Bilderberg Group orders destruction of US Dollar?
A new Kremlin report on the shadowy Bilderberg Group, who this past week held their annual meeting in Greece, states that the West’s financial, political and corporate elite emerged from their conclave after coming to an agreement that in order to continue their drive towards a New World Order dominated by the Western Powers, the US Dollar has to be “totally” destroyed.
Even worse, a new US report on these secret Bilderberg meetings states: “Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, whose information from inside Bilderberg has routinely proven accurate, states that the global elite’s plan to completely destroy the economy and ultimately lower global population by two thirds has stoked fears even within Bilderberg itself that the fallout from such chaos could ultimately result in the globalists losing their control over the world.”
Prior to the Bilderberg Meeting, the Kremlin report continues, most of the West’s wealthiest elite convened at an unprecedented secret meeting in New York called for and led by the staunch New World Orderlist David Rockefeller to plot the demise of the US Dollar and which, strangely, was reported in the US mainstream propaganda media, but to which the dissident American website PrisonPlanet.Com questioned by stating:
“ABC News today devoted a prominently featured three page story to a “secret meeting” of rich philanthropists which took place earlier this month in New York, and yet one of the biggest news corporations in America was completely silent during a far more important meeting of around 150 of the world’s powerbrokers at the Bilderberg conference last week.”
MINA Smart News for Smart People
'Electronic Police State' report cites U.S.
Posted: May 10, 2009
By Bob Unruh
In what may be the first assessment of its kind, a private company that offers a range of privacy products for computers and other technology is ranking the United States No. 6 in the world for having the most aggressive procedures for monitoring residents electronically.
The report, called The Electronic Police State, assesses the status of governmental surveillance in 52 nations around the globe for 2008.
The document was released Cryptohippie, Inc., which was set up in 2007 through the acquisition of several little-known but highly regarded providers of privacy technologies.
Not surprisingly, China and North Korea ranked No. 1 and No. 2, with Belarus and Russia following up. But the United Kingdom ranked fifth followed by the United States.
"Most of us are aware that our governments monitor nearly every form of electronic communication. We are also aware of private companies doing the same. This strikes most of us as slightly troubling, but very few of us say or do much about it. There are two primary reasons for this," the report said.
"We really don't see how it is going to hurt us. Mass surveillance is certainly a new, odd, and perhaps an ominous thing, but we just don't see a complete picture or a smoking gun," the report continued. Also, "We are constantly surrounded with messages that say, 'Only crazy people complain about the government.'"
The report mapped the world, showing the most advanced electronic police states in red, orange reflecting strongly developing electronic police states and yellow showing nations that are developing, but lagging:
Ultimate Big Brother 'basics are in place'
The US Department of Defense plans to deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 to help state and local officials respond to terror or nuclear attacks and emergencies, The Washington Post said Monday.
Citing Pentagon officials, the newspaper said the plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces.
The first 4,700-strong unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade, is based at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and is already available for deployment, according to General Victor Renuart, commander of the US Northern Command, it said.
Two additional groups will later join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops to support local and state authorities nationwide, The Post said.
They will all would be trained to respond to domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attacks.
The newspaper said that civil liberties groups and libertarians had expressed concern that the plan could undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.
Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," PaulMcHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month noted by the Post. But the recognition that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe [Hurricane Katrina might be used as an example] prompted "a fundamental change in military culture."
"The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011," the Post added. "The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command."
"If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide," they continued. "All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it."
Americans Are Living (And Dying) In A Militarized Police State
Dave Gibson May 05, 2008
Today, police departments across the United States more closely resemble an occupying army than they do public servants responding to calls for help. Police officers can now be seen wearing helmets and body armor and carrying AR-15's, just to deliver simple warrants. The militarization of our police departments not only gives the appearance of a military dictatorship but places the public at great risk.
No less than 70 percent of U.S. cities now have SWAT teams. In cities with a population of 50,000 or more, 90 percent have SWAT teams.
Eastern Kentucky University professor Peter Kraska told the Washington Post that SWAT teams are currently sent out 40,000 times a year in the U.S. During the 1980's, SWAT teams were only used 3,000 times a year. Most of the time, SWAT teams are being sent out to simply serve warrants on non-violent drug offenders.
Many municipalities are using Homeland Security grants to even purchase large armored vehicles. The Pittsburgh Police Department now uses their 20-ton armored truck complete with rotating turret and gun ports to deliver many of their warrants. Pittsburgh Police Sgt. Barry Budd recently told the Associate Press: "We live on being prepared for 'what if'." Our police departments now regularly receive free surplus equipment from the U.S. military, which they readily accept. The training being given at many police academies appears to be the type of tactics one would use in Baghdad, rather than Baltimore. It would seem that our police officers are being readied for war, with the American public as the enemy. In the last several years, there has been a transformation from community policing to pre-emptive assaults.
On January 24, 2006, Dr. Salvatore Culosi was shot and killed outside his house by a Fairfax County SWAT officer. Police used the SWAT team to serve a documents search warrant, after Dr. Culosi came under suspicion for taking sports bets. The investigation began after Fairfax Detective David Baucom solicited a bet with Dr. Culosi at a local sports bar.
Dr. Culosi was standing outside his home while talking with Det. Baucom, when SWAT Officer Deval Bullock quickly approached with his gun drawn and fatally shot Dr. Culosi in the chest. Court documents report that Culosi never made any threatening movements and made no attempt to run as he watched the SWAT team move in around him.
Dr. Culosi had no history of violence nor any criminal history whatsoever. He operated two successful optometry clinics at Wal-Marts in Manassas and Warrenton, Va. His parents have filed a $12 million lawsuit against the county of Fairfax, Va.
On the night of January 17, 2008, a police SWAT team surrounded Ryan Frederick´s home in Chesapeake, Va. The police were there to serve a drug warrant based on a tip from a criminal informant.
As usual, 28 year-old Ryan Frederick had gone to sleep early in order to leave the house before dawn for his job with a soda distributor. He awoke to a commotion of screams and the distinct sound of someone breaking down his front door.
Frederick´s house had been broken into a few days earlier, being a slight man of only a little over 100 pounds, Frederick feared for his safety. After the break-in, he purchased a gun.
Understandably frightened, Frederick grabbed his gun and when he got to the front of his house, he saw a man trying to crawl through the bottom portion of his door. Terrified that the intruders had returned, he fired.
The man he shot was not an aggressive burglar, nor a drug-crazed murderer, he was Det. Jarrod Shivers. The police detective and military veteran died almost immediately. Frederick was charged with first-degree murder and now sits in a jail cell awaiting trial.
As for the marijuana-growing operation for which police were looking, nothing was found. Only a very small amount of marijuana was discovered on the Frederick property, only enough to charge him with misdemeanor possession. Frederick has admitted that he uses marijuana occasionally but has never been involved with producing nor selling the drug.
Ryan Frederick has no prior history of violence, nor any criminal history whatsoever. He took care of his grandmother until her death two years ago, had a full-time job, and recently became engaged. In his spare time, he worked in his yard and tended to his Koi pond…Not quite the drug kingpin type! However, based solely on the word of an informant, police obtained a warrant and stormed into this man´s house in the dark of night. The information turned out to be false, a police officer and father of three is dead, and a decent young man´s life is now over.
When Ryan Frederick awoke to the sounds of his home being invaded, he did what many of us would do. He acted reasonably when he grabbed his gun to defend himself and fired at a man who he believed was breaking into his home to do him harm.
Had the police simply went to his home during the daytime and knocked on his door, they could have questioned Frederick and found their information to be groundless. A little traditional police work could have saved the life of a police officer and the Shivers and Frederick families would have remained whole.
The Ryan Frederick story is truly frightening because this same scenario could play itself out in your home or mine. In the age of militarized police departments, we are all in danger.
Here are a few more recent victims of our militarized police departments:
Cheryl Lynn Noel, a mom who was shot by police for picking up her legally registered handgun. She went for her gun to defend herself after a SWAT team in the middle of the night, broke into her Baltimore, MD home. Police stormed her house that night because they claim to have found marijuana seeds in the family's trash can.
Rev. Acelyne Williams, 75 of Boston, died of a heart attack as a SWAT team broke into his home. Police actually had the wrong address.
92 year old Kathryn Johnston who was so fearful that she never left her home and would only open her door after friends who placed her groceries on the front porch had left, was killed by an Atlanta SWAT team last year. An erroneous tip from an informant was enough for the Atlanta Police Department to invade her home. Police have since admitted to lying to obtain a search warrant and to planting drugs in her home after killing her.
In 2006, a 52 member SWAT team stormed into a Denver home in search of a friendly small-stakes poker game. The same thing happened a few months later when SWAT and K-9 units barged in on a charity poker game in Baltimore.
When someone straps on body armor and large caliber weapons, their adrenalin levels begin to surge. As they arrive at the scene, those levels increase. When these now militarized police officers actually break into a dark home and begin shouting at terrified citizens, severe injury and death is likely to occur. It is beyond reason to employ these tactics on anyone other than hardened, violent criminals.
SWAT teams were created in the wake of the 1966 University of Texas sniper shooting spree by ex-marine Charles Whitman. Police did not have the firepower to reach Whitman, who was perched atop the 27-story clock tower. Civilians with hunting rifles came to the scene and joined with police in the effort to stop Whitman. Eventually, police officers and a well-armed citizen scaled the stairs of the tower and killed Whitman, but not before he killed 17 people and injured another 31. As a result of the incident, police departments began to assemble small teams of highly trained officers with equipment specific to sniper shootings, hostage situations, bank robberies, etc.
SWAT teams were designed to deal with very violent individuals who represent a clear and present threat to the public. However, they are now being used to execute warrants on non-violent offenders and even those who have no prior criminal history at all. Turning our neighborhood cops into shock troops will do nothing but erode public confidence in the police and endanger the lives of innocent Americans.
Recently, Boston´s new police commissioner William Fitchet announced that the department´s Street Crimes Unit will begin wearing military-style black uniforms, to instill a sense of "fear." At last week´s city council meeting, police Sgt. John Delaney told council members that the black uniforms would send the message that officers were serious.
Did someone declare martial law?
United Nations Lays the Groundwork for a Global Tax
By Cliff Kincaid
Some of the politicians on Capitol Hill regularly and sometimes secretly attach costly "earmarks" to bills to benefit special interests. Since Senator John McCain says he wants to eliminate those earmarks, he should start with the Barack Obama bill, the Global Poverty Act (S. 2344), which itself is a vastly expanded form of earmark. It commits the U.S. to spending $845 billion to eradicate poverty in the rest of the world. McCain could vote on the bill fairly soon because it could come up for a full Senate vote at any time. Where does he stand on it?
Like earmarks, which are inserted into bills and congressional conference reports, the Global Poverty Act passed the House and a key Senate committee without any hearings being held into it. What's more, no recorded vote was held in either body. It had very little support in either body until somebody decided that it had to be pushed at this time. So, last September 25, it passed the House-by voice vote-and on February 13 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed it-also by voice vote. (The bill had only 84 co-sponsors in the House and nine co-sponsors in the Senate).
In the House, according to the office of Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the sponsor, it was considered non-controversial because some Republicans were backing it.
My suspicion is that it is being pushed through the Senate right now in order to give Obama a legislative victory. Obama, after all, has only been in the Senate since 2004. He has cast some votes, but his legislative actions and accomplishments are not considered impressive. But the Global Poverty Act is his vehicle; he was the sponsor in the Senate. Passage through Congress-and even a signing of the bill by President Bush-could make this political rock star look like another Bono. As president, Obama himself could implement it. What an amazing coincidence!
Passage of this bill might even make Michelle Obama proud of her country once again.
The major media have failed to report on the nature of the bill, probably because they think it could benefit Obama, one of their favorites.
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE!
The Plan to Have the UN Rule
by John F. McManus
President, The John Birch Society
The very first purpose claimed for the United Nations in Article 1 of the UN Charter reads as follows: "To maintain international peace and security." The UN has always promoted itself as a champion of peace. The word "peace" (or "peaceful") appears five times in the very first sentence of Article 1. And the UN's claim that it stands only for "peace" has been repeated by journalists and government officials throughout the world ever since the organization was founded.
In 1945, however, at the very moment the world organization was being created, former U.S. State Department official J. Reuben Clark read the United Nations Charter and immediately stated:
... there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.... The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace.... The Charter is a war document, not a peace document.
Not only does the Charter organization not prevent future wars, it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose on which side we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.
J. Reuben Clark's assessment of the UN Charter was correct in every detail. But so great was the horror of the still uncompleted World War II (it did not end in the Pacific until several weeks after the UN Charter was approved) that only two of the 96 senators then serving in the U.S. Congress opposed our nation's entry into the United Nations. The conspirators seeking world government and tyrannical rule had failed in 1919 to get the United States entangled in their League of Nations web. But they succeeded in 1945 when America joined the United Nations.
The U.S. Senate debated the matter of joining the League of Nations for nine months in 1919 and rejected the proposal. But the Senate in 1945 devoted a mere six days to deliberations about the UN Charter and approved it. During those six days, Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana presented his grave concerns. (continued)
Plans Created 40 Years Ago
In September 1961, President John Kennedy delivered a speech at UN headquarters in New York in which he presented the United States program for complete disarmament of the entire world - except for the United Nations which would become the only military power on earth. Entitled "Freedom From War," the Kennedy three-stage plan was designed to be implemented over many years. It called for all nations to give up their military power while arming the United Nations. The final step stated: "progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force."
The document also calls for the disarming of citizens.
It immediately became unavailable for examination by the general public. But The John Birch Society obtained a copy and has reprinted it in its entirety many times. It is an incredible betrayal of our nation that most Americans have never seen and those who are shown a copy find it hard to comprehend. This plan was produced by the staffs of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, both of whom were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. And it was delivered to the UN by President John F. Kennedy, also a CFR member.
On numerous occasions, we have contacted federal officials to ask the status of this plan to disarm America and provide the UN with unchallengeable military power. The response has always been that it is the fixed and determined policy of the government of the United States. Anyone who examines it will see that many of the interim steps it contains have already been accomplished.
The year 1961 also saw the U.S. State Department finance the creation of a document entitled "A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations." Written by Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, it lists the many steps needed to bring about a UN-controlled world. Completed in 1962, this document was originally classified as secret and kept from public view. It is, therefore, written in very clear language. Once declassified, we obtained a copy and have circulated it widely.
In order to establish a world controlled by the United Nations, the Bloomfield report called for UN taxing power, a UN military arm of approximately 500,000 men, compulsory jurisdiction of a UN court, and unrestricted power to carry out inspection any place on earth.
Source: Rep. Ron Paul
April 15th is once again approaching and with it the necessity of filling out your tax return. It is a good time to reflect on the taxes you do pay – and especially on the taxes you may soon be forced to pay. Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes and numerous miscellaneous taxes on your vehicles and gasoline and so many other things. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these layers of taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations once again has launched a plan to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us.
The latest UN tax scheme was revealed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January. At this conference of the world’s financial elite, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) unveiled a UN plan to take seven trillion dollars from developed nations for use by the UN to save the rest of the world from all of its problems.
The United Nations remains determined to rob from wealthy countries and, after taking a big cut for itself, send what’s left to the poor countries. Of course, most of this money will go to the very dictators whose reckless policies have impoverished their citizens. According to the international bureaucrats of the UN, wherever poverty exists in the rest of the world it is always our fault. According to them, our prosperity comes not from hard work, legal protection of property rights, and our capitalist system, but rather because we exploit the poor of the third world. Somehow, it’s always our fault.
Where will the seven trillion dollars to fund the latest UN scheme come from? Much of it is to come from a UN-imposed fine on countries that in the UN’s judgment are polluting too much. This attack on productivity will slow our economy and lead to a loss of jobs in the United States. The UN global tax plan also resurrects the long-held dream of the “Tobin Tax,” and doubles the targeted income from such a tax to a whopping three trillion dollars.
The "Tobin tax," named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN, given the vast amount of currency that trades hands at certain times. It also might be a politically acceptable starting point, because most average people do not engage in cross-border currency transactions. A dangerous precedent would be set, however: the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations.
Treaties and the Constitution
by George C. Detweiler
Contrary to current internationalist misrepresentations, the Founding Fathers never intended that treaty law supersede the Constitution.
Nearly 50 years ago, John Foster Dulles, secretary of state under President Dwight Eisenhower, asserted that "treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example … can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights." Leaving aside the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect rights, rather than grant them, Dulles’ calculated misrepresentation of the treaty-making power serves as a timely warning today, as a globalist political elite tirelessly promotes UN treaties and conventions that imperil long-cherished American freedoms.
Perhaps the most suitable example of a UN treaty that would "cut across" rights protected by the Constitution is the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute, which would create a permanent, 18-judge tribunal with a mandate over every living human being. Dr. Charles Rice of the University of Notre Dame Law School describes the ICC treaty as a measure that would "cancel the Fourth of July" by making all Americans subject to trial, in a foreign land, before foreign judges empowered to make "law" according to their whims. This arrangement would recreate one of the key offenses of the British Crown cited in the Declaration of Independence — that of subjecting Americans "to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws...."
Lee Casey, a former Justice Department Counsel, has pointed out that the ICC treaty "contains no habeas corpus provisions, no right to bail, and no other means of compelling the [court] to conduct a speedy trial." Under the "international standards" that may govern the ICC, Casey further points out, suspects may be detained for five years or more without being charged with a crime. In addition, those arraigned before the UN tribunals established to prosecute "war crimes" in Yugoslavia and Rwanda — which serve as precedent-generating models for the permanent ICC — have been denied nearly all of the protections and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Defendants before those tribunals have been denied the right to defense counsel of their choice; they have been denied the right to confront their accusers; they have been required to offer self-incriminating testimony, and informed that refusal to do so would be considered evidence of guilt. Even more outrageous is the Stalinesque means used by these UN tribunals to carry out their judgments. British legal activist Barry Crawford, who has been an observer at the UN’s tribunal for Rwanda, warns that "in order to enforce its edicts, people have been quite literally kidnapped and detained in secret locations and denied access to defense counsel." Identical criminal methods have been used by officials at the UN’s tribunal for Yugoslavia. But the most outrageous aspect of the ICC treaty is this: After the pact has been signed and ratified by 60 nations, it will go into effect, thereby claiming world-wide jurisdiction — including the power to arrest and try citizens of nations (including Americans) that refuse to participate in the court.
Critics of the ICC treaty, particularly those in the Pentagon who are understandably concerned that U.S. military personnel could find themselves subject to vindictive prosecution, have urged the president not to sign the treaty, and the Senate not to ratify the document should it be signed. However, relatively few of the ICC’s opponents have criticized the premise that the president and Senate have the power to commit our nation to a treaty that would inflict upon our nation the horrors described above. Indeed, most commentary about the ICC and similar UN treaties reflects the same misunderstanding of the Constitution’s "Supremacy Clause" that was propagated by John Foster Dulles so long ago.