Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Uncertainty Shadows NS Economy For 2012 Says Premier Darrell Dexter

Curt Greene
SoNaztee.com
Jan. 3, 2012

Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter says that his government will work this year to make Nova Scotia more economically competitive in the face of lingering uncertainty on world markets.

He adds that means looking at tax measures, although he's not offering any details.

Dexter says that any help for the middle class will have to wait until the province balances its books on a projected 365 million dollar deficit in 2013.

Both opposition parties say that more action is required to lower business taxes and to tackle power rates, which recently rose another 10 per cent in the new year.

Despite landing some high profile mega projects, Dexter cautions that this year could still be rough economically for the province.

Pointing out that the benefits of landing the 25 billion dollar federal shipbuilding contract are still roughly a year away, while the 6.2 billion dollar Lower Churchill hydro project is still in the planning stages.

In the meantime he says, "almost every economy is feeling pretty volatile.''

--

Minority ridings could lose status, says opposition

In addition to the latest tax hike jargon, a legislative committee has recommended changes as to how electoral boundaries are set within the province, but opposition members say the changes will end protection for minority ridings.

The all-party committee remains split on the recommendations thus far.

The NDP members want all ridings to have roughly the same number of voters, with a variation of no more than 25 per cent.

Leonard Preyra, Halifax-Citadel MLA, stated, "Every constituency should be roughly equal in terms of the number of votes they have and that's one of those fundamental principles of democracy."

However, opposition members of the committee said the new rules could mean three predominately Acadian ridings, including Argyle and Claire, and the Preston riding, which is predominately African-Nova Scotian, could lose their special minority status.

"the voting power of the linguistic minority or of the African Nova Scotia community has pretty much been watered down," said Richmond MLA, Michel Sampson.

The committee report sets the terms of reference which will guide the Provincial Boundaries Commission.

The commission is expected to report to the legislature in the fall.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here’s the text that says so


Mike Adams
Monday, January 2, 2012

In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law “does not apply to American citizens.”

This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can’t even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under “existing authorities.”

Let’s parse it intelligently, shall we?

First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:


SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows;

(d) CONSTRUCTION. — Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the “or” operator. This statement essentially means:

• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the “authority of the President” to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:

(e) AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

This section “e” is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying “protects American citizens” from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you’ll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here’s what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the “or” operator:

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

In other words, section (e) only says that it does notalter“existing authorities” relating to the detention of US citizens.

So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand “existing authorities.”

What are those “existing authorities?”

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens

As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an “existing authority” that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don’t believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it’s widely recognized.

Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a “secret panel” of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a “kill list” and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005)

Importantly, as Reuters reports, “Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] — first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they besuspectedof being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES…”

In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama’s executive “kill list” justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.

Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:

The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not “affect existing law or authorities” relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.(http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=296584837047596)

Follow more from Rep. Justin Amash at Facebook:

Storing food could get you labeled as a terror suspect

So then, you might be wondering, “What kinds of activities could get me accused of being involved in supporting terrorism?”

And here’s the kicker, because all the following activities could cause you to be arrested, detained, interrogated and even murdered all under U.S. law, thanks to Obama:

• Criticizing the federal government.
• Using cash to purchase things.
• Storing food and medical supplies.
• Owning a firearm and storing ammunition.
• Standing still and minding your own business near a government building.
• Writing something down on a piece of paper near a government building.
• Using a pair of binoculars.
• Protesting for animal rights in front of a medical lab.
• Protesting your government (or Wall Street).
• Requesting to take more than a couple thousand dollars out of your bank account in cash.

You see, under existing authority, you could be labeled a “terror suspect” for engaging in any of these activities, and then LEGALLY arrested, detained, interrogated or even killed by the U.S. government, all under Obama’s authority (or whatever next President takes over in Washington and perhaps does far worse things with that power…)

You are already enemy combatants, folks. The NDAA does absolutely nothing to protect you from its provisions. In fact, it openly states that it does not limit existing authorities — authorities which already claim the right to subject you to indefinite military detention merely for being “suspected” of involvement with “terrorism,” which could be interpreted to apply in practically any situation.

Reading between the lines

Get this through your heads, folks: to properly understand the NDAA (or any other bill), you have to learn to think like lawyers and tyrants.

They don’t just put language right out in plain view that says, “Americans may never be arrested or detained without due process.” Instead, they create a web of legalese statements that are cross-referenced, paraphrased and specifically engineered to obfuscate their intended purpose. This isdesignedto hide their true intentions, not to make them clear.

Furthermore, if the bill actually intended toprotectAmericans from the NDAA, then it should have contained language saying something like, “American citizens are specifically excluded from all the provisions of this bill, in its entirety.”

I’ll bet anyone a thousand dollars they won’t find language like that in the bill.Because it doesn’t exist!And the reason it doesn’t exist is because the NDAA is clearly intended to apply to American citizens.

The writers of the bill have managed to fool a lot of everyday people who seem unable to parse language and read plain English with any depth of understanding. That is as much a failure of America’s public education system as anything else. I find it astonishing that today’s citizenscan’t even read and understand the grammatical structure of sentences written in plain English.This alone is a highly disturbing subject that must be addressed another day. For now, it’s enough just to realize that the NDAA really does apply to you, me, and all our neighbors and friends. In signing it, Obama has cemented his place in history as the enabler of government-sponsored mass murder of its own citizens.

History does repeat itself after all, huh? Hitler, Stalin, Mao and now “Obama the enabler.” While Obama himself probably won’t engage in the mass murder of American citizens, have no illusions that a future President will try to use the powers enacted by Obama to carry out such crimes. Gingrich, anyone?

Sunday, January 1, 2012

President Obama Signs National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Curt Greene
SoNaztee.com
Jan. 1, 2012

While most of you were out celebrating the ringing in of 2012, worrying about which bar to meet at, who to be with, who to drive, United States President Barack Obama was busy signing away your Bill of Rights and Constitution. Much like the Federal Reserve Bank's $600 Billion Covert Bailout of Europe on Christmas Day, Obama waited until the majority of the population was busy or distracted to finally go ahead and sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which clearly states that he and his administration have the authority to detain or even KILL American citizens without due trial.

The NDAA is a law which basically instates martial law in the United States, as it states the entire world is now considered a battlefield. All in the guise of "national security", your Constitutional rights hae now been stripped away to "protect" you from terrorism.

Initially, Obama had stated that he would veto the bill due to the fact that he felt he already had the authority to detain or kill citizens at his discretion without the bill.

Obama has also said that the NDAA did not pertain to American citizens, although the bill's sponsoring senators, such as John McCain, Carl Levin, and Lindsey Graham have all admitted that it does, and that Americans should be afraid.

In fact, Senator Carl Levin has stated that it was in fact the Obama Administration who insited that that provision be added to the bill in the first place. Obviously an act of clear and simple treason.

“I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.However, the consemate flip-flopper that he is, Obama could simply have a change of intentions again and decide, at any time, to do so.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

An American History of False Flags


Curt Greene
SoNaztee.com
Dec. 29, 2011

I was intending to use the following information as part of a radio show I was going to record for X-Force Radio, but I honestly don't have the time to work on such a project these days, so I figured I would share some of this information with you all right now:

Definition of a False Flag Attack: A covert operation designed to appear as though it was carried out by another nation of group, when in fact it was orchestrated at home.

In the official 9/11 Commission Report, it states that 7 World Trade Centre or, simply, Tower 7, which most people are unaware of, collapsed due to fire. Tower 7 was not hit by a plane like first two towers, and collapsed just as quickly, and far more suspiciously.

Tower 7 was a 47-story office building. Tenants of the tower included the Department of Defense, the Secret Service, and the CIA. With the amount of security in and around that building, there is no way that Al Qaeda would have been able to get inside.

William Rodríguez was a janitor at the North Tower of the World Trade Center during the September 11, 2001 attacks and was in the basement of the North Tower when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the building. After the attacks he received several awards for heroism for helping in the evacuation of many survivors. The Birmingham Mail said about Rodriguez: "He bravely led firefighters up the stairs, unlocking doors as they climbed and helping hundreds of survivors"and The Lancashire Telegraph added: "He then went back into the building in a bid to rescue his friends at the top of the tower, on the 106th floor. But he kept finding others who needed his help as well." Rodriguez' October 2004 lawsuit Rodriguez v. Bush alleges that bombs were planted in the sub-basement and the Twin Towers brought down by controlled demolition, He claims to have felt a blast from below him, and states that 14 others corroborate his claim. About 6-8 seconds after the initial boom, Rodriguez says the first plane hit the tower above them. Rodriguez was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, but behind closed doors, and depsite all of his work, he is not mentioned once within the 9/11 Commissions official report.

If Rodriguez' accusations were indeed truthful, that would indeed help to explain the rate that the building fell to ground, as well as the finding of superthermite in the debris.

Phycisist Dr. Steven E. Jones has analyzed Ground Zero and found in the debris residue from Superthermite. Superthermite is the combination of a metal powder and a metal oxide which produce a reaction known for extremely high temperatures focused in a very small area for a short period of time. Superthermite burns at 2500 degrees Celcius, much, much hotter than jet fuel. Jet fuel burns at about 1100 degrees Celcius and burns up immediately upon impact, which, to the keen observer, completely contradicts the 9/11 Commission's official report which states that jet fuel shot down the elevator shafts and caused the rapid burning of the North Tower. When superthermite is a liquid it is perfectly safe to work with and can be mixed with paint and painted onto any surface. However, when it dries, it becomes a highly volatile explosive. William Rodriguez, the North Tower Janitor has stated that maintenance was carried out on almost a daily basis, including painting. So it is very possible that painters may well have been in the North Tower painting the walls and not even knowing that they were applying the wet Superthermite. This is a theory which would go miles in exlaining the blast in which Rodriguez and at least fourteen others say they felt happen BELOW them, just previous to the plane striking the building.
Another key point to look at, is that, rather than carrying out a thorough investigation as to what occured on the morning of September 11, 2001, the task was instead to, as quickly as humanly possible, remove all of the debris and, subsequently, all of the evidence from the scene of the horrific events. In fact, Rudy Giuliani, then Mayor of New York, was heard only 2 hours following the events as bragging that the workers had already managed to ship an astounding 41 truckloads of steel and debris out of Ground Zero.

It's also very interesting to note that much of the steel was shipped away to China or used to build Navy ships, rather than being thoroughly inspected as evidence. What remains of the towers has been stored at Hangar 17 at JFK International Airport, and is locked up safely from anyone looking to do any investigating.

9/11 marks the first time in HISTORY that an aircraft has crashed and the Black Boxes were not recovered. This is more than a little suspicious in this case. These Black Boxes are made up of Titanium of re-inforced steel and are basically indestructible. Even planes who have crashed at sea have had their Black Boxes recovered. So, of the four, bright orange-coloured Boxes, not even one was recovered by the thousands of workers going through debris? Not even a piece of one? It should also be stated that investigators were able to come across bone fragments the size of fingernail clippings and DNA match them to the victims, but were unable to stumble upon these indestructible Black Boxes which could have potentially have given us such information as the Language spoken by the alleged Hijackers, what they were saying, who they were saying it to, whether or not they were receiving instructions from the ground, and so much more.
In the years prior to the Septmber 11 attacks, there have been reported a grand total of 67 aircrafts which have been intercepted or brought down by the United States Military over America. So why this time were these planes not brought down? For a better answer on that, we should journey back to May of 2001. In May, the law was changed which once allowed Military to make the decision to intercept aircraft in American skies at their discretion. After this law alteration, it now stated that a civilian, whether it be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, President George W. Bush, or Vice-President Dick Cheney would in fact have the final word on such matters. of course, we know what the outcome of that decision was. The Military was told to stand down and not to intercept these planes. So, basically, they had this all set up all the way back in May that the Military would not have the power or decide to take out these crafts without the say of the united States Government. A very scary thought.

During the mainstream media's reporting on the 9/11 events, there was one extremely mind-shattering fact. Jane Standley, a reporter for BBC who was stationed in New York, reported from a balcony overlooking the horrific scenes and stated that Tower 7 had fallen already. However, to anyone with a set of eyes, the tower was still completely in tact behind her in the camera shot. This, without doubt, proves that the broadcast was a scripted event, and that Ms. Standley was out there reading or regurgetating lines, and subsequently, lies to millions of people.

Many people are not aware of the theory of Problem, Reaction, Solution. So, in a nutshell, here it is. The government of a nation creates or exploits a problem by blaming it on another nation or group. This, obviously, is the creation of a false flag event. Next, the people, being the citizens within said nation then react by begging the very same government for help with the situation, even willing to give up their rights in doing so. Then, the government offers up their solution which was actually planned up long before the crisis even occured. Now, the second part of this paradigm, reaction, where citizens ask of the government a solution to their situation, is where we find another shadowy sidenote in all of this. The September 11 travesty paved the way for the issuing in of the Patriot Act which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, and which took away at least half of the rights which were included in the original Bill of Rights.

Now, before I go any further, I know there's probably still going to be some sceptics which will find it somewhat difficult to accept the fact that the united States would purposely inflict such horrifying events upon its own population. Well, in case you are unaware, here are some other instances of False Flag attacks.

The Pearl Harbour Attack:
On Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii which decimated the US Pacific Fleet and forced the United States to enter into WWII. Well, except for the date, everything I just stated is a lie. In reality, there was no sneak attack. The Pacific Fleet was far from decimated. And, furthermore, the United States took great pains to bring about the assault.

On January 27, 1941, Joseph Grew, the United States ambassador to Japan, wired Washington, DC and stated that he'd learned of a surprise attack Japan was preparing for Pearl Harbour. On September 24, a dispatch from Japanese naval intelligence to Japan's consul general in Honolulu, Hawaii, was deciphered. The transmission was a request for a grid of exact locations of ships stationed in Pearl Harbour. Washington, however, chose not to share this information with the officers at Pearl Harbour. Then, on November 26, the main body of the Japanese strike force (consisting of six aircraft carriers, two battleships, three cruisers, nine destroyers, eight tankers, 23 fleet submarines, and five midget submarines) departed Japan en route for Hawaii.

Despite the myth that the strike force maintained strict radio silence, US Naval intelligence intercepted and translated many dispatches. And, there was no shortage of dispatches: In fact, Tokyo sent upwards of 1000 transmissions to the attack fleet before it reached Hawaii. Some of these dispatches, in particular a message from Admiral Yamamoto, left absolutely no doubt that Pearl Harbour was the target of a Japanese attack: "The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order."
Even on the night before the Pearl Harbour attack, US intelligence decoded a message stating that Sunday morning was the deadline for some kind of Japanese action. The message was delivered to the Washington high command more than four hours before the attack on Pearl Harbour. However, as many messages previously, it was withheld from the Pearl Harbour commanders. Although many ships were damaged at Pearl Harbour, they were all old and slow. The main targets of the Japanese attack fleet were the Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers, but Roosevelt made sure these were safe from this attack: in November, at about the same time as the Japanese attack fleet left Japan, Roosevelt sent the Lexington and Enterprise out to sea. Meanwhile, the Saratoga was in San Diego.

So, this begs the question? Why did Pearl Harbour happen? Well, President Roosevelt wanted a piece of the war money. Having failed to bait Hitler by giving $50.1 billion in war supplies to Britain, the Soviet Union, France and China as part of the Lend Lease program, FDR switched his focus entirely towards the Japanese. Because Japan had signed a mutual defence pact with Germany and Italy, Roosevelt knew that war with Japan was a legitimate back door to joining the war in Europe. On October 7, 1940, one of Roosevelt's military advisors, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, wrote a memo which detailed an 8-step plan that would provoke Japan into attacking the United States. Over the next year, Roosevelt implemented all eight of the recommended actions. In the summer of 1941, the US joined England in an oil embargo against Japan. Japan needed oil for its war with China, and had no remaining option but to invade the East Indies and Southeast Asia to get new resources. And that required getting rid of the US Pacific Fleet first.

Although Roosevelt may have got more than he bargained for, he clearly let the attack on Pearl Harbour occur while withholding crucial information, which aided Japan in making sure their attack was a surprise. He did this by withholding information from Pearl Harbour's commanders and even by ensuring the attack force wasn't accidentally discovered by commercial shipping traffic. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner stated in 1941: "We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic."

Operation Northwoods:
In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism on American soil, against American citizens. The head of every branch of the United States armed forces gave written approval to sink US ships, shoot down hijacked American planes, and even gun down and bomb civilians on the streets of Washington, D.C., and Miami. The idea was to blame the self-inflicted terrorism on Cuba's leader, Fidel Castro, so the American public would beg and scream for the Marines to attack Havana.

The public learned about Operation Northwoods 35 years later, when the Top Secret document was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. Among other things, Operation Northwoods proposed the following :

- Faking the crash of an American passenger plane. The disaster was to be accomplished by faking a commercial flight from the US to Jamaica, and having the plane boarded at a public airport by CIA agents disguised as college students going on vacation. An empty remote-controlled plane would follow the commercial flight as it left Florida. The commercial flight's pilots would radio for help, mention that they had been attacked by a Cuban fighter, then land in secret at Eglin AFB. The empty remote-controlled plane would then be blown out of the sky and the public would be told all the poor college students aboard were killed.

- Using a possible NASA disaster (astronaut John Glenn's death) as a pretext to launch the war. The plan called for "manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans" if something went wrong with NASA's third manned space launch.

- Blowing up buildings in Washington and Miami. Cuban agents (undercover CIA agents) would be arrested, and they would confess to the bombings. In addition, false documents proving Castro's involvement in the attacks would be "found" and given to the press.

- Attacking an American military base in Guantanamo with CIA recruits posing as Cuban mercenaries. This involved blowing up the ammunition depot and would obviously result in material damages and many dead American troops. As a last resort, the plan even mentioned bribing one of Castro's commanders to initiate the Guantanamo attack. That deserves repeating: the Pentagon considered using our tax dollars to bribe another country's military to attack our own troops in order to instigate a full-scale war.

Operation Northwoods was only one of several plans under the umbrella of Operation Mongoose. Shortly after the Joint Chiefs signed and presented the plan in March, 1962, President John F Kennedy, still stinging from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, declared that he would never authorize a military invasion of Cuba. In September, Kennedy denied the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Lyman Lemnitzer, a second term as the nation's highest ranking military officer. And by the winter of 1963, Kennedy was dead... killed, apparently, by a Cuban sympathiser in the streets of an American city. Of course, getting into the JFK assassination is a whole other mystery unto itself. You can hear more from the amazing President John F Kennedy by listening to his speech over a track I produced on my E.P. entitled Martial Law. But again, I am digressing here.

Gulf Of Tonkin Incident:
On August 2, 1964, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked a US destroyer, the USS Maddox. The boats reportedly fired torpedoes at the US ship in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin, about thirty miles off the Vietnam coast. On August 4, the US Navy reported another unprovoked attack on the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy.

Within mere hours, President Lyndon Johnson ordered a retaliation. As the bases for North Vietnamese torpedo boats were bombed, Johnson went on Televsion and told Americans the following: "Repeated acts of violence against the armed forces of the United States must be met not only with alert defense, but with a positive reply. That reply is being given as I speak tonight." The next day, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara assured Capital Hill that the Maddox had only been "carrying out a routine mission of the type we carry out all over the world at all times." McNamara said the two boats were in no way involved with recent South Vietnamese boat raids against North Vietnamese targets.

At President Johnson's request, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This resolution would pre-approve any military actions the President would choose to take. It gave Johnson a free ticket to wage war in Vietnam as large as the President wanted. Johnson got a big war: by 1969, over half a million US troops were fighting in Indochina. Despite McNamara's testimony to the contrary, the USS Maddox had been providing intelligence support to South Vietnamese boats carrying out raids against the North Vietnamese. McNamara had also testified that there was "unequivocable proof" of an "unprovoked" second attack against the USS Maddox. In fact, the second attack never even occurred at all.

At the time of the second incident, the two US destroyers misinterpreted radar and radio signals as attacks by the North Vietnamese navy. It's now known that no North Vietnamese boats were in the area. So, for two hours, the two US destroyers blasted away at nonexistent radar targets and vigorously maneuvered to avoid phantom North Vietnamese ships. Even though the second so-called-attack only involved two US ships defending themselves against a nonexistent enemy, the President and Secretary of Defense used it to coerce Congress and the American people to start a war they neither wanted nor needed.
After the Vietnam War turned into a quagmire, Congress decided to put limits on the President's authority to unilaterally wage war. Thus, on November 7, 1973, Congress overturned President Nixon's veto and passed the War Powers Resolution. The resolution requires the President to consult with Congress before making any decisions that engage the US military in hostilities. It is still in effect to this day.

Or, I should say, on paper, it is still in effect to this day. However, Current president, Barrack Hussein Obama has been quoted as saying that he does NOT require the approval of congress to engage into any war. This became all to evident just recently with the attacks by NATO forces inside of Libya. Clearly, and obvious shattering of the War Powers Resolution. but Obama's recklessness doesn't even end there, because, as it's now known, as NATO forces left Libya after killing leader Mumoar gaddafi, the country was then simply handed over to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda?? The very same Al Qaeda who supposedly hijacked and flew planes into the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001? I'm afraid so, folks.

So, I'm fairly certain that I've laid out the use of False Flag attacks as utilized by the United States Government over the years. I could have gotten into others such as The First World Trade Centre attack of 1993, the Oklahoma City Bombing of 1995, or even resemblances to Hitler's burning of the Reichstag in 1933. But I believe I have done this justice. That being said, with the looming fear of a third World War as United States and Israeli troops occupy space around Iran while Russia & China claim they will back the Iranians, I wish you all peace, love, and, possibly most important of all, understanding of the fact that questioning what your government tells you may be the smartest thing a human being can ever do. And Canadian citizens, don't kid yourselves, because you know Harper & Obama are merely political puppets and, where the US goes, we will closely follow behind, as is evident by the signing of the Border Action Plan Report just a few short weeks ago.

Ivory Trade: Elephant Tusk Seizures Reach Record Number In 2011

Michelle Faull
AP
Dec. 29, 2011

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — It's been a disastrous year for elephants, perhaps the worst since ivory sales were banned in 1989 to save the world's largest land animals from extinction, the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC said Thursday.

A record number of large seizures of elephant tusks represents at least 2,500 dead animals and shows that organized crime — in particular Asian syndicates — is increasingly involved in the illegal ivory trade and the poaching that feeds it, the group said.

Some of the seized tusks came from old stockpiles, the elephants having been killed years ago. It's not clear how many elephants were recently killed in Africa for their tusks, but experts are alarmed.

TRAFFIC's elephant and rhino expert Tom Milliken thinks criminals may have the upper hand in the war to save rare and endangered animals.

"As most large-scale ivory seizures fail to result in any arrests, I fear the criminals are winning," Milliken told The Associated Press.

Most cases involve ivory being smuggled from Africa into Asia, where growing wealth has fed the desire for ivory ornaments and for rhino horn that is used in traditional medicine, though scientists have proved it has no medicinal value.

"The escalation in ivory trade and elephant and rhino killing is being driven by the Asian syndicates that are now firmly enmeshed within African societies," Milliken said in a telephone interview from his base in Zimbabwe. "There are more Asians than ever before in the history of the continent, and this is one of the repercussions."

All statistics are not yet in, and no one can say how much ivory is getting through undetected, but "what is clear is the dramatic increase in the number of large-scale seizures, over 800 kilograms (1,760 pounds) in weight, that have taken place in 2011," TRAFFIC said in a statement.

There were at least 13 large seizures this year, compared to six in 2010 with a total weight just under 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds).

In the most recent, and worst, case Malaysian authorities seized hundreds of African elephant tusks on Dec. 21 worth $1.3 million that were being shipped to Cambodia. The ivory was hidden in containers of handicrafts from Kenya's Mombasa port. Most large seizures have originated from Kenyan or Tanzanian ports, TRAFFIC said.

Fifty elephants a month are being killed, their tusks hacked off, in Tanzania's Selous Game Reserve, according to the Washington-based Environmental Investigation Agency.

With shipments so large, criminals have taken to shipping them by sea instead of by air, falsifying documents with help of corrupt officials, monitors said.

Milliken said some of the seized ivory has been identified as coming from government-owned stockpiles — made up of confiscated tusks and those of dead elephants — in another sign of corruption.

"In 23 years of compiling ivory seizure data ... this is the worst year ever for large ivory seizures. 2011 has truly been a horrible year for elephants," said Milliken.

Rhinos also have suffered. A record 443 rhino were killed in this year in South Africa, compared to 333 last year, according to National Geographic News Watch. South Africa is home to 90 percent of the rhinos left on the continent.

Africa's elephant population was estimated at between 5 million and 10 million before the big white hunters came to the continent with European colonization. Massive poaching for the ivory trade in the 1980s halved the remaining number of African elephants to about 600,000. Following the 1989 ban on ivory trade and concerted international efforts to protect the animals, elephant herds in east and southern Africa were thriving before the new threat arrived from Asia.

A report from Kenya's Amboseli national park highlighted the dangers. There had been almost no poaching in the park, which lies in the shadow of Mount Kilimanjaro, for 30 years until a Chinese company was awarded the contract to build a highway nearby two years ago. Amboseli has lost at least four of its "big tuskers" since then.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Biden: Obama Administration Asked Jon Corzine for Advice on Economy


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 27, 2011

The Obama administration and the DNC have returned $70,000 in campaign contributions to the once valued insider and former MF Global boss Jon Corzine, but it will not erase the fact that Obama and crew are in the back pocket of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs.

Joe Biden admitted as much when he praised Corzine and asked for his advice on the economy:

The MF Global scandal is so large, it cannot be swept under the carpet. On Friday of last week, Senator Chuck Grassley, along with 16 other senators, wrote the Attorney General and urged him to “bring justice to the actions of MF Global executives for the potentially illegal misappropriation of funds from the segregated accounts of its commodity customers,” according to Grassley’s Senate web page.

Corzine has played the role of Dumb and Dumber and insists he knows nada about the missing $1.5 billion of customer money, supposedly located in segregated accounts.

In a conversation with a CME auditor, however, a senior MF Global employee said that Corzine knew about the loans that were made from the customer segregated accounts. In other words, he signed off on it. He was CEO and Chairman of MF Global.

Is there a reason this crook is not doing the perp walk yet?

RECALL: Montanans Organize to Remove Senators Who Voted For Traitorous Detainment Bill


Mac Slavo
SHTFplan.com
Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Americans were outraged after our elected representatives in Congress moved forward with over a trillion dollars in emergency bailout funds for banks, investment firms and failing corporations in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis.

After tens of thousands of phone calls to the Congressional switchboard, overwhelmingly against the bailout funds, the American public was largely ignored by the majority of their elected representatives, who would eventually saddle taxpayers with a long-term debt in excess of $20 trillion.

In March of 2009, the American public resoundingly rejected the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obama Care) after it was made known that the bill would mandate, by force if necessary, that every citizen would be required to acquire health insurance. Not only did Congress and the President pass legislation that would, in a supposedly free country, require every American to forcefully pay for a service they may not want, but the more than 1000 page bill was written, introduced and approved before any Senator or Representative had a chance to read it, with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously saying:

“You have to pass the bill before you can find out what is in it…”

While those laws may be shamelessly contradictory to the fundamental Constitutional law of the land, and as outrageous as it was for Congressional representatives to ignore the American public’s calls to reject the bills, none of those come even remotely close to the most recent transgressions against the people with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act.

As Americans enjoyed themselves with the holiday shopping season, Congress and the Executive branch worked tirelessly to destroy the 4th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution, which protect an individual’s natural right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and ensure due process with evidence, witnesses, and public trial. The passage of the NDAA has prompted Senator Rand Paul to warn Americans that they could be considered terrorists for seemingly innocent activity and an an op-ed in the New York Times titled Guantanamo Forever? by U.S. Marine generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar argued that the new legislation would essentially nullify aspects of the Constitution, saying “due process would be a thing of the past.”

One thing is clear with the passage of this legislation, and that is those Senators and Congressman who voted for its passage are violating their oaths to support and protect the Constitution of the United States, because everything in the bill is counter to the principles outlined in our founding document. As such, concerned citizens around the country are now actively pursuing grass roots efforts to utilize a never-before enacted power of the people: the recall.

Via The Daily Kos and Sherri Questioning All:

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 – 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

“(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer’s successor.”

While the Montana Constitution (and those of other states) allows for a recall to take place, there is some question about whether these powers, which are technically undefined by the US Constitution, can be used to remove acting Congressional representatives:

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey’s federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that “the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators,” despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing (“prohibited” in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

“The powers not…prohibited…are reserved to the States…or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.

Nonetheless, we may soon find out, as Montana is spearheading the movement to remove both of their Senators from office, as per the petition draft that is now circulating:

“The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

“a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, “for the duration of hostilities” in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as “task which does not end” to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution.”

While there may be eight other states whose Constitutions allow for the recall of federally elected officials, the US Constitution itself has reserved these rights for the people of each state, suggesting that such a recall movement can gain steam all over the country, and may be our last best hope of restoring Constitutional rule of law to America.

Smear Attacks Have No Effect, Ron Paul Still On Course To Win Iowa


The establishment media is losing its power to sabotage the march of liberty

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Despite a barrage of smear attacks from every single corner of the mainstream media over the last two weeks, Ron Paul’s chances of winning the Iowa Republican Primary have if anything increased, with a new poll showing Paul increasing his lead over Mitt Romney while the New York Times’ primary projection shows Paul’s chances of winning at 60% compared with Romney at 31%.

The sheer desperation of the establishment in its efforts to topple Ron Paul are staggering to behold. Everything from bitter former employees of the Paul campaign, to ludicrous You Tube videos of crying women, to the re-hashed debunked 15-year-old smears about ‘racist’ newsletters, every single piece of dirt imaginable has been thrown at Paul – but nothing has stuck.

This phenomenon once again illustrates the fact, as we saw during Rand Paul’s senatorial campaign, that the corporate press is now so distrusted by a significant portion of Americans that their coordinated smear attacks, which used to have the power to sink candidates almost overnight, are now rapidly losing influence.

It also highlights the fact that the smear attacks against Paul have been completely hyped and exaggerated out of all proportion.

Whereas Herman Cain’s adventurous sex life cost him the frontrunner’s position and forced him to drop out of the race altogether, likewise with Gingrich when the exposure of his true political inclinations decimated his commanding lead, the so-called scandals about Ron Paul are so transparently weak and have been distorted out of all rational proportions, that their impact has been non-existent on the polling figures.

That assertion is proven by the numbers – which show Paul’s lead in Iowa has held firm.

A new Public Policy Polling survey shows Ron Paul at 24% with Romney in second at 20% and Gingrich in third at 13%. That’s a one percentage point increase in Paul’s lead compared to the last PPP poll conducted ten days ago.

“Paul continues to have much more passionate support than Romney. 77% of his voters are firmly committed to him, compared to 71% for Romney. Among voters who say their minds are completely made up Paul’s lead expands to 7 points at 28-21. If Paul’s lead holds on through next Tuesday it appears he’ll have won this on the ground,” reports PPP.

In addition, the New York Times’ primary projection shows that Paul now has a 60% chance of winning Iowa compared to Romney with a 31% chance. Last week, the two candidates were level by this measurement but now Paul has pulled ahead.

If there’s anything that frightens the establishment as much as Ron Paul gaining the kind of momentum that could catapult him into the frontrunner position in other primary states, it’s the fact that the corporate press and all their simpering hangers-on no longer have the power to dictate reality.

The smear attacks have failed – Ron Paul is still on course to win Iowa and his momentum will continue to build.

Iowa GOP moving vote-count to 'undisclosed location'

Jonathan Martin
Politico
Dec. 27, 2011

Threats to disrupt the Iowa Republican caucuses next week have prompted state GOP officials to move the vote tabulation to an "undisclosed location," POLITICO has learned.

The state party has not yet told the campaigns exactly where the returns will be added up, only that it will be off-site from the Iowa GOP's Des Moines headquarters. The 2008 caucus results were tabulated at the state party offices, which sit just a few blocks from the state capitol.

Activist groups including the Occupy movement have indicated that they'll attempt to interrupt rallies in the closing days before next Tuesday's caucuses.

The AP reported today that Occupy is making plans to even attend some caucuses and vote "no preference," but not disturb the voting process.

But Iowa Republicans are also bracing for other threats, sources say, including hacking.

Iowa GOP Chair Matt Strawn wouldn't comment on the plan to move the vote-counting except to say they're increasing security measures.

"The Iowa GOP is taking additional safeguards to ensure the Caucus results are tabulated and reported to the public in an accurate and timely manner," Strawn said. "We are not commenting on specific security procedures."


--
NAZTEE NOTES:
The very fact that this Iowa voting is being held in an "undisclosed location" is frightening in itself. Ron Paul and his supporters have made huge strides in this election, and to have this voting moved to where it can be "overlooked" by the FBI is a disgusting act. Anyone with a brain is more than well aware that hackers can not completely disrupt an election. All of the Iowa voting is backed up on paper and can be counted at anytime in that manner, so to require the Feds is a completely absurd thought.

Iran Promises to Close Down Oil Route If Sanctions Imposed


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 28, 2011

For the second time in two days, Iran has threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if new sanctions are imposed in response to its nuclear program.

Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened on Tuesday to close down the strait and cut off oil exports if the West imposes sanctions on his country’s oil shipments.

“If they impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz,” Rahimi said.

“Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces,” Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told Iran’s state-run Press TV on Wednesday. “Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway.”

Sayyari is head of Iran’s navy and is currently overseeing a military exercise in a 2,000-kilometer stretch of sea from the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, to the Gulf of Aden, near the entrance to the Red Sea.

“Iran’s military and Revolutionary Guards can close the Strait of Hormuz. But such a decision should be made by top establishment leaders,” he said last week.

The Tehran Times reported on Monday that the “war games” are different from previous ones in terms of the vastness of the area of action and the military equipment and tactics employed. Submarines, warships, missile-firing destroyers, coast-to-sea missile systems, drones, and electronic warfare equipment will be tested during the exercises, according to the newspaper.

The Strait of Hormuz is the only access for eight Gulf Arab states producing oil for foreign markets. It is “the world’s most important oil chokepoint,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Despite the fact an oil embargo imposed on Iran will raise the price of oil in the United States, Congress went ahead and approved the new sanctions last week.

“Congress’s point of view is that we may be running a risk that this will increase the price of oil but that compared to [the risk of ] Israeli or U.S. military strikes on Iran or a nuclear-armed Iran, the oil market impact of these sanctions will pale in comparison,” Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neocon think-tank, told NPR.