Cost To Fight Each Al Qaeda Member In Afghanistan Per Year: $300 Million

Cost To Fight Each Al Qaeda Member In Afghanistan Per Year: $300 Million

ABC News

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS

Dec. 2, 2009

War is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler (pdf here)

As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

President Barack Obama addresses the nation on Afghanistan at the United States Military Academy at West Point in West Point, N.Y, Dec. 1, 2009. Obama said sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan is in the "vital national interest" of the United States. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.

President Obama made only a vague reference to the size of the al Qaeda presence in his speech at West Point, when he said, "al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border."

A spokesperson at the White House's National Security Council, Chris Hensman, said he could not comment on intelligence matters.

Obama's National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones, put the number at "fewer than a hundred" in an October interview with CNN.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., referred to the number at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in October, saying "intelligence says about a hundred al Qaeda in Afghanistan."

As the President acknowledged, al Qaeda now operates from Pakistan where U.S. troops are prohibited from operating. "We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country," he said.

Intelligence officials estimate there are several hundred al Qaeda fighters just across the border in Pakistan.

An Obama administration official said the additional troops were needed in Afghanistan to "sandwich" al Qaeda between Pakistan and Afghanistan and prevent them from re-establishing a safe haven in Afghanistan.

"Pakistan has been stepping up its efforts," the official said.

"So the real question is will Pakistan do enough," said former White House counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

"What if they take all the money we given them but don't really follow through? What the strategy then?" said Clarke.

With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.

Al Qaeda's Ideological Influence

Other counter-terror analysts say the actual number of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is less important than their ability to train others in the Taliban and have ideological influence.

"A hundred 'no foolin' al Qaeda operatives operating in a safe haven can do a hell of a lot of damage," said one former intelligence official with significant past experience in the region.

At a Senate hearing, the former CIA Pakistan station chief, Bob Grenier, testified al Qaeda had already been defeated in Afghanistan.

"So in terms of 'in Afghanistan,'" asked Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "they have been disrupted and dismantled and defeated. They're not in Afghanistan, correct?"

"That's true," replied Grenier.

Posted By Robert Allison

Kerrville911Truth

RA

Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike In Yemen

Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike In Yemen

Cruise Missiles Launched Thursday Hit Two Suspected al Qaeda Sites; Major Escalation Of US Efforts Against Terrorists

Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike In Yemen

YouTube Link Here

ABC News

By BRIAN ROSS, RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE, LUIS MARTINEZ and KIRIT RADIA

December 21, 2009

On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

One of the targeted sites was a suspected al Qaeda training camp north of the capitol, Sanaa, and the second target was a location where officials said "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned."

The Yemen attacks by the U.S. military represent a major escalation of the Obama administration's campaign against al Qaeda.

In his speech about added troops for Afghanistan earlier this month, President Obama made a brief reference to Yemen, saying, "Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships."

Until tonight, American officials had hedged about any U.S. role in the strikes against Yemen and news reports from Yemen attributed the attacks to the Yemen Air Force.

President Obama placed a call after the strikes to "congratulate" the President of Yemen, Ali Abdallah Salih, on his efforts against al Qaeda, according to White House officials.

A Yemeni official at the country's embassy in Washington insisted to ABC News Friday that the Thursday attacks were "planned and executed" by the Yemen government and police.

Along with the two U.S. cruise missile attacks, Yemen security forces carried out raids in three separate locations. As many as 120 people were killed in the three raids, according to reports from Yemen, and opposition leaders said many of the dead were innocent civilians.

American officials said the missile strikes were intended to disrupt a growing threat from the al Qaeda branch in Yemen, which claims to coordinate terror attacks against neighboring Saudi Arabia. 

The al Qaeda presence in Yemen has been steadily growing in the last two years. "Al Qaeda generally has been pushed into these ungoverned areas, whether it is the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area [or Yemen]," said Richard Barrett, coordinator of the U.N.'s Taliban al-Qaeda Sancitions Monitoring Committee. "I think many of the key people have moved to Yemen."

The U.S. embassy was attacked by suspected al Qaeda gunmen last year.

And the presumed leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Qaaim al-Raymi, has frequently appeared on internet videos, offering an alternative to the training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"If they can go to Yemen just as easily or easier and get training there and come out again," said Barrett, "all your efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan are a waste of time."

Qaaim al-Raymi was considered a prime target of the attack Thursday but was reported to have escaped the attack. However, U.S. officials believe one of his top deputies may have been killed.

Posted By Robert Allison

Kerrville911Truth

RA

Third World Under Attack From Genocidal Climate Change Policy

Third World Under Attack From Genocidal Climate Change Policy

Millions dying from starvation as a direct consequence of global warming fraud.

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Thursday, December 10, 2009

The implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices causing mass starvation and death – a primary reason why the climategate crooks and their allies should be criminally investigated and hit with the strongest charges possible.

As Lord Monckton outlined in his recent Alex Jones Show appearance, climate change alarmism and implementation of global warming policies is a crime of the highest nature, because it is already having a genocidal impact in countries like Haiti, where the doubling of food prices is resulting in a substantial increase in starvation, poverty and death.

Poor people around the world, “Are being killed in large numbers by starvation as a result of (climate change) policy,” said Monckton, due to huge areas of agricultural land being turned over to the growth of biofuels.

“Take Haiti where they live on mud pie with real mud costing 3 cents each….that’s what they’re living or rather what they’re dying on,” said Monckton, relating how when he gave a speech on this subject, a lady in the front row burst into tears and told him, “I’ve just come back from Haiti – now because of the doubling in world food prices, they can’t even afford the price of a mud pie and they’re dying of starvation all over the place.”

As a National Geographic Report confirmed, “With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies,” by “eating mud,” partly as a consequence of “increasing global demand for biofuels.”

In April last year, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a “significant contributor” to soaring food prices that have led to riots in countries such as Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, and even Italy.

“We estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty,” he stated.

“That’s how serious this is, these people, by their scientific fraud and financial fraud, they’re profiting enormously….while people die of starvation in a dozen regions of the world….it is a scandal of the worst proportion – our own fellow creatures are being killed by starvation because these people have lied and made up the science and hidden it so nobody else could check,” said Monckton.

If the measures currently being debated at the Copenhagen summit in the name of fighting global warming are passed, we can only expect a further assault on the already horrifying plight of the population of the third world.

In the leaked Copenhagen text that emerged earlier this week, leaders of third world countries were horrified to discover that developed nations would take on less of a burden than anticipated and that more would be demanded of poorer countries despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions would further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

In addition, the leaked paper revealed that funds from climate financing, originally allocated to go to the UN and then be doled out piecemeal to third world nations, would instead be paid directly into the coffers of the World Bank and IMF, organizations that have made a habit out of looting poorer countries with crippling loans that cannot be paid back, forcing such countries to hand over their entire infrastructure to globalist loan sharks.

The fact that policies arising out of the contrived science of global warming are already killing people in vast numbers in the third world further illustrates the fact that the entire climate change movement is a Malthusian offshoot of the profusely stated goal on behalf of the global elite to eliminate a huge chunk of the global population via modern-day eugenics.

This agenda was vehemently argued for by President Obama’s top science advisor and one of the pre-eminent climate change ringleaders, John P. Holdren, in his 1977 book Ecoscience, in which he called for installing a “planetary regime” to enforce draconian population control measures such as forced abortion and mandatory sterilization through the water supply.

Watch the segment from the interview below where Alex Jones discusses how the climate crooks are deliberately devastating the third world with their lies about global warming.

Re-Post By Robert Allison
Kerrville911Truth

RA

Sprint Received 8 MILLION Law Enforcement Requests For GPS Location Data In The Past Year

Surveillance Shocker: Sprint Received 8 MILLION Law Enforcement Requests For GPS Location Data In The Past Year


Electonic Frontier Foundation
Kevin Bankston
December 1, 2009

This October, Chris Soghoian — computer security researcher, oft-times journalist, and current technical consultant for the FTC's privacy protection office — attended a closed-door conference called "ISS World". ISS World — the "ISS" is for "Intelligence Support Systems for Lawful Interception, Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering" — is where law enforcement and intelligence agencies consult with telco representatives and surveillance equipment manufacturers about the state of electronic surveillance technology and practice. Armed with a tape recorder, Soghoian went to the conference looking for information about the scope of the government's surveillance practices in the US. What Soghoian uncovered, as he reported on his blog this morning, is more shocking and frightening than anyone could have ever expected.

At the ISS conference, Soghoian taped astonishing comments by Paul Taylor, Sprint/Nextel's Manager of Electronic Surveillance. In complaining about the volume of requests that Sprint receives from law enforcement, Taylor noted a shocking number of requests that Sprint had received in the past year for precise GPS (Global Positioning System) location data revealing the location and movements of Sprint's customers. That number?

EIGHT MILLION.

Sprint received over 8 million requests for its customers' information in the past 13 months. That doesn't count requests for basic identification and billing information, or wiretapping requests, or requests to monitor who is calling who, or even requests for less-precise location data based on which cell phone towers a cell phone was in contact with. That's just GPS. And, that's not including legal requests from civil litigants, or from foreign intelligence investigators. That's just law enforcement. And, that's not counting the few other major cell phone carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. That's just Sprint.

Here's what Taylor had to say; the audio clip is here and we are also mirroring a zip file from Soghoian containing other related mp3 recordings and documents.

[M]y major concern is the volume of requests. We have a lot of things that are automated but that's just scratching the surface. One of the things, like with our GPS tool. We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests. So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy, so, just the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features, and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in.

Eight million would have been a shocking number even if it had included every single legal request to every single carrier for every single type of customer information; that Sprint alone received eight million requests just from law enforcement only for GPS data is absolutely mind-boggling. We have long warned that cell phone tracking poses a threat to locational privacy, and EFF has been fighting in the courts for years to ensure that the government only tracks a cell phone's location when it has a search warrant based on probable case. EFF has also complained before that a dangerous level of secrecy surrounds law enforcement's communications surveillance practices like a dense fog, and that without stronger laws requiring detailed reporting about how the government is using its surveillance powers, the lack of accountability when it comes to the government's access to information through third-party phone and Internet service providers will necessarily breed abuse. But we never expected such huge numbers to be lurking in that fog.

Now that the fact is out that law enforcement is rooting through such vast amounts of location data, it raises profoundly important questions that law enforcement and the telcos must answer:

• How many innocent Americans have had their cell phone data handed over to law enforcement?
• How can the government justify obtaining so much information on so many people, and how can the telcos justify handing it over?
• How did the number get so large? Is the government doing massive dragnet sweeps to identify every single cell phone that was in a particular area at a particular time? Is the government getting location information for entire "communities of interest" by asking not only for their target's location, but also for the location of every person who talked to the target, and every person who talked to them?
• Does the number only include requests to track phones in real-time, or does it include requests for historical GPS data, and if so, why did the telcos have that incredibly sensitive data sitting around in the first place? Exactly when and how are they logging their users' GPS data, and how long are they keeping that data?
• What legal process was used to obtain this information? Search warrants? Other court orders? Mere subpoenas issued by prosecutors without any court involvement? How many times was this information handed over without any legal process at all, based on government claims of an urgent emergency situation?
• Looking beyond Sprint and GPS, how many Americans have had their private communications data handed over to law enforcement by their phone and Internet service providers?
• What exactly has the government done with all of that information? Is it all sitting in an FBI database somewhere?
• Do you really think that this Orwellian level of surveillance is consistent with a free society and American values? Really?

These questions urgently need to be asked — by journalists, and civil liberties groups like EFF, and by every cell phone user and citizen concerned about privacy. Most importantly, though, they must be asked by Congress, which has failed in its duty to provide oversight and accountability when it comes to law enforcement surveillance. Congress should hold hearings as soon as possible to demand answers from the government and the telcos under oath, and clear the fog so that the American people will finally have an accurate picture of just how far the government has reached into the private particulars of their digital lives.

Even without hearings, though, the need for Congress to update the law is clear. At the very least, Congress absolutely must stem the government's abuse of its power by:

• Requiring detailed reporting about law enforcement's access to communications data using the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), just as it already requires for law enforcement wiretapping under the Wiretap Act, and make sure that the government actually fulfills its obligations rather than ignore the law for years on end.
• Requiring that the government "minimize" the communications data it collects under ECPA rather than keep it all forever, just like it is supposed to do with wiretaps.
• Prohibiting the government from using in a criminal trial any electronic communications content or data that it obtains in violation of ECPA, just as the government is prohibited by the Wiretap Act from using illegally acquired telephone intercepts.
• Clarifying that ECPA can only be used to get specific data about particular individuals and cannot be used for broad sweeps, whether to identify everyone in a particular geographic area or to identify every person that visits a particular web site.

It's time for Congress to pull the curtain back on the vast, shadowy world of law enforcement surveillance and shine a light on these abuses. In the meantime, we give our thanks to those like Chris Soghoian who are doing important work to uncover the truth about government spying in America.

UPDATE: Sprint has responded to Soghoian's report:

The comments made by a Sprint corporate security officer during a recent conference have been taken out of context by this blogger. Specifically, the “8 million” figure, which the blogger highlights in his email and blog post, has been grossly misrepresented. The figure does not represent the number of customers whose location information was provided to law enforcement, as this blogger suggests.

Instead, the figure represents the number of individual “pings” for specific location information, made to the Sprint network as part of a series of law enforcement investigations and public safety assistance requests during the past year. It’s critical to note that a single case or investigation may generate thousands of individual pings to the network as the law enforcement or public safety agency attempts to track or locate an individual.

Instances where law enforcement agencies seek customer location information include exigent or emergency circumstances such as Amber Alert events, criminal investigations, or cases where a Sprint customer consents to sharing location information.

Sprint takes our customers’ privacy extremely seriously and all law enforcement and public safety requests for customer location information are processed in accordance with applicable state and federal laws.

This response provides some important answers, while raising even more questions. First off, Sprint has confirmed that it received 8 million requests, while denying a charge that no one has made: that 8 million individual customers' data was handed over. Sprint's denial also begs the question: how many individual customers have been affected?

As for Sprint's claim that in some instances a single case or investigation may generate thousands of location "pings", that is certainly possible, but that doesn't make the 8 million number any less of a concern, or moot any of the important questions raised by Soghoian in his report or by EFF in its post regarding the lack of effective oversight and transparency in this area.

Even assuming that Sprint's statement about "pings" is true, 8 million — or, in other words, 8,000 thousands — is still an astronomical number and more than enough to raise serious concerns that Congress should investigate and address. Moreover, the statement raises additional questions: exactly what legal process is being used to authorize the multiple-ping surveillance over time that Sprint is cooperating in? Is Sprint demanding search warrants in those cases? How secure is this automated interface that law enforcement is using to "ping" for GPS data? How does Sprint insure that only law enforcement has access to that data, and only when they have appropriate legal process? How many times has Sprint disclosed information in "exigent or emergency circumstances" without any legal process at all? And most worrisome and intriguing: what customers does Sprint think have "consent[ed] to the sharing [of] location data" with the government? Does Sprint think it is free to hand over the information of anyone who has turned on their GPS functionality and shared information with Sprint for location-based services? Or even the data of anyone who has agreed to their terms of service? What exactly are they talking about?

These questions are only the beginning, and Sprint's statement doesn't come close to answering all of them. Of course, we appreciate that Sprint has begun a public dialogue about this issue. But this should be only the beginning of that discussion, not the end. Ultimately, the need for Congress to investigate the true scope of law enforcement's communications surveillance practices remains. Congress can and should dig deeper to get the hard facts for the American people, rather than forcing us to rely solely on Sprint's public relations office for information on these critical privacy issues.

Posted By Robert Allison

Kerrville911Truth

Obama Announces Troop Escalation In Afghanistan / Pakistan

Obama Announces Troop Escalation In Afghanistan/Pakistan

A New Strategy For Afghanistan And Pakistan? No.

YouTube Link Here

Obama Promise To End The War, 2007 - "You Can Take That To The Bank"

YouTube Link Here

Posted By Robert Allison

Kerrville911Truth

RA

The Road To Copenhagen Part III - A “Planetary Regime” In The Making

The Road To Copenhagen Part III: A “Planetary Regime” In The Making

Jurriaan Maessen

November 21, 2009

“It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” George H.W. Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N, February 1, 1992.

The machine of mass media is working overdrive now that the Copenhagen summit is approaching. All major media outlets have by now obviously received their talking-points which have an strangely similar ring about them all across the board. Even a superficial comparative study in the overall reporting reveals not only a stunning disregard for national sovereignty, but a willingness to support carbon-taxes imposed by a - as John P. Holdren puts it - “planetary regime”.

Oxford professor Dieter Helm: “I’m in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with – for political economy reasons, to get it in place.”

Last month experts told the Second Committee Panel Discussion of the UN General Assembly that “a new regime of governance was under way in the global financial system.” The same is being said about global climate measures, global resource management and global development.

The mass media is not only setting the agenda themselves, they more often than not simply parrot the globalists that are being shoved in our face on a daily basis. Many of whom have a Ph.D. behind their name.

Under the header ‘Carbon Tax’ is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says‘, the Los Angeles Times quotes Oxford professor Dieter Helm stating -

“(..) I’m in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with – for political economy reasons, to get it in place, (…). Across Europe, my guess is within five years everybody will have a carbon tax…”

This, according to Helm, will make sure that the United States will eventually be forced into the global carbon tax policy as well -

“(…) is everybody else doing it? That’s a very good protection for politicians. The answer is yes, they are.”

Back in December of 2001, the Africa division of the UN Development Programme apparently already seriously considered such a tax -

“The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each

type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide.”

Answering the question who would collect the taxes and enforce such a global tax policy, the UN panel was quite clear -

"The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all

tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad.”

This sounds a lot like John P. Holdren doesn’t it, exclaiming in Ecoscience that “a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment” could impose global policy and enforce it. “Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime”, said Holdren, “could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.”

Furthermore, the UN panel advocated in 2001 -

“We thus endorse the Commission’s proposal to create a global council at the highest political level to provide leadership on issues of global governance. The proposed council would be more broadly based than the G7 or the Bretton Woods institutions.”

In 2007, Reuters quoted Mr. Global Warming Himself, Al Gore as saying that a global carbon trading scheme could be “quite efficient if the world’s top polluters, the United States and China, fully joined.” Gore also stated that a direct tax on carbon would certainly be “an even simpler and more direct measure.”

It was the Bilderberg-appointed Herman Van Rompuy - the new EU-president - who stated recently that “The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.” He also announced that 2009 would be the “first year of global governance.” And he’s not the first to call for such global management. All people who occupy a position of power in the infrastructure of the New World Order have called for it since its very conception shortly after World War II.

As a preface to the coming Copenhagen summit in December, the United Nations Population Fund in a recently published ‘State of the Population 2009‘ is pushing for global reproductive health services. This means not only universal access to ‘family planning’ but also better access to abortion facilities. Humans, after all, are supposed to be the prime driver of climate change and therefore: less humans means honouring Mother Earth.

In the foreword, the executive director of the UNFPA, Thoraya Obaid addresses the fake global warming hype, saying that “floods, storms and rising seas” will soon envelope the planet if not for quick, decisive and global efforts to combat these calamities.

“A Copenhagen agreement that helps people to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to climate change by harnessing the insight and creativity of women and men would launch a genuinely effective long-term global strategy to deal with climate change.”

Global strategy. That’s the talking point we hear over and over again from all agencies, UN or otherwise, who have an interest in profiting from the deal they are proposing. Never mind that all nation-states who sign on to the Copenhagen treaty will effectively forfeit their representative systems to this global authority, deciding which taxes will be paid by which nation-state. In the end, all roads seem to lead to a “planetary regime” envisioned by the elite long before “global warming” was even heard of.

Re-Posted By Robert Allison

Kerrville911Truth

RA

Acclimating Civilians To The Police State: Armed Military At Jones Beach, New York

Acclimating Civilians To The Police State: Armed Military At Jones Beach, New York

Infowars

November 17, 2009

IMPORTANT PHOTOGRAPHS BELOW

Editor’s note: A listener to the Alex Jones Show sent the following photos and write-up.

A friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous took these pictures while at the Airshow this year. I neglected to mention that while on air the other day but the photos certainly speak for themselves. I gave a write-up from what I remember him telling me about the air show so hopefully this helps a bit.

Every Memorial Day weekend at Jones Beach, Long Island, New York, a yearly air show display is brought to the public. During this year however, the military with Homeland Security occupied the board walk with soldiers in full battle garb equipped with pouches of ammunition and small arms like you would see in an Afghan or Iraqi village. In the photos below, can view the rifles in hand alongside magazine pouches equipped with magazine clips. The rifle is clearly locked and loaded and as you see in the photos, the crowds are within feet of the armed soldiers. These are the types of photos you would see come out of a narco-terror state or the Soviet Union occupation all throughout Eastern Europe during the latter part of half the 20th century. What is even more concerning is the very fact one soldier in these photos is equipped with a large 30 caliber machine gun similar to that of a SAW equipped with a small pouch drum and what appears to be ammunition located inside the drum.

Some may argue these soldiers are only there equipped with small arms at an event because this is an annual air show but as of my knowledge, no air show previous to this ever had armed soldiers occupying the boardwalk with weapons you would frequently see within occupied nations such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Is this part of a psychological operation to get people use to the concept of armed soldiers in public events or is this an operation in itself?

Re-Posted By Robert Allison

Kerrville911Truth

RA

U.S. Military Employs “Counterinsurgency” Strategy In Californian City

U.S. Military Employs “Counterinsurgency” Strategy In Californian City


Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The U.S. military is aiding police in a California conduct “counterinsurgency” operations as part of a crack down on gang related violence in the city of Salinas, a relationship officials admit pushes the boundaries of the constitutional bar on the military operating within U.S. borders but one that should be expanded nationwide.

“Since February, combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have been advising Salinas police on counterinsurgency strategy, bringing lessons from the battlefield to the meanest streets in an American city,” reports the Washington Post.

“This is our surge,” said (Mayor) Donohue, who solicited the assistance from the elite Naval Postgraduate School, 20 miles and a world away in Monterey. “When the public heard about this, they thought we were going to send the Navy SEALs into Salinas.”

The head of the program, former Special Forces career officer Col. Hy Rothstein, who oversaw counterinsurgency operations in Colombia and Central America, describes the program as a “laboratory”. The Washington Post article implies that the members of his team are retired veterans, yet later admits that the men are “mostly naval officers taking time between deployments,” meaning that they are active duty, not retired.

Another slick form of spin on behalf of the Post is the claim that the program doesn’t violate constitutional blocks on the military engaging in domestic law enforcement because Rothstein’s team are helping on a “voluntary” basis. This is completely contradicted in the second paragraph of the article when it is admitted that Mayor Dennis Donohue “affirmed his decision to seek help from an unlikely source: the U.S. military,” meaning that the program isn’t voluntary at all, the Mayor of the city instigated the military’s involvement. At the end of the article, a nationwide version of the program is also advocated.

Rothstein explains how his team employ methods used against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan to get the job done in Salinas, using military software that “tracks crimes and links suspects and their associates by social, geographic and family connections”.

Rothstein also admitted how part of the program utilizes military psyops tactics to thwart the public from hearing “negative messages,” suggesting control of the local media.

The Post article goes into great depth to depict the town as being under siege from dangerous Hispanic gang members in an attempt to push the justification of military involvement. At no point is it mentioned that if the police were tough enough to deal with real criminals in the first place, rather than feeding on the fat hog of the law-abiding American taxpayer, the need for army involvement would have never arisen.

How many stories do you read every week about women, people in wheelchairs, people with mental problems and other easy pray being tased by cops in comparison to gang members and drug dealers? Perhaps if the cops concentrated on going after the thugs rather than sinking their teeth into the fat, dumb and happy middle class American, then cities like Salinas wouldn’t be full of gang-banger scum.

The crucial part of the Post article is right at the end, when the trial balloon goes up for the U.S. military’s involvement in domestic law enforcement to be implemented nationwide in this context.

“The $1 trillion invested so far in Iraq and Afghanistan could pay a dividend in American streets,” states the article, before quoting Leonard A. Ferrari, provost of the Naval Postgraduate School, who states, “The idea was, not just Salinas, but is there a national model for this?”

Why is one of the biggest newspapers in America, a Bilderberg-owned publication, pushing for the nationwide use of active duty U.S. military units in domestic law enforcement, specifically to combat a “counterinsurgency” amongst U.S. citizens? Is this another progression in the preparation for martial law in response to mass civil unrest, race riots, and even a future civil war?

Or is this merely another gradual blurring of the lines between the police and the military as an ailing banana republic begins to decline into a failed state bossed by a militarized dictatorship?

Re-Posted By Robert Allison
Kerrville911Truth



RA

The Road To Copenhagen Part II: Rise Of The Social Engineers

The Road To Copenhagen Part II: Rise Of The Social Engineers

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
November 16, 2009

“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required (…). Even though (…) any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy

As Lord Christopher Monckton pointed out, the Copenhagen conference at the beginning of next month is designed to eliminate national sovereignty in favor of a world government to replace it. With a stroke of the pen all UN-member-states will, by doing so, throw away years of prosperity in order to satisfy the transnational needs of a global elite, hellbent on destroying the last vestiges of freedom around the world in the name of “redistributing wealth.”

Make no mistake, if the ‘world leaders’ now announce they will not swallow this pill just yet, be sure that they will in the months after December. After all, they’ve been ordered to by their masters- who have proven themselves to be both cunning and patient.

After the Club of Rome in the early 1970s outlined its basic premise, that world population must decrease if the earth is to survive, all globalist subdivision started groaning like rusty old engines. In the seventies and part of the eighties, the propaganda was still far from subtle. When one scientist proclaimed that the entire world’s population must shrink to the size of a middle-sized country, another shouted that this won’t do at all, proposing instead to put a halt to new life completely.

Documents such as Ecoscience must be viewed in this bizarre context. Although dripping with eugenic devilry, these publications at least were quite upfront about it, proclaiming their mind-boggling monstrosities for all to see. At this stage, deciphering cryptic environmental texts was hardly necessary. However undesirable the situation, at least we knew exactly what they were up to because they said so to our face.

Today we find ourselves in quite another situation. As public resistance about these dehumanizing proposals grew steadily thanks to an informed Western middle-class, the eugenicists went underground, replacing their foul garments with seemingly fairer outfits.

With the help of UNESCO’s social engineers pouring oil into the machine, the propaganda became more streamlined and smooth throughout the 1990s and the beginning of this century. In the most brilliant move anyone could ever make, an ocean of euphemisms began to engulf the true ambitions of the Malthusians, to the point of classical Orwellian doublespeak and beyond. We are required nowadays to decode the complex linguistic trickery before we can even formulate a move to counter it. A crash course in the unraveling of these euphemisms may help us pierce through this language grid more easily. Bizarrely, the United Nations Population Fund will help us on our way.

In a off-worldly 1999 UNFPA directive - published to make sure journalists will not accidentally slip up and reveal the real deal- the author explains it’s better to rephrase the old grammar when it comes to population control issues:

“The term (“Population control”) is now out of favor with experts in the field, because it implies force- a negative thing to most. (…). To stress the voluntary nature of the actions sought, experts use terms like “stemming”, “stabilizing” or “slowing” population growth. Similarly, “family planning” is preferred to “birth control” a term that dates back to the time of Margaret Sanger’s crusade for women’s rights to use contraceptives.”

To namedrop Margaret Sanger in this context is very much hitting the nail on the head- although to claim she was a real-deal liberator of minds is absurd. Sanger was a eugenicist first and foremost. How did she define birth control in the Birth Control Review, May 1919, page 12?

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief aim of birth control.”

The UNFPA directive goes on to say that it’s better to use terms in public communiques such as:

“Birth spacing”, “reproductive health” and “women’s rights”; boosting “sustainable development”; and improving the earth’s “carrying capacity” and the human “quality of life”. These terms stress not sheer population numbers but the broader vision of global well-being.”

As a paper prepared for the UN’s ‘Expert Group Meeting on Population Dynamics and Climate Change’ states:

“everything possible should be done now to ensure that people the world over have access to good reproductive health and that this will be crucial for future generations, in terms of global climate as well as human welfare.”

Remember now, that the phrase “reproductive health” is not only being used to facilitate family planning centers around the globe, but also makes possible such things as portable abortion units- as it does in China for example, where women in the name of “reproductive health” are being offered the finest in abortion services the almighty State has to offer, right to their very doorstep.

“Women’s rights” is another one. It sounds good, no? Who, after all, would argue the right of women to do whatever they so please? The next line in UNESCO technical papers which usually follows goes something like this: “Climate change is a women’s rights issue”. Or, as one publication describes it: “The threats of climate change are not gender-neutral.”

“Women are key health, education, economic and resource managers”, states also the UN’s report of the international workshop on population-poverty-environment linkages. “They, and their children, are also those most likely to experience disproportionate effects of poverty and environmental stresses. Integrated programming should ensure that women are empowered to play the requisite managerial and decision-making roles. One entry point for linking population and the environment interventions is via coordinated and gender-sensitive environmental activities (e.g., water supply/sanitation or natural resource management) and reproductive health initiatives.”

Here we have it again: “reproductive health”. The juggling of words is an art mastered to perfection by the global elite and their willing underlings, that much is clear. Another important item on the agenda of the social engineers is that of integrating population reduction messages into a range of other, seemingly decoupled subject matters. We have for example a report from the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia, encountering a problem while subjecting a group of students to the propaganda:

“Since the launching of a massive population education programme for the schools, the amount of reading materials alone, not to mention visuals and films, has increased enormously. It is therefore necessary to determine what materials to make available to children at different grade levels.”

That’s where the educators come in. Children, UNESCO figures, must be brought within its sphere of influence as soon as possible. Otherwise the parents will guide their futures and that would be detrimental to the plan to transform all humans into good ‘global citizens.’

“We cannot imagine how the people of all nations could move toward a more sustainable world without the contribution of educators from around the globe”, states a 2005 UNESCO technical paper.

“Sustainable world” means a world with just as much people the earth can carry. In 1972, another UNESCO document circulated within transnational circles with the creepy title ‘Learning to be: the world of education today and tomorrow‘. In this publication, promoting the emergence of a “new man for a new world”, the authors state their purpose:

“The new man must be capable of understanding the global consequences of individual behaviour, of conceiving of priorities and shouldering his share of the joint responsibility involved in the destiny of the human race.”

At the EuroNGO’s annual conference in 2008, the director of information and external relations division of the UN Population Fund was mighty glad that the Malthusians are on the rise again:

“(…) the media spotlight on global population has snapped back on in a way we haven’t seen in some decades. It dimmed when concerns about “overpopulation” last went out of fashion, but those concerns may now be getting a new lease of life.”

They may indeed.

Re-Post By Robert Allison

Kerrville911Truth

RA

Illegal Alien Amnesty Thugs Attack Tea Party Protesters In Ft. Lauderdale

Illegal Alien Amnesty Thugs Attack Tea Party Protesters In Ft. Lauderdale


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 16, 2009

The attack against Tea Party activists in the video below is a direct result of the concerted campaign by the corporate media — in particular Chris Matthews — to portray Tea Party activists and supporters as racist. It’s an example of pro-Obama brown-shirt thuggery.

In August, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) knuckle-draggers attacked anti-Obamacare demonstrators at a U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, event in Mehville, Missouri. Kenneth Gladney, who was handing out Gadsen flags outside the stage-managed event, was viciously beaten by a male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. Gladney was hospitalized with multiple injuries.

The attack came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi characterized anti-Obamacare demonstrators as “astroturfers” and Nazis. Carnahan characterized the opposition as “disrupters” and said they were “mobilized” by “special interests in Washington who have lined their pockets by overcharging Americans for a broken health care system.”

In fact, as Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich and others have noted, Obamacare is a bailout for the insurance industry. Special interests control Obama and the Democrats, not members of the Tea Party movement.

Pro-Obama operatives and pundits at MSNBC — again, specifically Chris Matthews and the SPLC and ADL — should be held to account for their incendiary comments now resulting in violence.

In August, a La Raza supporter attacked attendees at a town hall meeting held by Texas Democrat Gene Green. The man was arrested by police.

Alex Jones covers the racism of La Raza and pro-amnesty activists in Battle For The Republic, an extra included with his film, Endgame: Blueprint Global Enslavement.

CNN engaged in biased reporting today when it characterized the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia as a group that represents a potential threat to the government. CNN will continue its series with a report on the Oath Keepers. On October 21, Chris Matthews attempted to portray Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers as a gun-toting maniac. It remains to be seen how fair and balanced CNN will be toward Rhodes and the Oath Keepers.

Notice, in the ANSWER Coalition literature below, there is a direct call for violence against “tea baggers” (the same term used by Matthews, Anderson Cooper, and other corporate media talking heads).

ANSWER is a Marxist-Leninist organization (specifically, the Workers World Party, a communist organization with roots going back to the Soviet Union).

An account of the attack by ALIPAC (Americans for Legal Immigration) follows:

Supporters of President Obama’s Amnesty plans attacked Tea Party Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration demonstrators in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on Sat. November 14, 2009. One of the men attacked is 62 years old. Dave Caulkett of FLIMEN (Floridians for Immigration Enforcement) is assaulted and then kicked in the face while he is down. The other camera man from the Tea Party is hit with several signs.

Those attacking the Americans that oppose Amnesty for illegal aliens were organized by ANSWER Florida.

Here is the exact text of their e-mail invitation which was a prelude to these violent assaults on Americans that stand with the 80% of Americans that oppose Amnesty for illegal aliens.

For more information about these assaults please contact Americans for Legal Immigration PAC ALIPAC via http://www.alipac.us

---


Pro Amnesty group ANSWER Florida sent this out..

“That is why we are calling on all people to come out tomorrow, to organize a militant confrontation with the so-called “tea baggers.” Beating back these forces will require us to organize together, take the streets, fight the racists wherever they show their faces and drive them out of every community.”

Protest Tomorrow to Shut Down Racist


“Anti-Amnesty” Rally

Saturday, November 14 12:00PM

Fort Lauderdale, Corner of Oakland Park and Federal Highway

The ANSWER Coalition is calling on all its members, allies, and friends to join us tomorrow to confront and shut down the racist “Anti-Amnesty Tea Party” in Ft. Lauderdale.

The “Anti-Amnesty” rallies being held across the country tomorrow have been initiated by fascist, white supremacist organizations that include the Minutemen and the so-called Americans for Legal Immigration.

---

Racism is like anything else in this world: in order to make it fall, you must smash it! That is why we are calling on all people to come out tomorrow, to organize a militant confrontation with the so-called “tea baggers.” Beating back these forces will require us to organize together, take the streets, fight the racists wherever they show their faces and drive them out of every community.

The racist demonization of immigrants only serves the interest of the ruling class during this historical economic crisis. The same bankers, CEO’s, and politicians, both Democrat and Republican, which have for decades devastated the economies of countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, have once again devastated the economy in this country. The same ruling class that devastates the lives of working people in other nations through war and super-exploitation are the ones throwing workers out of their homes, denying them healthcare, and laying them off from their jobs in this country.

Racism is consciously used as a tool by the ruling class because they know that as long as working people are divided and fighting each other, the people are not fighting the bankers, CEO’s, and politicians. Only under a brutal system that puts profit over people can you have a whole section of society whose only crime is being forced from their nations because of imperialism and forced to work in the most hostile of conditions in this country. Only racism can justify this reality.

The continual devastation of working people because of this crisis, however, is not the fault of one group of workers. On October 28th, President Obama signed the largest military budget in U.S. history-$680 billion dollars, which does not include the cost of the criminal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The new administration is also continuing to hand out the $9.5 trillion dollars in working people’s tax dollars to bailout the already rich.

The money to end the suffering of all working people tomorrow is there. It is our choice as to whether we will allow the right of a few to profit from labor of workers to continue, or whether we will rise up as one class of working people to and take political power into our own hands.

We are building a movement that will beat back racism so that working people of all nationalities can unite and fight against our one, shared enemy: capitalism. Amnesty, full rights for ALL immigrants, is a demand that should be raised not just by the immigrant communities, but by every working class community in our struggle to solve this crisis by our own means.

Join us tomorrow, and join us in building the movement against racism and capitalist exploitation!

For more information, contact 305-710-3189 or info@answerfl.org !

Re-Posted By Robert Allison

Kerrville911Truth

RA