and place it under international supervision.

Echoing an earlier appeal from EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, Viviane Reding, the Commission said in a statement today that future internet governance “should reflect the key role that global network has come to play for all countries.”

ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is a California-based non-profit group that oversees the internet’s address system. It currently operates under a Joint Project Agreement with the US government, which expires at the end of September 2009.

“It is an appropriate time therefore for the EU to review the progress of ICANN to date, and to identify what changes if any may be desirable,” the Commission said.

In a communication entitled “Internet governance: the next steps,” the EC proposed that ICANN operate under private-sector authority for day-to-day internet management, “but ultimately be properly accountable to the international community as a whole.”

This report was written by a team of government cybersecurity experts that “inventoried relevant presidential policy directives, executive orders, national strategies, and studies from government advisory boards and private-sector entities.” The comprehensive review occurred over 60-days and intended to “assess U.S. policies and structures for cybersecurity.” The team came up with ten (10) recommendations (or near-term action plans) that are ultimately supposed to mitigate cybersecurity-related risks. (Note: The report was not conducted by an independent group or even provides the names or affiliations of the individuals on the team of experts.)

Reading through the seventy-six (76) page report, I couldn't help myself critiquing the quality of work that went into the report. First, the run-on sentences were plenty and confusing. I found myself reading sentences two and three times just to make out what the author(s) were trying to explain. I consider myself to be an intelligent individual and a published author as well. I guess the old saying that 'it is good enough for government work, still applies.'

Second, the report states that “the engagement process included more than 40 meetings and yielded more than 100 papers that provided specific recommendations and goals.” If this were the case, then why are most of the ten recommendations provided general in anture and rather vague in substance?

It is hard for me to believe that a comprehensive report could be completed in 60-days with as much information that would have to be reviewed from 40 meetings and over 100 papers on the topic of cybersecurity policy. This is especially true when the report defines cybersecurity policy to include:

Wow! That was a mouthful. Don’t worry, the scope of the report did not include “other information and communications policy unrelated to national security or securing the infrastructure.” I’m not really sure what this means since the report defines cyberspace as pretty much all encompassing:

The definition further goes on to say that “common usage of the term also refers to the virtual environment of information and interactions between people.” (Interesting, government control of the interaction between people.)

“America’s failure to protect cyberspace is one of the most urgent national security problems facing the new administration.” (Source: Report by the Commission of Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency, December 2008). The report also states that:

Really, we had sensitive military information stolen? When? Where? Who? Why was this not reported to us earlier? (I usually try to keep up on these types of things, but never heard about this one. While other sources were referenced in the report, this sentence had none.)

It is a known fact that “information and communications networks are largely owned and operated by the private sector, both nationally and internationally.” In addition, the private sector “designs, builds, owns, and operates most of the digital infrastructures that support government and private users alike.” The report indicates that there are many ways that the Federal government can work with the private sector. One way is by examining “existing public-private partnerships to optimize their capacity to identify priorities and enable efficient execution of concrete actions.” That’s nice, but it is nothing new. I mean, let's keep doing the same things that we have been doing and hopefully, we will get a different result.

What are some of the other ways that the Federal government can work with the private sector? How about setting up an "incentive mechanism," per the report, to make more secure products and services available to the public?

No report from the government would again be complete without including the part about how much it is going to cost us [The American People]. “The Federal government should initiate a national public awareness and education campaign informed by previous successful campaigns.” (If these campaigns were successful in the past, then why are we at the point of urgency now in terms of our cybersecurity risks?) “The government needs to increase investment in research that will help address cybersecurity vulnerabilities while also meeting our economic needs and national security requirements.” “Appoint a cybersecurity policy official…” and “designate a privacy and civil liberties official…” (Just curious what the salaries and benefits would be for these two positions, heck, if it’s good, I may apply…. NOT!)

Let me digress for just a moment and explain how we’ve gotten to this point. According to the report, “the impact of technology on national and economic security needs has led the Federal government to adapt by creating new laws and organizations.” (Not a shock here.) The report indicates that even back to 1918, Congress authorized the President, through a Joint Resolution, to assume control of any telegraph system in the US and operate it as needed during World War I. In 1934, The Communications Act formed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish a broad regulatory framework for all communications, by wire and radio. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first man-made satellite. It was the peak of the cold war and the US and the Soviet Union considered each other enemies. Americans were scared of this news and thought that since the Soviet Union was able to launch a satellite into space, they could launch a missile at us. In response to this and to give the US a technological edge over other countries, President Dwight D. Eisenhower (not Al Gore) created the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in 1958. ARPA enlisted help from Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) to create the first computer network connecting four computers running different operating systems. They called the network ARPANET. A lot of the protocols used on the Internet today were developed through ARPANET. As soon as larger networks joined, the Internet was born. (Source: computer.howstuffworks.com) The Brooks Act of 1965 gave the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), responsibility for developing standards and guidelines for federal computer systems. In 1984, Executive Order 12472 re-chartered the National Communication System (NCS) to include telecommunication assets owned or leased by the Federal government. (In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security inherited the NCS.) In 1994, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act authorized the Department of State control over international communication and information policy. Now, we have the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 sitting in committee to give the President (or his designee) full control of the Internet under the disguise of security. (Or mabye it is War since we are still fighting two wars abroad and a war against terrorism, in all forms and on all fronts, at home.)

Back to the topic at hand, the report recommends “leading from the top” and appointing a cybersecurity policy official; however, “the cybersecurity policy official should not have operational responsibility or authority, nor the authority to make policy unilaterally.” What? Let’s assign someone responsibility for cybersecurity, but not give them any authority to implement any changes. Maybe we need to run our government like successful private companies do. Most large companies have a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (i.e. the President) that has full authority to run the company governed by the Board of Directors (i.e. Congress) that reports to the business Owners (i.e. the People). They put Chief Information Officers (CIO) or Chief Technology Officers (CTO) in charge of technologies to align with business goals. They also have Chief Security Officers (CSO) or Chief Information Security Officers (CISO) that report to Security Committees (made up of high level executives) or the Board of Directors directly to create an independence element. Security is normally in direct conflict with operations, but they both need to work together to create effective systems for continued business prosperity.

Well we can’t have laws enacted to make the Federal government’s job more difficult, can we? I guess that is one of the reasons why President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor is first nominee with cyberlaw record. Coincidence? I think not.

The report does a fairly good job in pointing out some hesitations that private sector industries have in partnering with the federal government. “Industry has also expressed reservations about disclosing to the Federal government sensitive or proprietary business information, such as vulnerabilities and data or network breaches.” “Industry may still have concerns about reputational harm, liability, or regulatory consequences of sharing information.” You think?

As a former police officer, one of the ploys we used was to have the suspect tell on themselves. We would give the suspect some false sense of hope that we were on their side, they should trust us, and things would go easier if they would just tell us ‘the truth’. (More times than not, the information the suspect provided to us created the case against them in the first place. Until the suspect started talking, we didn’t really have anything on them.) Do you think it would be any different if a company admitted to not following certain laws? Or, if they did, would the government grant some additional protection as the report puts it: “The civil liberties and privacy community has expressed concern that extending protections would only serve as a legal shield against liability.” So if a company is not keeping to its obligations in protecting their client's information, but as long as they tell the government about it and followed their standards in good faith (although these standards may have been lacking or not followed during a specific time frame that led to the security breach), they will be protected from lawsuits?

If my interpretation is correct, the report writers are pretty much saying that there is NO distinction between national security and other federal networks, thus any federal department or agency would be considered under the umbrella of a national security incident even if the department or agency doesn’t deal in national security related activity. Interesting, no?

I really like this one, “the government needs a reliable, consistent mechanism for bringing all appropriate information together to form a common operating picture.” Computer systems and networks have been around for about 50 years now and although technology has advanced, the government still hasn't gotten a good operating picture of their systems? This brings to my mind Cybernet in The Terminator movies. (I’m not saying we will have metal robots come to life to kill all humans, but if you recall the basis of the Cybernet program, it was to effectively monitor/control all government systems under one system. Unfortunately, Cybernet took over all these systems. It also contained some ‘artificial’ intelligence components. Wait, haven’t I heard this word 'artificial' before somewhere else?)

The report indicates that “we cannot improve cybersecurity without improving authentication, and identity management is not just about authenticating people.” It isn't?

I bolded the ‘opt-in’ since I always take this as meaning optional. We all now how easy optional becomes mandatory through varied mechanisms of control. We are all to familiar with the government 'enhancing privacy' matters. What privacy means to me is not what privacy means to the government.

Again with the national emergencies since we all know how well the Federal government has handled these in the past. As far as I’m aware, the current administration still hasn’t got anyone in control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

There are fourteen (14) additional mid-term action plans, but again, they are all pretty general and vague with no direct guidance on how or what impact these recommendations would ultimately have in the real world or on cybersecurity.

As a point of reference, I highlighted the words ‘global’ and ‘international’ above. I counted at least 35 times that ‘global’ was used throughout this report and at least 76 times that ‘international’ was used. Coincidence? I think not. (Can anyone say New World Order?)

In conclusion, I’m a huge proponent of Information Security and making the Internet (i.e. cyberspace or whatever you want to call it this week) more secure. It is very important to me. I live it, I breath it, and I know some of the risks and threats are real; however, I don’t believe this report to provide a clear, concise solution to the problems. It appears more to me to be some sort of mission statement or one group’s agenda on how to take control of the Internet (i.e. cyberspace) under the disguise of assuring a trusted and resilient information and communication infrastructure. (I don't know about you, but my Internet (i.e. cyberspace) connection has been on and running pretty well over the last few years. I mean, there are those moments that it doesn't work just the way it should, but these occassions are rare and far in between.) Isn't this the reason why we need more regulations and control, from the government to ensure a 100% uptime, right?

I do have to agree with at least one statement from the report: “The Federal government is not organized to address this growing problem [cybersecurity] effectively now or in the future.”

New Jersey Democrat senator Frank R. Lautenberg plans to introduce legislation designed to cancel the Second Amend rights of well over a million U.S. citizens this coming week, according to the New York Times. “Mr. Lautenberg plans to introduce legislation on Monday that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists,” the newspaper reports.

Lautenberg’s action comes in the wake of statistics compiled by the Government Accountability Office drawing attention to an “odd divergence” in federal law that allows erroneously designated terrorists to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms but prevents them from getting on a plane or getting a visa.

The Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center — the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States — had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month, according to the ACLU. In March of this year the list hit the one million mark, a 32% increase from 2007.

The actual number may far exceed one million entries. The FBI says the number of names on its terrorist watch list is classified. In addition to the National Counterterrorism Center watch list, the FBI keeps a list of persons said to be domestic terrorists, according to ABC News.

Lautenberg said he was frustrated by an FBI refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data included in the GAO report, the Times notes.

Earlier this year, a Department of Homeland Security report on “rightwing extremism” designated advocates of the Second Amendment, pro-life and anti-illegal immigration activists, and returning veterans as “terrorists.” It is not known if members of these groups are on the so-called terrorist watch list, although it is a fair assumption to conclude they are.

On May 15, 2007, then Illinois representative Rahm Emanuel, speaking at the annual Stand Up For a Safe America event sponsored by the gun-grabbing Brady Center, said that if your name appears on the bloated and error-ridden terror watch list your Second Amendment right should be denied (Emanuel’s comments are included in the Alex Jones clip below).

Obama chief of staff Emanuel’s promise may soon carry the force of law if Lautenberg’s proposed law makes it through Congress. According to the New York Times, however, the Justice Department is “noncommittal” about whether it would develop guidelines if Congress moved to give the attorney general discretion to block gun sales.

Lautenberg’s proposed bill is one of several now working their way through the labyrinth of Congress. On April 29, with little fanfare or corporate media coverage, H.R. 2159 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” Another bill, H.R. 1022, sponsored by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors, would provide AG Holder with the ability to ban guns at will.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily that H.R. 2159 will be used in conjunction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”

Lautenberg’s proposed bill would go one step further and allow Holder to deny the Second Amendment to officially designated enemies of the state.

Alex Jones explains the real purpose behind Emanuel’s desire to deny American’s their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Primary care trusts are to set up anti-viral drug distribution centres and swine flu testing clinics amid fears that the infection could spread out of control.

The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, wrote to health authorities last week urging hospitals to test all patients who show signs of flu-like symptoms. He wrote: “Transmission from person to person in this country is increasingly common. There is evidence that sporadic cases are arising with no apparent link either to cases elsewhere in the UK or to travel abroad.”

The letter followed an earlier warning from Sir Liam that millions of Britons could fall victim to swine flu in the coming months. Government officials admitted last night that illness rates from the virus could reach 50 per cent.

Primary care trusts are now being briefed to expect that the pandemic could affect as much as 40 per cent of the workforce before the end of the year, with many worried that there could be a surge of cases in the autumn, according to health industry sources.

The Department of Health sought to reassure the public last night. A spokesman said: “Previous pandemics have seen total illness levels of 25-35 per cent. So our plans are as robust as possible, we have based them on illness rates of 50 per cent, though we do not anticipate it being this high in the current pandemic. Based on this figure, the workforce could be reduced by 15-20 per cent at the pandemic’s peak. In the unlikely event that every school closed, this could rise to 35 per cent.” He said it was impossible to predict when the pandemic would peak, but added: “As part of ongoing planning, the NHS is being asked to ensure that antiviral collection points could, if needed, be put into action in a week.”

Primary care trusts are to set up anti-viral drug distribution centres and swine flu testing clinics amid fears that the infection could spread out of control.

Nationwide vaccination programs expected to be instituted this fall following WHO declaration of swine flu pandemic status

The government is telling schools across the country to prepare to be used as clinics for mass vaccination programs set to be instituted later this year, according to an Associated Press report.

Schoolchildren are being targeted as the first recipients of a swine flu vaccine currently being developed, despite the fact that swine flu has proven far less lethal than originally feared, killing just 160 people worldwide, a figure dwarfed by the number of people who die annually from the regular flu virus.

The World Health Organization increased the hysteria surrounding swine flu last week, raising their alert status to level 6, indicating a global pandemic was underway.

“Schoolchildren could be first in line for swine flu vaccine this fall — and schools are being put on notice that they might even be turned into shot clinics,” states the report.

“Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Tuesday she is urging school superintendents around the country to spend the summer preparing for that possibility, if the government goes ahead with mass vaccinations.”

The last such mass vaccination program to combat swine flu in 1976 resulted in dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries, after the Ford administration attempted to use the infection of soldiers at Fort Dix as a pretext for a mass vaccination of the entire country.

Americans have been psychologically conditioned by the mass media to accept the inevitability of enforced mass vaccination campaigns for years. The latest such example appeared in Time Magazine six weeks ago, where it was mooted that officials would be forced to “institute draconian measures to combat the disease,” measures which would include mandatory mass vaccination programs.

Some schools are already working with the government to run mass vaccination drills.

Five-to-40-year-olds and Canada’s aboriginal communities should be the first to get vaccinated against human swine flu, experts say as Canadian officials decide who gets priority for the flu shots.

But the vaccine will become available in batches, meaning the entire population can’t be vaccinated at once. It might take four or five months to get all the vaccine we’re going to get, during which time a second wave of swine flu may well be underway.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is working on a priority list, deciding where the first batches should go, and who should get the injections first. All provinces and territories would be expected to follow the national prioritization scheme.

In an effort to censor any online text that might inform consumers of the ability of natural products to protect consumers from H1N1 influenza A, the FDA is now sending out a round of warning letters, threatening to “take enforcement action… such as seizure or injunction for violations of the FFDC Act without further notice.”

“Firms that fail to take correction action,” the FDA warns, “may also be referred to the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations for possible criminal prosecution for violations of the FFDC Act and other federal laws.”

The message is crystal clear: No product may be described as protecting against or preventing H1N1 infections unless it is approved by the FDA. And which products has the FDA approved? Tamiflu (the anti-viral drug that most people will never have access to), and soon the new H1N1 vaccine that’s being manufactured at a cost of one billion dollars (paid to Big Pharma by the taxpayers). This vaccine, of course, will be utterly useless because H1N1 will undoubtedly mutate between now and the time the vaccine is ready, rendering the vaccine useless.

Such are the operations of our U.S. Food and Drug Administration — a criminal organization that’s working hard to do what every criminal organization does: Eliminate the competition! As the defender of Big Pharma, the FDA is also the destroyer of knowledge that seeks to remove educational statements from the internet. Truth has nothing to do with it — it is verifiably true that anti-viral herbs, probiotics and other natural products help protect consumers from influenza — but the FDA cannot allow such statements to remain online for the simple fact that people might become informed. And that, it seems, would be a dangerous precedent.

If people were informed about the healing and protective powers of herbs, they would no longer remain enslaved by the medical establishment. Profits would be lost. Power would evaporate. This is why people can never be allowed to attain any real knowledge about herbs, superfoods or nutritional supplements. And the FDA will threaten people with imprisonment just to make sure they don’t dare publish knowledge that the FDA does not want the people to see.

Who is being attacked and threatened by the FDA? Lots of companies offering highly-effective natural remedies. You can see a list of some of the companies being targeted right here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/h1n1flu/

ScienceDaily (June 16, 2009) — Scientists have used genetic engineering to tame one of the most deadly food poisoning microbes and turn it into a potential new way of giving patients medicine and vaccines in pills rather than injections.

Colin Pouton and colleagues note that patients by far prefer pills and capsules to the discomfort and inconvenience of injections. But many medicines and vaccines cannot be given by mouth because they would be destroyed by stomach acid without being absorbed into the bloodstream. One promising approach is to use live bacteria, which can survive those harsh conditions and pass easily from the GI tract into the blood.

The scientists describe development of a new strain of Listeria monocytogenes, bacteria that normally cause food poisoning, but which have been genetically engineered to be harmless. Instead of causing disease, the new microbes can be loaded with medicine or vaccine, and deliver that beneficial cargo by "infecting" cells.

After entering cells, the bacteria burst and die, leading to Pouton's term "suicidal strain" for the microbes. The researchers demonstrated that engineered bacteria containing a test protein could successfully penetrate a group of intestinal cells grown in the lab and deliver the protein inside the cells while leaving the cells unharmed. The findings suggest that the approach could potentially work in humans, the researchers say.

Fears the recession is affecting the mental health of the nation appear to be borne out by new figures that show prescriptions of antidepressants are soaring.

“The increase in the number of people being prescribed antidepressants is deeply disturbing,” said the Liberal Democrats’ health spokesman, Norman Lamb, who obtained the figures. “England has become a true Prozac nation.”

Lamb said it appeared the economy was a major factor in the increase. “The figures raise serious concerns over the impact of the current recession on people’s mental health,” he said. “Ministers have acted far too slowly to ensure that support is put in place to help people through these difficult times.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning a few years ago that pregnant women taking the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant paroxetine risk giving birth to infants with major birth defects, including heart abnormalities (http://www.naturalnews.com/021225_Paxil_pregnant_women_SSRIs.html). Now comes word that the same drug (sold as Paxil, Paxil CR, Seroxat, Pexeva, and generic paroxetine hydrochloride) carries another danger that could keep babies from being born in the first place. A new study just published in the online edition of the journal Fertility and Sterility concludes as many as fifty percent of all men taking the antidepressant could have damaged sperm and compromised fertility.

New York Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center researchers followed 35 healthy male volunteers who took paroxetine for five weeks. Then sperm samples from the men were studied using an assay called terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) to evaluate whether there were missing pieces of genetic code in the sperm DNA. This condition, know as DNA fragmentation, is associated with reproductive problems.

The results? The percentage of men with abnormal DNA fragmentation soared from less than 10 percent to 50 percent while taking the antidepressant. This is a crucial finding because DNA fragmentation has long been known to correlate with an increased risk of birth defects, poor fertility and unsuccessful pregnancy outcomes — even when high tech, extraordinarily expensive fertility enhancing techniques such as in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection are used.

The study, one of the first scientific investigations into the effect of SSRIs on sperm quality, also confirmed that paroxetine impairs sexual function. More than a third of the research subjects reported significant changes in erectile function and about half had difficulty ejaculating.

“It’s fairly well known that SSRI antidepressants negatively impact erectile function and ejaculation. This study goes one step further, demonstrating that they can cause a major increase in genetic damage to sperm,” Dr. Peter Schlegel, the study’s senior author and chairman of the Department of Urology and professor of reproductive medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, explained in a statement to the media. “Although this study doesn’t look directly at fertility, we can infer that as many as half of men taking SSRIs have a reduced ability to conceive. These men should talk with their physician about their treatment options, including non-SSRI depression medications.”

The scientists could not identify the exact way the SSRI caused the DNA fragmentation, but the evidence strongly suggests the drug slows sperm as it moves through the male reproductive tract from the testis to the ejaculatory ducts. When this happens, the sluggish sperm grows old and its DNA becomes damaged.

“This is a new concept for how drugs can affect fertility and sperm. In most cases, it was previously assumed that a drug damaged sperm production, so the concept that sperm transport could be affected is novel,” Dr. Schlegel stated.

The study contains some good news for men currently on Paxil and related drugs who may be concerned about their fertility. All the changes the researchers found appeared to be totally reversible. Specifically, normal levels of sexual function and DNA fragmentation both returned to normal one month after discontinuation of the drug.

Secret Buildings You May Not Photograph, Part 643

If you happen by 3701 N. Fairfax Drive in Arlington and decide you have a sudden craving for a photograph of a generic suburban office building, and you point your camera at said structure, you will rather quickly be greeted by uniformed security folks who will demand that you delete the image and require that you give up various personal information.

McCammon could not have been expected to know when he wandered by the building that it houses the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a low-profile wing of the Defense Department that conducts all manner of high-tech research that evolves into weapons systems and high-order strategery.

DARPA's presence at 3701 N. Fairfax is hardly a government secret--Google finds nearly 10,000 pages listing the agency's use of the building. But there's no big fat sign on the building, so how was McCammon to know that this was a building he dared not photograph? And why would the government care if anyone took a picture of the exterior of an office building? This is as silly and hypersensitive as the now-common harassment of people who innocently take pictures of random federal buildings in the District.

McCammon decided to fight back. He demanded to know why he had been stopped, why the government needed his personal information, and why any record of the incident should be kept in government records. He got quick, polite responses from Arlington officials.

"I hope that you would agree that the security of any such building is of great importance and every law enforcement officer is duty bound to investigate all suspicious activity," wrote Arlington Acting Police Chief Daniel Murray. "I am certainly not implying that a person taking photographs is inherently 'suspicious,' but when the appearance is that the subject of a photograph is a government installation, officers have a duty to ensure the safety of the occupants of this structure."

Hmmm. Any government installation? This overly broad approach to security is why we end up with ridiculous horror stories about innocent tourists getting hassled for taking photos of the Lincoln Memorial or the Department of the Interior. The good news here is that Arlington police didn't take a report or create a file on McCammon. The bad news is that they did pass his information along to "the internal security agency for this installation." Which means that somewhere in the vast security apparatus that we have constructed since 9/11--utterly ignoring the fact that the Soviet empire collapsed under the weight of its own paranoid security apparatus--there is now a report on Keith McCammon, photographer.

The bottom line is that McCammon was caught in a classic logical trap. If he had only known the building was off-limits to photographers, he would have avoided it. But he was not allowed to know that fact. "Reasonable, law-abiding people tend to avoid these types of things when it can be helped," McCammon wrote. "Thus, my request for a list of locations within Arlington County that are unmarked, but at which photography is either prohibited or discouraged according to some (public or private) policy. Of course, such a list does not exist. Catch-22."

The only antidote to this security mania is sunshine. Only when more and more Americans do as McCammon has done and take the time and effort to chronicle these excesses and insist on answers from authorities will we stand a chance of restoring balance and sanity to the blend of liberty and security that we are madly remixing in these confused times.

Parents of children at a primary school have been banned from taking pictures of their own children at the annual sports day.

Mrs Ethelston’s Church of England Primary School, in Uplyme, Devon, prohibited photos and video filming, claiming it was due to changes in child protection and images legislation.

Parents criticised the move and said they felt there was no legal reason why they cannot take photos for personal use.

Jane Souter, who has a son at the school and is chair of the Parents Teachers and Friends Association, said: “It is a shame but that is the way it is all going now, you are not allowed to do a lot of things because of rules and regulations.

“A lot of the parents think it is a great shame. There are people who have been there for many, many years and they are upset about it, although they do not blame the school.

Talking on BBC Newsnight Kissinger says that while the US will not intervene in the current crisis, if the coup fails and a popularly based government is not installed (ie the one he wants), then we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside. This is an indicted war criminal making threats against a sovereign nation.

Over the past few days, we reported on how the White House and Democratic Congressional Leadership waged a dirty campaign to scare up votes to support another $106 billion in funds for their wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now, several of the so-called anti-war Democrats who left their principles at the House coat check on their way in to vote Tuesday are trying to explain away their hypocritical votes.

New York Democrat Anthony Weiner, who voted against the war funding in May—when it didn’t matter—only to vote Tuesday with the pro-war Dems, sounded like an imbecile when he made this statement after the vote: “We are in the process of wrapping up the wars. The president needed our support.” What planet is Weiner living on? “Wrapping up the wars?” Last time I checked, there are 21,000 more US troops heading to Afghanistan alongside a surge in contractors there, including a 29% increase in armed contractors. Does Weiner think the $106 billion in war funding he voted for is going to pay for one way tickets home for the troops? What he voted for was certainly not the “Demolition of the 80 Football-field-size US Embassy in Baghdad Act of 2009.” To cap off this idiocy, Weiner basically admitted he is a fraud when he said the bill he voted in favor of “still sucks.”

Jan Schakowsky, who has done some incredibly important work on Blackwater and the privatized war machine, also voted against the supplemental in May, but switched her vote on Tuesday. “I do believe my president is a peacemaker,” Schakowsky said. “I’m going to give him what he wants.” A peacemaker who is expanding war? Moreover, what happened to the system of “checks and balances?” If Congressmembers, especially anti-war ones like Schakowsky, start just giving the president “what he wants,” then where is the peoples’ voice?

Obviously these folks are partisans or else they wouldn’t be Democrats, but this “Dear Leader knows best” mentality is cultish. Republican Rep. Ron Paul, who, whatever one thinks of him, has been consistently opposed to these wars, put it best when he rose on the floor Tuesday to speak against the war funding: “I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands.”

One “anonymous” Massachusetts lawmaker told Politico that those Democrats who voted for the war funding and IMF credits are “what we call the responsible left.” Barney Frank, another flip-flopper on war funding, compared the anti-war left to the Rush Limbaugh right-wing, saying, “They have no sense of reality.” Perhaps Rep. Frank should ask the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who lobbied intensely against the war funding he supported if they have “no sense of reality.”

While the White House reportedly told some Democrats who voted against the war, “you’ll never hear from us again,” Obama has made it a point this week to intervene to defend those hypocritical “anti-war” legislators who voted with him. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn was one of the 51 Democrats who voted against the funding in May and then consciously misplaced his principles Tuesday. Cohen was targeted for his hypocrisy by activists, spurring President Obama to issue a statement to local media in his district praising Cohen:

“Congressman Cohen is a leader in the United States Congress and a strong voice for the people of Tennessee,” Obama’s statement declared, adding that Cohen’s vote will “ensure our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to protect our country.”

What is particularly telling is how Cohen doesn’t even pretend his vote had anything to do with principle or representing his constituents. It was simple partisanship. “Maybe [Obama] just wanted to respond to people who helped him,” Cohen said. “Yes, I was surprised but I’ve been in the president’s corner on several occasions and it’s good to have him in my corner.”

All of this sounds, frankly, corrupt. Instead of using cold hard cash, the White House threatens to pull the rug from under dissenting legislators and offers its support to those who cede their conscience to the president’s agenda. So much for change.

This spending bill is likely to sail through the Senate where there is no group even vaguely resembling the ever-shrinking anti-war crowd in the House. Once again, here are the Democrats who turned their backs on their pledges to vote against this war funding:

Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (MA), James Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velázquez, and Anthony Weiner.

Statement before the US House of Representatives opposing resolution on Iran, June 19, 2009

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

And Now: Shit in the Cookie Dough

Food maker Nestle USA on Friday voluntarily recalled its Toll House refrigerated cookie dough products after a number of illnesses were reported by those who ate the dough raw.

E. coli is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration and, in the most severe cases, kidney failure.

A whistleblower who defected from the Pakistani Taliban has been assassinated just days after he claimed that the group was working with US intelligence to destabilize the country.

Qari Zainuddin, a tribal leader of the South Waziristan region in Pakistan was shot dead on Tuesday by a gunman said to be loyal to Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud.

Analysts said that Mr Zainuddin’s murder was a serious blow to the military campaign against the militants, as support of his faction was considered crucial, reports the London Times. “[It] is a warning to other pro government tribal commanders,” said Mahmood Shah, a retired brigadier who had served as top official in the tribal region.

Zainuddin had rejected Mehsud’s Taliban tribe, and shifted his allegiance to the Pakistani government, following a string of suicide bombings targeting mosques and civilians.

The Pakistani government also claims that Mehsud was responsible for the 2007 assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto.

One of Qari Zainuddin’s aides, who was also injured in the attack that killed the tribal leader, told the media that a lone gunman was able to enter Zainuddin’s office and open fire, before escaping uninjured.

“It was definitely Baitullah’s man who infiltrated our ranks, and he has done his job,” Baz Mohammad told the Associated Press news agency.

“Whatever Baitullah Mehsud and his associates are doing in the name of Islam is not a jihad, and in fact it is rioting and terrorism,” Zainuddin said.

Though the BBC and other mainstream sources highlighted this interview with Zainuddin, they neglected to cover the fact that Zainuddin also reportedly denounced Mehsud as “an American agent”.

In an interview with local media the defector said that Mehsud had established strong links with Israeli intelligence services, which were destabilizing the nuclear armed country, reports the Iranian news service Press TV.

“These people (Mehsud and his men) are working against Islam.” the report quotes Zainuddin as having said.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s largest daily newspaper, The News, carried a report last Sunday that highlighted the remarks:

“In interviews to various media organisations on Thursday, Qari Zainuddin and his deputy Haji Turkistan had alleged that Baitullah was an American and Indian agent, he had killed Benazir Bhutto and that the real Jihad was going on in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.” the report stated.

“Many diplomats contacted Foreign Office and Interior Ministry officials as well as media persons, seeking answers to their questions. Some Western diplomats were particularly confused over the claim that Baitullah was an American agent and that he had killed Benazir Bhutto. These diplomats were asking a question that if Baitullah was involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, does that mean that the American authorities were also involved in the conspiracy.” the report continued.

Of course, whether you put faith in the Iranian and Pakistani media on these reports, is another question, however, there have been suspicions for some time amongst some Pakistanis that Baitullah Mehsud is on the CIA payroll and is being protected by the intelligence apparatus.

According to retired brigadier and former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Shaukat Qadir, the Pakistani military has requested US help to kill Baitullah Mehsud on several occasions and provided the US with accurate information of his location. Despite this, he claims, Mehsud was never targeted.

Other analysts hold suspicions that Indian and US intelligence are funneling weapons, financial aid and even fighters to the Pakistani Taliban.

The history of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as we have previously reported, is replete with connections to western controlled intelligence agencies.

The Taliban’s spread into Pakistan has also been connected to intelligence driven plots to Balkanize the middle East.

Comment: Decades of lies, spin, and government/corporate cronyism is finally coming home to roost for the establishment media. The Internet and blogs are taking over while the mouthpieces of officialdom crumble to the ground. This is why they are so desperate to regulate and censor the Internet.

Breaking: TVNewser has learned the CBS Evening News has once again set an all-time low last week with 4.89 million Total Viewers and 1.42 million A25-54 viewers. But it was also the lowest (since records began in the 1991-’92 season) for ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson. The Gibson program drew 6.42 million Total Viewers and 1.77 million A25-54 viewers.

Geronimo’s relatives say some body parts were stolen almost 100 years ago by members of a society linked to Yale University to keep in their clubhouse.

The relatives want to rebury the warrior, who died in 1909, near his birthplace in New Mexico.

The society, known as Skull and Bones, is alleged to have stolen some of Geronimo’s remains from a burial plot in Oklahoma in 1918.

As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent one month filming 29 tapes: “What I saw at certain moments and in certain places … is very disturbing!” He never handed them over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote « El Perseguido » (the persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government’s account of the 9/11 events. Below is an exclusive interview by Voltairenet.

Kurt Sonnenfeld graduated from the University of Colorado (USA) with studies in International Affairs and Economics, as well as in Literature and Philosophy. He worked for the United States government as official videographer and served as Director of Broadcast Operations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s National Emergency Response Team. Additionally, Kurt Sonnenfeld was contracted by several other governmental agencies and programs for classified and “sensitive” operations at military and scientific installations throughout the United States.

On September 11, 2001, the area known as “Ground Zero” was sealed from the public eye. Sonnenfeld, however, was given unrestricted access enabling him to document for the investigation (that never took place) and provide some “sanitized” pool video to virtually every news network in the world. The tapes that reveal some of the anomalies which he discovered at Ground Zero are still in his possession.

Accused of a crime that did not occur in a manifest frame-up scenario, Kurt Sonnenfeld has been persecuted across continents. After several years of fear, injustice and isolation, he has decided to take a public stand against the Government’s official story and is prepared to submit his material to the close scrutiny of reliable experts.

Voltaire Network: Your autobiographical book titled “El Perseguido” (the persecuted) was recently published in Argentina where you live in exile since 2003. Tell us who is persecuting you.

Kurt Sonnenfeld: Although it is autobiographical, it is not my life story. Rather it is a history of the extraordinary events that have happened to me and my family at the hands of U.S. authorities over the course of more than seven years, spanning two hemispheres, after my tour of duty at Ground Zero and becoming an inconvenient witness.

Voltaire Network: You explained that your request for refugee status within the terms of the Geneva 1951 Convention is still being considered by the Argentinean Senate, while in 2005 you were granted political asylum, albeit, on a provisional basis. That probably makes you the first U.S. citizen in that situation! And no doubt the first U.S. Government official with direct exposure to the events surrounding September 11, 2001 who has “blown the whistle”. Is this what drove you into exile?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave (or stay away from) his or her country for reasons of persecution. It’s undeniable that many people have been persecuted unfairly as a result of the quasi-fascist laws and policies brought about by the shock of September 11, 2001, and they deserve refugee status. But the fact is, requesting refugee status is a risky and dangerous step to take. America is the world’s only remaining “superpower”, and dissent has been effectively repressed. Any person who requests refugee status on political grounds is by nature making an extreme statement of dissent. And if your request is denied, what do you do? Once you make the request, there can be no going back.

Personally, I wasn’t forced to leave the United States, and I certainly did not “flee”. At the time I was still fairly oblivious to what was actually brewing against me. I hadn’t connected the dots yet; so that when I left in early 2003 I had every intention of returning. I came to Argentina for a short respite; to try to recuperate after all that had happened to me. I travelled here freely, with my own passport, using my own credit cards. But because of an incredible series of events, I have since been forced into exile, and I haven’t been back.

Kurt Sonnenfeld: I’ve suffered false accusations for “crimes” that demonstrably did not happen, abusive imprisonment and torture as a result of those accusations, as well as outrageous calumnies against my reputation, death threats, kidnap attempts and several other violations of civil and human rights as denounced by numerous international accords. My return to the United States would not only be a continuation of those violations, but would be aggregated by the separation - perhaps permanent - from my wife and three-year old twin daughters, the only thing remaining that I have to live for. And then, after the impossibility of receiving a fair trial for a crime that did not happen, I could be subject to the death penalty.

Voltaire Network: In 2005, the U.S. Government lodged a request to have you extradited, which was turned down by a Federal Judge. Then, in 2007, the Argentinean Supreme Court – in a show of integrity and independence - turned down the U.S. appeal, but your Government persisted. Can you shed some light on the situation ?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: In 2008, the US government appealed again, this time with absolutely no legal foundation, to the Supreme Court, which will surely uphold the two already unassailable rulings made by the Federal Judge.

In one of those rulings, it was also noted that there were too many “sombras”, or shadows, surrounding my case. There were many, many obvious fabrications in the extradition order sent here by US authorities, and, thankfully, we were able prove that. The fact that there were so many fabrications has actually served to support my request for asylum. We were also able to show that we had been subject to a prolonged campaign of harassment and intimidation from US intelligence services. As a result, since my family has been assigned round-the-clock police protection. As one senator has noted about my case: “It is their behavior that belies their true motivations”.

Voltaire Network: They want you pretty badly for a “crime that did not happen”! How do you account for such doggedness? As a FEMA official, you must have been trusted by your government. At what point did the situation capsize?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: In hindsight, I realize now that the situation had capsized some time before I actually became aware that it had capsized. Initially, the false accusation against me was completely irrational, and I was totally destroyed by it. It is incredibly difficult to have suffered the loss of someone you love to suicide, but to then be accused of it is too much to bear. The case was dismissed based on a mountain of evidence that overwhelmingly absolved me (Nancy, my wife, had left behind a suicide note and a journal of suicidal writings ; she had a family history of suicide ; etc.). The prosecution was 100% sure of my innocence before requesting the dismissal of charge.

But the sustained incarceration even AFTER it was indicated that I was to be freed was what proved to me that something was happening under the surface. I was held in jail for FOUR MONTHS after my lawyers were informed that the case was to be dismissed and was finally released in June 2002. During that time, an amazing series of strange events began to occur. While still being held, I had a telephone conversation with FEMA officials in an effort to resolve the issue, but I realized that I was considered “compromised”. I was told it had been agreed that “the agency had to be protected”, especially in light of the upheaval that was threatening with the implementation of the “Patriot Act” and the expected usurpation that would come with the new Department of Homeland Security. After all the dangers I had risked, all hardship and difficulties I had endured for them for almost 10 years, I felt betrayed. It left a void in my soul.

Because of their abandonment, I told them I didn’t have the tapes, that I gave them to “some bureaucrat” in New York, and that they would have to wait until I was released to retrieve any other documents in my possession. Soon after that conversation, my house was “seized”, the locks were changed, and men were observed by neighbors entering my house, though there is no record in the court of their entry, as would be required. When I was finally released, I discovered that my office had been ransacked, my computer was missing, and that my tape library in my basement had been dug through and several were missing. Men were constantly parked on the street near my house, my security system was “hacked” more than once, outdoor security lights were unscrewed, etc., to the point that I went to stay with some friends at their condo in the mountains, which was then ALSO broken into.

Anyone who looks for the truth recognizes that there has been an amazing series of irregularities in this case and that an appalling injustice is being carried out on me and my loved ones. This intense campaign to return me to American soil is a false pretext for other darker motives.

Voltaire Network: You have suggested that you observed things at Ground Zero that did not tally with the official account. Did you do or say anything to arouse suspicion in this respect?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: In that same telephone call I said that I would “go public”, not only with my suspicions about the events surrounding September 11, 2001, but about several contracts I had worked on in the past.

We are asked to believe that all four of the “indestructible” black boxes of the two jets that struck the twin towers were never found because they were completely vaporized, yet I have footage of the rubber wheels of the landing gear nearly undamaged, as well as the seats, parts of the fuselage and a jet turbine that were absolutely not vaporized. This being said, I do find it rather odd that such objects could have survived fairly intact the type of destruction that turned most of the Twin Towers into thin dust. And I definitely harbor some doubts about the authenticity of the “jet” turbine, far too small to have come from one of the Boeings!

What happened with Building 7 is incredibly suspicious. I have video that shows how curiously small the rubble pile was, and how the buildings to either side were untouched by Building Seven when it collapsed. It had not been hit by an airplane; it had suffered only minor injuries when the Twin Towers collapsed, and there were only small fires on a couple of floors. There’s no way that building could have imploded the way it did without controlled demolition. Yet the collapse of Building 7 was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media and suspiciously ignored by the 911 Commission.

Voltaire Network: Reportedly, the underground levels of WTC7 contained sensitive and undoubtedly compromising archival material. Did you come across any of it?

There was no underground parking level at Seven World Trade Center. And there was no underground vault. Instead, the federal agencies at Building Seven stored their vehicles, documents and evidence in the building of their associates across the street. Beneath the plaza level of US Customs House (Building 6) was a large underground garage, separated off from the rest of the complex’s underground area and guarded under tight security. This was where the various government services parked their bomb-proofed cars and armored limousines, counterfeit taxi cabs and telephone company trucks used for undercover surveillance and covert operations, specialized vans and other vehicles. Also within that secured parking area was access to the sub-level vault of Building 6.

When the North Tower fell, the US Customs House (Building 6) was crushed and totally incinerated. Much of the underground levels beneath it were also destroyed. But there were voids. And it was into one of those voids, recently uncovered, that I descended with a special Task Force to investigate. It was there we found the security antechamber to the vault, badly damaged. At the far end of the security office was the wide steel door to the vault, a combination code keypad in the cinderblock wall beside it. But the wall was cracked and partially crumbled, and the door was sprung partially open. So we checked inside with our flashlights. Except for several rows of empty shelves, there was nothing in the vault but dust and debris. It had been emptied. Why was it empty? And when could it have been emptied?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: Yes, but not immediately. With so much chaos, it was difficult to think. It was only after digesting everything that the “alarm bells” went off.

Building Six was evacuated within twelve minutes after the first airplane struck the North Tower. The streets were immediately clogged with fire trucks, police cars and blocked traffic, and the vault was large enough, 15 meters by 15 meters by my estimate, to necessitate at least a big truck to carry out its contents. And after the towers fell and destroyed most of the parking level, a mission to recover the contents of the vault would have been impossible. The vault had to have been emptied before the attack.

I’ve described all of this extensively in my book, and it’s apparent that things of importance were taken out of harm’s way before the attacks. For example, the CIA didn’t seem too concerned about their losses. After the existence of their clandestine office in Building Seven was discovered, an agency spokesman told the newspapers that a special team had been dispatched to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports, though there were millions, if not billions of pages floating in the streets. Nevertheless, the spokesman was confident. “There shouldn’t be too much paper around,” he said.

And Customs at first claimed that everything was destroyed. That the heat was so intense that everything in the evidence safe had been baked to ash. But some months later, they announced that they had broken up a huge Colombian narco-trafficking and money-laundering ring after miraculously recovering crucial evidence from the safe, including surveillance photos and heat-sensitive cassette tapes of monitored calls. And when they moved in to their new building at 1 Penn Plaza in Manhattan, they proudly hung on the lobby wall their Commissioner’s Citation Plaque and their big round US Customs Service ensign, also miraculously recovered, in pristine condition, from their crushed and cremated former office building at the World Trade Center.

Voltaire Network: You weren’t alone on the Ground Zero assignment. Did the others notice the same anomalies? Do you know whether they have they also been harassed?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: Actually there were a few people on two different excursions that I know about. Some of us even discussed it afterwards. They know who they are and I hope that they will come forward, but I’m sure they have strong apprehensions as to what will happen to them if they do. I will leave it to them to decide, but there is strength in numbers.

Voltaire Network: With the publication of your book, you have become a “whistleblower” – yet another step on which there is no going back! There must be many people with inside knowledge about what really happened or did not happen on that fateful day. Yet, hardly any have stepped up to the plate and certainly no one who was directly involved in an official capacity. This is what makes your case so compelling. Judging from your ordeal, it is not difficult to imagine what is holding such people back.

Kurt Sonnenfeld: Actually, there are several other very smart and credible people blowing whistles, too. And they are being discredited and ignored. Some are being harassed and persecuted, as I am.

People are gripped by fear. Everybody knows that if you question US authority you will have problems in some way or another. At minimum you will be discredited and dehumanized. Most likely you’ll find yourself indicted for something completely unrelated, like tax evasion — or something even worse, as in my case. Look at what happened to Secret Service whistle-blower Abraham Bolden, for example, or to chess master Bobby Fischer after he showed his disdain for the US. There are countless other examples. In the past I asked friends and associates to speak out for me to counter all the lies being planted in the media, and all of them were terrified as to the ramifications to themselves and their families.

Voltaire Network: To what degree would your discoveries at Ground Zero expose the government’s involvement in those events? Are you familiar with the investigations that have been carried out by numerous scientists and qualified professionals which not only corroborate your own findings but, in some instances, far exceed them? Do you regard such people as “conspiracy nuts”?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: At the highest levels in Washington, DC, someone knew what was going to happen. They wanted a war so badly that they at least let it happen and most likely even helped it happen.

Sometimes it seems to me that the “nuts” are those who hold to what they’ve been told with an almost religious fervor despite all of the evidence to the contrary — the ones who won’t even consider that there was a conspiracy. There are so many anomalies to the “official” investigation that you can’t blame it on oversight or incompetence. I am familiar with the scientists and qualified professionals to whom you refer, and their findings are convincing, credible, and presented according to scientific protocol — in stark contrast to the findings of the “official” investigation. In addition, numerous intelligence agents and government officials have now come forward with their very informed opinions that the 911 Commission was a farce at best or a cover-up at worst. My experience at Ground Zero is but one more piece of the puzzle.

Voltaire Network: Those events are nearly 8 years behind us. Do you consider that uncovering the truth about 9/11 continues to be an important objective? Why?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: It is of absolute importance. And it will be equally as important in 10 years, or even 50 years if the truth still has not been exposed. It is an important objective because, at this point in history, many people are too credulous to whatever “authority” tells them and too willing to follow. People in a state of shock seek guidance. People who are afraid are manipulable. And being able to manipulate the masses results in unimaginable benefits to a lot of very rich and very powerful people. War is incredibly expensive, but the money has to go somewhere. War is very profitable for the very few. And somehow their sons always end up in Washington DC, making the decisions and writing the budgets, while the sons of the poor and the poorly-connected always end up on the enemy lines, taking their orders and fighting their battles. The enormous black-budget of the US Department of Defense represents an unlimited money machine for the military-industrial complex, figuring in the multi-trillions of dollars, and it will continue to be so until the masses wake up, recuperate their skepticism and demand accountability. Wars (and false pretexts for war) will not cease until the people realize the true motive of war and stop believing “official” explanations.

Voltaire Network: What is referred to as the 9/11 Truth Movement, has been asking for a new, independent investigation into those events. Do you think that the Obama Administration holds out some hope in this respect?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: I really hope so, but I’m skeptical. Why would the leadership of any established government willingly undertake any action that would result in a serious compromise to their authority? They will prefer to maintain the status quo and leave the things the way they are. The conductor of the train has been changed, but has the train changed its course? I doubt it. The push has to come from the public, not only domestically, but internationally, like your group is doing.

Voltaire Network: A number of human rights and activist groups are supporting your plight, not least Peace Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. How have the Argentinean people in general responded to your situation?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: With an incredible outpouring of support. The military dictatorship is still fresh in the collective memory of most of the people here, along with the knowledge that the dictatorship (along with the other South American dictatorships at the time) was backed by the CIA, directed at the time by George Bush Senior. They remember well the torture centers, the secret prisons, the thousands of people “disappeared” for their opinions, the living in daily fear. They know that the United States today will do the same thing if they consider it beneficial, that they will invade a country to achieve their political and economic interests and then manipulate the media with fabricated “causus belli” to justify their conquests.

Voltaire Network: As we said, deciding to write this book and to go public was a huge step. What pushed you to do it?

Kurt Sonnenfeld: To save my family. And to let the world know that things are not what they seem.

Kurt Sonnenfeld: I am convinced that my tapes reveal many more anomalies than I am capable of recognizing given my limited qualifications. I will therefore cooperate in any way that I can with serious and reliable experts in a common endeavour to expose the truth.

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation.

“Something is wrong with this picture,” thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings’ responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, “How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?”

Lomba was hardly alone in his discomfort. Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell. They mainly kept their misgivings to themselves, though, as Scientific American and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, BBC, the History Channel and government agencies such as FEMA and NIST offered varying and often imaginative theories to explain how fires brought the towers down.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not always have been specifically Authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is available without profit to those who have expressed an interest in the included information for research and educational purposes.




	Click on the above image to view the document in PDF format.




	The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”




Stephen Halbrook, Independent Institute Research Fellow and author of the book The Founders’ Second Amendment, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Attorney General nominee Eric Holder.




Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has promised to deny Americans their Second Amendment right if they end up on the government’s error-prone terrorist watch list.


	VIDEO LINK

	Inside Story asks just how effective the watchlist system is and what risks it poses to personal freedoms.




	Instead of using cold hard cash, the White House threatens to pull the rug from under dissenting legislators and offers its support to those who cede their conscience to the president’s agenda. So much for change.