The company behind a new so-called 'invisibility cloak' says it will help protect tanks from heat-seeking missiles.
Naming Names: Your Real Government
When dark deeds unfold, point the finger in this direction.
This is your real government; they transcend elected administrations, they permeate every political party, and they are responsible for nearly every aspect of the average American and European's way of life. When the "left" is carrying the torch for two "Neo-Con" wars, starting yet another based on the same lies, peddled by the same media outlets that told of Iraqi WMD's, the world has no choice, beyond profound cognitive dissonance, but to realize something is wrong.
What's wrong is a system completely controlled by a corporate-financier oligarchy with financial, media, and industrial empires that span the globe. If we do not change the fact that we are helplessly dependent on these corporations that regulate every aspect of our nation politically, and every aspect of our lives personally, nothing else will ever change.
The following list, however extensive, is by far not all-inclusive. However after these examples, a pattern should become self-evident with the same names and corporations being listed again and again. It should be self-evident to readers of how dangerously pervasive these corporations have become in our daily lives. Finally, it should be self-evident as to how necessary it is to excise these corporations from our lives, our communities, and ultimately our nations, with the utmost expediency.
The North American Homeland Security Perimeter: A Threat to Canada's National Sovereignty
by Dana Gabriel
Global Research, December 19, 2011
After months of negotiations, the U.S. and Canada have unveiled new trade, regulatory and security initiatives to speed up the flow of goods and people across the border. The joint action plans provide a framework that goes beyond NAFTA and continues where the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) left off. This will take U.S.-Canada integration to the next level and is the pretext for a North American Homeland Security perimeter.
On December 7, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the Beyond the Border Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness Action Plan. The new deal focuses on addressing security threats early, facilitating trade, economic growth and jobs, integrating cross-border law enforcement, as well as improving infrastructure and cyber-security. It will act as a roadmap with different parts being phased in over the next several years. This includes the creation of various pilot projects. Many aspects of the agreement will also depend on the availability of funding from both governments. In addition, the two leaders issued a separate Regulatory Cooperation Council Action Plan that sets out initiatives whereby the U.S. and Canada will seek greater regulatory alignment in the areas of agriculture and food, transportation, environment, health, along with consumer products.
At a Joint News Conference, President Obama declared that, “Canada is key to achieving my goal of doubling American exports and putting folks back to work. And the two important initiatives that we agreed to today will help us do just that.” He went on to say, “we’re agreeing to a series of concrete steps to bring our economies even closer and to improve the security of our citizens.” Obama also added, “we’re going to improve our infrastructure, we’re going to introduce new technologies, we’re going to improve cargo security and screening.” Prime Minister Harper proclaimed that, “These agreements create a new, modern order for a new century. Together, they represent the most significant steps forward in Canada-U.S. cooperation since the North American Free Trade Agreement.” He explained that, “The first agreement merges U.S. and Canadian security concerns with our mutual interest in keeping our border as open as possible to legitimate commerce and travel.” Harper described how, “The second joint initiative will reduce regulatory barriers to trade by streamlining and aligning standards.”
Some of the measures found in the Beyond the Border action plan include conducting joint, integrated threat assessments; improving cooperative law enforcement capacity and national intelligence- and information-sharing; cooperating on research and best practices to prevent and counter homegrown violent extremism; working to jointly prepare for and respond to binational disasters and enhancing cross-border critical infrastructure protection and resilience. Other facets of the deal will work towards adopting an integrated cargo security strategy; implementing entry and exit verification; establishing and verifying the identity of foreign travellers to North America; better aligning Canadian and U.S. programs for low-risk travellers and installing radio frequency identification technology at key border crossings.
As part of the agreement, both countries will, “implement two Next-Generation pilot projects to create integrated teams in areas such as intelligence and criminal investigations, and an intelligence-led uniformed presence between ports of entry.” This will build on past joint law enforcement initiatives such as the Shiprider program and the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams. The Next-Generation pilot projects are scheduled to be deployed by the summer of 2012. In September, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed plans that would allow law enforcement officers to operate on both sides of the border. He announced that, “the creation of ‘NextGen’ teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.” Holder also commented that, “In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative, such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing abilities.”
In his article, How the U.S. blackmailed Canada, Gar Pardy stressed that as part of a North American security zone, “Canadian security institutions will be more closely integrated with those of the United States.” While addressing the Beyond the Border declaration and the subsequent action plan, he highlighted the fact that, “these are not formal treaties or even formal agreements, although there could be greater formality in the future.” Pardy also noted, “Nowhere in the documentation resulting from the two meetings are there suggestions the people of Canada will be provided with detailed information on which judgments can be made on the wisdom of this consensual agreement negotiated in the backrooms of both capitals.” Instead he cautioned that, “the troublesome details implicit in the agreement will be hidden behind the wall of national security.” Pardy argued that in the process, “Canada sold its national security independence in exchange for hoped-for minor changes to American border restrictions.” He concluded that, “It is not an overstatement to suggest the United States blackmailed the government of Canada into making this deal. It was the American way or no way.”
The Council of Canadians have also strongly rejected the new border deal. They have challenged the notion that, “proper privacy protections can be achieved between Canada and the U.S. without significantly diluting stronger Canadian laws and norms.” Citing privacy concerns associated with the U.S. Patriot Act, the organization emphasized that, “the proposed new entry-exit system for travellers needs the greatest scrutiny by Canadian parliamentarians, security and privacy experts.” The Council of Canadians also criticized, “the government for hiding behind a sham public consultation and implying that this should clear the way for implementation of the action plan.” In August, the Conservative government released two reports which summarized online public input received concerning regulatory cooperation, as well as perimeter security and economic competitiveness. While improving the movement of trade and travel was the priority for business groups, many individuals expressed concerns over the loss of sovereignty, along with the protection of personal information.
When it comes to regulatory convergence, Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians agreed that, “Standardization can be a good thing when standards are high,” She conceded, “The problem is standards aren’t higher in the U.S. in many cases.” Barlow also acknowledged that, “Already Health Canada and other agencies consider harmonization with U.S. standards to be a more important consideration than the real safety of our food. This perimeter deal cements that skewed priority list.” There are fears that it could erode any independent Canadian regulatory capacity and weaken existing regulations. Part of the SPP agenda called for improving regulatory cooperation which resulted in Canada raising pesticide limits on fruits and vegetables. Regulatory integration threatens Canadian sovereignty and democracy. Further harmonization with the U.S. could result in Canada losing control over its ability to regulate food safety. This could also lead to a race to the bottom with respect to other regulatory standards.
By all accounts, big business is the winner in the new trade and security perimeter deal. Maude Barlow explained that, “this process has been set up to accommodate one sector of our community and that is big business.” In advance of the action plans being unveiled to the public, business stakeholders were briefed on the specifics. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an organization that lobbies the government on behalf of Canada’s largest corporations has given it their stamp of approval. The U.S. and Canadian Chambers of Commerce also applauded the new vision for border and regulatory cooperation. When it comes to negotiations on the border security agreement, Barlow confirmed that, “the big business community was the only sector at the table with government and guided the process from the beginning.” This was also the case with the now defunct SPP. Big business was a driving force behind the initiative which led to the creation of the North American Competitiveness Council to ensure that corporate interests were being addressed.
In her article, Maude Barlow also warned that when it comes to the perimeter deal, “Canada is essentially giving up policy control in the key areas of privacy, security, immigration and surveillance in order to entice the U.S. to loosen controls at the border.” She stated, “it is likely to lead to a wholesale replacement of Canadian privacy and security standards with American ones, set by Homeland Security.” When it comes to information being collected and stored, Barlow questioned whether it will be, “used as a form of social control, to identify not terrorists, but activists and dissenters of government policy.” She insisted that, “We must call on our government to create a full public and Parliamentary debate before this deal becomes operational.” From the beginning, the whole process has lacked transparency with no congressional or parliamentary oversight. This has drawn comparisons to the SPP which was shrouded in secrecy and fueled by fears over the loss of sovereignty that finally led to its downfall. We can only hope that this latest endeavour will meet the same fate. With the 2012 U.S. election cycle about to get into full swing, the new bilateral deal could get lost in the shuffle.
While the perimeter agreement is being sold as vital to the safety and prosperity of Canadians and Americans alike, there is little doubt that it will mean a tradeoff between sovereignty and security. Any deal which gives the Department of Homeland Security more personal information poses a serious risk to privacy rights. As both countries move forward, perimeter security will be further defined and dominated by American interests. This could force Canada to comply with any new U.S. security measures, regardless of the dangers they may pose to civil liberties. A North American Homeland Security perimeter goes well beyond keeping people safe from any perceived threats. It is a means to secure trade, resources, as well as corporate interests and is a pretext for control over the continent. Ultimately, the U.S. wants the final say on who is allowed to enter and who is allowed to leave.
Cuba's supreme governing body has pardoned nearly 3,000 prisoners, including some convicted of political crimes, though no mention was made of jailed American government subcontractor Alan Gross, whose case has become a sticking point between Havana and Washington.
Before you believe all the hype and propaganda and decide to support a war on Syria and iran, think on the following.
Which government exported all your jobs ?
Which Government gave away the money homes and futures of you and your kids ?
Which government imported in swathes of foreign nationals to mop up the few jobs and homes left ?
Which government is chemtrailing you daily with a toxic chemical cocktail crop spray mix from high altitude aircraft ?
Which government lied to you about Iraq ? Vietnam ? Korea and W W II ?
Which government poisons its own citizens drinking water with flouride and chlorine ?
Which government allows GM frankenfoods to secretly be put on your supermarket shelves ?
Which government sent the bodies of U S soldiers to be secretly dumped in landfill ?
Which government is forcing Homosexuality onto you and your families ?
Which government is trying to wipe out the Anglo Saxon race ?
so to these ten questions, is the answer Syria and Iran, or is it our own government here in Washington ?
Why should we go fight an illegal war for a criminal government out to destroy its own people ?
truth is we wont, Israel can send its own people in, we will not fight another war for Israel, and with 74 UN violations
many are hoping Syria and Iran will win.
Karen Foster and other US service people
The Globalization of War - GRTV Backgrounder
Russian navy in Syria: Thorn in US side
Arab League calls on Syria: Opposition isn’t listening
'US targeting Russian nuclear facilities'
A prominent political activist says that the deployment of a US-led NATO missile system in Europe "is actually aimed at Russia's nuclear capability", and not intended for Iran's ballistic missiles.
An interview with Dmitry Babich from the Russia Profile Magazine
Moscow, eyeing U.S. missile defense plans, announces work on 100-ton “monster” missile
During campaign season, it never hurts for a presidential candidate facing a frustrated public to display toughness and resolve in the face of an old and familiar adversary. And it also doesn't hurt to throw in some shock-and-awe--say, a ballistic missile nicknamed "Satan."
U.S. Intensifies Military Posture Against Russia In Arctic
The colder war: U.S., Russia and others are vying for control of Santa’s back yard
The Arctic region — covering more than 30 million square kilometers and stretching around the territorial borders of Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Norway, Russia and the United States by way of the Alaskan coastline — is transforming before our eyes. And not just because the ice is melting. It’s increasingly the site of military posturing, and the United States isn’t keeping up with the rest of the world.
Russia slams US Global Online Freedom Act as ‘Cold War scheme’
20 December, 2011
The online freedom bill proposed in the US seeks to regulate the web activities of foreign countries and businesses by imposing its own unilateral standards, says Russia’s Foreign Ministry. Moscow insists the UN is the place to pass global laws.
The projected Global Online Freedom Act states that the US State Department will have to review annually the list of countries “restricting Internet freedom.”
The bill would ultimately block the export of American software and hardware to the counties on the blacklist. A license would be required to export products when the end-user was a government.
“It seems as if some members of the American establishment are taking a confrontational mentality and surviving schemes of the Cold War to web technologies. The US is again trying to take the role of the supreme regulator and ‘the ruler of destinies,’” says Aleksandr Lukashevich in an official comment on the of Russian Foreign Ministry website.
Russia is calling for an international discussion on online freedom of speech, without “taking unilateral actions, but cooperating to work out a unified document under UN sponsorship,” said the Russian diplomat on Monday.
A sample of such a unified document is already there: An International Code of Conduct for Information Security has been proposed by Russia, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as a formal UN document for the latest session of the General Assembly.
BAGHDAD (AP) — A wave of at least 14 bombings ripped across Baghdad Thursday morning, killing at least 60 people in the worst violence in Iraq for months. The apparently coordinated attacks struck days after the last American forces left the country and in the midst of a major government crisis between Shiite and Sunni politicians that has sent sectarian tensions soaring.
The bombings may be linked more to the U.S. withdrawal than the political crisis, but all together, the developments heighten fears of a new round of Shiite-Sunni sectarian bloodshed like the one a few years back that pushed Iraq to the brink of civil war.
Breaking: Patriot Missiles Seized, Sold To China by Israel
Iron Dome Defense Missiles Seized by Finland, Labeled “Fireworks”
69 Newest Patriot Missiles Bound For Reds
Finnish authorities have confirmed the seizure of 69 Patriot missiles manufactured by Raytheon Corporation today.
During a routine search of the MS Thor Liberty, a ship flagged by the Isle of Man, at the Finnish port of Kotka, authorities found 69 Patriot missiles of a type capable of intercepting ICBMs, the most modern available and America’s most sensitive military technology.
A photograph of what is reported to be a new Chinese stealth fighter and “carrier-killer” missile has prompted concerns that a tilt in the balance of military power in the western Pacific towards China may come sooner than expected.
The emergence of the hi-tech weaponry – which would make it more difficult for the US navy and air force to project power close to Taiwan and elsewhere on China’s coastline – comes at a politically sensitive time.
FORT MEADE, Maryland (Reuters) - The U.S. Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking classified files to the WikiLeaks website gave enemies "unfettered access" to government secrets, a military prosecutor said on Thursday, but a defense lawyer said the soldier had done no harm.
These two examples showcase the ineptness, failure, and incompetence of the very United Nations created to prevent just such illegal, unjust and immoral genocidal acts by one nation against another committing unimaginable war crime, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression.
Our world has indeed become an Israeli-centric planet where Israel’s interest have become the focal point and obsession of all governments, no where more so than in the United States where Israel’s interests form the basis of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. U.S. Presidents usually appoint Jewish Zionists to the National Security Council to direct MidEast policy. Is it any wonder that with U.S. backing Israel has rejected every U.N. Resolution, every International initiative or peace process, even opposing America’s national interests, the very hand that feeds, arms, and protects it.
The U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, speaking to the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) on September 6, 2011 publicly admitted what the entire world already knows; that U.S. foreign policy is an Israeli formulated policy that only serves Israel, not the United States.
“The first is this: the test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel’sfuture as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government, even while approaching the U.S.-Israel relationship and regional challenges from a variety of perspectives…..The test of our policy – that it advances Israel’s status as a secure, Jewish, democratic state – also explains our commitment to vigorously battle against those who would attempt to isolate or delegitimize Israel in the international community.”
Many American politicians, diplomats, military officials, academicians, journalists and national organizations have been saying this for decades, but they’ve been denied any media exposure to address the power of Israel and its lobby, mainly A.I.PA.C., on the U.S. government.
“President Bill Clinton, said AIPAC was “better than anyone at lobbying in this town,” or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who called it “the most effective general-interest group … across the entire planet.” Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) said upon his retirement that “you can’t have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here,” (Quote from Professor Stephen Walt, “The Mythical Power of the Arab Lobby”, Dec.9, 2010)
The member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization released a strong message warning that European missile defense and unilateral military action may work to destabilize international security and strategic stability around the world.
The harsh statement was released by President Dmitry Medvedev and his counterparts from Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in Moscow on Tuesday.
The leaders made specific mention of the missile defense system that the United States is currently constructing in Eastern Europe, just miles from the Russian border.
"The unilateral deployment of strategic missile defense systems by one state or a group of states without due account for the lawful interests of other countries and without extending legally-binding guarantees to the latter may damage international security and strategic stability in Europe and the world as a whole," the statement by the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) read.
Moscow has repeatedly warned the US and NATO that the missile defense system, without Russia’s participation in the expansive project that promises to expand technologically and spatially by 2018, will be viewed as a direct security threat.
CSTO, a security alliance that was signed into force in May 1992, made a thinly veiled comment regarding NATO's military operation in Libya when it mentioned the "increasing tendency for military intervention" in countries that are experiencing domestic crises.
"Since the [collective security] Agreement was signed, international relations have been increasingly characterized by a rise in tensions. Serious concern is being caused by the…tendency for military intervention in critical situations," the CSTO said on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Collective Security Agreement and the tenth anniversary of the CSTO.
The leaders agreed that internal problems inside of sovereign states are giving particular countries a green light to break international law and exert military pressure.
"We are alarmed by the attempts to bypass the commonly recognized principles of international law by taking advantage of the temporary difficulties of certain countries and peoples," the document said.
The security alliance then gave special attention to Afghanistan, where NATO has been engaged in a bruising battle against Taliban forces for the past decade.
Of particular concern is “the deteriorating situation in the Afghanistan, which borders with the Organization's responsibility zone,” it said. "We believe that achieving peace and stability in Afghanistan is one of the main factors of ensuring regional and international security. We are calling for building Afghanistan as a peaceful, prosperous, independent and neutral state."
Finally, the leaders of the CSTO agreed that the deployment of foreign bases in their territory is only possible with the consent of all CSTO partners.
Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev said "an accord has been reached to coordinate the deployment, in the territory of the CSTO states, of military infrastructure facilities belonging to non-CSTO states."
"In order to deploy military bases of a third country in the territory of the CSTO member-states, it is necessary to obtain the official consent of all its members," said Nazarbayev, who took over the rotating presidency of the Organization from Belarus.
President Medvedev said the decision on the deployment of military bases of third countries in the territory of the CSTO member states only with the consent of CSTO partners was an important measure for consolidating the Organization.
"Reaching these accords is very important for consolidating the position within the CSTO," the Russian leader said.
I believe it is very important that all the parties have reached consensus, Medvedev added.
Military Wives Choir have hit song with 'Wherever you are'
But what about the innocent civilians your husbands and loved ones are killing or helping to kill and maim?
I understand that these women miss their partners and are concerned for their safety. I understand why they have been programmed to believe that their pawns in uniform are making a difference to the world. But what are their partners actually doing? Killing, maiming and enslaving innocent people and fighting fake enemies without question just because a 'superior' or coward in a dark suit thousands of miles away tells them that they must.
A David versus Goliath story wherein Monsanto terrorizes innocent family farmers, and one Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser (and some others), stand up to Monsanto (lost $400,000 in court costs, plus his seeds and crop;his entire business!)
Thousands of farmers face this kind of corporate terrorism.
Monsanto is even trying to contaminate the gene-pool with their genetically modified organisms (GMOs) so they can control access to all seeds !
Monsanto is also involved in many efforts of bio-piracy and trying to patent genetic lines that have been developed over thousands of years.
State of Homelessness in America 2011
This comprehensive examination not only reveals national and state level homeless counts, but also delves into economic indicators and demographic drivers – taking an in-depth look at risk factors for homelessness. Built upon the most recent nationally available data from the federal Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Justice, and other public information sources, this report analyzes the effect the recession has had on homelessness and how it has contributed to an increased risk of homelessness for many Americans. Read on click here
Another face of the U.S. recession: homeless children
How does anyone explain to kids like Aeisha and countless others how they wound up homeless in the world's richest nation?
"These are people without a previous psychiatric history who are coming in and telling us they've lost their jobs, they've lost sometimes their homes, they can't provide for their families, and they are becoming severely depressed," said Dr. Felicia Smith, director of the acute psychiatric service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.