EMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS: Locations and Executive Orders
There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. Ask yourself if you really want to be on Ashcroft’s list.
The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.
Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.
The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.
Now let’s review the justification for any actions taken…
Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:…
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995
allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998
allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999
allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000
allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
As every nation in the world marches forward to a completely integrated and globalized society, the control of food is an absolute necessity for those who seek to accelerate amalgamation. It is for this reason that we see an increase in domestic legislation that mirrors the guidelines and demands of international standard-setting organizations. These attempts at harmonization of national laws, specifically those regarding food, are coming in daily from all sides of the globe.
Whether it’s the GMO fight in the United States, Mexico, and Europe, or the question of the level of vitamins and minerals in supplements, the Biotech Corporations are continually winning most of their battles with the help of mass ignorance, national governments, the World Trade Organization and similar entities.
Indeed, when one begins to examine many of the debates regarding food and food regulation, one name appears over and over – Codex Alimentarius.
For those who may be unaware of what Codex Alimentarius is, I refer you to my book Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom. Briefly speaking, however, Codex is an agency created under the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO)and thereby functions under direction of the United Nations (UN).
Codex Alimentarius sets the standards by which the World Trade Organization implements its dispute settlements and international trade policies. Codex Guidelines, once agreed upon, are enforced by the WTO and other related treaties. Essentially, Codex sets the standards for the world regarding food, vitamins and minerals, GMO’s, and almost everything else that humans consume.
Although the influence of Codex Alimentarius can be seen the world over, New Zealanders appear to be the latest targets of the international standard-setting organization via a food bill titled Food Bill 160-2.
Similar to legislation recently passed in the United States, the New Zealand Food Bill essentially turns the right to grow food and share it with others into a regulated and controlled privilege. Food Bill 160-2 would also allow for the control of seeds (specifically heirloom seeds), and the creation of Food Safety Officers that would serve to police the newly designated and loosely termed “food producers.” It would also effectively end the ability of individuals to become and remain self-sufficient.
For instance, the bill defines food so as to include any plant or animal (living or dead by the definitions set forth in the bill) intended for human consumption, as well as:
any ingredient or nutrient or other constituent of any food or drink, whether that ingredient or nutrient or other constituent is consumed or represented for consumption on its own by humans, or is used in the preparation of, or mixed with or added to, any food or drink; and anything that is or is intended to be mixed with or added to any food or drink.
Furthermore, giving broad and alarming levels of power to the Governor-General, “anything that is declared by the Governor-General, by Order in Council made under section 355, to be food for the purposes of this Act” will also fall under the jurisdiction of Bill 160-2.
So much is included in just the “Definitions” section of the bill one could almost write a twenty-page article just on the connotations provided by Section 8 alone. Regardless, as one can clearly see from reading the small portion of the bill quoted above, the terms of the bill are all-encompassing.
Herein, food is defined literally as anything that can be consumed by humans and it retains this definition at whatever the stage of its development.
Therefore, corn may be considered food whenever it is being sold at a market. It may be considered food when it is being shucked, and it may be considered food when it is being grown. It is also considered food before being grown — in seed form.
Not only that, but because many seeds themselves are consumed by humans, seeds naturally fall under this tyrannical legislation as much as anything else.
As a result of the new policies to be implemented as a result of Food Bill 160-2, anyone then engaged in producing and distributing food would be subject to the regulation and monitoring of the new authorization program. Of course, the classification of “food producer,” applies to individuals who grow two or three tomato plants for their own consumption as much as it does to major Agri-businesses.
That being said, there are clearly financial concerns with the new bill as well. Obviously, Big-Agra would easily be able to pay the monitoring fees for the new Soviet program while small farmers, where they still exist, could not. In addition, individuals would certainly no longer be able to continue selling their food at the local farmers market, local restaurants, or even to other individuals.
True to form, the questions regarding the new legislation are being brushed off by the New Zealand government, particularly those individuals in the New Zealand government who have been pushing the bill from the start.
For instance, Kate Wilkinson, New Zealand Minister of Food Safety recently stated to Campbell Live that concerns over the Food Bill were part of some kind of “conspiracy theory” and that she didn’t understand where all this “conspiracy theory” was coming from.
Before I continue, I must ask if all this doesn’t sound eerily familiar. It certainly does to me.
Last year, when the United States Congress was busy passing S.510, a bill that was very similar if not identical in scope to the New Zealand Food Bill, we heard the same cat calls of “conspiracy theory” launched at anyone who criticized the impending legislation. Now, in late 2011, after the U.S. government has publicly raided organic food shops, raw milk distributors, and the Amish with guns drawn by clownish looking SWAT teams, the name-calling is a bit harder to justify.
The similarities between the law in the United States and the one being proposed in New Zealand are quite striking, so much in fact that they can scarcely be considered a coincidence — especially when both of these bills are themselves disturbingly similar to Codex Alimentarius Guidelines and recommendations. Indeed, upon closer examination it appears that there is more of a pattern than some members of national governments would have us believe. No doubt this is almost always the case.
But back to Miss “Conspiracy Theory” Kate Wilkinson for a moment. To answer her question as to where all the “conspiracy theories” have come from, perhaps she should look at her own statements.
Indeed, in a letter to Green MP Sue Kedgley, who has expressed some attenuated level of criticism toward the bill, Wilkinson wrote:
The barter or selling of propagation food seeds and food seedlings is in scope [of the Bill] . . . However the sale or exchange of seeds for propagation, and seedlings (whether this occurs in the context of a garden centre, a market, or between those in a community of interest), is not intended to be captured. [emphasis added]
Wilkinson openly admits that seeds can and will be controlled under the new food bill. Hardly a conspiracy theory when the antagonist actually admits it to be true.
Notice also that her pathetic attempt to reassure Kedgley of the harmlessness of the bill is that it is not intended to be used against private citizens who share seeds with one another and their community. Indeed, Wilkinson’s response throughout her letter to Kedgley (pdf) centers around intentions, while, at the same time, openly admits that, “With such broadness, there is inevitably the potential for activities it was never contemplated as ‘in scope’ to be technically captured.”
Of course, before one gets their hopes up in regards to the Green Party, one should bear in mind that politics are politics and the theater of public opinion is much the same in New Zealand as it is in the United States. As New Zealand Food Security reports, the Green Party itself initially voted for this bill. The organization states, “Ignore the [Green Party] blog’s dog-and-pony show propaganda. The Greens, who voted for the Bill at first reading, know the truth is coming out now and are dissembling for extra election votes).” Obviously, the political climate is exactly the same in every country with exactly the same result.
In the end, there should be no mistake as to the goal of these new laws, whether they be in the United States, New Zealand, or anywhere else for that matter. As the world marches faster and faster toward totalitarianism, the ability of individuals to become self-sufficient must be destroyed before the control system can fully assert itself. This, in fact, is an integral part of the system in the first place.
National laws such as S.510 and Food Bill 160-2 are merely the domestic ground-level implementation of international policy handed down from Codex Alimentarius, the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations, entities that are themselves nothing more than tools in the Great Work known as the New World Order.
Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous different influential positions under three different Presidents and still works with the Defense Department, shockingly told The Alex Jones Show yesterday that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 and that he was prepared to testify in front of a grand jury how a top general told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag inside job.
Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. He served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations, Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior, and still works as a consultant for the Department of Defense. A former US Navy Captain, Pieczenik achieved two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards at the Harvard Medical School as he simultaneously completed a PhD at MIT.
Recruited by Lawrence Eagleburger as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Management, Pieczenik went on to develop, “the basic tenets for psychological warfare, counter terrorism, strategy and tactics for transcultural negotiations for the US State Department, military and intelligence communities and other agencies of the US Government,” while also developing foundational strategies for hostage rescue that were later employed around the world.
Pieczenik also served as a senior policy planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker and worked on George W. Bush’s election campaign against Al Gore. His record underscores the fact that he is one of the most deeply connected men in intelligence circles over the past three decades plus.
The character of Jack Ryan, who appears in many Tom Clancy novels and was also played by Harrison Ford in the popular 1992 movie Patriot Games, is also based on Steve Pieczenik.
Back in April 2002, over nine years ago, Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months,” and that the government was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse. Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the early 80′s.
Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.
Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.
“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.
“Did the intelligence community or the CIA doctor up this situation, the answer is yes, categorically yes,” said Pieczenik, referring to Sunday’s claim that Bin Laden was killed at his compound in Pakistan, adding, “This whole scenario where you see a bunch of people sitting there looking at a screen and they look as if they’re intense, that’s nonsense,” referring to the images released by the White House which claim to show Biden, Obama and Hillary Clinton watching the operation to kill Bin Laden live on a television screen.
“It’s a total make-up, make believe, we’re in an American theater of the absurd….why are we doing this again….nine years ago this man was already dead….why does the government repeatedly have to lie to the American people,” asked Pieczenik.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“Osama Bin Laden was totally dead, so there’s no way they could have attacked or confronted or killed Osama Bin laden,” said Pieczenik, joking that the only way it could have happened was if special forces had attacked a mortuary.
Pieczenik said that the decision to launch the hoax now was made because Obama had reached a low with plummeting approval ratings and the fact that the birther issue was blowing up in his face.
“He had to prove that he was more than American….he had to be aggressive,” said Pieczenik, adding that the farce was also a way of isolating Pakistan as a retaliation for intense opposition to the Predator drone program, which has killed hundreds of Pakistanis.
“This is orchestrated, I mean when you have people sitting around and watching a sitcom, basically the operations center of the White House, and you have a president coming out almost zombie-like telling you they just killed Osama Bin Laden who was already dead nine years ago,” said Pieczenik, calling the episode, “the greatest falsehood I’ve ever heard, I mean it was absurd.”
Dismissing the government’s account of the assassination of Bin Laden as a “sick joke” on the American people, Pieczenik said, “They are so desperate to make Obama viable, to negate the fact that he may not have been born here, any questions about his background, any irregularities about his background, to make him look assertive….to re-elect this president so the American public can be duped once again.”
Bin Laden, “Was used in the same way that 9/11 was used to mobilize the emotions and feelings of the American people in order to go to a war that had to be justified through a narrative that Bush junior created and Cheney created about the world of terrorism,” stated Pieczenik.
During his interview with the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Pieczenik also asserted he was directly told by a prominent general that 9/11 was a stand down and a false flag operation, and that he is prepared to go to a grand jury to reveal the general’s name.
“They ran the attacks,” said Pieczenik, naming Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice amongst others as having been directly involved.
“It was called a stand down, a false flag operation in order to mobilize the American public under false pretenses….it was told to me even by the general on the staff of Wolfowitz – I will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury who the name was of the individual so that we can break it open,” said Pieczenik, adding that he was “furious” and “knew it had happened”.
“I taught stand down and false flag operations at the national war college, I’ve taught it with all my operatives so I knew exactly what was done to the American public,” he added.
Pieczenik re-iterated that he was perfectly willing to reveal the name of the general who told him 9/11 was an inside job in a federal court, “so that we can unravel this thing legally, not with the stupid 9/11 Commission that was absurd.”
Pieczenik explained that he was not a liberal, a conservative or a tea party member, merely an American who is deeply concerned about the direction in which his country is heading.
Watch the full interview with Dr. Pieczenik below.
Two days after proposals to extend provisions of the draconian PATRIOT Act failed to attract a super majority in a fast track vote, another vote in the House of representatives has cleared the way for the smooth passage of the legislation.
Last night’s vote put in to place a new rule that will allow the legislation to be passed by just a simple majority. It is expected that the House will vote again on the legislation next week, and that it will easily pass.
Earlier in the week, House Republicans had attempted to suspend House rules and pass the extension with limited debate and no amendments. That fell 7 votes short because a 2/3rds majority was required.
Last night’s ballot saw 248 vote in favour of allowing the extension to proceed, while 176 voted against.
Just four Republicans, including Congressman Ron Paul, voted against the extension. On Tuesday 26 Republicans had voted against. The other three Republican nays were Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Raul Labrador (Idaho) and Tom McClintock (Calif.).
Several representatives who ran on a Tea Party platform of restoring civil liberties also voted in favour of the legislation, following a lecture by Homeland Security Head Janet Napolitano, who told the congressional oversight panel that the nation faces a “heightened” terror threat, the like of which has not been seen since 9/11.
Meanwhile, 172 Democrats voted against proceeding Thursday, up from the 148 who voted against the measure on Tuesday.
Excluding the 15 who voted for the extension, Democrats protested the Republican attempt to hold the vote under the “closed rule”. Rep. Sheila Jackson (D-Texas) said Republicans were practicing “unique trickery” by calling the bill back for a second vote.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“We have a right to have a voice and that voice has already been expressed,” said Lee. “What more needs to be said?”
The PATRIOT Act, which was rushed into law in the days following 9/11, gives law enforcement agencies vast new powers to deal with so called terrorist threats.
Certain provisions within the legislation are set to expire on Feb. 28 if Congress does not act to extend them.
One of the expiring provisions in question is the so-called “lone wolf” provision, enacted in 2004, which allows for the electronic monitoring of an individual without the government having to prove that the case has any relation whatsoever to terrorism or a foreign power. This is in effect a carte blanche for the government to use every method at their disposal to spy on any American citizen they choose.
Another of the provisions gives the government access to business, library and medical records, with the authorities generally having to prove that the investigation is terrorism related. However, since according to Homeland Security guidelines the new breed of terrorist is classified as someone who supports a third party, puts a political bumper sticker on their car, is part of the alternative media, or merely someone who disagrees with the authorities’ official version of events on any given issue, the scope for the government to use this power against their political adversaries is wide open.
The third provision in question allows a FISA court to grant “roving wiretaps” without the government having to even identify their target. This is another carte blanche power that gives the state the license to monitor telephone calls, e mails and any other form of electronic communication.
When the legislation was originally signed into law, it contained “sunset” provisions, written in to gradually phase out some of these more extreme measures. However, the sunsets have been consistently extended.
Obama will push the Senate to extend the PATRIOT Act provisions for another three years, even more than House Republicans who want to see the provisions extended until Dec. 8.
This shouldn’t come as any surprise, however, given that Obama voted for the PATRIOT Act renewal in 2008 when he was an Illinois Senator, while also lending support for immunizing the nation’s telecommunications companies from lawsuits charging them with being complicit in the Bush administration’s wiretapping program. Indeed, Obama has even moved to effectively legalize and expand the wiretapping initiative.
Senate Democrats are set to fast track the companion legislation (S. 149) to the House bill, as they seek to bypass the committee process and push the bill straight to the floor.
Libertarian Senator Rand Paul has vowed to ferociously oppose such efforts in the Senate:
“…the House will pass these extensions and send the PATRIOT Act renewal to the Senate. And when they do, I will oppose it,” a statement issued by Paul this week reads.
“I do not say that lightly. I firmly believe it is a primary duty of our government to do what it can to protect the lives of its citizens. But I also believe it must in equal measure protect our liberty, and in this our government has failed us. We should remember the words of Ben Franklin, who famously said ‘Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’”
“It is time for Congress to stop quietly extending this law and avoiding a serious discussion about protecting all the rights of all Americans. I will insist the Senate allow debate and amendments as we consider this important legislation,” he concludes.
“Off the charts” failure rate “sort of like the record of the Marx Brothers”
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
October 25, 2011
John Mica
The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which oversees the TSA, has asserted that the release of a classified report on TSA security failures will renew calls for the replacement of the agency with private airport security personnel.
“The failure rate (for body scanning equipment) is classified but it would absolutely knock your socks off,” Florida Republican, Rep. John L. Mica told reporters during a briefing Monday.
Mica also asserted that recorded instances of pat downs failing to detect contraband are “off the charts.” This information is also currently still classified, but is due to be released within weeks as part of an upcoming committee report on the TSA’s first decade.
Mica suggested that the TSA’s performance report would read “sort of like the record of the Marx Brothers”.
The TSA has withheld results of its official security tests, despite repeated requests to release the information under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Department of Homeland Security has classified the results of the most recent random, covert “red team tests,” where undercover agents try to see what they can get past airport security. The reason they have done so, according to MIca, is because the results have been so shockingly and consistently bad for the past nine years.
Mica further slammed the TSA Monday, ripping into the agency’s latest experimental security “chat down” procedure.
The chairman referred to the pilot program of “behaviour detection” being tested at Boston Logan airport as an “idiotic mess”.
Describing the program as a poor man’s version of Israeli interrogation security techniques, Mica noted that that the pilot is merely an extension of an already existing program that the Government Accountability Office concluded had little scientific credibility and had cost “a quarter billion” in hiring additional TSA officers.
“This is no joke,” Mica told reporters at the briefing, adding that he had personally visited Logan airport and witnessed first hand the failures of the program.
“I put my ear up and listened to some idiotic questions,” Mica said of the “chat down” procedure, also noting that TSA officers expressed a lack of understanding of the program they had supposedly been trained to engage in.
“I talked to them about their training, which was minimal,” Mica said, adding “It’s almost idiotic… It’s still not a risk-based system. It’s not a thinking system.”
The program is set to be beta tested in Detroit next, before being rolled out nationwide.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Mica repeatedly argued that the TSA’s role at airports could be undertaken in a more efficient and less costly manner by private companies, albeit ultimately still under the supervision of the federal government.
Back in March, the Congressman charged that the TSA intentionally fixed data to ensure that federal workers were employed to screen airport passengers, rather than private contractors.
“TSA cooked the books to try to eliminate the federal-private screening program,” said Mica at the time.
The Congressman was referring to revelations from federal auditors that cost differentials between federal employees and private contractors were overstated by the TSA.
Though the agency contends it was an “error”, The TSA made it appear that it was more cost effective for airports to use federal government workers for security “by increasing the costs for private-contractor screeners relative to federal screeners,” government auditors wrote.
The 2001 Aviation Transportation Security Act, which created the TSA, contained an option written in by Congress allowing airports to choose between using TSA workers and private screeners. It is known as the Security Partnership Program (SPP).
Currently, sixteen airports throughout the country use private contractors under the SPP, however, the TSA has since actively prevented other airports from joining the program, as more and more express an interest in dropping the federal workforce in wake of an epidemic of TSA scandals and failures.
Mica, who helped create the TSA after 9/11, has repeatedly stated that he believes the agency is now completely out of control and believes it should be radically reformed.
——————————————————————
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
There is some reason to believe that I may soon be portrayed as a “domestic terrorist”. This article is intended to blunt that portrayal.
• Last Friday, I received notice from the TV program 60 Minutes that today, Sunday, May 15th, A.D. 2011, (about 35 minutes from now) they’d air a segment that includes me. I haven’t seen the segment, so I don’t know how I’ll be portrayed—but I have reason to believe that I may be cast in a false light and/or defamed by tomorrow’s program.
The cause for my concern is the 60 Minutes description of the segment on their “Up Next” webpage:
“Sovereign Citizens – Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer.”
In March, I’d spent my 2-hour interview with 60 Minutes trying to rationally explain that the concept of individual sovereignty was the fundamental principle that animated the American Revolution, was the cornerstone for American liberty, and could be traced to our God-given, unalienable Rights. In the end, sovereignty is a spiritual (rather than political) concept. Judging from the 60 Minutes description (above), the segment may be more akin to a sensationalized witch-hunt than an objective investigation into the subject of individual “sovereignty”.
Apparently, I am being being linked to Jerry Kane who (with his son, Joe) died in a recent shoot-out with police. So far as I can recall, I’d never heard of Jerry Kane until after he died.
These kinds of express or implied associations (between me and anyone who’s died in a gunfight with the police) are dangerous to me in that they place me at risk any time I interact with police. Insofar as police are led to believe that I’m cut from the same cloth as Jerry Kane, they may believe that I’m “armed and dangerous” (I’m not) and therefore increase the probability that I might be shot without cause.
I don’t know what the net effect of the 60 Minutes segment will be. I probably won’t know the full effect of the program for weeks or months after the program airs.
But judging from the description and video preview (above), 60 Minutes may be promoting (or at least implying) the idea that I’m a “domestic terror threat”. If so, that’s untrue and I have a well-publicized track record for at least 20 years to show that the only “violence” I’ve advocated is reading the law, educating yourself, and using your knowledge of the law and paperwork to defend against governmental oppression and to hold governmental officials and employees accountable for their misdeeds.
As big government becomes increasingly tyrannical, I can understand that its agencies might want to define any dissident who accuses the almighty gov-co of criminal or treasonous acts to be a “domestic terrorist” (especially if the accusations against gov-co are true). But, hopefully, reasonable men and women will insist that a “domestic terrorist” is one who commits actual acts of unjustified violence for political purposes. If so, that label does not apply to me.
Yes, I have long-recognized that violence against an established government may ultimately be necessary to stop tyranny and despotism (witness the American Revolution, WWII and the recent “Arab Spring”). The very concept of using violence to “throw off” despotic governments is enshrined in the “Declaration of Independence” that we celebrate every 4th of July. Our Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that the people would always have the means (firearms) to “throw off” a despotic government. Both the Declaration and the 2nd Amendment anticipate the probability that even the American government would one day again grow despotic and that the people would need both the principles and means to “throw off” that despotism.
I have advocated that people be prepared for the possibility that violence may one day become necessary. But I have not advocated that people commit violence—except as a last resort. And I have never advocated that people start shooting now.
My reason for advocating firearm ownership is not to incite violence but to prevent it. An unarmed people are easily oppressed and subjected to genocide by their own government. Witness Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. When a government confiscates the people’s firearms, genocide is usually imminent.
Lots of people advocate the ownership of firearms. I go a step further and advocate that the people be “armed” with both firearms and the reason for owing firearms. That reason is not to go duck hunting in the Fall. The reason for owning firearms—as found in the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment—is to overthrow a despotic or treasonous government.
It was my advocacy of the reason for owning firearms that brought me to 60 Minutes’ attention. I suspect that my advocacy of understanding the reason may be twisted by 60 Minutes to falsely suggest that I advocate violence. We shall see.
However, yesterday, I sent an email to Clem Taylor and Jessica Haddad at 60 Minutes advising them that I do not consent to be cast in a false light and/or defamed by 60 Minutes. That notice may have legal consequence, but I doubt that it will have any effect on tonight’s broadcast.
I received Jessica’s email (below) about 3:45 PM CST. It announced that you intend to broadcast a 60 Minutes segment this coming Sunday, that will include me.
I was initially excited.
Then I visited the 60 Minutes website and read the following description on the “Up Next” webpage:
“Sovereign Citizens – Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer”
Judging from that description, it appears that the people at 60 Minutes may intend to use my interview to produce a segment that expressly says or implies that I am a violent extremist and/or domestic terror threat–and/or that I knowingly associate with violent extremists and/or domestic terrorists. Both descriptions would be false.
If 60 Minutes does “cherry pick” a couple of my offhand remarks out an interview that lasted nearly two hours to describe me as violent or any kind of terrorist, that description would be false and defamatory. Given your journalistic obligation to fully research your segments and given my extensive public background (including my A.D. 1992 candidacy for the Texas Supreme Court), such defamation would be knowing. I have a documented public history that extends at least back to A.D. 1990. This history has been expressed my radio shows, my magazine, my blog and a number of mainstream media reports. That history demonstrates that my position has always been to seek a civil solution to our problems with government. While I have always recognized that violence against government might be justified by government’s own institutionalized tyranny (as it was for our Founders in A.D. 1776), I have never advocated violence as an objective, but only as a last resort in defense of liberty.
Nevertheless, during the interview Mr. Pitts asked me repeatedly about a particular radio broadcast I’d done at some time in the past. In that one radio program, I explained that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people of The United States of America against governmental tyranny by shooting, if necessary, politicians and governmental employees who engage in tyranny. I attempted to explain to Mr. Pitts that my position on the 2nd Amendment was justified by the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights. If 60 Minutes chooses to take my words out of context and without reference to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, I might be defamed and falsely portrayed as an advocate of violence.
Here’s an article I wrote on the “Preamble” to the Bill of Rights and first published on or about April 14th, A.D. 2011:
As you may know, my landlord (a middle class businessman) at Utopia (where the interview was conducted) warned that 60 Minutes might edit my interview so as to not only defame me, but attract so much adverse government attention as to cause in a “Ruby Ridge-” or “Waco-” style raid on my landlord’s property. In fact, even though my rent was paid until the end of April, my landlord was so fearful of a possible government “raid” that he ordered me to vacate his property on Sunday, March 13th, and I did in fact leave on March 16th, right after the 60 Minutes interview.
After the actual interview, I mentioned my “eviction” to Mr. Pitts and Mr. Taylor. They both seemed shocked that anyone would distrust 60 Minutes journalistic integrity. Both men assured me that 60 Minutes had a reputation for fair and objective journalism and that I need not fear being falsely depicted on the final segment. Until now, I have trusted in Mr. Pitts’ and Mr. Taylor’s assurance and in the 60 Minutes reputation for fairness and objectivity.
However, because the “Up Next” description of the segment on “sovereign citizens” seems so sensationalized and biased against “sovereign citizens,” I am concerned that my trust in Mr. Pitts, Mr. Taylor and 60 Minutes may have been betrayed.
I am therefore sending this email to you as a Noticethat:
1) I do not consent to be defamed by 60 Minutes; and,
2) I do not consent or otherwise agree to have any of my statements or images broadcast on 60 Minutes if those statements and images are used to cast me in a false light and/or are defamatory.
As I explained to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Pitts, I don’t expect the 60 Minute segment to be flattering. I recognize that the issue of “sovereignty” is controversial. But the issue of sovereignty is no more controversial than the Declaration of Independence from which our sovereignty flows. I therefore expect the 60 Minutes segment to portray me objectively and in a way that’s consistent with the overall impression of the 2-hour interview and with my 20 year history of political activism. If 60 Minutes can’t do that, and has instead chosen to defame me, I do not consent to be portrayed in the 60 Minutes segment on “sovereign citizens”.
CREED: At all times and places, I have been, am and will be as our Father YHWH ha Elohiym made me: An actual, physical man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Unless otherwise expressly and voluntarily agreed by me in writing over my actual hand-written signature: I exercise my actual rights of religious and political freedom of choice to declare that the venue of all of my conduct, speech, writings, agreements, residence and domicile is: without the singular “United States” and actually on the soil within the physical boundaries of The County of Dallas located within the border of The State of Texas–one of the several member-States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; that all of my conduct is intentional; that all of my acts and intentions take place in a Year of our Lord; that I act at arm’s length and without prejudice to my capacity as a sovereign Dei gratia; that I do not consent to act as, or as part of, any “double personality,” “double capacity,” and/or “double character”; that my duty of obedience is only to that government that exists under the authority granted by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym as per Romans 13:1-7 and is consistent with the express charitable trust called “The Constitution of The State of Texas” and “The Organic Law of The United States of America”; that I have not knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily consented to be subject by virtue of mere statute, rule, regulation, emergency, or alleged moral or obligation to the authority of any unincorporated, implied charitable trust; that my purposes are at all times religious first and/or political second and dedicated to restoring understanding and respect for the spiritual principles which provide the foundation for the republican form of government guaranteed at Article 4 Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States ratified in A.D. 1788 and by Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas. Alfred Adask a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK” radio: American Independence Hour T-W-Th, 10-11 PM CST, www.wwfar.com & WWCR shortwave 3.215; simulcast on http://www.theamericanvoice.com/;
From: ”Haddad, Jessica” To: Alfred Adask <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 2:10 PM Subject: This Sunday on 60 Minutes
Hello,
I just wanted to let you know that our segment will be airing this Sunday on 60 Minutes. Thank you for participating. I hope you enjoy the piece.
Let me know if you would like any DVD copies.
Best Regards,
Jessica Haddad
60 Minutes, CBS News
Of course, it’s possible that my concerns about defamation are unwarranted. Perhaps the 60 Minutes description (above) is just hype to promote the program. Perhaps the program will not be an invitation to a witch hunt but will instead be a fair and objective report of my position on sovereignty.
We’ll find out tonight.
In the meantime, what follows is an explanation for my concerns and my Notice to 60 Minutes.
• There’s an ancient aphorism that “Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”
Here’s a modern variation on the same theme: “Those who the government wishes to destroy, they first demonize—with the assistance of the mainstream media.”
Mainstream media complicity in creating boogey-men suitable for destruction by government can be seen in examples like Ruby Ridge, Waco, Saddam Hussein, Iraq (WMDs), the “axis of evil,” Irwin Schiff, Larken Rose, Al Qaeda, “terrorists,” and even the former Soviet Union. By means of mainstream media reports, villains are created (or exaggerated or hyped) so as to create a sufficiently “terrifying” target for the almighty government to vanquish.
So long as the public can be convinced that there’s a boogey-man, real or imagined, the people can be convinced that: 1) they need and depend on the government; and 2) they’d best allow the government to pass any law imaginable (or break the laws that exist) in order to vanquish the boogey-man.
At bottom, the idea of a boogey-man is based on the existence of an emergency. So long as a boogey-man is out there, somewhere, and is out to get you, America—it’s an emergency! Your fearless leaders will therefore spare no expense nor be inhibited by any law from “getting” the boogey-man du jour so as to protect you, the “’Merican people”.
When the boogey-man is destroyed, thankful Americans can line up to kiss the government’s ass as a show of their appreciation and eternal gratitude. Our latest boogey-man was Osama bin Laden.
Mr. bin Laden became notorious for masterminding the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11 A.D. 2001. Mr. bin Laden was no run-of-the-mill boogey-man. Given that bin Laden caused Building 7 to fall at the speed of gravity for no discernable reason, and similarly caused the bodies and luggage of the passengers, and the wings and engines of the airplane that allegedly struck the Pentagon to totally disappear—it’s obvious that Mr. bin Laden was some sort of evil, supernatural, Mooslim sorcerer!
Recently, Seal Team 6 allegedly killed bin Laden. What a relief, hmm? I hadn’t been able to sleep right for a decade knowing that evil bastard was out there, somewhere (maybe under my very own bed!!!) plotting and planning to harm me! Now, I (like you) know I can rest easy because, once again, the government has proved that it’s here to help us—the little people.
So, thank goodness, our gov-co was able to dispatch bin Laden—the boogey-man du jure. We can now dance about like Munchkins singing “Hail, Hail, the boogeyman’s dead! Which old boogeyman? The wicked boogeyman! Hail, Hail, the wicked boogeyman’s dead!” (You may also feel free to kiss Obama’s butt.)
Of course, we don’t actually have bin Laden’s body to prove the boogeyman was killed (that body was allegedly dumped in the ocean). In fact, if it weren’t for mainstream media, we might not have any “evidence” that this boogeyman really masterminded 9/11 or ever even existed, let alone was finally destroyed.
My point is that there’s a symbiotic relationship between government, mainstream media and boogeymen. Thanks to boogeymen (real or imagined), government can usurp powers and rights from the people (witness the Patriot Act passed unread by Congress after 9/11). Thanks to boogeymen, the mainstream media can sell a lot of newspapers, TV shows and advertising. From the perspectives of government and mainstream media, boogeymen are good (and even “big”) business.
• As I said, I offer these observations on boogeymen because I may be about to become one.
On February 22nd, A.D. 2011, Mr. Clem Taylor—a producer for the CBS TV program 60 Minutes—sent me an email asking if I would speak to him on the “sovereign citizens movement”.
Initially, I thought he was asking me for background information. However, after a series of telephone calls and email exchanges, an agreement was reached wherein I would be personally interviewed by 60 Minutes on March 16th, A.D. 2011.
• There were a couple of problems in setting up the interview.
First, while I was flattered and excited to be invited to be interviewed by (OMG!) 60 Minutes, I was also anxious. On one level, exposure on 60 Minutes might increase my stature (and perhaps income) significantly. On another level, exposure on 60 Minutes might cause me a lot of trouble by “inflating” me into the stature of a boogeyman of the sort the gov-co delights in destroying.
I’ve been a political activist for most of 30 years. In the 1990s, I led America’s biggest legal reform group. I’ve published the AntiShyster News Magazine for 12 years. I’ve hosted talk radio shows off and on for probably 15 years. I ran for the Supreme Court of Texas in A.D. 1992 (that’s supposed to be illegal) and received 201,000 votes.
The federal gov-co recognized my track record. Back about A.D. 1996, they published a book on anti-government activists that rated me as one of the top 20.
Because it’s always dangerous to try speaking truth to power, I’ve always understood that my choice to be a “political activist” could be hazardous to my health.
I therefore understand that the mainstream media can be dangerous to “politically incorrect” people like me. Insofar as I begin to attract national attention, I may also attract unwelcome national retribution from some agencies of “this state” or of the federal gov-co.
More, I understand from personal experience, that mainstream media can be used to discredit or defame a man or his ideas.
During the 1990s I attracted a lot of press—at least for a former construction worker. Articles about me appeared in the Dallas Times-Herald, the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, etc.. I was interviewed by French radio, Norwegian TV, and Dateline NBC. I was flown out to be on the Geraldo Rivera program. As a “leader” in the legal reform movement, I was a big fish in a small pond.
With all of the media attention I had, I always received a fair shake. Virtually everything written about me was fair and objective—with one glaring exception.
The exception was an A.D. 1994 interview by a Dallas TV news program concerning the issue of gun control (which I oppose). The news program called to ask if they could interview me at my home. I said Sure. I expected the interview to last about 3 or 4 minutes. The reporter would ask a couple of questions; I’d offer a couple of pithy answers; they’d say Thanks and be gone.
Silly me.
In fact, the news program sent an unexpectedly attractive female reporter. More, she didn’t interview me for 3 minutes—she interviewed me for an hour. More, she agreed with every word I said, seemed fascinated by my many insight, smiled at me incessantly and hung on my every word. I was sure that she would soon be attending our Citizen for Legal Reform meetings. And I even began to wonder if I’d found a “soul-mate”.
As I said, “silly me”.
When the TV news report aired a day or two later, there I was, speaking for less than a minute in support of gun control. They broadcast an image of me saying words that were exactly opposite of what I’d tried to say. I was embarrassed. I was humiliated. I was astonished.
How th’ Hell could my potential “soul-mate” have produced a report where I clearly said things which were absolutely opposite to what I believed to be true? That interview galls me to this day.
It also makes me laugh. The good-looking reporter played me for a fool. Consummately. She was a good-looking blond; I was a fool; the end was inevitable. (No fool like a young fool, hmm?)
But that reporter also taught me a valuable lesson.
I can do live, public interviews with almost anyone. So long as I have opportunity to fully express my ideas to a live audience, I don’t fear being misrepresented or significantly misunderstood.
But when you are privately interviewed for an hour, the interview is digitally recorded, and the final product is only 1-minute long, an editor has to sort through that hour of conversation to select which of your words will be aired to the public at some later date.
Thus, the editor controls whatever you will be perceived by the public to have said. So long as the editor is honest and ethical, he will select those statements that most succinctly express your opinion.
For example, in my A.D. 1994 interview, I spoke against gun control for most of an hour. It would be obvious to anyone hearing the entire interview that I was, in fact, absolutely against gun control. An honest and ethical editor would pick out 1 minute or so of my statements that offered the clearest and most concise expression of my position.
But if the editor was dishonest and unethical, and if the speaker misspoke at any time during the interview, the speaker’s brief mistakes might be selected from the one hour interview for inclusion in the 1-minute that would be broadcast. By means of this selective editing (taking words out of context), the speaker could be presented to the public in a manner that was clearly contrary to almost everything else the speaker had said.
That’s what had happened to me in A.D. 1994. Somehow, some way, I had made a couple of misstatements that were completely contrary to my fundamental opinion. The TV news editor found and selectively used those misstatements for his own purposes and ultimately used my own words to portray me in a false light.
The danger of editorial misrepresentation is only heightened by the fact that most people can’t speak on any subject for 10 minutes without including about 2 minutes of stupid statements. I like to think I’m better than that. I like to think that if I talk for an hour, I only include (at most) 5 minutes of stupid statements or misstatements.
In A.D. 1994, I spoke for one hour to a TV news reporter. I probably told them exactly what I wanted to say for 58 minutes, but I also gave them 2 minutes of stupidity or misstatements. The editor chose to ignore the 58 minutes and broadcast a segment out of the 2 minutes of stupidity.
Did I say the stupid words? Yep.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Should I be held accountable for my stupid words? Yes—but, not exactly. I should only be held accountable for my words in the overall context of the interview. If I said I opposed gun control for 58 minutes and then misspoke to say or imply that I favored gun control for a minute or two, it’s simply wrong (and arguably malicious) to publish the idea that Alfred Adask favors gun control.
The editor might reasonably have reported that Alfred Adask is inconsistent; that he sometimes opposes gun control and sometimes advocates gun control and broadcast one of my statements opposing gun control and one of my “stupidies” advocating gun control. But fairness demands that if the editor is going to pick just one of the positions I seemingly articulated, that he should select the position that I advocated predominately. To select those few words which reflect my misstatements is evidence of bias and malice on the part of the editor.
• More recently, I spoke to Byron Pitts of 60 Minutes for most of two hours. I guarantee that under the stress of the interview, it’s a virtual certainty that I probably made 5 or 10 minutes of statements that, selectively-edited and taken out of the two-hour context, can cast me in a false light and/or defame me. Similarly, I guarantee that the 5 minutes of stupid statements taken out of the context of 20 years of political activism, can also cast me in a false light and/or defame me.
Thus, I had reason to be apprehensive concerning the 60 Minutes interview. But I also trusted in 60 Minutes’ reputation for fair and objective reporting.
Most importantly, I felt that no matter how much danger might be involved, the Good LORD had opened a door which I was obligated to walk through as an act of faith.
I therefore entered into an agreement to be interviewed.
• My next problem with the interview was my landlord.
I was renting a travel trailer (about 300 square feet) as my home and also a little office space. My rent was paid through the end of April.
60 Minutes producer Clem Taylor expressed great interest in being able to get some video of me and my “trailer”. I speculated that he wanted to portray me as “trailer trash”—but I also speculated that he might want to show that even people who live in or near poverty can have an effect on national affairs.
But, 60 Minutes’ motive wasn’t important to me. The Good LORD had opened a door. I was going through.
Much to my surprise, when my landlord heard about the interview, he declared that he would not allow 60 Minutes on his property. My landlord (a middle-class businessman with five employees) was afraid that a 60 Minutes interview would attract so much government attention to me that government might launch a “Ruby Ridge” style raid against my landlord’s property.
60 Minutes was similarly surprised (and disappointed) that they couldn’t get access to the places where I lived and worked, but arranged to conduct the interview at a “bed and breakfast” located about 3 or 4 miles from my home.
The landlord misunderstood the interview location. He thought the interview as taking place somewhere around San Antonio (about 50 miles away) and that suited him fine.
But, on Sunday night, March 13th, my landlord realized the interview was only a couple of miles away. He went ballistic. Although the interview was not on his land, it was still too close. Although my rent was paid through the end of April, he ordered me out of the trailer and off his land.
So I spent Monday and Tuesday arranging to get a friend and a U-Haul, packing my belongings and loading them. The interview was held Wednesday afternoon. I was headed back towards Dallas an hour after the interview ended.
I was surprised by my landlord’s reaction. We’d been good friends for several years. Nevertheless, his fear of the consequences of a 60 Minutes interview was so great that ordered me off his land and ended our friendship.
While I recognized the potential danger in a 60 Minutes interview, my experience with news media in the 1990s had almost always been positive. I was apprehensive, but based on 60 Minutes reputation for objectivity, etc., I was optimistic.
My landlord thought I was a fool—and he might be right. But, as I said, the Good LORD had opened that door, so I had to walk through.
But I can’t help wondering how many people are there in this country who also would be terrified by the prospect of having 60 Minutes come on their land. I wouldn’t have thought there were any. But my landlord’s reaction suggests that there might hundreds of thousands, even millions of Americans who are secretly afraid of what might be called the “government/mainstream-media complex”.
Has America become a country where we should be afraid to speak our minds in public? Has the First Amendment’s right of free speech been compromised by the First Amendment’s freedom of the [mainstream] press?
• The interview itself start off smoothly. I’d researched Byron Pitts (the interviewer) before the program. He’s a relatively young African-American who’s overcome great obstacles in his life. As I recall, he grew up in the slums. He not only couldn’t read when he was 13 years old, doctors thought he was a congenital moron and didn’t think he would ever be capable of reading. But a school teacher took a special interest, worked closely with Bryon, and Byron not only learned to read, but made up his mind at age 16 that, before he turned 40, he would work as an interviewer on 60 Minutes. He did just that. His story is one of extraordinary achievement and inspiration.
I’d also seen a video of Mr. Pitts talking about Building 7 at the World Trade Center wherein he admitted that there were “questions” about the cause of the building’s collapse.
Given Mr. Pitts’ background as a mis-labeled “moron,” his years in poverty, and his willingness to at least implicitly admit that there’s something fishy about the government’s explanation for 9/11, I hoped he might be “sensitive” to some of the ideas I was trying to advance.
I was particularly hopeful that Mr. Pitts, being African-American, would be especially sensitive to my evidence that the government had declared the people to be animals in the drug laws (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/). Surely, if any Americans should be sensitive to the idea of being regarded as “animals,” it would be African-Americans whose ancestors were enslaved on the presumption that they were only “animals”.
Likewise, many blacks believe that the “war on drugs” is being used as pretext to subject them to “genocide”. Therefore, I presumed that an African-American like Byron Pitts would be open to my evidence that, by declaring the people to be “animals,” our federal gov-co had indeed committed an act of genocide against the American people. (See, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-3/)
In fact, I’d explained the “man or other animals” and “genocide” evidence to producer Clem Taylor early on in the interview planning process. I’m convinced that the evidence that our government views of the people as animals and is thereby guilty of genocide against the American people is one of the biggest stories in American history. A journalistic career could be made on breaking that story to the people. 60 Minutes—famous for breaking extraordinary stories—would have to be crazy to pass up the “man or other animals” and federal “genocide” stories.
But Clem Taylor declined. He was determined to focus on the “sovereign citizens’ movement”. He had an agenda. Apparently, 60 Minutes was more interested in evidence of American resistance to governmental oppression, than evidence that the government was, indeed, committing genocide against the American people.
So, I was hopeful that Mr. Pitts would be intrigued by my “man or other animals” and genocide evidence. After all, those two concepts were intimately linked to the concept of individual “sovereignty”. “Sovereignty” is only for men and women made in God’s image and given dominion over animals (Genesis 1:26-28) and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (Declaration of Independence). By reducing Americans to the status of animals, the government was depriving us of our individual sovereignty and thereby causing the “sovereign citizens movement”.
Therefore, I steered the interview to the “man or other animals” issue. Mr. Pitts let me proceed, expressed no interest in the concept, and when I’d talked myself out, moved on to another subject. I’m sure Mr. Pitts understood that I could talk privately in that interview for hours about any subject I liked, but the 60 Minutes editor would decide which of my comments would finally be broadcast and heard by the public.
• My hopes concerning Mr. Pitts were vain. Perhaps, 60 Minutes’ “in-depth reporting” may be more interested in “effects” (people resisting government) than in “causes” (government oppressing the people).
Even so, the interview started smoothly. Mr. Pitts and I walked around outside near a river, talked briefly and seemed to get along nicely. He seemed like a decent man and I enjoyed talking to him.
I felt confident that I was not being called in to be subjected to character assassination and that the interview would go well. My confidence remained until we went inside, sat down under lights and in front of cameras, and then, for the third time, Mr. Pitts asked if I’d previously said on one of my radio programs (I’ve done several thousand over the past 20 years; they selected one to focus on) that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was provide firearms for the purpose of shooting presidents, senators, congressmen, judges, cops and government employees.
I answered Yes. I embellished the answer to more fully explain the purpose for the 2nd Amendment.
During the pre-interview process, Clem Taylor had repeatedly asked me the same question by email and telephone. He seemed to ask, “Did you really say that on the radio?!” I more or less answered, “Well, of course.”
Mr. Taylor couldn’t seem to believe that anyone would make that statement on the radio. I couldn’t believe that anyone would make such a fuss over the statement. While the implications of my statement might be unpleasant (a possible shooting revolution), the statement was nevertheless obviously and historically true.
The first time Mr. Pitts had asked about my statement that the purpose for the 2nd Amendment was to shoot politicians, I wasn’t surprised.
But when he asked the question again, about 5 or 10 minutes later, the hair began to stand up on the back of my neck. The question had been asked and answered. Why ask again?
The third time he asked that question (about 30 minutes into the interview), I became afraid. Apparently, 60 Minutes had an agenda. The interview was not intended to be a “conversation,” but rather an investigation of a “person of interest” in the “sovereign citizens’ movement” that would presumably lead to some sort of “indictment”.
I could feel the right corner of my mouth begin to quiver. I studied Pitts face to see if he’d seen any sign of my fear. I wondered if the quivering was obvious enough to show up on the video.
My mind raced as I simultaneously: 1) realized (as others had warned) I was probably in a trap; 2) continued trying to talk “naturally” to Mr. Pitts; and 3) tried not to panic; and 4) tried to figure out what could I do? In my memory, this mind-racing lasted about 3 or 4 minutes. But, in actuality, it might only have lasted for a very intense 20 or 30 seconds.
I concluded that: 1) this “investigation” is about my words; 2) I know words; I am sometimes capable of linguistic precision; and therefore, 3) I had, by God, better try to be extraordinarily careful about every word I said from then on.
My fear was gone. The quivering at the corner of my mouth stopped. If I had to guess, the intensity level in my mind increased by 30%. I may have still made some stupid, but inadvertent, statements. But, if so, there were a lot fewer “stupidities” than I might otherwise have made.
I’m not a smiley kinda guy, but for the first half hour of the interview (especially outside) I was probably relaxed enough to appear somewhat affable. But once I’d recognized the trap, I became as intense as an assassin. I doubt that my persona during the remainder of the interview will ingratiate me to the viewers. I probably began to resemble Zbigniew Brzezhinski. But what can you do? You find yourself in a fight for your life, it’s hard to keep smiling.
• If I say so myself, I did well. There were moments during the interview when I was pretty much amazed by my own performance. I knew that my speech was as good as it had ever been. Words and idea flowed. I didn’t find myself forgetting or groping for certain words. I may never be that articulate again, but I believe the Good LORD was helping me, guiding me, giving me the words.
Part of the reason I think I did well, is that Byron Pitts came back to that same question about the 2nd Amendment at least six, maybe eight times, during the 2-hour interview. I don’t know what they were looking for. Apparently, they wanted me to say something . . . or they wanted me to “explode” and say something with a particular style (“THAT’S RIGHT!! I SAY KILL ALL THE POLITICIANS AND COPS AND DO IT NOW!!!”?). But if they asked the question eight times, it appears that they did not get the answer they wanted at least seven times.
Repeatedly asking the same question about 2nd Amendment is pretty good evidence that 60 Minutes had an agenda. Apparently, it was Byron Pitts’ job to get me to say “something” (I don’t know what). Apparently, the interview was not intended to discover the principles underlying the sovereignty movement so much as to conduct an interrogation intended to generate “probable cause” for an indictment (at least in the mind of the public).
• And it was an interrogation. While we were walking around outside and developing a “rapport,” Byron explained that we’d have a “conversation” when we sat down inside. Great. I like conversations.
But after five or ten minutes of interview inside, Byron asked me a question and I responded with a question to him. He snapped back, “That’s not the way it works . . . I ask the questions . . . you provide the answers.”
OK. Then it wasn’t really a “conversation” (where both sides get to ask and answer questions) after all. It was an interrogation where Byron gets to ask and I can only to answer.
I didn’t mind. So long as I’m not being beaten with a rubber hose, water-boarded, or sleep deprived, I can handle interrogations. (After all, interrogations are fundamentally about words and after 20+ years of reading, writing, editing and speaking, I’ve become marginally fluent.)
• I remember three other “moments” during the interview:
1. When the inside interview began, I turned on a digital audio recorder. I wanted my own record of everything that would be said. Byron quickly asked, “What’s that?!” I explained. He accepted. But I could tell that he was disturbed by the possibility that I might have a complete audio record of the interview.
2. We were probably about 90 minutes into the interview and there was a moment when Bryon’s eyes and mine met and locked. In recollection, we seemed hold each other’s gaze for about ten seconds. In fact, that “moment” probably lasted for an intense two seconds.
Byron’s eyes bulged in what looked like disbelief. I don’t know what I looked like to Byron, but my emotion was one of absolute indifference. I wasn’t the least bit intimidated or afraid. He could not beat me. He could not “handle” me in this interview. I knew it and I believe that, in that moment, he knew it, too.
The interview lasted another 20 minutes or so, but it was over at that moment.
3. The third “moment” occurred after the interview ended. I got up to walk around, open a bottle of water, have a sandwich. Byron stayed in his chair. He slouched; he curled up in one corner of the chair; he had both of his arms wrapped around his chest and reaching to his back. He seemed to be hugging himself. He looked at me as if I were a monster.
I don’t doubt that Byron can do lots of things I can’t do. He’s personable, likeable in ways I might envy. But he’s not in my league intellectually—at least not on that day.
• Learning that I could “handle” a 60 Minutes interviewer was empowering. 60 Minutes is about as big as it gets. Speaking under the stress of being recorded for broadcast to 12 to 18 million viewers is “challenging”. I had a couple of rough moments, but if it had been a 10-round boxing match, I think I won at least 8 rounds.
I have gone toe-to-toe with 60 Minutes and I won.
Of course, 60 Minutes might laugh at my self-applause. They might say that I’m still a fool and I lost big-time. Maybe so.
But my conviction that I won gives me a level of confidence I’d not previously imagined. It’s hard for me to imagine another interview (or interrogation) where I’ll be easily intimidated.
• My belief that I “won” the “10-round fight” is, on one hand, personally inspiring. On the other hand, it’s meaningless.
The problem is that it’s really an 11-round fight. The last round, the 11th round, is fought long after I’ve left the ring. That’s the “editor’s round”. That’s when a 60 Minutes editor gets to pare the two-hour interview down to the twelve minutes that will actually be broadcast.
So, if Byron won a round or two out of the ten, and the 60 Minutes editor selects only those two rounds for broadcast to the fans, the Sunday program will show clearly that Byron won and I fought like a chump.
If “selective editing” makes me look like a chump, I’ll be disappointed, but I won’t be surprised. Byron knows who won the fight. So do I.
• If I had it to do all over again, would I agree to be interviewed?
You damn skippy!
I’d be less optimistic and more wary from the git-go, but even if I knew it was a trap, I’d go again. And I’d go in with much more confidence.
Why?
First, because I’ve believed from the first contact with 60 Minutes that our Father YHWH ha Elohiym had opened a door and it was incumbent on me to walk through it as an act of faith. Whether I get mugged on the other side of that door is irrelevant. If the Good LORD opens a door, I’m goin’ through. Do not get in my way unless you want to get carried through that door, too.
If the Good LORD opens that door again, I’m going through again.
Second, rightly or wrongly, since about A.D. 1990, I’ve believed myself to be a “watchman” of the sort described in Ezekiel 3:16-20. It’s a good, blue-collar kind of job and I spring from blue-collar roots. Watchman suits me.
According to Ezekiel, if I see the enemy coming, I am to sound the alarm. I attempt to sound those alarms by means of my radio shows and by means of my blog. If the people listen to my warnings and are saved, great. If they ignore my warning, their blood is on their own heads.
But if I see the enemy coming, and I fail to sound the alarm and the people are injured or killed, their blood will be held to my account. My account. Mine. I’m not havin’ it—you understand?
I fear our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.
I have more than enough to account for, all by myself, without taking responsibility for a bunch of other people who may get caught in the gears of “this state”.
So, you can bet that if I see (or think I see) an “enemy,” I will be sounding the alarm.
But there’s a problem. I’m posted on some pretty low walls in some pretty remote places, so, even if I see the “enemy” (say, government committing acts of genocide against the American people), I can holler my warnings all day and only a handful of people will ever hear me.
My blog gets 20,000 views a month. That’s peanuts.
My radio shows might reach as many as 20,000 unique listeners each month. Clearly, I’m no Rush Limbaugh.
Over the past 21 years of writing, publishing and hosting radio shows, I doubt that I’ve reached more than one million unique individuals—and many of them, only once. Again, that’s not much.
But I don’t mind.
If the Good LORD wants to post me on a low, remote wall, it suits me just fine.
And if the Good LORD opens a door for me to holler my warnings from a very high wall (like 60 Minutes), you can bet I’ll be hollerin’.
Byron Pitts told me that 60 Minutes reaches between 12 and 18 million viewers each Sunday. Let’s suppose 15 million watch my interview tonight and 14 million leave absolutely convinced that Alfred Adask is the biggest a-hole that’s ever been on TV. By the time the program is over, those 14 million may all be convinced that I belong in a cage in Guantanamo.
But that still leaves one million listeners who might see through the editing, see through the bias, and understand my “warning”. That’s more people in 12 minutes, than I’ve probably reached in the past 21 years. As a watchman, there’s no way I can pass up that opportunity.
Of course, it’s entirely possible that 60 Minutes might be so skillful at editing my interview, that all 15 million viewers leave convinced that I’m a “domestic terrorist” who’d be best shot or locked up in Guantanamo.
But that’s not my problem.
See, Clem Taylor and Byron Pitts are also “watchmen”. They’re journalists. Whether they know it or not, they also “stand on the wall”. They’re also obligated to sound the alarm if they see the enemy.
I’ve done everything I can to make Clem and Byron see the enemy (governmental genocide). They’ve seen or had reason to see that “enemy”. If Clem and Byron nevertheless refuse to “sound the alarm,” and any of those 15 million viewers are subsequently injured or killed, their blood will be called to Byron’s and Clem’s accounts—not mine.
Not . . . mine.
• Look at what I’ve learned: I can go toe-to-toe with some of the best in the business. I may not be a champion but—with the grace of the Good LORD—I am a legitimate contender.
That knowledge means a lot to me and it could not have been acquired without first going through that door.
• Finally, I might be wrong. Maybe 60 Minutes will give me a fair shake tonight. Or, if they don’t, maybe they’ll give me a fair shake the next time they ask for an interview.
So, would I go again? If the Good LORD opens the door, you can bet I’m comin’ through.
Written at arm’s length within the venue of The County of Dallas, The State of Texas, The United States of America, and The Kingdom of God by me, Alfred Adask—a living man made in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym’s image (Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”).
Ahmad Wali Karzai, the half brother of Afghan president Hamid Karzai, was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards Tuesday morning. Friend and trusted head of security Sardar Mohammed shot him in the head and chest. Mohammed was in turn shot and killed by fellow bodyguards. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assassination.
In 2009 it was reported that Karzai was a major player in the Afghan opium trade. According to reports, other members of the Karzai family are involved “head-to-heels” in the drug business.
“The CIA has been complicit in the global drug trade for years,” a former intelligence official told Newsmax in 2002. “The CIA did almost the identical thing during the Vietnam War, which had catastrophic consequences – the increase in the heroin trade in the USA beginning in the 1970s is directly attributable to the CIA.”
According to a report in Presscore, the former Unocal employee Hamid Karzai and his family are heavily involved in the CIA’s drug business.
“85 per cent of all drugs produced in Afghanistan is being shipped aboard US aircraft. Foreign diplomats have stated that the United States military buy drugs from local Afghan drug lords who deal with field commanders overseeing eradication of drug production,” states the report. The CIA provides protection for the enterprise.
The CIA has been in the drug running business since the 1950s. In Burma, Vietnam, Laos, Latin America, and Afghanistan, the CIA — also known as the “Cocaine Import Agency” — has remained at the forefront of the international illicit drug trade. The journalist Gary Webb and the San Jose Mercury News tied the CIA and the Contras to a large crack cocaine ring in Los Angeles. Webb paid with his life for revealing this information to the public.
Before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban had imposed a ban on opium production. This resulted in opium production collapsing by more than 90 per cent. It was the U.S. supported Northern Alliance that came to the rescue and began protecting the production of raw opium.
“CIA-supported Mujahedeen rebels [who in 2001 were part of the Northern Alliance] engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government and its plans to reform the very backward Afghan society,” William Blum writes in The Real Drug Lords.
In a Fox News report aired in April of 2010, correspondent Geraldo Rivera interviewed a solder in Afghanistan who admitted the U.S. allows the opium trade to flourish.
The corporate media has provided propaganda for the CIA’s drug business. “Curbing the Taliban’s multimillion dollar opium poppy business was a major goal of a military operation to seize this former insurgent stronghold,” the Associated Press reported in March of 2010. “If they destroy the crops and curb the trade, they lose the support of the population — a problem for which they have no easy solution.”
Gelareh Bagherzadeh, died Jan. 17, when she was shot outside her home. Detectives investigating the murder of an Iranian molecular scientist gunned down in her car as she drove home believe she was followed or that someone was waiting for her. Bagherzadeh was struck by a single bullet that entered the passenger door window as she talked on her cell phone with her ex-boyfriend. Bagherzadeh was a molecular genetic technology student at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and also active in promoting Iranian women’s rights.
(NaturalNews) The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — an act which allows for the government of the United States to indefinitely imprison citizens without any access to due process — has been signed in accordance with a Congress that represents Corporate America and Big Agriculture, but not “we the people”. So now we should all consider that the FBI has nothing better to do than seek food activists as terrorists among the other activists deemed domestic terrorists.
The FBI investigated a former Chicago Tribune journalist for handing out leaflets advocating animal rights. Will Potter was arrested by Chicago police and then released. Shortly after, the FBI knocked on his door. Will was threatened with being placed on the “domestic terrorist list.”
More journalist than street activist, Will decided to dive into the rabbit hole of federal law enforcement suppressing environmental and animal rights activists. From that experience he wrote his book Green is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege. What will discloses is disturbing.
Eco-terrorists, animal rights terrorists, and political prison
The war against terrorism already includes environmentalists and animal rights groups. Both groups occasionally engage in acts of vandalism, temporary occupation, and “illegally” releasing animals from lab experiment facilities.
But usually these activists conduct peaceful demonstrations and disseminate materials promoting their valid causes. If there is any vandalism, one could be charged for that and either fined or jailed according to the offense and the accused person’s previous record.
But now, two secret prisons designed for domestic terrorists have sprung up in Indiana and Illinois. And environmental and animal rights activists have been considered domestic terrorists for years. These special domestic terrorist prisons are called Communication Management Units (CMUs).
Per prison documentation, CMUs are “self-contained” housing units for prisoners who “require increased monitoring of communication” in order to “protect the public.” Current prisoners were transferred from minimal security prisons to CMUs without notice or due process.
The CMUs limit phone calls, visiting time, and mail much more than even maximum security prisons. Everything is monitored closely. Another Prison Bureau mission statement for CMUs is to keep people with “inspirational significance” from communicating with their groups or anyone in the media and public.
And now food activists are eligible for CMUs
This covers a wide spectrum of peaceful activists. Documents retrieved under the Freedom of Information Act (FIA) disclose the FBI’s intent to infiltrate food activist groups and arrest food activists as domestic terrorists.
There have been raids on the Food Not Bombs activist groups. Their activity has involved creating vegetarian buffet food stands in public parks to feed the homeless, protest marches, and investigating and communicating corrupt global food distribution. That’s a hot one!
Recently, public park feeding festivals were closed down forcefully. Members are often under surveillance. As early as 1989, military run classes in domestic training used the Food Not Bombs group as a case-study for one of “America’s most hardcore terrorist groups”.
Most of us know of other raids on raw milk distributors, family farms, private vegetable gardens and private food storage facilities. An outdoor vegetarian banquet held at someone’s ranch was even disrupted by state health officials recently.
All of these cases of local law enforcement or food agency harassment eventually make their way into FBI files. But there’s more — the FBI has urged local authorities to harass and provide information. A Food Not Bombs site reports that private security agents from large corporations, like Monsanto, are also involved with food activist surveillance and monitoring.
The “War on Terror” is the cover for all this intimidation of citizens actively concerned about the future of food quality and food freedom. A compliant media and dumbed down population allows it. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_N…)
Courtesy of Cryptome’s link distribution, we get a glimpse into the mind of 1952 (an era when crypto on land lines was very limited, indeed). We get to see how the US tapped and how it worked with the phone company to tap others – in the course of determining that standard US techniques for taps were not present (2-wire pair line tampering, inductive tapping of the 2-wire pair on local telephone pole, tapping of the “multiplying line” extensions).
Let’s not forget jus “how physical” was telephony, in 1952.
We also get to see the reaction to (activated) resonant cavity class of listening device – distinct from tapping lines.
One sees the resource requirements, and the basic attack plan for the new threat (and the desire not to alert the tapper, presumably so the tap could be turned to dis-information).
One notes that searchers were familiar with microphony attacks in general, though not the cavity resonant devices initially.
Earlier disclosures show that the high level FBI agent had two classes of phone – those served by the phone company and those installed by DoD (obvious from the context of the redacted material). This shows that, in the 1950s, FBI was very much sub-servient to DoD in technical countermeasures.
At the same time, we note how the FBI was viewed as a go-to agency, by others (not that there is any suggestion that there is a law enforcement rationale to such requests).
The USPS (as a giant spying agency on paper) was probably one source, and one notes how the agencies were colluding to track EACH cabinet officer (of the government) for oral cues (as to the souce of leaks about USPS policies). This all seems consistent with the general state of red-scare paranoia of the period, as folks sought to address technical information leakage on the bomb, etc. Note that its all very much a pretext (to get the FBI into the “business”), since its all about the club of executives (not line sources).
One sees also other civilian issues, including Bensons’ solid understanding of the price sensitivity (which seems a bit more coherent, and more tuned to issues of today):
Its fun to see the “most likely” sources of placement:
One sees some of the normal “art” of the searcher, used to American equipment:-
One notes a couple of references to the “countermeasure” device (which could be DoD/FBI trojan horse, of course):
An outline of its purposes follows (basically, it isolates the mic in the handset, or suppresses it own diaphragm)
One sees a side threat, too, repurposing lines:
An interesting tit bit about the secret service wanting to do their own scan, and the FBI a sole source of the equipment (which was hand made, which is telling about FBI’s “Lab Division” technical capabilities in presumably valve electronics of the day).
At the same time, evidently there is a standard design (such that it can now be ”procured”).
One see several features of a general foil, since folks rationalize that its more important to protect the channel that to prevent leaks. They really WANT to use it for reverse signaling, consistent with 1945 counter-intelligence doctrine. There is also the assumption that the Presidents Office and Cabinet Office are really not secure areas (since the cabinet officers are necessarily surveilled proto-suspects, themselves).
One has to assume that non-FBI folks would also be testing FBI capabilities (since Hoover was such a known-deceiver). One sees how FBI is entirely compartmentalized from nuclear-level infosec/comsec (which must have irked Hoover no end).
One sees another reference to the infamous “British” equipment (which somewhat undermines the story about FBI being the sole-source of cavity mic detecting). Who operates the latter equipment is not disclosed.
we see a policy of information containment, concerning technical methods (including “acceptance” that white house could be a source of insecurity – national imperatives notwithstanding)
We see clearly how the FBI and the phone companies happily conspire to mis-inform and mid-direct the White house officials (in the hope that direct White House request be made of FBI, for an appropriate investigation, supported by technical means). It is more important to the FBI to protect this than protect the secrets being leaked!
One sees how Bell Labs is involved in subverting the signalling system, to aid tracing (suggesting that such tracing was not present, pre 1952). Having a secretary listen in to the call (and write it all up, soviet style, was deemed much more appropriate, as in White House conventions):
we also seem by 55, the emergence of ISIS, led by Treasury:
By 1955, one sees less scare about the cavity mic, and more action about compartmentalizing the Community buildings’s lines.
Folks are still obviously worried that the very proximity to the wire pairs afforded soviet tapping, of calls to friendly governments. One sees nothing about radio tapping though (where folks had the most skill.)
We also see some of the phone company responses emerging:
And, in other quotes we see the general attitude towards GSA, with phone companies wanting not to participate with GSA ‘infosec’ policies (preferring cosy relations with FBI, instead, with whom they have a working relation regarding authorized wire taps, anyways).
We see how transistors have made their mark (on size), by 1956:
One sees s little of the architectural impact on the FBIs own buildings (with reference to tie lines, etc) and “mainframe” switching:
one sees countermeasure, in 1957, to (presumably) analogue signalling for video (though we recall, they had PCM in 1942. By 1957, did they have early codecs for video?)
we see a general fishing attempt against the c ontractors of state (where FBI has no jurisdiction) – seeking to perform an intelligence review:
We see the “former agent” network subverting agency policies, with “discreet checks”, being “caused”. Cooperating with such subversion seems not to be a worry for the FBI. even absent any rationale for an “investigation”. Its just normal to engage in this type of behaviour.
One sees an interesting fact about 1945:
One sees means used to isolate those who would be independent of the FBI’s technical expertise (in wire circuits, and sound recording):
one sees the mindset of the FBI, concerning microphony (and countermeasures):
All the drivel about inspecting handsets for “tampering” is a diversion, to the microphones outside the windows measuring the window’s reactance itself! There is a fair amount of policy-based deception going on.
When you look at the endless letters, one sees folks in “power” looking for assurance that someone makes them believe that a) their equipment is not being tampered with, and (b) they indeed have something worth keeping a secret (given how important, they now are).
one sees in a 1962 memo emergence of secure phone codecs (keyed by card), with attendant overhead of security officers responsible for the keying.
Interesting facts on capabilities, costs, leased line specificity and delay:
Someone helped the FBI out, on using window material to project sound:
Updating to 1981,
Updating to 1988, we see quite a marked change in the tone. There is a lot more professionalism on display, particularly once FBI formally ceded from DIA in handling the industrial security program. Upto 1995,
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refuses to acknowledge that, based on all available statistics, raw milk produced on clean, small-scale farms is actually far safer than pasteurized milk from factory farms. But the agency did admit earlier this year, after being pressed and warned of a potential Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request if it failed to comply, thatnot a single person has died from raw milk consumption in over a decade.
This may come as a shock to some who, because of all the propaganda about the alleged dangers of raw milk, are convinced otherwise, but it is true — one of the two deaths often cited by the CDC as evidence that raw milk is dangerous was actually linked to the consumption of raw queso fresco cheese, which is currently outlawed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And the other is likely linked to an adulterated raw milk product as well, rather than to raw milk.
After repeatedly petitioning the CDC for clarification about its questionable raw milk statistics and getting nowhere, Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Company (OPDC) in California, finally threatened to file a FOIA request to get to the truth. Shortly thereafter, he received a response from an unidentified official at the CDC’s information office explaining that the one “raw milk” death that occurred between 1998 and 2008 was actually linked to illegal raw queso fresco cheese.
The agency has not yet provided details about the other death, but it is likely that it, too, was linked to some adulterated raw milk product rather than to raw milk itself. If and when the agency finally fesses up to the truth about that case, it will also be inadvertently admitting that it has lied to the public for many years about the nature of raw milk.
The CDC’s continual avoidance of talking about the much worse dangers associated with pasteurized milk further illustrates its raw milk bias. In 2006 alone, there were at least 1,300 people who got sick from pasteurized milk just in California — and yet the CDC only talks about the roughly 39 reported illnesses every year in the Golden State that are alleged, but not necessarily proven to be, linked to raw milk.
Tehran – An Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in a Tehran car bombing on Wednesday that the Islamic republic immediately blamed on Israel and the United States, worsening a tense international standoff over its atomic programme.
Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi told state television the attack would not stop Iran making “progress” in its nuclear activities.
Iranian officials noted that the assassination method – two men on a motorbike attaching a magnetic bomb to the target’s vehicle – was similar to that used in the killings of three other of its scientists over the past two years.
Iran’s parliament erupted with yells of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” after Wednesday’s attack.
Deputy director of uranium plant
Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, 32, died immediately in the blast, which occurred in front of a university campus in east Tehran.
His driver/bodyguard later died of his wounds, the Fars and ILNA news agencies reported. A third occupant of the Peugeot 405 was wounded and in hospital.
Ahmadi Roshan was a deputy director at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility, according to the website of the university he graduated from a decade ago, Sharif University.
He was also an academic and member of the Basij militia controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the Basij said in a statement.
The scientist was specialised in making polymeric membranes to separate gas. Iran uses a gas separation method to enrich its uranium.
Iran’s atomic energy organisation issued a statement, quoted by the country’s Arabic broadcaster Al-Alam, confirming Ahmadi Rosham “was working in the nuclear industry”.
‘Scientists more determined than ever’
It said “the futile actions by the criminal Israeli regime and America will not disrupt the path the Iranian people have chosen” and nuclear activities will continue.
“This terrorist act was carried out by agents of the Zionist regime (Israel) and by those who claim to be combating terrorism (the US) with the aim of stopping our scientists from serving” Iran, Rahimi told state television.
The foreign ministry also blamed Israel and the US.
The vice president, in charge while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wraps up a Latin America tour, added: “They (Israel and the US) should know that Iranian scientists are more determined than ever in striding towards Iran’s progress.”
There was no immediate official Israeli or US reaction to the accusations.
‘A critical year’
Media in both countries, though, gave prominent play to the car bombing.
Israeli outlets also relayed comments by Israel’s military chief of staff, Lieutenant General Benny Gantz, to MPs on Tuesday saying that 2012 was to be “a critical year” given Iran’s nuclear drive, international pressure – “and things which happen to them (the Iranians) in an unnatural way”.
Three other Iranian scientists were killed in 2010 and 2011 when their cars blew up in similar circumstances. At least two of the scientists had also been working on nuclear activities.
One of the attacks occurred two years earlier, on January 12, 2010, killing scientist Masoud Ali Mohammadi.
The current head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation, Fereydoun Abbasi, escaped another such attempt in November 2010, getting out of his car with his wife just before the attached bomb exploded.
Those attacks were viewed by Iranian officials as assassination operations carried out by Israel’s Mossad intelligence service, possibly with help from US counterparts.
Wednesday’s killing sharpened an international confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme in which threats and counter-threats are being increasingly backed with militarised displays of muscle.
Threatened ‘full force’ of Navy
Western nations, the US at the fore, are steadily ratcheting up sanctions on Iran with the aim of fracturing its oil-dependent economy.
Iran has responded by saying it could easily close the Strait of Hormuz – a chokepoint for 20% of the world’s oil at the entrance to the Gulf – if it is attacked or if sanctions halt its petroleum exports.
It has also threatened to unleash the “full force” of its navy should the United States redeploy an aircraft carrier to the Gulf, where the US Fifth Fleet is based.
The US said closing the strait is a “red line” that should not be crossed and said it would keep sending its warships to the region.
US ally Britain has dispatched its most modern destroyer, HMS Daring, to the Gulf to join other British ships there.
Iran, meanwhile, says it is about to hold more navy manoeuvres in the strait, following ones nearby that ended less than two weeks ago in which, pointedly, three anti-ship missiles were test-fired.
US-Iranian tensions have also worsened following an Iranian court’s death sentence this week on an American-Iranian former Marine it found guilty of spying for the CIA, and Iran’s capture last month of what it said was a CIA drone.
Tehran’s determination to push ahead with its nuclear activities were underlined by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s confirmation on Monday that Iran has started enriching uranium at a second facility – its Fordo fortified underground bunker southwest of the capital.
The IAEA two months ago issued a report strongly suggesting that Western fears of Iranian research into nuclear weapons was backed by a lot of evidence.
Iran, though, insists that its atomic programme is exclusively for energy and medical ends, and it has declared itself open to resuming nuclear negotiations with world powers that collapsed a year ago.
Akaka, Daniel K. – (D – HI) Class I
141 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6361
Web Form: www.akaka.senate.gov/email-senator-akaka.cfm
Alexander, Lamar – (R – TN) Class II
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web Form: www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email
Ayotte, Kelly – (R – NH) Class III
144 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3324
Web Form: www.ayotte.senate.gov/?p=contact (more…)
Last week, Bryan McCarthy, the 32-year-old operator of ChannelSurfing.net, was arrested on charges of criminal copyright infringement. This arrest has once again raised questions about the seizure of domains operated by those that are accused, but not convicted, of copyright infringement related crimes. Critics ranging from bloggers to individual rights advocates to Senators have rightfully questioned the constitutionality of these seizures.
The most serious constitutional issues with the domain seizures arise because the Government does not provide any notice to the domain owners prior to seizing them. One moment, their normal site is up at their web address, the next moment, all that is up at their web address is a DHS/ICE seal.
Without knowing what they have been accused of or having the opportunity to defend their site, the Government has repurposed the owners’ private property.
In order to seize the domain names without notice to the owners, the Government uses a procedure that permits it to bring an action directly against a piece of property used in the commission of a crime –in this case the domain name– rather than the owner. This type of action (called an “In Rem” forfeiture) is not new. In the past, the Government has used In Rem actions for purposes such as an action against an automobile used to transport bootleg whiskey.
An In Rem action does not necessarily require the Government to wait until a court hears both sides and rules that the property has been used for illegal purposes and is subject to forfeiture. Instead, in many cases, the law is written so that all the Government has to do is to sign an affidavit that demonstrates probable cause for the forfeiture, which is signed by a magistrate judge and the Government can seize the property. (more…)
Terrorism Update: FBI Targets Preppers and Preparedness Supplies In Latest Bulletin
If you’ve been preparing for emergencies, disasters, or economic collapse there’s a strong likelihood that you’ve been added to a watch list somewhere.
Hard to believe?
The latest Communities Against Terrorism guidelines distributed by the FBI to military surplus stores in the state of Colorado outline specific activities that owners and retail associates should look for when trying to spot terrorist related activity. Much of the suspicious activity listed describes the behavior and shopping list of any modern day prepper:
What should I consider suspicious?
People or groups who:
Provide identification that is inconsistent or suspect or demand identity “privacy”
Insist on paying with cash or uses credit card(s) in different names
Make suspicious comments regarding anti-US, radical theology, vague or cryptic warnings that suggests or appear to endorse the use of violence in support of a cause
Demonstrate interest in uses that do not seem consistent with the intended use of the item being purchased
Possess little knowledge of intended purchase items
Make bulk purchases of items to include: -Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers -Meals Ready to Eat -Night Vision Devices; night flashlights; gas masks -High capacity magazines -Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles
Flex your rights: The top 3 things to do in every police encounter
Dealing with police in the U.S. can be a touchy situation, no matter who you are, where you’re going, or what you’re up to. That’s why three law enforcement experts attending the 2011 Drug Policy Alliance conference in Los Angeles decided to stage a panel discussion about what people can do to prevent police encounters from becoming seriously detrimental to one’s life.
While the conversation was wide-ranging and covered a lengthy variety of topics, there were several main points they all made that can help every single person to deal with police in a manner that limits the potential for arrest or violence. (more…)
Health department tyrants raid local ‘farm to fork’ picnic dinner, orders all food to be destroyed with bleach
(NaturalNews) It is the latest case of extreme government food tyranny, and one that is sure to have you reeling in anger and disgust. Health department officials recently conducted a raid of Quail Hollow Farm, an organic community supported agriculture (CSA) farm in southern Nevada, during its special “farm to fork” picnic dinner put on for guests — and the agent who arrived on the scene ordered that all the fresh, local produce and pasture-based meat that was intended for the meal be destroyed with bleach.
For about five years now, Quail Hollow Farm has been growing organic produce and raising healthy, pasture-based animals which it provides to members as part of a CSA program. And it recently held its first annual “Farm to Fork Dinner Event,” which offered guests an opportunity to tour the farm, meet those responsible for growing and raising the food, and of course partake in sharing a meal composed of the delicious bounty with others.
But when the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD) got word of the event and decided to get involved, this simple gathering of friends and neighbors around a giant, family-style picnic table quickly became a convenient target for the heavy hand of an out-of-control government agency. And Monte and Laura Bledsoe, the owners and operators of Quail Hollow Farm, were unprepared for what would happen next.
SNHD official Mary Oaks raids picnic without cause or warrant, orders destruction of dinner food
Laura Bledsoe explains in a letter to her guests written after the fact that two days prior to the event, SNHD contacted the farm to say that, because the picnic was technically a “public” event, the couple would have to obtain a “special use permit,” or else face a very steep fine. Not wanting to risk having the event disrupted, the Bledsoes agreed to jump through all the demanded legal hoops even though their gathering was really just a backyard picnic. (more…)
Is it possible that Gaddafi was finally making progress towards ending conflict and unifying Africa? What if there was more to this story than THE NEWS is willing to portray? Look closely to see if there may be an agenda at work..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQxTv3nB14
Do you think the people of Libya are truly thankful for NATO’s intervention? (more…)
EVERY politician has access to this, and they abuse it regularly. Yet Silvio is coming under fire by the mainstream. Hmm… could this be the result of yet another puppet, not doing as he’s told?
Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, has been named in a US government report on people trafficking as a result of his alleged relationship with ‘Ruby the Heart Stealer’.
Silvio Berlusconi and Karima El Mahroug, nicknamed Ruby Photo: AFP/GETTY IMAGES/REX
By Nick Pisa in Rome
2:39PM GMT 30 Oct 2011
Mr Berlusconi, 75, is accused of having sexual relations with belly dancer Karima El Mahroug at one of the evenings he hosted at his lavish villa and at the time she was just 17 years old.
Miss El Mahroug was one of 33 women who attended the parties and at which it is claimed – among other things – that they dressed as nuns and police officers to perform seductive pole dances and stripteases.
It has now emerged Mr Berlusconi was named in this year’s State Department’s Trafficking in Persons 2011 report which details the parties and describes how one of the guests was a minor. (more…)
Gurgaon: The country’s elite NSG has embarked on an ambitious project to prepare new-age commandos equipped with high-end weapons to undertake specialised counter- terrorism and counter-hijack operations through land, air and water.
The force, known as the ‘black cats’, will churn out close to 2,000 commandos by 2015-16. They will be completely independent to operate in a hostile environment with the help of artificial intelligence gadgets being developed for them indigenously by DRDO and other premier organisations.
“The National Security Guard is now on the verge of a quantum jump. We have set our plans to prepare a modern commando. A five-year plan has been activated. It primarily concentrates on the commando…a commando who will be independent to operate,” NSG DG R K Medhekar said.
He was talking to reporters on the occasion of NSG’s Raising Day at Manesar garrison here.
The plan has been made keeping in mind that a commando should be independent when he operates…his weapon, his body armour, communication devices, body wearable computer. Water and food should be with him on his body. Some elements in this regard are already under trial and we hope to get the first batch of such new age commandos by 2015-16, Medhekar said. (more…)
CLIFF NOTES: British SAS soldiers were caught red-handed by local Iraqis, in full dress-up like Iraqis, shooting up a public place and inciting EXTREME and RUTHLESS violence. By the end of the day, they were broken out by presumably British/NATO forces. Nope, nothing to see her folks….
Iraqi policemen walk through debris at the central jail in Basra. Photograph: Nabil al-Jurani/AP
British troops used tanks last night to break down the walls of a prison in the southern Iraqi city of Basra and free two undercover British soldiers who were seized earlier in the day by local police.An official from the Iraqi interior ministry said half a dozen tanks had broken down the walls of the jail and troops had then stormed it to free the two British soldiers. The governor of Basra last night condemned the “barbaric aggression” of British forces in storming the jail.Aquil Jabbar, an Iraqi television cameraman who lives across the street from the jail, said dozens of Iraqi prisoners also fled in the confusion.
James S. Miller, 58, died as a result of being attacked during a home invasion. Professor James Steven Miller came to Goshen College to teach in 1980, the same year he completed his doctorate degree in medical biochemistry at Ohio State University. He received his undergraduate degree in chemistry in 1975 from Bluffton (Ohio) University. The Goshen College Board of Directors granted Professor Miller tenure in June 1985. He primarily taught upper-level courses taken by students in nursing, pre-medical and other health-related tracks.
In order to seize the domain names without notice to the owners, the Government uses a procedure that permits it to bring an action directly against a piece of property used in the commission of a crime –in this case the domain name– rather than the owner. This type of action (called an “In Rem” forfeiture) is not new. In the past, the Government has used In Rem actions for purposes such as an action against an automobile used to transport bootleg whiskey.
