Greek Army Threatens Military Coup: “We Will Not Be Sold To Foreign Powers”

Greek Army Threatens Military Coup: “We Will Not Be Sold To Foreign Powers”.

Greek Army Threatens Military Coup Sparking Fears of Military Uprisings And Civil Wars Breaking Out Across All Of Europe

Posted by Alexander Higgins – June 26, 2011 – Permalink – Source via Alexander Higgins Blog

 

Greek Army Threatens Military Coup Saying “We Will Not Be Sold To Foreign Powers” Ahead Of IMF Bailout Loan Vote Sparking Fears Of Military Uprisings And Civil Wars Spreading Across Europe. Military Officers And Police Forces Are Now Joining The Protests.

I recently wrote that the Greek Revolution has succeeded and the Government agreed to step down and create a new Government.

 

Revolution Succeeds In Greece!!! Protestors Overthrow Government. New Government To Be Formed.

The Greek Revolution Has Succeeded In Forcing The Government To Step Down In The Midst Of Massive Protests Calling For The Regime of Corrupt Government And Crooked Banks To Be Replaced With Real Democracy.

 

 

 

Why the “Balanced Budget Amendment” is a Hoax – and a Deadly Trap

*Publius Huldah is an oath keeper, lawyer, philosopher & logician and strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. “Amending the Constitution is serious business – and you are morally bound to get informed before you jump on The Amendment Bandwagon.”

Why the “Balanced Budget Amendment” is a Hoax – and a Deadly Trap

By Publius Huldah.

You can not responsibly support a proposed Amendment to Our Constitution unless you have read and understand the proposal and how it would change our Constitution. You must look behind the nice sounding name!  Will the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) really “reign in” the federal government? Will it really “show them” that they have to balance their budget the same as we do?

Or does it actually legalize spending which is now unconstitutional?  Is it actually a massive grant of new constitutional powers to the President and the federal courts – a grant which will cut the Heart out of The Constitution our Framers gave us?

Amending the Constitution is serious business – and you are morally bound to get informed before you jump on The Amendment Bandwagon.

So, lay aside your giddy joy at the fact that all 47 U.S. Senate Republicans are co-sponsoring the Balanced Budget Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 10 (March 31, 2011).  Let’s go through it.  What you believe the BBA will do, and what it will actually do, are two very different things indeed.

But First:  How Did We Get a National Debt of $14.4 Trillion?

Congress gave us a debt of $14.4 trillion which increases at the rate of $4 billion a day.  Let us look at a few of the items which comprise this $14.4 trillion debt:

Congress spent $2.6 million to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly. Congress appropriates $147 million a year to subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers.  Congress spent $3.6 million to fund a study of the sex lives of dope-smoking, menstruating monkeys.  Congress paid $500,000 to paint a salmon on an Alaska Airlines passenger jet.  Congress appropriates $6.9 billion a year for the National Science Foundation where they fund such research as that which revealed the amazing fact that sick shrimp do not perform as well on stamina tests as do healthy shrimp.¹  Citizens Against Government Waste’s pig book shows Congress spent $16,547,558,748. on pork projects last year.  In Sen. Tom Coburn’s Waste Book 2010, which lists 100 spending projects, he shows that $1.5 million was spent to spruce up apartments in Shreveport, La. before they were torn down.

All this spending – every penny of it – and trillions more which is not here listed – has one thing in common:  It is all unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution.  Congress has no constitutional authority to spend money on these projects.

So!  It was Congress’ unconstitutional spending which put us in the mess we are in today.

What Does Our Constitution Permit Congress To Spend Money On?

WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established a Constitution wherein the powers WE delegated to the federal government are limited and defined – “enumerated”.  Read the list at Art. I, Sec. 8!  Basically, all WE gave Congress authority to do for the Country at large is international relations, commerce & war; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system (weights & measures, patents  & copyrights, a money system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & road building.)  Some Amendments authorize Congress to make laws protecting civil rights. That’s about it, Folks!  The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully appropriate funds is short.  The only significant authorized expense is the military.  James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, said in Federalist No. 45 (9th para):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.  [boldface added]

Note that Madison contemplated that the federal government would be financed in large part by taxation on foreign commerce.  That is because the constitutional powers of the federal government are so limited & defined!  The States and the People are to handle everything else.

Do you now see that Our Constitution does not authorize Congress to pay for a museum for neon signs ($5.2 million),  to archive memorabilia for a rock group ($615,000), or to post poems in zoos ($997,766.)?  [See Sen. Coburn's Waste Book 2010].  Congress has no lawful authority to do most of what they do. They just do it because they want to, they have been doing it for a long time, and WE haven’t known enough to stop them.  Our $14.4 trillion debt was caused by Congress’ spending in thousands of areas where they have no constitutional authority to spend.

Is the BBA Really the Solution? 

So!  These 47 Senate Republicans (and some in the House) are showing you how much they now “care” about fiscal responsibility by supporting the BBA.  But think:  Why don’t they control their spending now?  The Republicans control the House – NO spending can get through the House unless the Republicans approve it.  So if the Republicans really wanted to control spending and balance the budget, they could do it now. Why don’t they do it?  Because they don’t want to.

Furthermore, the BBA they support with such broad smiles and glib promises of future fiscal responsibility, doesn’t make them control their spending.  Instead, it would legalize spending which is now unlawful and would markedly increase the powers of the federal government. And it would do nothing to reduce spending.  In short, the BBA is a Scam and a Terrible Trick.

What Would We Get From the BBA ?

In plain English, this is what the 10 Sections of the BBA mean [but read it yourself - it's very short]:

Section 1: They won’t spend more than they take in unless they vote to spend more than they take in.

Section 2: They won’t spend more than 18% of the GDP unless they vote to spend more than 18% of the GDP.

Section 3: The President will write the budget: He will designate the taxes, and what the money will be spent on.  He won’t spend more than he decides to tax you for, and he won’t spend more than 18% of the GDP.  The GDP is a computation made by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce, an agency under the control of the President. [Do you see?  The President controls the agency which computes the number which limits his spending.]

Section 4: Congress won’t make a law raising your taxes unless they vote to raise your taxes.

Section 5: Congress won’t raise the debt limit unless they vote to raise the debt limit.

Sections 6 & 7: Congress can waive the above provisions of the BBA (except for Sec. 4 which says they can’t raise your taxes unless they vote to raise your taxes) when there is a declared war or  a “military conflict” which they think justifies their waiving the above provisions of the BBA.

Section 8:  Courts can’t order your taxes to be raised. [But you can bet your life that this section, together with section 3, will be seen to authorize the President to order that your taxes be raised.]

Section 9: I leave this to others to explain. But be assured the President’s minions will define stuff however he wants; make stuff “off-budget” or “on-budget” to fit his agenda.

Section 10:  Congress can make laws to enforce the BBA, and can rely on numbers provided by the President who is to be given constitutional authority to order tax increases & decide how to spend the money.

So!  Do you see?  You get no benefit from the BBA.  But it will cause us irreparable harm.

How Would the BBA Cut the Heart Out of Our Constitution?

1. It would Transform Our Constitution From One of Enumerated Spending Powers To One of General (“Unlimited”) Spending Powers.

Congress’ Powers are enumerated.  Thus, the objects on which Congress may lawfully appropriate funds are limited to those listed in the Constitution.  Congress has ignored the limitations on its powers for many decades – but at least the limitations are still in the Constitution, to be invoked if We The People ever repent. ²

But the BBA, by ignoring the unconstitutional objects of Congress’ spending, and by merely limiting the amount of such spending to 18% of the GDP & the taxes the President assesses, repeals the enumerated powers aspect of our Constitution.  Furthermore, if Congress limited its appropriations to its enumerated powers, they could not possibly spend a sum as vast as 18% of the GDP.  Thus, the BBA is clear intention to repeal the enumerated powers, and transform the federal government into one of general and unlimited powers.

Congress’ idiotic spending is now unlawful & unconstitutional. But with the BBA, it would become lawful & constitutional, as long as the total spending doesn’t exceed the limits (unless they waive the limits).  With the BBA, it will become lawful for them to appropriate funds for whatever the President (who will write the budget) says!  ³

2. The BBA Transfers Control of the “Purse” from Congress to the President.

The federal government didn’t even have a budget until Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. That “law” purported to grant budget making power (taxes & appropriations) to the President.

But the Budget Act of 1921 is unconstitutional: The Constitution places the taxing & appropriations powers squarely in the hands of  Congress – not the Executive Branch; and contrary to the beliefs of indoctrinated lawyers, Congress may not “amend” the Constitution by making a law. ⁴

Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, grants to Congress the Power to lay and collect Taxes; and Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to Congress the Power to make the appropriations:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Accordingly, for most of our history, Congress made appropriations as the need arose; determined the taxes, and kept records of  both. [See Bruce Bartlett's excellent history of the budget process.]

Our Framers gave us an elegant system of separated powers, where Congress commands the purse – not the Executive Branch and not the Judicial Branch!  In Federalist No. 78 (6^th para), Alexander Hamilton outlines this separation of powers:

…The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules …  The judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society… ⁵

In Federalist No. 58 (4^th para from end) Madison explains why the House alone is granted power to propose taxes (Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 1):  To protect The People from overreaching by the other branches of the federal government:

…The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing … all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may … be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance…

Ponder Hamilton’s and Madison’s words. You must understand what they are saying if we are to restore our Constitutional Republic.  Otherwise, the BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship.

Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional.  Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful.

But Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President.  Congress will become a rubber stamp.

Now look at this pretty little snare:  Section 8 of the proposed BBA says:

No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.  [emphasis added]

Our Constitution does not grant to courts the power to “order” tax increases.  So why does Sec. 8 of the BBA say they can’t do it?

It’s a trap!  There is an ancient maxim of  legal construction which goes like this:  “The Expression of One Thing is the Exclusion of Another”:

An implied exclusion argument lies whenever there is reason to believe that if the legislature had meant to include a particular thing within the ambit of its legislation, it would have referred to that thing expressly. Because of this expectation, the legislature’s failure to mention the thing becomes grounds for inferring that it was deliberately excluded. Although there is no express exclusion, exclusion is implied. …[emphasis added]

Why does Sec. 8 of the BBA exclude the President?  From this exclusion, one may reasonably infer that the intent of Sec. 8 is to permit the President to order tax increases.  If the BBA is ratified, you can be sure that Presidents will claim power under Sec. 8 of the BBA to order tax increases. That inference is strengthened by the fact that Sec. 3 of the BBA transfers constitutional power over the Budget to the President.

So!  The BBA surrenders the purse to the President!  Our Framers understood the danger of having the sword & the purse held by one person.  That is why our Constitution provides for Congress to make the decisions on taxes & appropriations; and, as pointed out in Federalist No. 72 (1^st para), the President is to apply and disburse “the public moneys in conformity to the general appropriations of the legislature”.

With the BBA, Congress’ sole remaining constitutional function over taxing & spending will be to rubberstamp the dictates of the President.

3. The BBA grants judicial power over taxing & spending to the federal courts.

Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 states:  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution.”

If the BBA is ratified, it will become an Amendment to the Constitution which is subject to the judicial authority of the federal courts.

You say the BBA won’t transfer power over the purse to the President?  You say Congress won’t become a mere rubberstamp whose sole remaining function over taxing & appropriations is to enact into law the dictates of the President?

Who will decide?  Since this would be an issue “arising under the Constitution”, the supreme Court will decide. The Judicial Branch – a branch which Hamilton took care to point out should have no power whatsoever over The Purse.

And so five (5) people on the supreme Court will decide an issue which goes to the heart of our Constitution – an issue which the People clamoring for the BBA don’t even know exists.  And remember:  Our supreme Court is filled with fallen people who looked at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and said it means that women may kill their babies. They looked at the 1^st Amendment and said it means that Congress may regulate political speech, and courts may ban Christian speech in the public square, but it gives Westboro “baptists” a “right” to spew their filth & hate at private funerals of dead American heroes.

If the BBA is ratified, do you really want five (5) of those judges deciding this issue? ⁶

What is the Solution to The Financial Plight Congress has put us in?

We have 47 Republican U.S. Senators who don’t understand [or do they?] the ramifications of the BBA which some of them (most notably Senators Jim De Mint & Mike Lee) are determined to cram down our throats. Many supposedly conservative pundits are carrying their water. Whether these people are fools or tyrants,  you must learn that you can not trust anybody. You must insist that people prove what they say!

WE THE PEOPLE must reclaim our glorious Heritage. We must find & support candidates who understand the Constitution, obey it, and agree to work to dismantle the unconstitutional federal apparatus.  We can eliminate the trillions of dollars of unconstitutional spending by restoring constitutional government.  In an orderly fashion, we can dismantle the multitude of offices and agencies and departments of the last 100 years which harass us and eat out our sustenance.

Oh my People!  The grinning politicians who promise you “fiscal responsibility” with their BBA will actually strip you of the protections of Our Constitution. Their BBA will legalize a totalitarian dictatorship.  Do not be deceived by them – they are leading you astray, and their BBA will destroy us.

Oh you Proponents of this thoroughly Evil Scheme:  I throw my glove in your face:  Show me, if you can, where I am wrong.  Or rethink it. PH

End Notes:

¹  Our Constitution does not authorize Congress to fund scientific research. Congress’ only power in the areas of the arts and sciences is to issue patents and copyrights (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8).  If Congress obeyed Our Constitution and stopped funding “scientific” research, the proponents of these idiotic studies would have to do something useful instead of sucking at the taxpayers’ teat.

²  We must repent of  our desire to live at other peoples’ expense. This is the contradiction which undermines the Tea Party.  Many don’t want a constitutional government of limited & enumerated powers. They just want to eliminate funding for programs they don’t like. They want their social security, their Medicare, their government retirement pensions, their perks.  I beg each of you who is now living at other peoples’ expense:  Are you willing to sacrifice your grandchildren so that  you can keep your handouts?  Or will you accept an orderly & gradual dismantlement of the unconstitutional “entitlement” programs?

³  Are you aware that federal executive agencies are forming their own SWAT teams?  Are you aware that DHS is federalizing our local police and using their fusion centers to turn them into a national secret police – America’s version of the STAZI?  Building Obama’s “civilian national security force” which is “just as powerful just as strong just as well funded as the military” takes money.  Lots of it!  The BBA will permit the President to write into the Budget the funding needed to build this armed force; and it will be under his sole & personal control.

⁴  Article V sets forth the exclusive methods of amending The Constitution.

⁵  In Federalist No. 26, Hamilton addresses how Congress is to determine (after public deliberations) the appropriations for the military; and warns that the President must never be given power over the purse respecting armed forces:

The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision [Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 12], once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence…. (9^th para) [capitals are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature…. (12th para)

Do you see that Hamilton warned us not to trust the President with power to determine the funding for the armed forces?  Learn from Hamilton & Madison. Or perish.

⁶  If the President disagrees with the supreme Court’s decision, he – who would, thanks to the BBA, hold both the sword & the purse – could ignore it with impunity. PH

The New ‘White House Rural Council’ Executive Order 13575

Does The New ‘White House Rural Council’ = UN’s Agenda 21?

Mike Opelka   June 21, 2011

On June 9, 2011, President Obama signed his 86th Executive Order, and almost nobody noticed.

(For the record, Obama is on par to match President Bush’s 291 orders executed during his two terms in office. The National Archives defines an Executive Order this way; Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.)

President Obama’s E.O. 13575 is designed to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16% of the American people. Why didn’t we notice it?  Weinergate.  In the middle of the Anthony Weiner scandal, as the press and most of the American people were distracted, President Obama created something called “The White House Rural Council” (WHRC).

Section One of 13575 states the following:

Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.

Warning bells should have been sounding all across rural America when the phrase “sustainable rural communities” came up. As we know from researching the UN plan for Sustainable Development known as Agenda 21, these are code words for the true fundamental transformation America.

The third sentence also makes it quite clear that the government intends to take greater control over “food, fiber, and energy.”

The last sentence in Section 1 further clarifies the intent of the order by tying together “access to the capital necessary for economic growth, health care and education.”

The new White House Rural Council will probably be populated by experts in the various fields that might prove helpful to the folks who live and work outside of large urban areas, right?  Well, Tom Vilsack, the current Secretary of Agriculture, will chair the group, but let us review the list of members appointed to serve on this new council – according to the order, the heads of the following groups have been appointed:

• (1) the Department of the Treasury; Timothy Geithner
• (2) the Department of Defense; Robert Gates
• (3) the Department of Justice; Eric Holder
• (4) the Department of the Interior; Ken Salazar
• (5) the Department of Commerce; Gary Locke
• (6) the Department of Labor; Hilda Solis
• (7) the Department of Health and Human Services; Kathleen Sebelius
• (8) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Shaun Donovan
• (9) the Department of Transportation; Ray LaHood
• (10) the Department of Energy; Dr. Steven Chu
• (11) the Department of Education; Arne Duncan
• (12) the Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric Shinseki
• (13) the Department of Homeland Security; Janet Napolitano
• (14) the Environmental Protection Agency; Lisa Jackson
• (15) the Federal Communications Commission; Michael Copps
• (16) the Office of Management and Budget; Peter Orszag
• (17) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; John Holdren
• (18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; R. Gil Kerlikowske
• (19) the Council of Economic Advisers; Austan Goolsbee
• (20) the Domestic Policy Council; Melody Barnes (former VP at Center for American Progress)
• (21) the National Economic Council; Gene B. Sperling
• (22) the Small Business Administration; Karen Mills
• (23) the Council on Environmental Quality; Nancy Sutley
• (24) the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs; Valerie Jarrett
• (25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or Secretary of  Agriculture may, from time to time, designate. Chris Lu (or virtually anyone to be designated by the 24 people named above)

It appears that not a single department in the federal government was excluded from the new White House Rural Council, and the wild card option in number 25 gives the president and the agriculture secretary the option to designate anyone to serve on this powerful council.

Within the twenty-five designated members of the council are some curious ties to Agenda 21 and the structure being built to implement it:

Valerie Jarrett from the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs served on the board of something called Local Initiatives Support Corportation (LISC). LISC uses the language of Agenda 21 and ICLEI as their web page details their work to build “Sustainable Communities.”

Melody Barnes head of the Domestic Policy Council – Former VP at George Soros-funded Center for American Progress.

Hilda Solis from the Labor Dept – in 2000 received an award for her work on “Environmental Justice.”

Nancy Sutley head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality – Served on the board of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District and was one of the biggest supporters of low-flow toilets that are now credited with costing more money than expected while causing some nasty problems.

Is it possible that concerns about 13575 are just typical anti-government paranoia? Let us review the mission and function of WHRC:

Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.

“Economic prosperity” and a better “quality of life,” that all sounds fairly innocent and well-intentioned. But continuing deeper into the order we find the council is charged with four directives:

(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;

The vague language here sounds non-threatening. But, is there a hint here that a “rural stimulus plan” might be in the making? Will the Federal government start pumping money into farmlands under the guise of creating “economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America?” It is difficult to discern as the language is so broad.

We continue with the functions of the WHRC:

(b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;

Virtually every aspect of rural life seems to now be part of the government’s mission. And while all of the items in (b) sound like typical government speak, you should be alarmed when you read the words “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs). NGOs are unelected, but typically government-funded groups that act like embedded community organizers. And NGOs are key to Agenda 21′s plans.

Continuing:

(c) coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas;

That one sounds very similar to the language found in the United Nations plan for sustainable cities known as Agenda 21. Managing the population in both rural and urban areas, with a focus on controlling “open spaces.”

(d) and identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.

This function of Executive Order 13575 ties energy development with outdoor recreation and “other conservation related activities.” When did outdoor recreation become a conservation related activity?

Aside from the content of this order and some its vague intentions, the timing of the signing should also be considered. Later this month, Washington DC is hosting a meeting of the Agenda 21 operatives who are members of ICLEI:

Washington, D.C. – ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA (ICLEI USA) and U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) today announced the launch of the National Press Club Leadership Speaker Series to be held on June 28. The event’s inaugural keynote speaker will be the Honorable Sha Zukang, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), whose keynote address, The Road to Rio+20, will explain the role of key global and national stakeholders, and the impact and vision of this historic conference.

As Secretary-General of Rio+20, Ambassador Sha Zukang will convene high-ranking leaders from government, the private sector and civil society to chart a pathway to accelerate the implementation of sustainable development decisions and the green economy through the creation of an institutional framework and inclusive participation.

The United Nations has pushed their sustainable development program for almost twenty years. The UN’s “social justice” blueprint called Agenda 21 requires governments to control almost all aspects of an individual’s life, but has recently met with substantial resistance in America. Since The Blaze covered this topic and the story appeared on Glenn Beck’s Fox TV program, we have been inundated with reports from around the country about efforts to remove ICLEI and Agenda 21 from local governments.

Carroll County, Maryland: Starting in February, 2011, all five newly elected county commissioners, led by Richard Rothschild, voted to become the first county in the nation to end the ICLEI contract.

Amador County, California: The Mother Lode Tea Party lead the successful effort to remove ICLEI form Amador County.

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Activists Ruth Miller and Maggie Roddin have raised awareness that lead to the removal of ICLEI.

Edmond, Oklahoma: Molly Jenkins motivated 200 people to attend the city council meeting and demand action against ICLEI.

Las Cruces, New Mexico: continues to debate the issue, but rational voices are gaining momentum in the community.

Spartanburg, South Carolina: City Councilman Roger Nutt successfully directed the effort against the program and Spartanburg became the 6th community to kick out ICLEI in a vote of 6-0 by City Council (with one abstention).

There have also been anti-ICLEI rallies held in several cities this week, with more planned in the near future:

• June 27, 11:30am-3:00pm
  Exeter, NH, Exeter High School
• June 27, 5:00pm-8:30pm
  Galveston, TX, Galveston Convention Center
• June 27, 8:30am-5:00pm
  Ocean Shores, WA, Quinault Beach Resort and Casino
• June 30, 1:00pm-5:00pm
  San Francisco Bay Area, CA, TBD
• June 30, 10:00am-5:00pm
  West Long Branch, NJ, Monmouth University

There appears to be a developing, grass-roots movement to reject programs like Agenda 21. It remains to be seen if these groups might also reject a Washington-based control over rural lands, like the council created by Executive Order 13575.

As long as there’s not another Weinergate, maybe they’ll notice.

Sponsored Link: “I recently spent 6 nights in Zurich, Switzerland, investigating a secret currency that helped launch the largest family fortune in history…and could make you very rich.” Watch this free video for details…

Administration of Barack Obama, 2011
Executive Order 13575—Establishment of the White House Rural Council
June 9, 2011

The timing of the Executive Order is a bit suspicious, since the administration is meeting with a number of Agenda 21 operatives at the end of the month.

ICLEI reports:

ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA (ICLEI USA) and U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) today announced the launch of the National Press Club Leadership Speaker Seriesto be held on June 28. The event’s inaugural keynote speaker will be the Honorable Sha Zukang, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), whose keynote address, The Road to Rio+20, will explain the role of key global and national stakeholders, and the impact and vision of this historic conference.

Fortunately, Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the radical agenda being pushed by the U.N. and supported by this government, and have hosted a number of anti-ICLEI rallies this week, with more planned in the future.

Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) ratified by Obama’s Executive Order 13547

The White House- Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

July 19, 2010

Executive Order–Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

Section 1. Purpose. The ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes provide jobs, food, energy resources, ecological services, recreation, and tourism opportunities, and play critical roles in our Nation’s transportation, economy, and trade, as well as the global mobility of our Armed Forces and the maintenance of international peace and security. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and resulting environmental crisis is a stark reminder of how vulnerable our marine environments are, and how much communities and the Nation rely on healthy and resilient ocean and coastal ecosystems. America’s stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes is intrinsically linked to environmental sustainability, human health and well-being, national prosperity, adaptation to climate and other environmental changes, social justice, international diplomacy, and national and homeland security.

This order adopts the recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, except where otherwise provided in this order, and directs executive agencies to implement those recommendations under the guidance of a National Ocean Council.

Sec. 10. Revocation. Executive Order 13366 of December 17, 2004, is hereby revoked.

Continued athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-stewardship-ocean-our-coasts-and-great-lakes

The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing a National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes on July 19, 2010. That Executive Order adopts the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and directs Federal agencies to take the appropriate steps to implement them.

At the President’s direction, the Task Force released an Interim Report in September 2009 and an Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning in December 2009.  Each of these reports was made available online for public comment.  The Task Force received and reviewed close to 5,000 written comments from Congress, stakeholders, and the public before finalizing its recommendations.  The Task Force’s Final Recommendations combine and update the proposals contained in the two earlier reports.

Read the Executive Order — Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes

Read the Final Recommendations

Visit the National Ocean Council website

Read the FAQs

Read the press release

You can read public comments on the Task Force here.

Read the President’s Proclamation on National Oceans Month

*Glad someone is awake this came down last year. This is an assault on our national sovereignty. Mr President will you pleases tell the American people where in the Constitution this is legal?

Executive Order 13547 – Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes

Cost to American taxpayer $900Billion

National Ocean Council

By Cassandra Anderson
July 28, 2010

Thirty states will be encroached upon by Obama’s Executive Order establishing the National Ocean Council for control over America’s oceans, coastlines and the Great Lakes. Under this new council, states’ coastal jurisdictions will be subject to the United Nations’ Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) in this UN Agenda 21 program. America’a oceans and coastlines will be broken into 9 regions that include the North East, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, West Coast, the Great Lakes, Alaska, the Pacific Islands (including Hawaii) and the caribbean.

Because of the decades of difficulty that the collectivists have had trying to ratify the Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST), Obama is sneaking it in through the back door, by way of this Executive Order establishing the Council. Because LOST is a treaty, Obama’s Executive Order is not Constitutional as treaty ratification requires 2/3 approval from the Senate. Michael Shaw said that the Agenda 21 Convention on Biodiversity treaty of 1992 failed to pass Congress so it was executed through soft law and administratively on local levels, and Obama’s Executive Order is a similar soft law tactic to enact the LOST treaty.  Continued

Obama’s ineligibility: Fighting back I

Obama’s ineligibility: Fighting back I.

The Mother of All Leaks

June 13th, 2011

The Mother of All Leaks

Pentagon

I found a link to an announcement that The Pentagon Papers is to be released online. It’s like, re-leaking the leak of all leaks.

http://www.salon.com/news/pentagon/?story=/news/feature/2011/06/13/us_pentagon_papers

Decades after leak, Pentagon Papers coming out

Release is timed 40 years to the day after The New York Times published its first story on the report’s findings

By CALVIN WOODWARD and RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Pres

Forty years after the explosive leak of the Pentagon Papers, a secret government study chronicling deception and misadventure in U.S. conduct of the Vietnam War, the report is coming out in its entirety on Monday.

The 7,000-page report was the WikiLeaks disclosure of its time, a sensational breach of government confidentiality that shook Richard Nixon’s presidency and prompted a Supreme Court fight that advanced press freedom. Prepared near the end of Lyndon Johnson’s term by Defense Department and private foreign policy analysts, the report was leaked primarily by one of them, Daniel Ellsberg, in a brash act of defiance that stands as one of the most dramatic episodes of whistleblowing in U.S. history.

The National Archives and presidential libraries are releasing the report in full, long after most of its secrets had spilled. The release is timed 40 years to the day after The New York Times published the first in its series of stories about the findings, on June 13, 1971. The papers showed that the Johnson, Kennedy and prior administrations had been escalating the conflict in Vietnam while misleading Congress, the public and allies.

As scholars pore over the 47-volume report, Ellsberg says the chance of them finding great new revelations is dim. Most of it has come out in congressional forums and by other means, and Ellsberg plucked out the best when he painstakingly photocopied pages that he spirited from a safe night after night, and returned in the mornings. He told The Associated Press the value in Monday’s release was in having the entire study finally brought together and put online, giving today’s generations ready access to it.

At the time, Nixon was delighted that people were reading about bumbling and lies by his predecessor, which he thought would take some anti-war heat off him. But if he loved the substance of the leak, he hated the leaker.

He called the leak an act of treachery and vowed that the people behind it “have to be put to the torch.” He feared that Ellsberg represented a left-wing cabal that would undermine his own administration with damaging disclosures if the government did not crush him and make him an example for all others with loose lips. It was his belief in such a conspiracy, and his willingness to combat it by illegal means, that put him on the path to the Watergate scandal that destroyed his presidency.

Read the rest of the story at original link, above.

-

Of course, some of us actually bought a copy of the Pentagon Papers when the New York Times published it years ago. Even so, I am glad to see that the documents will now be available online.

The Pentagon Papers

As leaked to and published by the New York Times in 1971; copyright 1971 by the New York Times; cloth edition available Quadrangle Books, Inc., 12 E. Delaware Place, Chicago, Illinois 60611; published by Bantam Books, Inc., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10019.

I would also like to note for readers that Ellsberg has a book which is a must-read, as it gives the details of his conviction to leak the study to the press. I bought my copy in December, 2002.

Secrets: Memoirs of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers

by Daniel Ellsberg; copyright 2002 by Daniel Ellsberg; published by the Penguin Group, Penguin Putnam Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014, USA; ISBN:  0-670-03030-9.

As a sharp and highly recommended Rand Corporation big gun, Ellsberg was requested by then-Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara to work on McNamara’s massive project to analyze U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia going back to World War II and bringing the study forward through the Johnson Administration.  This was a top-secret study conducted by the Pentagon, and Ellsberg was given the highest security clearances at the White House, Pentagon, State Department, and I’m supposing, anywhere else he needed to poke around. McNamara gave Ellsberg and his cohorts on the study the keys to America’s government’s deepest secrets involving Southeast Asia. For you Viet vets reading here, you may want to look into America’s deal with Ho Chi Minh during the early 1940s as we bribed him to use his underground army alongside us to fight the Japanese, supplying his Viet Minh underground army, only to throw him to Peking and Moscow after he helped us defeat the Japanese in Southeast Asia.

What Ellsberg discovered bothered him, but as you’ll read in his book “Secrets”, he met an Indian woman with that “dot” on her forehead between her eyes, who had a conversation with him one afternoon which changed his life. She told him that her dialect in India did not contain a word for “enemy”, and that struck Ellsberg in a profound way, causing him to spiral into an inward journey into his own heart.  The book reads like a thriller as we read how he designed a plan to get actual copies of the study into safe hands in several States before “leaking” it to the New York Times.

We then learn how Nixon responded by getting a court to shut down the New York Times’ publication of this material, after which Ellsberg’s next-in-line newspaper picked up where the NYT left off and began publishing the material. When Nixon shut that paper down from printing it, low and behold a third newspaper picked up where that paper had left off, and repeat yet again as finally a fourth paper began publishing it and Nixon’s machine could not ultimately stop it from going public.  Ellsberg had planned the leak impeccably, as we’d expect from a highly-respected super dude at Rand Corporation.

Nixon was beside himself, as this study showed clearly that the Defense Department and the military-industrial complex had every intention of extending the war as long as they could get the American people to pay for it, meanwhile raking in huge profits while our soldiers were dying in a meaningless war which also killed two million Vietnamese peasants in their straw huts and their rice fields.

Nixon went berserk on the FBI, demanding they catch and arrest Ellsberg (I won’t repeat the names Nixon used to describe Ellsberg). The book details how he successfully evaded capture by the FBI. As I said, this book reads like a thriller, but it’s all true.

Secrets also has some choice excerpts from the Oval Office tapes which Nixon made famous, including one scene in which Nixon is talking with Kissinger about this problem of catching an elusive Ellsberg. The language on those tapes would make a Sailor blush. But Nixon couldn’t catch him, and Ellsberg finally turned himself in at the appropriate time, and then defeated the Nixon Administration in Federal court and walked away a free man.

This event was the singular most important turning point in the Vietnam war, for it exposed the intensely-high levels of corruption at the most powerful seats in Washington D.C., the Pentagon, and on Wall Street, all of whom had been deliberately lying to the American people big time.  Combined with Watergate, it cost Nixon the Presidency and he resigned in disgrace rather than face the Impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, which he knew he could not win.

So enjoy the new release of The Pentagon Papers, but you history buffs will certainly want to include a copy of Ellsberg’s “Secrets” in your collection.

Salute!

Elias Alias

USA PATRIOT ACT Sunsets Extension Act statements May 2011

June 10th, 2011

There is a remarkable point of interest brought out in this transcript of a Congressional hearing regarding extending the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001. I hope all readers here will read this carefully and ask the right questions after reading. One question might be: “Why would our government want to keep its interpretation of our law secret from the American people?”  – Posted by Elias Alias

-

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2011_cr/wyden052411.html

[Congressional Record: May 24, 2011 (Senate)]
[Page S3247-S3262]

PATRIOT SUNSETS EXTENSION ACT OF 2011--Motion to Proceed [...]
  Mr. WYDEN. Would my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. It seems to me the Senator has laid out the case
for  why there needs to be a thoughtful debate about the PATRIOT
Act and what is necessary to strike the key balance between
fighting  terrorism ferociously and protecting our liberties.
  I am interested in what my colleague thinks about the
proposition of how you have a thoughtful debate on these issues,
when there is secret law where, in effect, the interpretation
of the law, as it stands today, is kept secret. So here we are,
Senators on the floor, and we have colleagues of both political
 parties wanting to participate. 

Certainly, if you are an American, you are in Oregon or Colorado,
you are listening in, you want to be part of this discussion.
But yet the executive branch keeps secret how they are
interpreting the law. What is the Senator's sense about how we
have a thoughtful debate  if that continues?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The Senator from Oregon has put his
finger on why it is so important to have a debate on the floor
and not rush these provisions to the House because of a deadline
that I think we can push back. We can, as you know, extend
the PATRIOT Act in its present form a number of other days or
a number of weeks in order to get this right.   

But the Senator from Oregon makes the powerful point that the law
should not be classified--as far as its interpretation goes.
Of course, we can protect sources and methods and operations, as
we well should. Both of us serve on the Intelligence Committee.
We are privy to some information that should be classified. But
we have come to the floor to make this case because of what we
have learned on the Intelligence Committee.
[...]

 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before my colleague leaves the
Chamber, I wished to tell him what a welcome addition he has
been to the Intelligence Committee. I have served on that
committee for 10 years. We have had excellent chairs--first,
Senator Roberts, then Senator Rockefeller, Senator Feinstein.
  So we continue to try to look for bipartisan support for
trying to strike that balance between collective security
and individual liberty. I am struck both by the clarity of
your statement and the fact that those who are going to vote
on these amendments and the American people who are listening
in tonight ought to be able to get, in a straightforward,
easy-to-access fashion, how the executive branch is currently

interpreting the PATRIOT Act.   

   The fact is, law professors give assignments to their
students to write analyses of the PATRIOT Act. The
Congressional Research Service actually has an analysis
 out. But it is not possible to get the official
interpretation of how the U.S. Government frames this
law as far as the operations are so essential for our
country. The Senator has laid it out very well. It is
a pleasure to serve with him on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, let me sum up with what this issue has come
down to, to me.

 These are dangerous times. If you go into the Intelligence
Committee several times a week, as Senator Udall and I do, you
come away with the indisputable judgment that there are
threats to the well-being of this country, that there are
people who do not wish our citizens well. In these
dangerous times, the sources and methods of our antiterror 

operations absolutely must be kept secret. 

 That is fundamental to the work of the intelligence
community-- keeping the sources and methods of those who
serve us so gallantly secret and ensuring that they are
as safe as possible.  But while we protect those sources
and methods, the laws that authorize them should not be
kept secret from the American people. That is what this
is all about--whether the laws that authorize the 

operations that are so essential, which have been passed
by the Congress--that their interpretation should be
kept secret from the American people.
   I call it ``secret law.'' I want to say to this body,
yes, we need secret operations, but secret law is bad for our
democracy. It will undermine the confidence the American 

people have in our intelligence operations.

 You might recall that it was only a few years ago, during the
Bush administration, that they secretly reinterpreted the
warrantless wiretapping statutes to say that it was possible to
wiretap our people without a warrant. When it came out, it took
years to sort that out, with the executive branch and the
Congress working together. 

   I don't want to see that happen again.
So that is why I have joined Senator Udall in these
amendments, and we hope we can get bipartisan
support for what we are trying to do and especially
ensure that the official interpretation of the PATRIOT
Act, an important intelligent statute, is made public 

to the American people, and I think it can be done 

in a way without jeopardizing our sources and methods.

 One of the reasons Senator Udall, I, and others feel so
strongly about this is--and Senator Udall touched on this
--that this is a time when Congress should finally say we
are not just going to keep kicking the can down the road.
That is what has been done again and again over the last
decade. The PATRIOT Act was passed a decade ago, during a
period of understandable fear, having suffered in our
Nation the greatest terrorist attack in our history.So
the PATRIOT Act was born out of those great fears. 

  It seems to me that now is the time to revisit that and
ensure that a better job is done of striking the balance
between fighting terror and protecting individual liberty.
Unfortunately, every time over the last decade there has
been an effort to do just that --revisit this and strike a
better balance--we have had the same pattern; we have said
we just have to get it done quickly and we really don't
have any time to consider, for example, the thoughtful 

ideas Senator Udall has mentioned. I just don't think it
is time now to once again put off a real debate on the
PATRIOT Act for yet another always-distant day.  

  There is an irony about what this is all about, and
that is that Senators are going to want to consider
the amendments of Senator Udall--and I believe Senator
Paul is here, and others who care strongly about this.
It is awfully hard to have a thoughtful debate on these
specific amendments, whether it is the Leahy amendment,
the Paul amendment, the Udall amendment, or the ones we 

have together, if, in fact, you cannot figure out how the
executive branch is interpreting the law.
  An open and informed debate on the PATRIOT Act requires
that we get beyond the fact that the executive branch
relies on the secret legal interpretations to support
their work, and Members of the Senate try to figure out
what those interpretations are. 

 Here are the rules. If a U.S. Senator wants to go to the
Intelligence Committee--and I think Senator Udall touched
on this-- the Senator can go there and get a briefing.
Many Members of Congress, however, don't have staff
members who are cleared for those kinds of briefings.
Under Senate rules, it is not possible for Senators to
come down here and discuss what they may have picked
up in one of those classified briefings. 

  I just don't think, with respect to the legal interpretation,
that is what the American people believe we ought to be doing.
The American people want secret operations protected.
They understand what sources and methods are all about
and that we have to have secrecy, for example, for those
in the intelligence community to get the information we
need about sleeper cells and terrorist groups and threats
we learn about in the Intelligence Committee. 

   But that is very different from keeping these legal
interpretations secret. 

 In my view, the current situation is simply
unacceptable. The American people recognize
that their government can better protect national
security if it sometimes is allowed to operate in secrecy. 

  They certainly don't expect the executive branch to
publish every detail about how intelligence is collected.
Certainly, Americans never expected George Washington
to tell them about his plans for observing troop movement
at Yorktown. But Americans have always expected their
government to operate within the boundaries of publicly

understood law.
As voters, they certainly have a right to know how
the law is being interpreted so that the American people
can ratify or reject decisions made on their behalf.
To put it another way, Americans know their government will
sometimes conductsecret operations, but they 

[[Page S3260]] don't believe the government ought to 

be writing secret law. 

  The reason we have felt so strongly about this issue of secret
law is that it violates the trust Americans place in their
government and it undermines public confidence in government
agencies and institutions, making it harder to operate effectively.
I was on the Intelligence Committee, before Senator Udall joined
us, when Americans were pretty much stunned to learn the Bush
administration had been secretly claiming for years that
warrantless wiretapping was legal. My own view was that disclosure
significantly undermined the public trust in the Department of
Justice and our national intelligence agencies. Our phones were
ringing off the hook for days when the American people learned
about it. The Congress and executive branch had to retrench and
figure out how to sort it out.

   I certainly believe the public will be surprised again
when they learn about some of the interpretations of the
PATRIOT Act. Government officials cannot hope to indefinitely
prevent the American people from learning the truth. This
is going to come out, colleagues. It is going to come out
at some point, just as it came out during the Bush
administration about warrantless wiretapping. It is
going to come out. It is not going to be helpful to the
kind of dialog we want to have with the American people, 

an open and honest dialog, to just continue this practice 

of secret law.
  The reason I am offering or seeking to offer this amendment
with Senator Udall, Senator Merkley, and other colleagues
with respect to changing the practice of secret law is
that we have raised this issue numerous times--on the
Senate floor, in correspondence, in meetings with senior
administration officials--and I have been joined in the
past by other Senators, and we talked about it with
respect to the problem in the news media. But the 

problem persists and the gap between the public's
understanding of the PATRIOT Act and the government's
secret interpretation of it remains today. Once information
has been labeled "secret," there is a strong bureaucratic
tendency--it almost gets in the bureaucratic chromosomes
to keep it secret and not revisit the original decision.  

  So what Senator Udall and I and colleagues seek to do
is correct this problem. We seek to offer an amendment
that states that it is entirely appropriate for particular
intelligence collection techniques to be kept secret
but that the laws that authorize these techniques should
not be kept secret and should instead be transparent
to the public. We seek to offer an amendment that states
that U.S. Government officials should not secretly
reinterpret public laws and statutes in a manner that 

is inconsistent with the public's understanding of these
laws or describe the execution of these laws in a way
that misinforms or misleads the public.

  So under this proposal, the Attorney General and Director
of National Intelligence would--and we note
this--provide a classified report to the congressional
intelligence committees. It makes it clear that intelligence
collection continues to go forward, and our amendment
would simply require the Attorney General to publicly
lay out the legal basis for the intelligence activities 

described in the report. The amendment specifically directs
the Attorney General not to describe specific collection,
programs, or activities, but simply to fully describe
the legal interpretations and analyses necessary to
understand the government's official interpretation of 

the law.   

Let me close--I see colleagues waiting to speak--and say
that we can have honest and legitimate disagreements
about exactly how broad intelligence collection authorities
ought to be, and members of the public do not expect
to know all of the details about how those authorities
are used, but I hope each Senator would agree that
the law itself should not be kept secret and that
the government should always be open and honest with
the American people about what the law means. All
that Senator Udall and I seek to do, along with
other colleagues, is to restore some of that
openness and honesty in an area where it is now needed.
I hope colleagues on the floor of the Senate and in
the Obama administration will join in that effort.

 __________________________

[Congressional Record: May 24, 2011 (Senate)]
[Page S3281-S3286]
                   AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED 
  SA 339. Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
 Merkley, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1038, to extend
the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until June 1, 2015, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
       At the end, add the following:
     SEC. 3. REPORT ON INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES.
       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress
        that--        

(1) in democratic societies, citizens rightly expect that
 their government will not arbitrarily keep information secret
 from the public but instead will act with secrecy only in
 certain limited circumstances;
(2) the United States Government has an inherent
 responsibility to protect American citizens from foreign
 threats and sometimes relies on clandestine methods to learn
 information about foreign adversaries, and these intelligence
 collection methods are often most effective when they remain
 secret;
(3) American citizens recognize that their government may rely
 on secret intelligence sources and collection methods to
 ensure national security and public safety, and American
 citizens also expect intelligence activities to be conducted
 within the boundaries of publicly understood law;
(4) it is essential for the American public to have access
 to enough information to determine how government officials
 are interpreting the law, so that voters can ratify or reject
 decisions that elected officials make on their behalf;
 (5) it is essential that Congress have informed and open
 debates about the meaning of existing laws, so that members
 of Congress are able to consider whether laws are written
 appropriately, and so that members of Congress may be held
 accountable by their constituents;
 (6) United States Government officials should not secretly
 reinterpret public laws and statutes in a manner that is
 inconsistent with the public's understanding of these laws,
 and should not describe the execution of these laws in a way
 that misinforms or misleads the public;
 (7) On February 2, 2011, the congressional intelligence
 committees received a secret report from the Attorney General
 and the Director of National Intelligence that has been
 publicly described as pertaining to intelligence collection
 authorities that are subject to expiration under section 224
 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56; 115 Stat. 295);
 and
 (8) while it is entirely appropriate for particular
 intelligence collection techniques to be kept secret, the
 laws that authorize such techniques, and the United States
 Government's official interpretation of these laws, should
 not be kept secret but should instead be transparent to the
 public, so that these laws can be the subject of informed
 public debate and consideration.
 (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
 enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall publish in
 the Federal Register a report--
 (1) that details the legal basis for the intelligence
 collection activities described in the February 2, 2011,
 report to the congressional intelligence committees; and
 (2) that does not describe specific intelligence collection
 programs or activities, but that fully describes the legal
 interpretations and analysis necessary to understand the
 United States Government's official interpretation of the
 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801
 et seq.).
                                 ______

Secret Bilderberg Agenda in Switzerland June 9-12, 2011

THE BILDERBERG GROUP

The Bilderberg Group was founded by in 1954 at the Hotel Bilderberg Osterbeek at the invitation of Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, co-founder with David Rockefeller Group. The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 140 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and news media. The names of attendees are made available to the press, but the conferences are closed to the public and the media, and no press releases are issued.

* The Bilderberg website Very dry isn’t it?

The original conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg, near Arnhem in the Netherlands, from 29 May to 31 May 1954.

General view shows Hotel Suvretta, the venue of the Bilderberg Club annual meeting in St. Moritz ~2011~

Bilderberg: The Uber Powerful Global Elite

Meet Behind Closed Doors In St. Moritz

As the secret annual meeting of the elite Bilderberg group arrives in Switzerland, theories of world domination abound.

Protesters turned out for last year’s Bilderberg meeting (Rodt nytt)

By Anne Fournier
LE TEMPS/ Worldcrunch

ST. MORITZ – Dominique Strauss-Kahn will not be stepping out of a limousine this year. That much is sure about this year’s Bilderberg conference, which the former IMF chief, awaiting trial for alleged sexual assault of a hotel maid in New York, is said to have attended several times in the past. But little else is known about this secretly organized, unofficial meeting of some 100 powerful figures, slated to take place June 9-12 in a luxury hotel in the Grison station. Indeed, not even the dates of the gathering are confirmed.

The canton is to ensure the tranquility of its guests with the help of the Federal security service. Two of its ministers will take part in some of the discussions. But the canton is not commenting on the measures in place or the cost of the operation.

The Bilderberg group is one of the world’s most famous clubs, it gathers bankers, politicians, industrialists, media moves and shakers, scholars and billionaires in a different location each year, usually in Europe. All the attendees share one condition of membership: discretion.

Created in 1954 by Prince Bernhard of Holland in order to bring together European and American elites, this annual meeting is named after the hotel of the Dutch village Oosterbeek where it took place for the first time. Henry Kissinger, Helmut Schmidt, Gerhard Schröder, Daniek Vasella, the heads of Coca-Cola, Shell, Fiat and even the Queen of Holland are among the participants regularly mentioned. What do they do there? What do they want?

The Tonka Report

Real News In A Changing World

Archive for the ‘Secret Societies’ Category

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Do you think Bilderberger’s had anything to do with this disarray? - SJH

Breaking: Secret Bilderberg Agenda Leaked By Mole In Switzerland

June 9, 2011: Kurt Nimmo / Infowars.com - June 8, 2011

Alex Jones and Infowars.com have received inside information regarding the Bilderberg agenda now unfolding in the idyllic Swiss countryside.

According to AFP journalist and legendary Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker’s inside sources, the agenda now under review includes a number of critical issues at the top of the elite’s to-do list. These breakdown as follows: The elite are concerned that the American Congress may soon turn against the illegal and immoral invasion under humanitarian cover by NATO and the U.S. against the north African dictator Moammar Gaddafi.

As columnist Patrick Buchanan noted yesterday, Congress is rising in opposition to bogus wars launched by the executive branch in violation of the Constitution.

“Last week, House Speaker John Boehner had to scramble to cobble up a substitute resolution to prevent half his GOP caucus from joining with Democrats to denounce President Obama’s war in Libya as unconstitutional and to demand a total U.S. pullout in 15 days,” Buchanan wrote. More than a third of House Republicans voted to pull out of the NATO coalition attacking Gaddafi’s forces, in essence forcing a NATO withdrawal from the color revolution engineered civil war in that country.

In January, a former oil industry pastor revealed that his inside sources said oil prices will skyrocket – a fait accompli with gas prices at the pump now at historically high levels – as the global elite work behind the scenes to take down national economies. [Lindsey] Williams appeared on the Alex Jones Show to talk about new revelations that deal with the death of the dollar, exploding energy prices, and the engineered onset of order out of chaos revolution worldwide.

The elite now meeting behind closed doors in Switzerland are pushing for a wider war and incalculable suffering in the Middle East. The money masters have long profited from war and mass murder. Nathan Rothschild made a financial bet on Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo and while also funding the Duke of Wellington’s peninsular campaign against Napoleon. The House of Rothschild financed the Prussian War, the Crimean War and the British attempt to seize the Suez Canal from the French and also financed the Mexican War and the Civil War in the U.S.

In addition to worrying about Congress waking up to the Libyan scam, the global elite are also concerned about a diverse liberty movement that has grown exponentially with the help of an open and free internet. In response, the pocketed pawns in Congress have introduced a raft of bills over the last few months designed to take down the internet and blunt its impact as a medium for alternative news and information.

On April 1, 2009, the Senate introduced two bills, endangering a free and open internet: S. 773 Cybersecurity Act of 2009 and S. 778 to establish a White House cybersecurity czar. In addition, on September 20, 2010, S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced.

Early last month, an especially ominous bill was introduced in the Senate. Entitled Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011, PROTECT IP for short, this legislation would use copyright infringement as a smoke screen to take down web domains and institute rolling censorship.

On the international front, the European Commission gave a nod toward implementing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a draconian measure that will subvert national sovereignty, trash Net Neutrality, consumer privacy, and civil liberties. In the United States, the corporate media has virtually ignored ACTA, but then key players in the Mockingbird media are often Bilderberg attendees and privy to aspects of the agenda.

The above represent a small sampling of legislation and treaties that will be used to shut down the opposition under the cover of protecting copyright and preventing terrorism.

Hyperventilating over exaggerated threats of cybersecurity, Senator Jay Rockefeller mused during a congressional meeting on cyber crime and terrorism in 2009: “It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet.”

The globalists are not opposed to the internet, especially as a corporatized money-making instrument. They are, however, opposed to an open, free, and unregulated by government internet where alternative media opposed to their globalist devices are allowed to thrive.

In addition, we can expect minions of the global elite who parade around as our elected representatives and appointed government officials to continue their propaganda efforts to convince the American people that the internet will be used as a terrorist weapon of mass destruction and as such needs to be tightly regulated – for our own safety, of course, and that of the children.

Finally, the Bilderbergers will work on an effort to sucker an already economically besieged American public into further fantastic debt producing bankster bailouts, specifically for Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and other member EU nations sliding toward bankruptcy and social disruption on a monumental scale.

In late 2010, the U.S. Treasury, now operating as a liaison between the government and the bankster owned private Federal Reserve, indicated it was ready to fork over billions more to the European black hole. “There are obviously some severe market problems,” said a faceless bureaucrat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “In May, it was Greece. This is Ireland and Portugal. If there is contagion that’s a huge problem for the global economy.”

As of late 2010, the IMF, whose biggest single “shareholder” (read: parasitical host) is the United States, has committed 250 billion euros to the bankster engineered black hole. “Why should American taxpayers be on the hook because a foreign government cannot cover its debts?” asked Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, at a House subcommittee hearing last May.

Because the plan is to take down national sovereignty, impose drastic austerity measures, hold fire sales on national assets, consolidate wealth and power, and use an endless economic crisis as an excuse to usher in world government, a one-world currency, and a sprawling high-tech police state.

Bilderberg Security Erect Veil To Hide Identity Of Attendees

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: As the Bilderberg Group officially kicks off their annual globalist confab today, there will be more information forthcoming as these maniacal traitors plot out this year’s agenda. - SJH

Link to original article below…

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-secret-bilderberg-agenda-leaked-by-mole/

Written by Steven John Hibbs

June 9, 2011 at 11:41 am

Charlie Skelton’s Bilderblog

Bilderberg 2011: All aboard the Bilderbus

Swiss Politician Calls For Arrest Of Kissinger At Bilderberg Confab

Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet.com - June 6, 2011

Dominique Baettig calls on federal authorities to apprehend former US Secretary of State…

A prominent member of Switzerland’s largest political party has called upon federal authorities to arrest Henry Kissinger as a war criminal if he attends the 2011 Bilderberg conference of global power brokers which is set to begin on Thursday at the Hotel Suvretta House in St. Moritz.

.

Short history of Bilderberg

The group held its first meeting in 1954 at the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, at the instigation of Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. The annual meeting was originally intended to deepen ties between the countries of the Old Continent and the United States.

The Bilderberg organization hinges on three levels  : the organizing committee, run by a chairman and a secretary general, the inner circle, and finally the steering comittee (steering committee), which brings between 15 and 20 people.

The camera will be held from Thursday evening to Sunday noon . Plenary sessions which limited to 90 minutes.

Among the previous guest Swiss have mentioned in particular, Daniel Borel, Daniel Vasella, Pascal Couchepin, Michael Ringier, and Josef Ackermann and David de Pury.

---

Other Private Think Tanks

The Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 at the initiative of the main leaders of the Bilderberg Group and Council on Foreign Relations, including David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger. It brings together influential figures from 300 to 400, Western Europe, North America and Asia Pacific. Its purpose is to promote and build a political and economic cooperation between these three key areas of the world, poles of the Triad.

The Council on Foreign Relations ( Council on Foreign Relations or CFR) is a non-partisan U.S. group, which aims to analyze U.S. foreign policy and world politics. Founded in 1921, it consists of about 5000 members . Its headquarters is in New York, he has an office in Washington.
Among other influential groups, there is still the Boao Forum for Asia, the Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, the Council on Foreign Relations, the European Council and the Carnegie Peace.

In Switzerland, the captains of industry, and finance and some federal advisers (ministers) are found regularly at Nestlé headquarters in Vevey, for meetings Shore Queen. It is the former Federal Councillor Kaspar Villiger which establishes the list of participants.

• Images and records of meetings of the Bilderberg
• The notarisation Trilateral (English)
• The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (English)
• Blog of Francis Queen Siebenthal on Shore

S. 679 reduces number of Presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation

PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO SENATE APPROVAL

S. 679:

Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011

May 2, 2011
S. 679

Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011
As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs on April 13, 2011

S. 679 would reduce the number of Presidential appointees that require Senate
confirmation and establish a working group to consider ways to streamline the Presidential
appointment process. Based on information from federal entities involved in the
appointment process, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would have no significant
impact on the federal budget. Enacting S. 679 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.

S. 679 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.

The bill would reduce the number of Presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation
from about 1,200 (excluding judges) to around 1,000. The legislation also would eliminate
the statutory requirement that the Senate confirm several thousand commissioned officers
of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

CBO expects that enacting the bill could reduce the workloads of certain federal
employees; however, because those employees would probably be retained and assigned
other tasks, we estimate that implementing the legislation would lead to a negligible
reduction in spending subject to appropriation.

The legislation also would establish a working group to examine the process for
conducting background investigations of Presidential appointees and study ways to
streamline paperwork associated with the appointment process. Because the working
group would be staffed by existing government employees and unpaid experts, CBO
estimates that implementing this provision would have no significant cost.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by
Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

.

Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 – 2012)
S.679

Senator Charles Schumer (D–NY) and 15 co-sponsors 

Co-Sponsers of the Bill:

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE) Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Sen. John Reed (D-RI) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

.

Speed Up Nominations and Confirmations, but Do Not Enact S. 679

On March 30, 2011, Senator Charles Schumer (D–NY) with 15 cosponsors, including the Senate Majority and Republican Leaders, as well as six other Democratic Senators, six other Republican Senators, and an Independent Senator,[1] introduced in the Senate the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 (S. 679). The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Continue reading.

B a r a c k a c u s s t u s C a e s a r

The “Other Hand” has been busy while we have been perpetually distracted and diverted. The Illuminati puppets are staging their gameplan every day they arise. Wake Up and pay attention to what is going on. First of all, the Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself.

Senate Bill S679 giving Obama the Power of a Caesar/Dictator | Voting American

Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 to speed through the Senate and then make its way into the House and then to the President to sign.

.

Brought to you by your Democratically Controlled Senate

From the:  The Heritage Foundation

The bill reduces the number of presidential appointments that require the consent of the Senate and establishes within the executive branch a Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations. Individuals nominated to senior executive offices suffer slow and detailed background investigations and mounds of duplicative paperwork before a President sends their nominations to the Senate. After nomination, many nominees suffer time-consuming inaction or time-consuming and excruciating action as the Senate proceeds (or does not) with consideration of the nomination. The sponsors of S. 679 have identified a valid problem, but proposed the wrong solution. Congress should not enact S. 679.

When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power.

The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.

How’s this for Hope and Change?

If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove your not a Racist your going to have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove your not an Idiot!

.

Providing we still have Elections

.

SPECIAL REPORT: Symptoms of Tyranny, Oathkeepers in Arizona

SPECIAL REPORT: Symptoms of Tyranny, Oathkeepers in Arizona
Producer / Editor: Gary Franchi
Writers: Gary Franchi / Nina Police
Camera: Drew Phillips

An epidemic is sweeping the nation. In this special report, never seen on the mainstream news, we look at the symptoms of tyranny and take you to Arizona where the Oathkeepers converged to march for a fallen Marine. Jose Manuel Guerena was shot 61 times in his home when Pima County SWAT entered to serve a search warrant. You will get an inside look at the Oathkeepers memorial service where Stewart Rhodes and Sheriff Richard Mack spoke of the recent abuses, presented the widow with a plaque, and provided solutions on how you can overcome these symptoms of tyranny.

“I cannot think of a more unreasonable search than one that leaves you dead” – Stewart Rhodes – May 30, 2011

Jose Manuel Guerena