Seventy-one rounds of ammo were unloaded in seven second on Jose Guerena, an ex-Marine who served two tours of Iraq.
The gunfire wasn’t unleashed by insurgents from opposing military forces, however. The 60 bullets that entered Guerena’s body were fired by an Arizona SWAT team as Guerena’s wife Vanessa and their four-year-old son Juan hid in a closet at around 9:30 am on a Thursday morning. It happened only earlier this month in their Tuscon, Arizona-area home.
According to police, the Guerena residence was targeted in an investigation surrounding home invasions and drug rip-offs. Police says their house was among those “identified as locations where these activities were being carried out from.” What hard evidence they have for this has not been disclosed.
What we do know, more or less, is that Vanessa heard noises and saw a man outside their window on the morning of May 5. She woke her husband up, who then grabbed a rifle and walked toward the kitchen. There he was shot dozens of times within the mere moments after. Guerena’s possession of the AR-15 was completely legal and it was never fired.What followed immediately was a poorly-handed 911 call dialed by Mrs. Guerena as she watched her husband grunt on the ground in front of his family, gasping his last breaths of life. She pled with the emergency operators to send help for five minutes while they deemed her “hysterical.” Once they did arrive, it was an hour and 14 minutes before EMTs were allowed access to the wounded Guerena; the SWAT team wouldn’t allow them near.
Mrs. Guerena is now widowed and her two children, Jose and Joel, will enter the first grade without a father.
“I never thought he could be killed by police after he served his country," Vanessa Guerena says.
"We were so worried when he was over there fighting terrorism, but he gets shot in his own home," says Reyna Ortiz, a family relative, to ABC News. "The government killed one of their own."
In the days since the shooting, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department has changed their story several times. First Guerena fired a weapon; then he didn’t. As of May 19, the Sheriff’s Department has remained relatively mum on what was seized from the home and why they were there in the first place. The latest out of their department was a scold against the media—for “questioning the legality” of the shooting.
Originally police attested that Guerena fired a gun. Further investigations reveal that his rifle was locked in safety mode and that his single shot was actually just an initial misfire from a deputy’s gun. They claim to have removed body armor from the home, but as the lawyer representing the Guerena estate says, there was nothing in the house warranting a raid, let alone opening fire.
Guerena family attorney Christopher Scileppi says the pieces don’t fit. “They found nothing in the house that was illegal," he says. Disallowing medical attention was "nonsense," Scileppi says, noting that an ambulance was on the scene in minutes but Guerena remained unattended for another hour.
“I think it was poor planning, overreaction and now they're trying to CYA," says Scileppi, referencing the professional (mis)practice of “covering your ass” in an effort to protect oneself after an unfavorable aftermath.
And while PCSD officials have yet to provide a legitimate and logical reason for the execution of Mr. Guerena, it is only a sampling of an injustice and unnecessary use of excessive force by SWAT teams—an epidemic that is happening daily around America yet rarely reported.
A Buffalo, NY man was woken up by authorities with assault weapons drawn last month, allegedly for downloading child pornography. While he laid on his floor and was chastised by officials—called a creep and blatantly accused of crimes he did not commit—he remained clueless. They had the wrong guy. In 2008, a resident of Berwyn Heights, MD was interrogated in his underwear in his home for several hours after he brought a FedEx package containing marijuana—and addressed to his wife—into his home. The SWAT team shot both his dogs. The accused—Cheye Calvo—was the mayor of the town.
In a 2006 book from Reason Magazine’ Radley Balko, he says, "There's an old Cold War saying commonly attributed to Winston Churchill…that goes, 'Democracy means that when there's a knock on the door at 3 a.m., it's probably the milkman.' The idea is that free societies don't send armed government agents dressed in black to raid the private homes of citizens for political crimes."
Regardless, in the “freest country in the world,” raids like these are becoming more and more commonplace. In Guerena’s case, unfortunately, an American hero was executed in his own home for no good reason.
Americans are enduring what many are calling a historic economic collapse. Yet most have no understanding of what is going on or what caused this to happen.
The economy and policy are overshadowed by entertainment and fluff news. The US media is failing to deliver the story behind the collapse to the American.
American TVs and newspapers are full of sex scandals, humorous debacles and entertainment hype. The reality of the economic concerns faced by most Americans are not being covered – leaving most Americans in the dark about what exactly is going on or what the future may truly hold.
Senior analyst Max Fraad Wolff from Greencrest Capitol explained that rise in low income industries and an erosion of the middle class and unions has led to a steady decline in the overall economy and job market.
This affects the ability of Americans to own homes, pay for healthcare and eventually retire. As costs rise and incomes decline, the people suffer.
Presently there are more Americans on welfare, food stamps and unemployment than ever before. Many people have maxed out their access to benefits and are unable to receive any government support. Due to budget cuts more and more states are cutting benefits offered to those in need, driving up the poverty and homelessness rates.
The Average person getting out of college now has tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and yet is earning less than someone would have if they graduated ten years ago.
Majority of middle class Americans cannot afford college any longer. Tuition rates are high and the prospect of debt is daunting from both loans and credit cards.
“The credit card debt has gotten out of control for some people,” Wolff added. “People use their credit cards to live and it’s the most important thing because when their credit card gives out they literally can’t keep going to the store and buying diapers and cleaning solution, toilet paper and food.”
One out of every 7 Americans has at least 10 credit cards, according to The Business Insider.
Meanwhile many of the members of the US Congress are very wealthy. Many are millionaires, but all are at least above middle class.
“It may be a conflict of interest of interest,” noted Wolff. “The average person in Congress spends almost half of their time raising money.”
Secret Service Interrogates 13-year-old over Facebook Comment...
Following the killing of Osama Bin Laden 13-year-old Vito LaPinta posted on his Facebook that US President Barack Obama should be cautious because terrorists may want to retaliate. The Secret Service sprang into action!
“I was saying how Osama was dead and for Obama to be careful because there could be suicide bombers,” explained LaPinta.
His goal was to express concern, but Obama’s Secret Service took it as a threat.
About a week after his post the Secret Service showed up at LaPinta’s school. He was escorted to the principal’s office where he was greeted by the principal and a Secret Service agent who informed him he had made a threat against the US President.
“He told me it was because of a post I made that indicated I was a threat toward the President. I was very scared,” LaPinta recalled to Seattle’s Q13 FOX.
The boy’s mother was not present and not even informed until after her son was already being questioned. The school called here, but proceeded anyway, arguing that the mother was not taking the call seriously.
“I answered it, and it's the school security guard who's giving me a heads up that the Secret Service is here with the Tacoma Police Department and they have Vito and they're talking to him,” said Timi Robertson, LaPinta’s mother. “I just about lost it. My 13-year-old son is supposed to be safe and secure in his classroom and he's being interrogated without my knowledge or consent privately.”
By the time Robertson arrived her son had been interrogated for about a half an hour without her presence or consent.
Once she arrived at the school the agent quit the interview and informed LaPinta that he was not in any trouble. It is unclear why they waited so long and the Secret Service has refused to comment on the matter.
Democracy Promotion: America’s New Regime Change Formula...
Courtesy of rt.com
Washington’s formula for regime change underwent a makover in the 1980s. In a bid to ensure US political and economic interests were safeguarded, CIA backed coup d’états ousted democratically elected leaders from Iran to Chile.
Washington’s formula for regime change underwent a makover in the 1980s. In a bid to ensure US political and economic interests were safeguarded, CIA backed coup d’états ousted democratically elected leaders from Iran to Chile.
In their place were brutal dictatorships and governments that committed heinous crimes against their people.
By the 1980s, the reign of terror that blazed across Latin America was too much for most people to stomach. From death squads to torture chambers and various massacres, the Latin American generals who trained in the US to spread democracy around the world quickly gained reputations for major human rights abuses.
To replace the overt support for dictatorships, a new concept for regime change was born; one that sounds and looks better – democracy promotion.
The concept of democracy promotion is simple; finance, train, and politically back local opposition forces around the world that support the American agenda.
Dr. William Robinson is one of the foremost experts on Washington’s democracy promotion initiatives, he wrote the book ‘Promoting Polyarhcy.’
“In Latin America, in Eastern Europe with the Velvet Revolutions, in Africa, in the Middle East, really all over the world, the U.S. set up these different mechanisms now for penetrating these civil societies in the political systems of countries that are going to be intervened and to assure the outcome is going to be pleasing to Washington's foreign policy objectives,” said Robinson.
Lawrence Wilkerson, the former Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “We do this through surrogates and nongovernmental organization and through people who are less suspecting of the evil that may lurk behind their actions than perhaps they were before. Have we learned some lessons in that regard? You bet! Do we do it better? You bet? Is it still just as heinous as it has always been? You bet!”
So while the goal remains the same, it’s no longer the CIA but the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and its partners spearheading the effort.
Allen Weintein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) explained to the Washington Post in 1991, "A lot of what we do now was done covertly by the CIA 25 years ago.”
And like the CIA, USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy and a number of similar organizations receive funding from Congress.
“Millions and millions of U.S. tax payer dollars go every year into funding for political organizations and campaigns in different countries in the world that promote US agenda. Most U.S. citizens are unaware of the fact that that is how their money is being spent, to meddle, and to influence and to interfere in other nation’s affairs,” said Eva Golinger who has been investigating the US’s democracy promotion efforts in Venezuela.
The concept of facilitating regime change through democracy promotion has garnered wide criticism not just abroad but also at home in the United States.
Congressman Ron Paul once wrote "It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections 'promoting democracy.' How would we Americans feel if for example the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China?"
“I think it’s terrible, we use taxpayer’s money to go over and use our military and the CIA these programs that say ‘this is what you outta do’ and influence them. There is no authority for that, it doesn’t work, it teaches a lot of people to despise us,” Congressman Paul told RT.
Funding and how it operates
Democracy promotion has been a long standing element of US foreign policy. It operates as a key component of soft power linked to the diplomacy apparatus of Washington.
“The moneys go from the U.S. State because we need to see this starts with the U.S. state.They go into the country that is going to be intervened and inside that country they identify a series of groups that are going to receive this money but also receive this kind of political influence that comes with giving money and comes with on the ground operatives tied to this money,” explained Robinson. “When the U.S. starts an interventionist program, they identify the different sectors it wants to organize.So it’s identifies the trades union movement and where are the pliant parts, the objective is to marginalize radical trade unions and bolster conservative trade unions.They identify women movements, marginalize radical movements and mobilize conservative women moments.Then they do the same with youth.All sectors of civil society will be identified and those that can be brought on board to the US interventionist project will be brought on board and funded.”
One of many examples is the color revolutions in Eastern Europe.
“As I saw happen for example in Ukraine, as I saw happen in Georgia, as I see happening in other places too, they don’t just propagandize or attempt to help with words and rhetoric that opposition, they actually do things that give that opposition more power,” said Wilkerson, recalling the involvement of USAID and NED.
William Blum, a US historian and the author of the book “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since WW II” said, “They copy from one area to another, the first one that was successful was the one in Serbia and they borrowed things from that revolution.Certain slogan, symbols and colors, and they use it again and again.”
Analysts recall the similarities in the color revolutions where youth groups were energized, rock bands lined up, and laser shows put on. The movements were marketed as cool.
“The objective was to make them into a national passion, a national fad if you well,” said Blum.
Student leaders of the Serbian youth group Otpor who played a key role in the 2000 ousting of Slobodan Milosevic met 7 to 10 times with officials from USAID affiliates, according to the NY Times. The same group also received several hundred thousand dollars for demonstration material, t-shirts and stickers.
On the other side of the world, in Latin America, some of the most active and capable programs have and continue to flourish in countries where Capitalism isn’t the agenda.
Blum contends, “Venezuela, easily, that is the place where they send the most money.Chavez is enemy number one.
One opposition lawmaker that has been a key figure in Washington’s democracy promotion model in Venezuela is Maria Corina Machado; a woman who is by many standards and to plenty of critics, a product of US interventionism.Machado rose to fame with an NGO known as Sumate, an organization that received hundreds of thousands of dollars from USAID and NED. Sumate led fierce campaigns against democratically elected President Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution, including a referendum against the President in 2004.
“In our case, we did receive funding from NED as did several, tens of organizations here in Venezuela,” Machador confessed.
Like Georgia’s Saakashvili, foreign financing bolstered Machado's image on the national and international stage, even granting her a meeting with President George W. Bush.
“This is about promoting an individual; this is about promoting someone who has the capacity to rise to power and share US agenda,” said Golinger.
Since 2000, USAID has activated more than 620 programs in Venezuela alone, costing up to $20 million dollars.
In 2002, a government document from USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives explained a possible coup against Chavez was in the making. The author of the memo, OTI director Russell Porter wrote about the urgency of “sending an assessment team to Venezuela as soon as possible with a prejudice toward starting an active program to support civil society and the media.”
Another 2003 declassified memo drafted by USAID’s OTI in relation to the 2004 referendum said, “the overarching strategic objectives of the program remain the same: that is supporting the continuation of stable, free-market orientated democracy in Venezuela.”
Other documents declassified through Freedom of Information Acts show USAID affiliates NDI and IRI were awarded $500,000 each for campaign schools in Venezuela.These campaign school s were responsible for campaign strategy and organization, message development, outreach, fund-raising, public relations, get-out the-vote techniques, and candidate selection. That same cable also cites the importance of co-opting Venezuela’s poor, with the barrios as the main target. The barrios have long been known as Chavez strongholds.
In Latin American, democracy promotion programs target governments or organizations that have a socialist, anti-free market leaning.
The President of NED Carl Gershman insists democracy promotion does not mean regime change.
“To him [Gershman], Democracy equates to Capitalism, the idea of socialism and democracy is alien to him, if he is working against a socialist government or movement, he is working for democracy,” said Blum.
Funding democracy with US taxpayer dollars
Democracy, US-style, doesn't come cheap. Most of the money flows to forces in line with US interests. Washington has spent a far amount of money spread democracy worldwide.
“We’re talking here about hundreds of millions of dollars, and over the years since this policy was consolidated, we’re talking about billions. The State Department will have an appropriation of several billion dollars for what it called the Office of Transition Initiatives. The Congress will have an appropriation hundreds of millions of dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID will have its own budget as well,” said Robinson.
Over the past two decades, USAID has spent 9 billion dollars promoting Washington’s democracy initiatives.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) received $132 million dollars during 2009; nearly all of the money came from U.S. government agencies.
However, USAID and NED are not the only ones. There is an entire network of organizations involved in the democracy promotion business such as the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the American Center for International Labor, the Center for International Private Enterprise and Freedom House.
But these are just the tip of the iceberg. There’s an entire network of organizations involved in the democracy promotion business.
Although all the organizations insist there is no political affiliation, the board of directors for both NDI and IRI suggest otherwise.
Both boards consist of former Secretaries of State, national security advisers, members of Congress, and even Clinton, Bush and Reagan administration officials.
They all have a history in Washington. One deeply rooted in sustaining the current foreign policy priorities.
Blum said, “to understand US foreign policy, one must understand a very basic fact; the US government wants to dominate the world."
He insists the soft money working behind scenes is directly linked to the CIA.
“They had to have a new organization with a nice sounding name, with the word democracy, which would be free of the taint of the CIA, and that’s why the NED was created,” Blum added.
One of the key areas the democracy promotion network has invested in is Central America, where there is a rising tide in leftist, socialist ideologies.
According to the North American Congress on Latin America, USAID’s latest $2 million disbursement to Honduras was based on proposals to make the Central American country economically competitive on the global market.Since 2004, the United States has spent over $18 million on democracy promotion in Honduras.
While USAID requests $800,000 for more democracy promotion programs in Honduras for FY 2011, journalists and activists are being brutalized and killed under the U.S. backed government
In Egypt, a revolt against the US backed policies of Hosni Mubarak regime has mobilized these agencies to co-opt opposition groups to ensure the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections are beneficial to Washington.
Wael Nawara of the opposition party Al Ghad told RT funding and guidance from NED, NDI, IRI and USAID has increased in the past two years, and that NDI and IRI are operating in Egypt illegally.
Other countries the US has intervened in include the Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador, Kyrgyzstan, and the Palestinian territories.
The USAID has implemented so called democracy promotion initiatives in over 100 countries in the past 25 years. This year’s budget is $1 billion dollars. According to USAID’s website, spending $10 million in a target country increases its amount of democratic change fivefold.
Blum insists there is pure hypocrisy in Washington’s democracy promotion agenda. "We have a very clear law on the books prohibiting foreign governments from interfering in our elections of supporting any candidates with money.So we do exactly abroad what we prohibit here at home,” he said.
Encouraging transparency is a stated core element of the US government’s democracy promotion efforts in foreign countries. But here at home the agencies themselves are far from transparent. Detailed program budgets and information are unavailable to the public and contact with the media is limited. Over the last six weeks, RT repeatedly requested interviews from USAID, NED, IRI and NDI. All of these requests were denied or unanswered.
Pepe Escobar, a South America based journalist for the Asia Times said US democracy promotion programs use political or other grievances in countries to push and coordinate their own agenda.
“They use the locals,” said Escobar. “They mix their preoccupations and their grievances with the classic full spectrum dominance Washington agenda.”
The US targets nations who are strategic competitors and regimes that antagonize the United States. It utilizes the Pentagon and CIA strategy of full spectrum dominance.
Escobar explained that anti-government messages are often propelled through mainstream corporate media outlets in Brazil and Venezuela that are indirectly linked and influenced by US organizations like Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy.
He argued that over time it is possible other nations, like China, will use their growth to influence US elections; however that could take some time.
“They [China] still do not understand the notion of soft power and smart power,” Escobar said. “Maybe it’s going to take a generation to understand how the West thinks.”
LAHORE – Much of the information-gathering network of Pakistan’s supreme security service was curtailed in the tribal areas in General Pervez Musharraf’s era, consequently giving the edge to America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), it is reliably learnt.
The entire territory of North and South Waziristan was given in the direct access of the CIA which has since developed its stronghold in the belt. The CIA’s operations suspended in Balochistan, Punjab, Islamabad and other areas of the country after the Raymond Allen Davis (RAD) incident and the mysterious episode of Osama bin Laden have also been restored, sources said.
To a query, sources said the CIA operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban (Pakistan) force, which has been recruited, trained and equipped by these CIA operatives to target the Pakistan Army personnel, armed forces’ installations, markets, hospitals, schools and public places to destabilise Pakistan.
They claimed, the Soviet Intelligence Agency SVR had already disclosed that RAD and his network have provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons so that installations in the US may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed and pressed to do more of the US’ dirty work such as conducting operations in North Waziristan. “After the civil government justified the CIA operation in Abbottabad all of them have again indulged in their original nefarious activities,” sources added.
In the words of two American journalists Julian E Barnes and Adam Entous: “Following wishes of President Barack Hussain Obama, the number of CIA personnel in Pakistan has grown substantially in recent years. The exact number is highly classified. The push for more forces reflects, in part, the increased need for intelligence to support the CIA drone program that has killed hundreds of militants with missile strikes.”
A former ISI Punjab regional commander Brigadier (r) Ghazanfar said the CIA has established its parallel intelligence network. He said the CIA always establishes its network according to their needs and demands, which has been established in Pakistan not only in tribal but in urban areas also and the RAD incident is enough to quote here. “Days after the mystery of 9/11, the CIA operatives landed in Pakistan in order to train Pakistani troops and authorities concerned for counter terrorism but with the passage of time, their demands increased and now the CIA network has a strong grip,” he added.
Appreciating the role of the supreme security agency, the former commander said the ISI carried out successful operations in various parts of the country and apprehended Al-Qaeda operatives including Al-Faraaj, Khalid Mohammad Sheikh, Khalid Bin Atta, Al-Libbi and Mullah Bradaar. “We must have a check on the Interior Ministry and the CIA activities in national interest before the situation has virtually become out of control,” he remarked.
Similarly, ex- ISI Punjab regional commander Brigadier (r) Aslam Ghuman said, “During my visit to the US, I learnt Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilise Pakistan at any cost”. The commander further said Pakistan has the best army, the best intelligence network and the best public, but unfortunately not the best rulers. “Obama needs votes in the coming elections and all of this drama was staged to defame Pakistan across the world,” he added.
Former Punjab Military Intelligence (MI) chief Brigadier (r) Mohammad Yousuf said over 7,000 CIA operatives have been conducting a warfare within Pakistan. Reportedly, these operatives arrived in Pakistan by special permission granted by Hussain Haqqani, the Interior Ministry and the president’s blue-eyed ambassador, without proper clearance of their visas by the supreme security service of Pakistan. The ex-MI chief said the government must revisit its policies and frame a long-term strategy in national interest. Brigadier (r) Yousuf warned that the country’s leadership should keep in mind that after her vested interested are served, the US would leave Pakistan in the doldrums as it did after the USSR’s defeat in Afghanistan.
According to classified information, out of 7000 CIA operatives, about 1237 highly skilled Marines, intelligence, security and guerrilla warfare experts have been placed in its embassies and consulates under the grab of diplomats.
About 1100 Marines have been placed in the federal capital, 26 in Lahore, 50 in Karachi and 61 in Peshawar, while over 200 bulletproof vehicles that landed at the Karachi port have also been registered and later provided to 250 CIA operatives who arrived in the port city last year.
Teachers Give Cold Shoulder to Obama Education Chief...
President Obama, right, speaks about education accompanied by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
(CNN) -- An open letter of appreciation to teachers from the Obama administration's chief education official has highlighted the administration's difficult relationship with the nation's teachers.
"I have a deep and genuine appreciation for the work you do. ... You deserve to be respected, valued, and supported. ... It is my goal to see that you are treated with the dignity we award to other professionals in society," reads the letter from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
But many teachers are unmoved.
"Respect? Value? Support? Not seeing much," said teacher and education commentator Sabrina Stevens Shupe, who writes about education on her blog, the Failing Schools Project.
"The gap between his words and his actions is too large to ignore," Stevens Shupe said in a widely circulated open letter responding to Duncan that echoes the sentiments of many in the teaching community.
Though Duncan's letter acknowledges that teachers are often "blamed for educational failures that have roots in broken families, unsafe communities, misguided reforms, and underfunded schools systems," Stevens Shupe points out that Duncan effectively did just that last year by applauding the firing of every teacher at a school in a troubled Rhode Island school district as a way to "do what's best for kids."
In fact, Stevens Shupe said, Duncan has written off the input of teachers he claims to value by framing any criticism of his policies as "a defense of an indefensible status quo," a phrase Duncan has used in reference to his critics in the teaching community.
"How is it respectful to write off the informed opinions of concerned people who have spent their lives serving students and communities?"
A massive online response echoes those sentiments, along with widely circulated open letters in response from prominent education commentators including Stevens Shupe, Aaron Pallas, Anthony Cody and Diane Ravitch.
Though U.S. Education Department press secretary Justin Hamilton told CNN that he doesn't think the response accurately represents the sentiments of the broader teaching community, a count of comments regarding the letter on the Education Department's own website and elsewhere found a majority of negative comments, many from those who identified themselves as teachers.
Much of the online response has centered on issues like alternative teacher training programs, charter schools and, perhaps most divisive, standardized test-based evaluations of teachers.
Duncan's letter attempts to assuage teacher concerns about standardized test-based assessments, acknowledging the need for "real feedback in a professional setting rather than drive-by visits from principals or a single score on a bubble test."
But, said Pallas, professor of sociology and education at Columbia University Teachers College, the letter's rhetoric "runs headlong into funding programs such as Race to the Top," which lead directly to teacher evaluation systems that rely heavily on standardized tests.
The Obama administration's Race to the Top program distributes money to states that compete for it based on a set of criteria, including a requirement linking test scores to teacher evaluations.
"These policies, and the dollars behind them, are clear signals of what the Department and the secretary truly value," Pallas said.
Hamilton from the Education Department acknowledged the stress on testing but said, "We think you should be able to use data in a smart way. Race to the Top did encourage states to link teacher performance to student outcomes, and that allows us to spotlight success and to know where the challenges are so that we can help with support and professional development."
But it's not about testing or about the letter or about any other single issue, said Mike Rose, professor of education at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The response from teachers is an expression of a broader frustration at not being part of the conversation about education reform, Rose said.
Though teachers are as interested as any group in reforming education, Rose said, they feel like current reforms "are being done to them, not with them."
"They feel they are being dictated to from on high by people who have never spent a day teaching in a public school classroom."
It started in the Bush administration with No Child Left Behind, which effectively blamed teachers for low-performing schools and students, without adequately addressing surrounding issues like poverty, resources and administration, he said.
But teachers really thought that with Obama, they were going to get something different, "and I think teachers are disappointed that Obama has not lived up to some of the education policy initiatives that featured prominently in his campaign."
This matters to all of us, Rose said, because if teachers and policymakers cannot find a way to communicate effectively, it will be our schools and students who suffer.
Still, some see the letter as a beginning.
Even Stevens Shupe said she was pleased, even a little excited, to see some acknowledgement of teacher concerns from Duncan.
Jeffrey Henig, professor of political science and education at Columbia University Teachers College, is also hopeful.
"There may be a disconnect between the policies the administration is pursuing and the principles Duncan is advocating in his letter, but at least he is expressing admiration for a profession that has taken a lot of abuse lately."
The United States boats hundreds of military bases around the world, perhaps even thousands. But, no one knows for sure because even the Pentagon does not bother to keep track.
Historian and journalist Nick Turse explained, “What I’m relatively sure of is that there are no less than 1,077 US bases or sites in foreign countries….and likely there are many more than that, we just can’t be sure.”
What is known is that the US Defense budget is now about the equal to military spending in all other countries combined, and since 9/11, military and security expenditures have soared 119 percent.
Some of these bases are on tiny islands, and some, like Guantanamo Bay, serve dual purposes.
A great deal of money goes towards maintaining those bases, but once again, taxpayers and the military do not know exactly how much is allocated towards construction and maintenance at each.
Experts argue the reason for sustaining all these military installations abroad is to “maintain a far flung global empire,” and they point out that in places like Saudi Arabia and Okinawa, US military presence has been denounced by locals.
“Cleary there’s no need from the point of view of self defense for the US to have military installations all over the world. It’s really part of maintaining a far flung global empire, and at the heart of the empire and corporate and banking interests and elites that the US military is defending. Each place that the United States has a military base, the US has political power, economic power, and it’s a matter of coercion,” said Brian Becker of the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition.
A local Kyrgyz man told RT, “We are living here and raising our children. Why do we need this US Air base?”
In Okinawa, locals are forced to give up ten to twenty percent of the island to the US military for a base that they associate with noise, crime, and pollution. Some say the US plays under a double standard when it comes to this.
Becker argued, “The United States would never tolerate China having military bases in Canada, in Mexico, in Haiti, in the DR, in other words in countries that ring the United States. It’s not a question of law, it’s a question of might makes right. In other words, the United States is the 700 pound gorilla. It sits wherever it chooses to sit.”
While the US chooses to “sit wherever,” those most affected by these bases, both at home and abroad, don’t necessarily have a place at the table.
Jacob Hornberger, the president of The Future of Freedom Foundation said the secrecy of empire leads to the massive number of bases, a number which is not disclosed.
“They call it a Department of Defense, but we all know that’s just a charade,” he said. “This is really just a department of empire and war.”
He explained the extensive military empire combined with foreign aid to dictators generates anger and hate towards the US, which in turn which generates terrorism and the validation the government uses to take away freedoms from Americans in the United States.
“It’s really created nothing but problems for us,” Hornberger added.
Military Contracting Last Defense in Bad U.S. Economy...
Courtesy of rt.com
It is career day in Charlottesville, Virginia, and for one industry, business is booming.
“Business has been great. As a small business we've had a 100% revenue increase since 2004,” said Sasha Dombrovskis, a defense contractor with OG Systems. “We're going into this year with a significant revenue increase.”
From Northrop Grumman to Batelle, Pragmatics to BAE, many of the biggest names in defense contracting were at the Charlottesville Community Job Fair, held at the University of Virginia on April 27.
“Business is very good for BAE Systems currently. We’re the second largest defense contractor in the world,” said Joe Nestor of BAE Systems. “Anything that dept of defense does we do as well, to support them. So we've been fortunate over the last couple years to experience a considerable amount of growth.”
For defense contractors, that growth is in part to the U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and at the US’s more than 1,000 military bases worldwide.
“We are located overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea. We have a lot of opportunities in the United States as well as overseas,” said Erin McCarthy, a recruiter for Northrop Grumman.
Charlottesville, Virginia is home to more than 161 defense contracting firms, which made more than $919 million from 2,737 contracts in the last two years.
Real estate advisor and author Michael O’Brien went to Iraq as a defense contractor to “help.”
“I realized after I had been there nearly a year—I was there 14 months—that I was just a warm body to collect fees for my company. They sell this contract to [the Department of Defense], and of course my company is headed up by a retired Chief of Staff of the US Army, so no active-duty army officer is going to kick this guy out of office,” he said.
O’Brien said he became disillusioned with the corruption and mismanagement.
“They were taking land from Iraqis without securing title. When I brought this up to them, I said, ‘would you build a house in the United States without securing title?’ The guy kicked me out of his office,” he remarked.
O’Brien said Americans won’t see the end of defense contractors anytime soon. Without a draft, the military depends on more than 100,000 contractors to support its two wars abroad.
“When when Dwight Eisenhower talked about the military industrial complex in 1951, we're there now. We're there and it's almost like the tail is wagging the dog.”
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said that without the defense industry, America’s 9 percent national unemployment rate would soar to 11.5 percent. Job seekers in Charlottesville said that military contracting is their best defense in economic tough times.
Author David Swanson of "War is a Lie" explained tax cuts for working people and putting the monies spent on defense elsewhere would create many more jobs than the defense industry.
The government has not cut defense or military spending. It continues to expand, to propel war and violence, Swanson noted.
“We could cuts 85 percent of this machine and still have the world’s biggest military,” he added. “We need to convert.”
Spending elsewhere would create more jobs and help far more Americans. Lawmakers are afraid to cut funds to defense for fear of being seen as week on national security or for being accused of laying off defense workers – even though more jobs would be created by reallocating funds.
“We need to convert these industries to peaceful industries. A factory that makes weapons could make trains, could make solar panels,” Swanson said. “There is no reason we can’t do better, economically and otherwise.”
U.S. Spending Cuts Deal Actually Increased Spending...
Courtesy of rt.com
Republicans and Democrats were deadlocked as a government shutdown loomed. Republicans refused to budge without spending cuts. A deal was struck and a shutdown averted. In the end overall spending still increased.
"Total discretionary outlays in 2011 will be $3.2 billion higher as a result of the legislation, CBO estimates--an increase of $7.5 billion for defense programs, partially offset by a net reduction of $4.4 billion in other spending," said a report released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
The bill dubbed a historic compromise on government spending cuts was in fact not historic, not a spending-cut. The legislation passed in April increased US government discretionary spending by over $3 billion. Because of the bill total government spending will be higher as a result than if Congress had simply continued the spending at prior levels.
"CBO had previously estimated that the full-year appropriation act will yield a net reduction of $0.4 billion in nonemergency outlays in 2011," the report says. "The comparison shown here is different: It includes emergency appropriations, excludes the effects of changes in mandatory programs, and incorporates adjustments to various estimating parameters that were applied to the appropriation act to make them consistent with the March 2011 baseline."
Much of the funds that were altered, increased, or sped-up were for increases to US military appropriations. An area of the budget Republican often protest cutting and are happy to increase.
“The effect on outlays (based on how quickly the administration spends money) meanwhile is slowed due to increased and accelerated spending for our men and women in uniform. As the CBO puts it, part of the reason …is that some defense funding was shifted from slower-spending to faster-spending activities,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner
The United States Congress is set to vote on legislation that authorizes the official start of World War 3, a worldwide war against an invisible enemy that can reside in any country the U.S. Government chooses.
Alexander Higgins with excerpts from Alex Thomas The Intel Hub
The legislation authorizes the President of the United States to take unilateral military action against all nations, organizations, and persons — both domestically and abroad — who are alleged to be currently, (or in the past) engaged in hostilities, or who have provided aid in support of hostilities against the United States or any of its coalition allies.
The legislation removes the requirement of Congressional approval for the use of military force and instead gives the President totalitarian dictatorial authority to engage in any and all military actions for an indefinite period of time.
It even authorizes the President the authority to launch attacks against American citizens inside the United States with no Congressional oversight whatsoever.
Just to recap, because that was a mouthful:
Endless War – The war will continue until all hostilities are terminated, which will never happen.
No Borders – The president will have the full authority to launch military strikes against any country, organization or person, including against U.S citizens on U.S soil.
Unilateral Military Action – Full authority to invade any nation at any time with no congressional approval required.
No Clearly Defined Enemy – The US can declare or allege anyone a terrorist or allege they are or have been supporting “hostilities” against the US and attack at will.
Authorization To Invade Several Countries – The president would have full authority to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, along with several other nations in Africa and the Middle East and even Russia and China under the legislation all of which are “known” to have supported and aided hostilities against the United States.
The American Civil Liberties Union writes: Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.
President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.
But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.
Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.
The offending text uses doublespeak to declare perpetual war.
Specifically, the text uses the phrase “affirms” armed conflict which is the terminology used by congress to declare war in every instance since World War 2.
Congress affirms that –
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who–
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.
Indeed, the moment we all feared has come before us, as Congress is set to give the President absolute power over the military, including the authority to launch military strikes within the United States against U.S. citizens.
With the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on Pakistan soil many were naive enough to believe that the War on Terror would come to an end.
Instead, the reported success of the raid to kill Osama bin Laden is being used as a crutch to push through new legislation in the defense bills which literally authorize World War 3, an endless war with no defined enemies and no borders.
The whole Osama Bin Laden staged media spectacle was put forward not only in order to install TSA in train stations, malls, and all major public events; it is also being used to convince the public to support endless war all in the name of security.
Short of committing genocide, the termination of the hostilities will never come and as such the war will never come to end.
We have already learned that officials falsified reports that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq for the “prize” of oil.
If a whole government of top officials can not be trusted, then surely a single president cannot be trusted either.
We have seen the U.S Government turn Nazi and buy and burn every copy of a book that had evidence of a 9/11 cover up. The Department of Justice has already published a memo calling constitutionalists and survivalists potential terrorists.
Is it not bad enough that U.S courts have already legalized the abduction of U.S citizens along with their indefinite detention and torture in overseas prison camps? Or that the U.S Government openly admits to gunning down, kidnapping and torturing American college students?
Under the definition of the legislation, the president could authorize the military to attack the ACLU building because they have supported the “terrorists” by arguing for their civil rights.
How long will it take before this moves towards assassinating activists?
The have already labeled conspiracy theories as “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence” and have even specifically called The Intel Hub, which routinely publishes my articles, an echo chamber pushing out “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence”.
Uncle Sam openly admits to turning its multi-billion dollar espionage network against U.S citizens which has produced such great fruits as innocent activists exercising their first amendment rights being placed on the terrorist watch list by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.
Just remember that as long as we are in a state of war your civil liberties and constitutional rights are pretty much null and void, only enforceable if the Government allows you to have them.
Even then, they can declare you a terrorist, an enemy combatant, or a threat to national security to revoke your constitutional rights immediately. They then can play the national security card when they are asked to explain their allegations.
This is rotten all around, and the first step to getting our rights back is to end the perpetual wars.
The College Debt Scam Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
In College Conspiracy, an hour long video produced by the National Inflation Association (NIA), we discover the real purpose behind the push to enroll students in college – lifelong debt. So-called higher education is about government loans at high interest rates, not an educated public working in high wage jobs and enjoying a middle class good life.
The NIA succinctly demonstrates how public education – from grade school to college – is a masterfully contrived fraud. In addition to locking millions of students into debt under the illusion that a degree is required to obtain a decent job – jobs that have largely evaporated over the last decade thanks to globalism – the college debt scam is designed to manufacture the next economic bubble.
Like the so-called housing bubble inflated under the government’s Freddy and Fanny – a bubble that has since burst with devastating effect, as millions of Americans have learned firsthand – the education bubble will also collapse and precipitate a race to the bottom, a race already well underway.
Infowars.com and NIA present College Conspiracy, an informative and enlightening documentary that you cannot afford to overlook, especially if you are enrolled in college, plan to do so, or are the parents of college-age children considering taking on the debt burden of an over-valued college education.
Demilitarizing Entire American Economy Our Last Hope – Activist...
Courtesy of rt.com
Americans need to stop the military control of the US democracy, believes professor of law at Northwestern University, Bernardine Dohrn, the former leader of the radical American anti-Vietnam War organization Weather Underground. “We have grown up in an era of American exceptionalism. The last 70 years, where the US somehow has not bound by the other laws of history, but of course we are bound by these laws.”
Dohrn says that while the hundreds of American military bases abroad constitute a great danger to the world, the militarization at home after 9/11 is also quite significant.
She assures that as veterans of the recent American wars return home, the anti-war movement grows only stronger. “There is no question that the American people oppose the Iraq war, continue to oppose it and think that we should leave. They oppose the escalation in Afghanistan… and they already oppose the Libyan war.”
It is true that like any other empire, the American hegemony probably declines but its military power remains very strong and that is a “tremendous danger, because you can turn everything into a military opportunity instead of social and human opportunity.”
Wars and the occupation of three countries by the US have certainly brought suffering to the rest of the world, believes the peace activist. She says that is despite the fact such wars cannot be won whatsoever and everybody knows that.
Bernardine Dohrn says people voted for Barack Obama as a peace president – who only brought more military operations abroad, so let’s have an end to this. “The death of Bin Laden should be a moment when we say: yes, America now withdraw from occupation.”
The decline of the American economy is becoming particularly apparent with the tremendous acceleration of the income gap in the US over the last decade, making an uprising similar to the situation in the Middle East quite possible in the United States. “Most of us are getting poorer. A tiny handful, less than one per cent of the population is getting extravagantly wealthy,” Dohrn points out. “Demilitarizing the entire American economy is our last hope,” Bernardine Dohrn concludes, agreeing that, “In the war on terror the US is also a terrorist.”
May 16 marks the day the United State’s hit its debt ceiling. The US Treasury is now unable to borrow funds unless the US Congress raises the ceiling. In order to cope until a decision is made; the Treasury is cutting back on many of its programs.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has actively been encouraging US lawmakers to act swiftly to prevent the US government from defaulting on its debts.
"I want to again encourage Congress to move as quickly as possible, so that all Americans will remain confident that the United States will meet all of its obligations – not just our interest payments but also our commitments to our seniors," he said.
Republicans in the US Congress have refused to raise the debt ceiling unless the White House and congressional Democrats agree to massive long-term government spending cuts.
Currently, the debt ceiling sits at $14.29 trillion.
Raj Doshi, an investor and the founder and president of Mani Capital, Inc. explained that nation continues to overspend into greater debt with no intent to pay it back. Raising the debt cleaning would continue this flawed practice.
“All this is going to amount to the death of the dollar,” he argued. “If you were the leader of a company whose tripped its covenants just about every quarter, do you think your creditors or shareholders will continue to finance your business?”
Choosing to not raise the debt ceiling will amount to a decrease in the American standard of living, but that is what needs to happen at this point, he argued. It will also force Congress to spend less and make cuts to existing programs.
“The United States is broke,” Doshi said. “The government has gotten too big.”
“We have a real spending problem,” he added.
He argued the government is spending too much and has incurred far too much debt via increased programs and a number of overseas wars. Bailouts and government involvement in the market is adding to the problem. It’s time the US government stepped back, he contended.
“We need to let free markets do it thing,” Doshi argued.
To the contrary, Dean Baker, a co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington explained that if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling the US could default on its debt – which would be economically damaging.
If the ceiling is not raised or the government is unable to pay its bills, all of America would suffer. The economy would slip and Americans would no longer receive government aid.
Most polititians want to cut programs, but many Americans do not. The programs that need to be cut, such as the military, are not areas the Congress are willing to cut.
“Programs that take up most of the budget, with the exception of the military, do enjoy overwhelming support of the public,” Baker said. “If you had our representatives in Congress saying you’re not getting your social security check next month, well you’re not going to be in Congress very long.”
The people do not want their programs cut. In order to maintain programs the ceiling must be raised so the US government can continue to borrow and spend authorized funds.
The US military is working to develop drones capable of taking off from US Navy aircraft carriers based in the Pacific. Analysts say the primary goal will be to confront China.
"They will play an integral role in our future operations in this region [Asia]," Vice Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, commander of the US 7th Fleet in the Pacific and Indian oceans, told AP. "Carrier-based unmanned aircraft systems have tremendous potential, especially in increasing the range and persistence of our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations, as well as our ability to strike targets quickly."
Land based drones are used frequently by the US military, especially in tactical operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Sea based drones are still in development, with the first tests having been conducted earlier this year.
While a counter-balance to China has not been mentioned by the Pentagon directly, most analysts and experts see the development of sea based drones as a weapon of choice against rising Chinese military power.
“Chinese military modernization is the major long-term threat that the U.S. must prepare for in the Asia-Pacific region, and robotic vehicles — aerial and subsurface — are increasingly critical to countering that potential threat," Patrick Cronin, a senior analyst with the Washington-based Center for New American Security told AP.
While China’s military is still smaller and less sophisticated than America’s, its growth potential has caused the US to pay greater attention. The development of drones for aircraft carriers is evidence the US Navy is seeking new weapons and strategies for future defense tactics with China and others in mind.
Currently carrier based fighter jets must take off from about 500 nautical miles from their target, leaving the carrier ships within range of land based missiles. Drones however would be able to operate as far out as 1,500 nautical miles from the carrier, putting the ships out of range.
"Introducing a new aircraft that promises to let the strike group do its work from beyond the maximum effective firing range of the anti-ship ballistic missile — or beyond its range entirely — represents a considerable boost in defensive potential for the carrier strike group," explained James Holmes of the US Naval War College.
"Drones, if they work, are just the next tech leap. As long as there is a need for tactical aviation launched from the sea, carriers will be useful weapons of war," commented Ret. Read Adm. Michael McDevitt.
The currently timeline has operational drones on ships by 2018. Some in the US Navy however want them much faster.
"Seriously, we've got to have a sense of urgency about getting this stuff out there," Adm. Gary Roughhead, chief of naval operations said. "It could fundamentally change how we think of naval aviation."
Roughhead feels the 2018 timeline is “too damn slow."
Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and Lockheed Martin are all working to develop sea based drones.
Northrop Grumman was the first to launch a successful test flight of their X-47B prototype from the ground. Sea based testing is set for sometime in 2013.
That’s nothing new, of course. But yesterday’s hearing was a particularly revealing example of how cocky Big Oil is feeling right now, with gas prices high, summer driving season on the way, and a still-sluggish economy that allows Big Oil to throw its weight around in Washington like sumo wrestlers in a room full of ballerinas.
The subject of yesterday’s hearing was a Democratic proposal to cut $21 billion in oil industry subsidies over the next decade and use it to pay down the deficit (the original plan had been to use the money to fund clean-energy research, but that was DOA with fossil-fuel friendly politicans of both parties). The revised proposal has a certain populist appeal: if Republicans want to make deficit reduction the number one political priority in America, why not start by cutting pay-outs to one of the biggest, oldest, and richest industries in the world? It’s not like Big Oil needs the cash. The Big Five oil companies -- Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips – made $34 billion in profits in the first three months of 2011, up more than 40 percent from a year ago. If they were smart, Big Oil could have supported the proposal as a patriotic gesture, a sign that, in America, during hard times, we all have to pull together and give up a little something.
But of course that is not how it played out. Instead, we witnessed a parade of greed and political body-checking that was remarkable even by Congressional standards.
Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who earns roughly $21 million a year, called the attempt to roll back the subsidies "misinformed and discriminatory." Then he threatened to abandon America all together: "You give me a different tax burden," he said, "I'm going to take my capital then, since the U.S. isn't attractive, I've got to go somewhere else."
John Watson, CEO of Chevron, a perennial favorite on lists of “least reputable” companies in America and a master at sucking crude oil and cash out of Third World nations, argued that the oil men were just old-fashioned American capitalists who had pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and were now enjoying their just rewards. "Don't punish our industry for doing its job well," he said piously.
But the most shameless – and in a weird way, revealing – argument came from ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva. On Wednesday, ConocoPhillips had released a statement calling the Democrat’s proposal to cut subsidies "un-American." During the hearing, Mulva was grilled by New York Senator Charles Schumer about the comment, but Mulva refused to walk it back. And why should he? Mulva understands as well as anyone that when you give as much money to Congress as Big Oil does -- in the 2010 election cycle, Big Oil and Gas gave over $10 million to federal candidates, about three-quarters of which went to Republicans – it’s downright un-American not to get your way with lawmakers.
Of course, all this was just political theater. The Democrats’ proposal is unlikely to pass in the Senate, much less the House, where Republicans are pushing hard to expand off-shore drilling. But it was further evidence of a basic rule of American energy politics: the more desperate we get for cheap oil and gas, the more delusional we become. “You'd be likelier to see a unicorn in this hearing room than have Americans believe you need these subsidies,” Schumer said to the oil execs during the hearing. Welcome to Never-Never Land, Senator.
Obama Signs Legislation to Make Supplements and Alternative Health Remedies Illegal...
Right through the back door, while everyone was focused on the gulf oil spill, Barack Obama gave his signature to legislation permitting the U.S. Government to outlaw supplements and alternative health treatments. That means that the supplements you take and therapies you use to keep your body healthy, can now be made illegal by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Obama quietly gave permission for Codex Alimentarius - the United Nation's worldwide plan for food standards - to take effect in the U.S. via Executive Order 13544 of June 10, 2010. The President's decision
creates the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council, a group of 'experts' that carry out whatever activities Obama deems appropriate.
According to an article at Rense.com, after five years of fighting this bill in Congress and the House, Obama has decided to try to kill the supplement and alternative health industry; all alternative health remedies can be deemed "unscientific" and not provable by the FDA, which can lead to them being banned.
It means that supplements may have to be removed from sale permanently, or have their potency capped at ultra low levels, making them almost worthless. The very same thing happened in Europe just a few years ago. Ultimately, this legislation, signed by the very man whose claim to fame was "Change we need" and Change we can believe in" has these effects:
REMOVES YOUR POWER OF CHOICE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE SUPPLEMENTS AND USE ALTERNATE THERAPIES;
STOPS YOU FROM TAKING CARE OF YOUR HEALTH NATURALLY - YOU ARE FORCED TO HAVE TO RELY ON THE MEDICAL / PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES WHO AIM IS MAXIMUM PROFIT AND FOR YOU TO REMAIN SICK SO THEY CAN KEEP YOU HOOKED ON THEIR PRODUCTS;
WILL FORCE YOU TO RELY ON LOW-STRENGTH, SYNTHETIC SUPPLEMENTS MADE BY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES;
OR FORCE YOU TO BUY EXPENSIVE, Rx ONLY HI-STRENGTH SYNTHETIC SUPPLEMENTS MADE BY THE $MULTI-BILLION PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES
If you read the executive order it seems quite positive. However, behind the vague words are a wide range of powers to do whatever the United Nations and Obama wants, including the adoption of legislation that bans therapies and supplements.
Steve Forbes Predicts New Gold Standard Within 5 years...
Courtesy of rt.com
Global currencies had been in flux for months, with both gold and silver rising rapidly reaching past records. Prior to the recent fall, silver had grown by 60 percent in 2011 alone, according to MarketWatch.
In the unstable financial markets global currencies are becoming increasingly challenged by the stability of precious metals. The instability has many eying ways to stabilize currencies in the future.
"People know that something is wrong with the dollar," businessman Steve Forbes told Human Events.
Echoing major gold standard advocates like Republican Congressman Ron Paul, Forbes said a new gold standard was looming.
"What seems astonishing today could become conventional wisdom in a short period of time," he added. "You cannot trash your money without repercussions."
Scott Carter, the executive vice president of Goldline, said many more people are starting to recognize the value of gold as the dollar and currency markets fluctuate.
“Central banks used to be net sellers of gold for a decade. They were providing most of the supply of gold in the market place,” he said. “Most recently though all central banks have been holding onto the gold that they own or they’ve been buying gold. Not only Mexico, but Russia has been buying gold. The central bank of India bought a significant amount of gold a year and a half ago. We know that China is building up their gold supplies.”
Carter explained that central banks who are familiar with paper currencies are seeing a reason to diversify the away from national currencies in favor of gold – which is more stable.
He explained that brining back a gold standard would place limitations on central banks. It would control the amount of money banks could print by placing a standardized value on currencies and prevent additional debts from mounting and prevent currency devaluation.
A new gold standard would limit currencies and force government spending reductions. This, Carter argued, would be good for the US dollar, but in the short-term would have a great deal of economic impact as governments are forced to cut-back.
“It would force our Congress to live within our means,” he noted.
This would not be new for America, the US used to operate on a gold standard.
“It’s not that long ago that we were on the gold standard. It’s only been 40 years since we closed the gold window under the Nixon administration,” Carter said. “For most of our existence as a country we have been on a gold standard. It’s only not been the case for 40 years.”
All in all, he contended, a new gold standard would bring limitations to central banks and a new found level of consistency to currency values – it would curtail the volatility frequent in today’s financial markets.
Gerald Celente, the director of the Trends Research Institute in New York explained Forbes once criticized gold investments and any notion of a return to a gold standard, but today has flip-flopped as the dollar and other currencies fell.
“Steve Forbes is so late on this,” he said.
“The cheaper the dollar goes, the commodities go higher. The dollar isn’t worth the digital paper it’s not being printed on,” Celente said. “The business of America is war; as opposed to the business of China is business.”
Celente argued that America is spending far too much, devaluing the dollar and wasting billion on an overdeveloped military system. A gold standard would reign in the central bank, but he contended that the government will build in rules to maintain control and game the system.
What we do know, more or less, is that Vanessa heard noises and saw a man outside their window on the morning of May 5. She woke her husband up, who then grabbed a rifle and walked toward the kitchen. There he was shot dozens of times within the mere moments after. Guerena’s possession of the AR-15 was completely legal and it was never fired.What followed immediately was a poorly-handed 911 call dialed by Mrs. Guerena as she watched her husband grunt on the ground in front of his family, gasping his last breaths of life. She pled with the emergency operators to send help for five minutes while they deemed her “hysterical.” Once they did arrive, it was an hour and 14 minutes before EMTs were allowed access to the wounded Guerena; the SWAT team wouldn’t allow them near.
