The U.S. Has Been in a State of Declared National Emergency Since 1933

The Fourth and Stealth “Branch” of Governance: Presidential Executive Orders

By Catherine J. Frompovich, vactruth.com
June 14, 2010

“This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.” – Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father and Declaration of Independence Signatory

If Ben Franklin were around today, he probably would publish a diatribe about what’s been happening within the form of government that he and his cronies fought so desperately hard to establish: a REPUBLIC. There’s very little today to remind one of a true republic, particularly in the United States of America where neo-patriots are springing up all over the country in opposition to what they perceive is an infringement of their constitutional rights. Ben is often quoted as having answered when asked what kind of country you gave us, with “a Republic, if you can keep it.”

Before we proceed, let’s define some forms of government so that we’re all on the same page.

• Republic: country of laws established by consensus

• Democracy: where rule is direct by the people or elected representatives

• Dictatorship: one-man suppressive regime

• Fascism: centralized autocratic government with severe social and economic regimes and enforced suppression to any opposition

However, in the United States there’s a stealth “branch” of governance by laws that are made by only one person with no input from or approval by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution. It’s the U.S. President’s power of Executive Orders, something that needs to be rescinded, if ever such power truly were given to a president. My interpretation is that it would not have been granted, as that is what the Founding Fathers—and Mothers, too—were seeking to circumvent: Dictates of a king!

To appreciate such an awesome lordship privilege, let’s examine some of its history. Conventional wisdom seems to agree that President Abraham Lincoln was the first president to assume Executive Orders [April 15, 1861: Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress] at the outbreak of the War Between the States, the Civil War, when he suspended habeas corpus [a person cannot be imprisoned arbitrarily without legal cause], which was a total disregard for Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

Since that time, several presidents have suspended civil authority and imposed military authority by executive order. Andrew Jackson imposed martial law during the War of 1812. President Grant in 1872 sent troops into South Carolina to confiscate all arms and ammunition owned by citizens there in violation of the right to bear arms. President Woodrow Wilson sent the infantry into Colorado in 1914 to disarm everyone including law enforcement and the Colorado National Guard. These are just a few examples that historically support presidents taking executive order privilege seriously.

However, executive orders were elevated to an “art form” when the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933 placed the USA under a state of emergency and suspended the Constitution—a state and condition we have lived under all this time and which has never been rescinded, plus three other emergency states mandated by Presidents Harry S. Truman [December 16, 1950] and Richard M. Nixon [March 23, 1970 and August 15, 1971] thereby enabling presidents with their assumed role of lawmaker by executive order.

Interestingly, Senate Report 93-549 [November 19, 1973] has this to say:

“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency…”

Executive orders automatically become law upon publication in the Federal Register, a daily government publication. That’s it! No one has to see, comment, or approve an executive order, even if it is unconstitutional! How does the U.S. Congress allow that to happen, when in the U.S. Constitution it decrees how lawmaking is to be implemented? The loophole is to be found in the fact that we’ve been living under a state of emergency since 1933. This state of emergency needs to be rescinded so that our constitutional rights can be restored. Perhaps there needs to be a citizen uprising to restore our constitutional rights. Right now, that beloved document is worthless and that’s why politicians are getting away with whatever they can.

The courts in 1937 decreed that treaties, known as executive agreements, signed by presidents do not require consensus or approval by either the legislative (Congress) or judicial (U.S. Supreme Court) branches of the government.

In 2005 the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement came into being. Its goals are:

• Coordinate our security efforts to better protect U.S. citizens from terrorist threats and transnational crime and promote the safe and efficient movement of legitimate people and goods;

• Expand economic opportunity for all our people by making our businesses more competitive in the global marketplace, cutting red tape, and providing consumers with safe, less expensive, and innovative products; and

• Enhance our common efforts to combat infectious diseases, develop responses to man-made or natural disasters to enhance our citizens’ quality of life, protect our people and our environment, and improve consumer safety.

The remarkable spin on this is that supposedly a U.S. president can call in Mexican and Canadian troops to use against and control U.S. citizens. Some people think President George W. Bush “gave away the store” or signed off our sovereignty and constitutional rights. Whether or not that is true is debatable. However, I’ve come across some disturbing information that may prove interesting insofar as the United Nations controlling U.S. citizens.

Update on Video Above: There is confirmation that there are no vehicles as of now at the private airfield known as Reynolds Airpark in Green Cove Springs, Florida [Google map coordinates 29.97213,-81.660047], which was a U.S. Navy Air Station until 1960. It appears the vehicles have been moved between February 2010 (when the video above was made) and now. Thanks to a dedicated Intel Soldier known as Gortz, we have solved this one. We will keep you posted if anything changes. - Intel Hub, Thousands of UN Vehicles and Tons of Equipment Masking at Florida Airbase?, May 26, 2010

In researching Executive Orders I stumbled upon something that I think needs some light of day shed upon it. Many in the U.S. were traumatized and living under duress this past flu season by the mandates that were flying regarding the H1N1 flu vaccine and vaccinations in general. Back on April 4, 2003, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13295 Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases that threw up a red flag or two for me.

Section 1. Based upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”), in consultation with the Surgeon General, and for the purpose of specifying certain communicable diseases for regulations providing for the apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals to prevent introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases, the following communicable diseases are hereby specified pursuant to section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act:

(a) Cholera; Diphtheria; infectious Tuberculosis; Plague; Smallpox; Yellow Fever; and Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers (Lass, Marburg, Ebola, Crimean-Congo, South American, and others not yet isolated or named).

(b) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which is a disease associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness, is transmitted from person to person predominantly by the aerosolized or droplet route, and, if spread in the population, would have severe public health consequences.

Sec. 2. The Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, shall determine whether a particular condition constitutes a communicable disease of the type specified in section 1 of this order.

Sec. 3. The functions of the President under section 362 and 364(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 265 and 267[a]) are assigned to the Secretary.

Sec. 4. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit enforceable at law or equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 5. Executive Order 12452 of December 22, 1983, is hereby revoked.

Then, on April 1, 2005, President Bush issued Executive Order 13375 Amendment to Executive Order 13295 Relating to Certain Influenza Viruses and Quarantinable Communicable Diseases:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264[b]), it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Based upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Surgeon General, and for the purpose set forth in section 1 of Executive Order 13295 of April 4, 2003, section 1 of such order is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

“ (c) Influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic.”

Sec. 2. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

If I’m interpreting these executive orders correctly, it seems that contracting a communicable disease like the flu will make a person subject to “apprehension and detention.” Why? One can’t be sick in one’s own home? There seems to be a more sinister side to these executive orders insofar as setting a ground rule for more than sickness, particularly since the World Health Organization revised the standard medical definition for pandemic with regard to H1N1 as a pandemic that apparently didn’t pan out. It was the pandemic that wasn’t!

These executive orders sound more like a control campaign setup for some reasons other than community health considerations. It seems to have earmarks of fascism. And, of course, the president pulls a “have your cake and eat it too” for government routine in the order where it states, “This order is not intended to, and does not, create…”

The amazing part about all the executive orders is the manner in which they start, namely: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America… as if the Constitution really gave the president executive orders powers. I think we should challenge that because when I studied the Constitution in political science, I never found it. That executive order power is assumed and self-proclaimed.

According to The U.S. National Archives & Records Administration, Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index documents Executive Orders from Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) to the current Barack Obama (2009-present), close to 8500—yes, eighty-five hundred—executive orders have become the law of the land with NO approval by Congress or dissent by voters.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt holds the all time record: he issued 3,467 Executive Orders. The next closest is Herbert Hoover with over 1,000, and President Gerald R. Ford issued the least: 168.

To get a flavor for some of the edicts proclaimed in Presidential Executive Orders, let’s check out a few:

• E.O. 10995 President Kennedy: Seizure of all communications media and suspension of First Amendment rights.

• E.O. 11490 President Nixon: Presidential control over all U.S. citizens, businesses, and churches in times of emergency.

• E.O. 11921 President Ford: Grants Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to take control over all production and distribution, energy sources, wages and salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions during any national emergency, and Congress cannot review the action for six months.

• E.O. 12656 President Reagan: Emergency preparedness responsibilities that includes federal takeover of all local law enforcement agencies, wage and price controls, prohibits moving of assets in or out of USA, controls all means of travel, creates a mandatory armed services draft.

• E.O. 13010 President Clinton: Directs FEMA to take control over all government agencies in times of emergency.

Now let’s see what President Obama signed. His very first executive order was Executive Order 13489 of January 21, 2009 [the day after he took office] Presidential Records that, in essence, sealed any information about him being made public.

• E.O. 13499 Feb. 5, 2009: Further Amendments to Executive Order 12835, Establishment of National Economic Council

• E.O. 13500 Feb. 5, 2009: Further Amendments to Executive Order 12859, Establishment of the Domestic Policy Council

• E.O. 13501 Feb. 6, 2009: Establishing the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board

• E.O. 13503 Feb. 19, 2009: Establishment of the White House Office on Urban Affairs

• E.O. 13505 Mar. 9, 2009: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells

• E.O. 13506 Mar. 11, 2009: Establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls

• E.O. 13511 Sept. 29, 2009: Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees

• Plus numerous E.O.s amending former presidents’ executive orders.

Given these examples, you can now see how this fourth and stealth “branch” of governance works. It’s also a president’s way of increasing government spending without getting the approval of Congress. It’s also a way of encumbering citizens with rules, regulations and laws they don’t know about but are subject to.

Executive Orders could become an autocrat’s dream come true. If you didn’t know, Hitler used his executive orders power trying to change Germany into his Aryan dream world that used directives against one class of people and then spread to other ethnic groups. The world knows it as Nazism. That started out as a promised change for the better but wound up becoming a world war.

When so much power is reserved for and invested in one individual at any stage of a society’s functions, be it in the courts, stock market, medicine, religion, and especially in government, there’s a definite need for change. In my opinion, no individual’s actions should be deemed unaccountable by self-decree.

If my research is correct, the best change of all would be to rescind the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933 and get out from under the perpetual state of emergency we currently live in and to reconstitute the U.S. Constitution. Maybe those neo-patriots are on to something that many of us are uninformed about. Maybe that’s the reasoning behind having them labeled as “national security threats.”

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

Foreign Troops in America

Foreign troops have been practicing putting down American citizens on American soil as a part of the program known as: Operation Garden Plot. Operation Garden Plot is a general U.S. Army and National Guard plan to respond to major domestic civil disturbances within the United States. The plan was developed in response to the civil disorders of the 1960s and is now under the control of the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM). It provides Federal military and law enforcement assistance to local governments during times of major civil disturbances ... Operation Garden Plot is a subprogram of Rex 84 Program, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, the military’s plan to impose martial law and intern dissidents and others in an undisclosed number of concentration camps. - Kim M., Foreign Troops on the Streets of America?, SoCal Martial Law Alerts, December 31, 2009

By Nathan Leal
June 2007

In this dream, I was in my home town - Loveland, Colorado.

A terrorist event had just occured somewhere else in the U.S.

Because of the attack, all of America was under Martial Law.

There was a command given to all citizens that everyone had to report to their neighborhood public school.

The purpose of going to the school was some sort of mandatory registration (part of their war on terror).

When I arrived at the registration area with my wife, there was a long line with hundreds of people in line.

Along the length of the line were soldiers maintaining order. They were shoving people and giving commands.

I joined the line waiting to get into the building.

As the line slowly moved, I eventually got close enough to several of the soldiers.

They began to ask me questions, but I could not understand them because one of them was speaking Russian and the other one was speaking German.

Conclusion: Martial Law is coming to America in our future with foreign troops.

Date when this will occur unknown.

John Trochmann, of the Montana Militia presents much hard hittin

neverknwo MySpace Video

FORT POLK, La. - Parachutes opened, marching music blared, and more than 4,000 members of three NATO and Central and Eastern Europe military services paraded across Honor Field here today to open Exercise Cooperative Nugget 95, the first NATO Partnership for Peace (PFP) exercise to be conducted in the United States. The opening ceremony marked the beginning of Cooperative Nugget `95, an exercise which provides numerous opportunities for the multinational training force to practice and develop their combined peacekeeping skills through August 26 at the Joint Readiness Training Center. Military personnel from Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the PFP countries marched onto Fort Polk's Honor Field. The PFP nations included Albania, Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kyrghystan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, The Slovak Republic, Slovenia, The Ukraine and Uzbekistan. The Golden Knights, the U.S. Army parachute team from Fort Bragg, N.C., began the festivities with a precision free fall demonstration involving 10 parachutists. As the U.S. Navy Band New Orleans performed their unique march music, military units from 17 different nations passed in review before senior military and civilian representatives from NATO and the United States. Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and commander-in-chief of U.S. Atlantic Command, welcomed all participants. "It is through exercises such as this that truly we can create a new world order in which the militaries of the world can work in coordination and cooperation to fill a better peace," Sheehan said. - U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), News Release, August 10, 1995

NATO Partnership for Peace - Status of Forces Agreement

North Atlantic Treaty Organization - The PfP SOFA is a multilateral agreement between NATO member states and countries participating in the Partnership for Peace (PfP). It deals with the status of foreign forces while present on the territory of another state.

The agreement was originally drawn up in in Brussels on 19 June 1995 to facilitate cooperation and exercises under the recently launched PfP programme.

Basically, the PfP SOFA applies – with the necessary changes having been made – most of the provisions of an agreement between NATO member states, which was done in London on 19 June 1951. (Some provisions of this so-called NATO SOFA cannot be applied to Partner countries for technical reasons.)

It is important to note that these SOFAs fully respect the principle of territorial sovereignty, which requires a receiving state to give its consent to the entry of foreign forces. Neither the PfP SOFA nor the NATO SOFA addresses the issue of the presence of the force itself – that would be defined in separate arrangements. Consequently, it is only after states have agreed to send or receive forces that the SOFAs concerned are applicable.
What does this mean in practice?

By acceding to the PfP SOFA, the parties to the agreement identify exactly what the status of their forces will be and what privileges, facilities and immunities will apply to them, when they are present on the territory of another state, which is party to the PfP SOFA. All states that are party to the agreement grant the same legal status to forces of the other parties when these are present on their territory.

Therefore, once there is a common agreement, for example, regarding a certain operation, training or exercise, the same set of provisions will apply on a reciprocal basis. A common status and an important degree of equal treatment will be reached, which will contribute to the equality between Partners.



Imagine If Foreign Troops Occupied the United States
United Nations Concentration Camps Program in America
UN Troops and War Materiel in America
Constitution for the Federation of Earth
FEMA Web Page Shows Martial Law Exercise with Foreign Troops
FEMA’s National Level Exercise 2009: Utilizing Foreign Troops on American Soil
Foreign Troops in the U.S. Military
"Peacekeeping" Armies Train for Global Control
Fire on Americans
Foreign Military Convoys Spotted in Washington State and Montana
US Military Training Rapidly with Foreign Troops Here in Europe
Russian & Foreign Troops Ordered Into U.S.
NY National Guard Involved In Mass Arrests Of U.S. Citizens

The Age of Privacy Is Over

Good-Bye to Privacy?

Learn about major new threats to your privacy, from social networks to advertisers to yourself.

By Tom Spring, PC World
May 23, 2010

New Yorker Barry Hoggard draws a line in the sand when it comes to online privacy. In May he said farewell to 1251 Facebook friends by deleting his account of four years to protest what he calls the social network's eroding privacy policies.

"I'm sick of keeping track of my Facebook privacy settings and what boxes I have to check to protect myself," says Hoggard, a computer programmer. "I don't have a lot of illusions about online privacy, but Facebook has gone too far," he says of Facebook's recent privacy policy changes.

From Facebook to advertisers who may be putting your online identity up for sale to the highest bidder, and to strangers who could track you across town, new ways of using technology and the Internet are making privacy issues a flash point for controversy.

"Privacy today isn't what it was a year ago," says Jeffrey Chester, director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a nonprofit group that promotes online privacy and free speech. "It wasn't long ago we were worried about advertisers planting cookies on our PC," he says. With today's trends, keeping a handle on your privacy is going to become even harder a year from now, he adds.

What follows are several emerging privacy threats.

Social Networks

Do social networks herald the end of privacy? Lots of former Facebook users who recently ditched their accounts in protest think so. With 450 million users, many say, Facebook is a bellwether for other social networks on user privacy.

Swapping small talk and vacation photos made Facebook addictive for users. But over the years, they've watched as their private info became shared with a growing sphere of strangers--advertisers. And in May, Facebook made changes to its privacy policy that exposed more personal data to a wider range of marketers.

One change involved the Instant Personalization pilot program, which let selected Facebook partner Websites access your data and tailor content to your tastes. With Instant Personalization activated, your Facebook information can be accessed the moment you arrive on partner sites including Microsoft's Docs.com, Pandora, and Yelp. When the program launched in April, Facebook automatically activated it for all users. However, a privacy uproar forced the company to revise its policy. Instant Personalization is now optional for users.

Facebook has suffered privacy backlashes before. In 2007 it introduced Beacon, an ad system that tracked certain actions of Facebook users on 44 partner sites so as to report those actions back to users' Facebook friends network. But many users revolted, citing privacy concerns. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg quickly apologized and made Beacon an optional feature.

"Facebook is literally turning down the Facebook privacy settings for its users," says Electronic Privacy Information Center director Marc Rotenberg.

In early May, EPIC and 14 other consumer groups filed a complaint against Facebook with the Federal Trade Commission. The complaint accuses the site of following unfair and deceptive business practices, in part, for disclosing previously private details to the public.

Google Buzz (the search giant's social network) has also endured privacy issues. Buzz exposed a list of users' most frequently accessed e-mail contacts when it launched earlier this year.

Social networks have forced users to rethink what privacy is in a world where public sharing of private lives has become commonplace, observes Jeremy Mishkin, an attorney specializing in privacy law.

"The real issue is how best to assure individuals they have control of their own information," Mishkin says.

Facebook declined interviews, but issued a statement:

"It's important that Facebook and other sites provide [users] with clear control over what information they want to share, when they want to share it, and with whom. We're listening to feedback and evaluating the best way to respond to concerns."

Note: We have tips to help you negotiate the maze of Facebook's privacy settings.

Data Harvesting

Creating a digital profile on you gets a lot easier if you are on Facebook or Google Buzz and hanging a shingle on LinkedIn. That marketers use your interest in, say, Volkswagen cars to target-market you a new Jetta may be no surprise. But will your Facebook status ever be used by a credit agency, health care provider, or future employer to determine if you are a good bet?

Firms such as California-based Rapleaf say they are working with financial institutions to run their databases of e-mail addresses to assemble customer profiles based on information shared on social networks. Rapleaf's vice president of business development, Joel Jewitt, says it collaborates with company marketing departments, not credit-approval departments, to better target financial services to banking customers.

Rapleaf is merely one of many firms--ranging from Acxiom to Unbound Technology--that tap into social networks to marry your profiles, tweets, and LinkedIn information with your e-mail address. If a company wants to know more about you, it can just hire one of these outfits.

The firms bristle at the notion that your credit card interest rates could be jacked up based on a tweet that you just got laid off. But privacy experts say that this may be a reality in coming years (see related story: "Can Your Online Life Ruin Your Credit?").

To privacy activists, online advertisers have always been too smart for their own good. Now two emerging trends in advertising have privacy groups once more complaining that Madison Avenue has gone too far.

BlueKai, DataLogic, and Nielsen are working with online advertisers to help them reach Internet users with ads based on their offline behaviors and demographic attributes. Advertisers are careful to note that only nonpersonally identifiable information is used and that people are never identified by name, but rather as demographic subgroups. Want to show a banner ad to, say, a conservative Caucasian mom with three kids, age 34, with a household income of $120,000, who works out four times a week at the gym? No problem.

Connections between the offline and online worlds are often made via an e-mail address kept on record by a company that you do business with. That e-mail address could create a link to a composite profile made up of your online activities from sites such as social networks. By cross-referencing that e-mail address, advertisers can show you banner ads tailored to your spending habits and to your political views expressed on Twitter.

Real-Time Shark Bait

The second trend is a real-time ad-bidding technology that lets advertisers, such as Google and Yahoo, track users online and deliver customized third-party ads--all in the blink of an eye.

Here is how it works. As you go from site to site, advertisers can bid in real time to show you an ad tied to your online activity. For example, if you are shopping for a Nikon digital SLR camera, you may see an ad for a competing Canon DSLR model on the next site you visit. If you buy that Canon, advertisers can then bid--in a fraction of second--for the right to show you, on the next site you jump to, ads for lenses for that camera.

Advertisers can track you from site to site only if the same advertising company delivers ads to those sites. For instance, Google-owned DoubleClick delivers ads to thousands of the Web's top destinations. Its real-time ad-bidding program is called DoubleClick Ad Exchange.

Privacy Double Whammy

The rise of those two online marketing trends that create cunningly effective advertising campaigns--tailored in just a fraction of a second to a Web surfer's household income, interests, and online activity--may not be a real surprise. But privacy activists say that they go too far and that advertisers are unfairly tracking people and profiting from their data.

"Consumers will be most shocked to learn that companies are instantaneously combining the details of their online lives with information from previously unconnected offline databases without their knowledge, let alone consent," says Ed Mierzwinski of the Public Interest Research Group, a government watchdog organization.

The Center for Digital Democracy's Jeffrey Chester says that this type of advertising fosters predatory ads. Examples could be dubious health cures or high-interest loans for HDTVs.

The CDD, PIRG, and the World Privacy Forum have asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into ad networks such as Google's and Yahoo's. The groups seek more transparency from advertisers and a way for consumers to opt out of this type of profiling.

Advertisers have been sensitive to privacy concerns, according to the Ponemon Institute, a privacy research group. Ponemon says such concerns have prompted online advertisers to use behavioral ads 75 percent less than they would otherwise.

Transparency is key for advertisers, says Scott Meyer, chief executive of Better Advertising. He says the industry has stepped up efforts to ward off government regulation by developing self-regulatory programs. One is the use of transparency icons: Click on such an icon in an ad, and it tells you that the targeted ad is using demographics and behavioral data.

Better Advertising offers a browser plug-in called Ghostery that can alert you to hidden trackers and block scripts from tracking you. Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer support the add-on; but, except in Chrome, the blocking functions don't work.

Mobile Stalking

Without a handle on your GPS-equipped smartphone or geolocation services, you may have only yourself to blame for "friending" Big Brother. Here's why.

Mobile social networks Foursquare, Gowalla, and Loopt are designed to make it easy for your friends to track your whereabouts as you go to restaurants, bars, and shopping malls. A bevy of iPhone and Android mobile apps make use of location information. Facebook says it will introduce features later this summer that will make location sharing as easy as updating your status.

These services have privacy advocates urging consumers to be careful as to how much they reveal about themselves. In February, privacy groups spoke at congressional hearings on consumer privacy and have been urging lawmakers to limit how much advertisers can track users of these services. Privacy guidelines for location-based services and advertising are outdated and obsolete, they say.

Peer Privacy Pressure

Reward-based geolocation services such as Foursquare, which doles out coupons and "points" for members who broadcast their location, spur these concerns.

"You need to consider whether there is anything that your location might indicate about you that you don't want to be public," says Peter Eckersley, senior staff technologist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation civil liberties group. For example, he says, "are you going to church? To a political meeting? To a nightclub? To the beach on a Tuesday? Are there people who might hold those things against you?"

Mobile Ad Targeting

Still other experts worry about advertisers eager to break into a nascent direct-to-mobile marketing industry. Mobile social network Loopt says it is developing an ad service that can target offers to repeat customers of a specific store just as they walk in. The company says that advertisers want to reach people as they are making a buying decision.

Apps that run on smartphones and location-aware gadgets, such as the iPad, also concern privacy activists.

"With the help of GPS technology, every advertiser is going know where you are [and] what you're doing on your phone," says the CDD's Chester.

Mobile apps--even e-readers--will know how close you are to a mall, a restaurant, or your doctor's office, for instance.

Can We Stop Looking Over Our Shoulders?

What is the future of privacy? Will we all just throw up our hands and agree with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who famously stated in 2009 that "the age of privacy is over"? Better Advertising's Meyer believes that the creepy "someone is watching me" feeling will dissipate as technology allows you greater control over your privacy, and as transparency increases.

Maybe then we can all stop looking over our shoulders.

The Yogification of America

By Whitney Joiner, Salon.com
May 3, 2010

By now it's safe to say that the Great Yoga Takeover of America is complete.

According to a 2008 Yoga Journal study, 15.8 million Americans engage in some form of the ancient Indian physical and meditative practice, spending almost $6 billion a year on yoga classes, mats, DVDs and exotic retreats. There’s yoga for couples, yoga for babies, yoga for dogs. (As the New York Times reported recently, there’s already a scrappy, populist yoga-for-the-people movement afoot, a backlash against the steep price tag of upward of $20 for a 70- or 90-minute class.)

But how, exactly, did yoga become so firmly entrenched in American culture? While its explosion is certainly a product of the last few decades, it still comes as a surprise -- given its massive popularity -- to find that not so long ago, yoga was considered dangerous, possibly evil, and certainly a threat to the chastity and delicate nature of American women. Yoga as home-wrecker? That's a new one.

It's all thanks to a man named Pierre Bernard, writes Robert Love, a magazine editor (Rolling Stone, Best Life) and professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, in his fascinating new book "The Great Oom: The Improbable Birth of Yoga in America."

Born Perry Baker in Leon, Iowa, in 1876, Bernard started to study yoga -- both the physical poses, and a number of mystical spiritual teachings -- in his teens, working with a Syrian Indian teacher named Sylvais Hamati. After bringing yoga to the hypnotism-, occult- and magic-obsessed 1890s San Francisco, the charismatic and controversial Bernard eventually settled in Nyack, a town up the Hudson from New York City, where he opened an ashram that drew Broadway performers, prizefighters, British spies and a number of wealthy heiresses. He was derided as a fake and a charlatan by his critics, and deemed a guru by his followers, but without Bernard, nicknamed "the Great Oom" by the New York press, we might not be heading to our Saturday morning classes today, mats under our arms, ready to practice.

Salon spoke to Love over the phone about his new book, Bernard's colorful life story and his influence on yoga today -- and what he might think about those yoga-for-dogs classes.

The story of how you came to write "The Great Oom" is a colorful and fascinating tale on its own. How did you come to learn about Bernard?

When my wife and I moved into this stone cottage overlooking the Hudson, we found mystic symbols carved into the walls: on the back of the bathroom door there was a lion-headed snake, and an ankh carved into the granite above the front door. That tipped us off that there was something unusual about the house. And then our neighbor told us about this so-called father of yoga who had operated just down the hill from where we live.

He seems like such a product of his time: 1890s to 1920s America. What was happening then that allowed Bernard to prosper and gain a following?

Bernard devoted his entire life to teaching hatha yoga in America, from the time that he was a young man in San Francisco in the 1890s to 1955, when he died. When he grew up there was a fascination with the occult: secret powers and the ability to change the material world in front of people. The perception of yoga at the time was limited to photographs and stories of Indian yogis who could do fantastic feats of asceticism, lying on the proverbial bed of nails, hanging on a hook over a fire, in some ways mortifying the body.

While Bernard seemed to have a great respect for the other powers of yoga, he did deal with the esoteric and occult trappings associated with it; he gave demonstrations of trances in which needles were passed through his cheek and tongue and ears without any evidence of feeling pain. That was one of the first ways he came to the public's attention in 1898, when he gave one of these demonstrations and made the New York Times.

And the idea of these unseen powers was in the air at the time. Hypnotism was an obsession. We'd just come from inventions like the telegraph, in which invisible energy was conducted over wires; nobody knew the extent to which other marvelous invisible powers could be had.

How did he manage to change the public's perception of yoga?

At the same time that he was pitching the occult powers associated with yoga, he was also ministering to the rich and wealthy in terms of being a health guru, helping them with physical and psychological problems. He always played both sides of yoga's appeal to the public.

He was not only teaching yoga's health benefits but he was teaching it in classes, in the Tantrik Order, a secret society he started in San Francisco. It was kind of ordered on the model of the Freemasons and the theosophists, but it was a way of teaching yoga without saying the word "yoga."

The Tantrik Order was a secret society, and yet his mission was to popularize yoga. How does that make sense?

I don't think you do square it. In Bernard's life, you can kind of trace the path of yoga as it was perceived in America, from the hidden and occult view of it to the acceptance of it as a form of therapy for health. By the 1920s he'd put the Tantrik Order aside; it wasn't the main focus of his operation. When he moved up to Nyack, it was all about fresh air, cleanliness, hygiene and yoga as part of a full, well-lived life. He turned from the occult toward the idea of yoga as therapy, as sanctuary from a stressful world -- in the same way that yoga itself, or the way that we perceived it, has morphed.

Back then, yoga was actually perceived as a slippery slope to moral downfall, especially for women. Why?

It's fair to say that there was an American war against yoga in 1910 and the years afterward. Yoga had morphed from being the pastime of harmless eccentrics to something that was dangerous and subversive and possibly hurting the virtue of American women. It was based on some cases in which women gave away some amount of their fortunes to Indian swamis. In 1911, the Washington Post reported that the government was looking into this, conducting investigations. And certainly the fear that it was unleashing the sexuality of women. In the 1910s, the exoticness of it, the Orientalness of it, always came associated with loose sexuality. This wasn't American Christianity.

Bernard was arrested in 1910, at exactly the time of the passage of the Mann Act (the White-Slave Traffic Act), and charged with inveigling women into his den of sin for the purpose of sexual intercourse. He was thrown into jail in 1910 and spent the entire summer. He was released later in the year, and the charges were ultimately dropped. The entire nation was seized by this fear that there was a conspiracy of foreigners to steal American women. There were purity and vice commissions set up around the country.

What were these turn-of-the-century yogis looking for?

We think people who lived 100 years ago were not stressed out, but they were. People came to him for all kinds of medical and stress issues. He turned around people who were in trouble physically or mentally, and promised peace of mind and the ennobling of the spirit.

Today, part of what makes yoga so popular is its vague spirituality, a kind of free-floating message about acceptance and oneness. How does that connect to what he was teaching then?

What he believed was a kind of amalgamation of Hindu tantric beliefs. It was centered on worship of Shakti, the feminine power and regeneration principle. A kind of a worship of the body was at the heart of Bernard’s beliefs. Also, that all truth is sacred, that nobody really has a direct line on truth, that it’s there in Hinduism and Buddhism and Christianity. There was never any dogma attached to what Bernard taught; it was a practical spirituality that gave results -- making it very modern, related to the mind-cure movement at the time and to the New Age movement of today.

That's the thing that's wonderful about yoga. It's a step-by-step practical spiritual philosophy. He saw it that way, and that kind of hooks it up to the way we think about it. He was the guy that made yoga safe for America, and vice versa, in many ways.

Today, yoga is a spiritual and physical cure-all, a panacea for everything that ails us. And it's a huge commercial industry. There's even yoga for dogs, and babies. What do you think he'd make of what yoga has become?

Part of his influence was that he did set the stage for the commercialization of yoga. But he himself catered to the carriage trade. His life was based on an American model of the guru-student relationship; most of the people who came to the club had personal relationships with him. They weren't just students; he was their guru. I think he would've turned up his nose at the variations of yoga -- dog yoga, things like that.

Did the yoga he taught actually look like what we know of yoga today?

There are no films of it, but there are photographs of people doing the asanas that we would recognize today.

It was fascinating to see him develop in the same kind of guru vs. huckster dynamic we've seen in other controversial religious and spiritual figures who've brought Eastern spirituality to the West. In your last chapter, you ask whether he was a genius or a fraud, but you don't come down specifically on one side or another. What is your baseline feeling on Bernard?

I don't think you can call him an out-and-out fraud, or a charlatan, and I certainly think you can call him one of yoga’s pioneers in America, and also someone who cared deeply about yoga and made it his entire life's mission. Did he do things that were immoral or illegal at certain times in his life? He did. He was a rogue with a scandalous past. He wasn't a devil, and he wasn't a saint.

Moving Toward Communism: Take a Look at China Today to See the Future of America, Once a Free Nation Under God

In the early stages of socialism, there are profound inequalities among these masses. And this ends up getting expressed in the fact that some people have more of a role in political affairs, and in the affairs of society in general, than others. These people, if they are adhering to the socialist road, if they are really applying the communist outlook and methodology, will act in the interests of the masses, but in significant ways they are acting in place of the masses even while acting in their interests. To move beyond that situation requires a whole process, a whole epoch of struggle, to achieve the transition from socialism to communism, and not just in one country by itself—which is impossible—but on a worldwide basis. - Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, Moving Toward Communism, March 20, 2005

Security departments throughout Guangdong Province will by the end of 2010 have set up one million surveillance cameras—called “celestial eyes” by local cadres—in places ranging from government and office buildings to bus and railway stations. - Willy Lam, Beijing's Stimulus Plan: Preemptive Crisis Management, The Jamestown Foundation, November 23, 2008

Communist United States, the Final Plank

China’s communists believe world socialism is inevitable... Just as China has modified the doctrines of Marx, ­Engels, Lenin, and Stalin to produce what Deng Xiaoping called ­‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,’ so will the United States, Germany, Japan, and Russia ultimately develop their own socialist characteristics.” - Bill Gertz, The China Threat, Regnery Publishing Inc. 2001

By Alan Stang
Originally Published on July 27, 2007

... Today, here in the United States, all the elements of totalitarian dictatorship that (because of modern technology would leave Hitler, and Stalin, etc., breathless with envy) have been meticulously installed, from the Patriot Act (which the congressmen who voted on it were not allowed to read), to Patriot II (the existence of which the White House denied), through the emasculation of the Posse Comitatus Act (that forbade the domestic use of our military), to the act that cancels Habeas Corpus.

Most Americans don’t realize that the United States is a Communist country. What? The United States a Communist country? Stang, are you out of your mind? We’ve been fighting Communism from the beginning. We fought wars against Communism in Korea and Vietnam. We tried to invade Cuba. We confronted the Soviet Union. How can you say we’re a Communist country?

Yes, we fought Communism for years. Most Americans still naively assume that means we fought to win. Why else would you fight? No! We didn’t win, because our policy was not to win; it was to fight, to keep fighting endlessly while we drained ourselves of treasure, money and human.

We created the Soviet Union, which never did collapse. We created Red China. We created Communist Cuba. It is not at all an exaggeration to say that were it not for the United States, Communism would never have been anything more than a minor historical footnote, long since disappeared. For an explanation of all this, see my extensive archives.

How would you decide whether a country is Communist? Why not go to the expert? Would you take the word of Karl Marx? In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx set forth a list of ten steps to Communism. Marx said a country that takes those ten steps is Communist.

So, how many of those ten steps have we taken in the United States? Until last week, we had taken nine. For instance, the federal government has long since taken control, both direct and indirect, of the land. The federal government has installed a graduated income tax. The federal government has taken control of the nation’s money and credit. The federal government controls the nation’s education. All these things are planks in the Communist program.

The only thing Washington has not adopted is the fourth plank: “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.” There are a couple of additional, unnumbered steps. One is the abolition of the family, which phony feminism in tandem with organized sodomy has gone a long way toward accomplishing. The other is public ownership of women, which will be adopted after the next major crisis, maybe the attack on Iran, when martial law is imposed and women are drafted as well as men. My money says that by now we are corrupt enough to let it happen.

And on July 17th, el presidente Jorge W. Boosh adopted Plank Four. From now on, if you are found to be “undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people,” or if you are discovered to “pose a significant risk of committing” an act of violence that could threaten “the peace or stability of Iraq,” the federal government can “block” your property. The determination would be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Defense.

So, what does this mean? What does it mean to “undermine efforts?” What does it mean not just to commit an act of violence, but to “pose a significant risk of committing” one? However broad and sloppy it is, doesn’t this language obviously refer to violent Islamic terrorists? Shouldn’t we give our own government the benefit of the doubt?

Remember that until the Socialist Herbert Hoover Administration, immediately reinforced by the Socialist Franklin Roosevelt Administration, Americans did not give government the benefit of the doubt. They were intensely suspicious of government, an attitude bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers in the separation of powers, until Republican Hoover and then Democrat FDR turned the federal government into troughs and beguiled the pigs to slop.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to Tom Jefferson or to Andy Jackson or to Grover Cleveland. I don’t give it to a President who says he is fighting terrorism, but who refuses to protect our borders from terrorists, a President who imprisons our Border Patrol but rewards drug smugglers and coyotes, a President who is trying to dissolve our country in a world government, a President who says he is fighting terrorism in Iraq, but whose Rules of Engagement prevent our military from winning, give the crucial edge in combat to the enemy and put our finest officers on trial.

What does it mean to “undermine efforts?” Could it mean to criticize severely? If an American sincerely opposes spending our money to effect the economic reconstruction of Iraq, would “undermine efforts” to do that include organizing and working to prevent it? If the Secretary of the Treasury decides that is what you are doing, he apparently can seize your property.

Indeed, remember, the language of the new presidential Executive Order says nothing about undermining the American war effort. It says nothing about interfering with the military. The new offense consists of “undermining” the administration’s foreign economic policy. If you do that, you become, in the terminology of the Communist Manifesto, a “rebel” whose property the government can legally seize.

So, if we now have taken, or are about to take, without exception, every single one of the Communist Manifesto’s steps to Communism, wouldn’t that make us a Communist country? Yes, we fought the Communist countries we founded. So what? Dion O’Bannion fought Al Capone. Did that make him any less a gangster?

Four star general Tommy Franks, our former commander in Iraq, says the President will impose martial law and abolish the Constitution after the next “terrorist attack.” Some victims of astigmatism tell us there is nothing to worry about because, after all, we don’t have martial law today. In fact, a couple of weeks have passed since Boosh issued the new Executive Order and nobody’s property has been seized. No one has been called a “rebel.” The elaborate, totalitarian powers the government has written into the law have not been invoked, so there is “nothing to fear.”

Yes, maybe that is true. But there was “nothing to fear” from Hitler until he put everything in place. Remember the Enabling Act? There was “nothing to fear” from Stalin until he consolidated power. There was “nothing to fear” from Mao until Washington had forced President Chiang to flee. There was “nothing to fear” from Castro until he arrived in Havana and was installed by the United States.

Everything to do what they did, and then some, is now in place here.

The Boosh Executive Order typically uses Iraq as the phony justification for imposing still more controls in the United States. But remember, as in Vietnam, we could win the war in Iraq any time we like. Here again is but one classic tactic that would guarantee almost immediate victory, from the archives of the prestigious Stang Institute of Modern Warfare.

Cover the country with propaganda leaflets clearly and calmly explaining that every round we fire — be it from a personal weapon, chopper or artillery — will henceforth be soaked in pig guts, that every Mohammedan terrorist we kill will routinely be buried with a hog and that his children will be raised on pork chops. At the very least, this tactic would separate the Muslims and the Reds.

And guess what? This tactic would not undermine efforts to reconstruct the Iraqi economy! If you spread word about it, there is no danger you could lose your property.

Has America Become Communist?

Whilst China is still officially a communist state under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, rural-urban inequality is increasing and the economy is becoming a lot more market-oriented. It seems to be deviating further away from socialism. This is in terms of the market, but it could be strongly socialist in other aspects. It could be argued that the U.S. is moving more towards socialism a bit, but remember that it is not just the U.S. where banks are being nationalised and businesses are being bailed out. It's happening in Europe as well. Although this form of government intervention is not characteristic of a market economy, I don't think it's gotten anywhere near the stage where the U.S. is as socialist as China. - Mr Economist, Is U.S. a market economy or is China is a market economy?, June 2009

By Mark Jaquith, Tempus Fugit
Originally Published on August 27, 2005

Marx’s Ten Planks of Communism.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose

   The Kelo vs. New London decision gives the government to take private property away and keep it for itself or give it to another private entity.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

   Yep. The more you make, the higher tax percentage you pay, and the effect is not at all subtle.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

   We’re maybe halfway there. The death tax can take more than 50%… sometimes 100%.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

   The IRS can take property without due process, and is often used by politicians to target enemies.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly

   The Federal Reserve.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State

   FCC, DOT, FAA… acronyms are fun.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan

   Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture

   No.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country

   Absolutely.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
    
    Yeah, we have government education, but it’s not yet combined with industrial production.

So, not looking too good on that front either. I don’t see it as America moving towards Communism or Fascism specifically, but America moving away from its capitalistic, Libertarian roots: free people, free markets and small government.

China: New World Order Litmus Test

By Steve Watson & Alex Jones, Infowars.com
Originally Published on April 18, 2006

We have long documented how China is the New World Order Blueprint for a controlled Police State Surveillance Dictatorship.

The elite have even admitted, in their own documents, how they wish to emulate the Chinese model and apply it in the Anglo-American Western block.

Sky News recently produced a segment which highlighted how, despite fierce anger and resistance amongst the people of China, the Communist Government has instilled such fear and has such control over the media that very few dare to stand up and speak out. Those that do are forcibly quashed.

The Government and its contractors are seizing people's land and homes and building their own developments on it, forcing the population into living lives of poverty and squalor.

The state-controlled Chinese media does not cover this because they know they would be immediately shut down if they did. The only footage that comes out of China is shot by the people themselves or undercover foreign reporters.

These revelations should remind us of the fact that tyrannical governments, in order to succeed, know they have to infiltrate the lives of their populations to every degree, not allowing any form of self sufficiency or independence to endanger their iron fist control.

In a startling reminder of how much closer we are to the Chinese model than we are distant from it, the US Supreme Court has already decided that local governments can force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted, and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

The true details of this situation were not picked up on by the mainstream media, just as they are not being reported in Communist China.

A recent Virginia training manual used to help state employees recognize terrorists even lists property rights activists as terrorists and includes binoculars, video cameras, pads and notebooks in a compendium of terrorist tools.

Under section 802 of the Patriot Act, any crime or misdemeanor that endangers human life can be considered terroristic. I guess protesting against the government grabbing your land can be included under this umbrella.

This is just one of many horror stories to emerge from the Communist Chinese police state in recent times. The total dehumanization in China is the elite model for a prison control grid across the planet.

Last year the London Guardian reported that Chinese cosmetics companies are using
skin harvested from the corpses of executed convicts to develop beauty products for sale in Europe.

Stories of organ harvesting are widespread and confirmed by multiple mainstream sources, yet the state department, even contradicting its own reports, suggested that it is an "urban myth."

China also still has a policy of public execution for dissidents. The country has flirted with mobile execution vans as it shifts away from the communist system's traditional bullet in the head towards a more "civilized" use of lethal injection.

The issues of forced sterilization and forced abortion have also recently resurfaced in the Communist country. Despite withdrawing some funds for these policies, the Bush administration still bankrolls UNESCO projects which have had direct links to forced abortions and sterilizations. Recently Dr Eric Pianka, a top University of Texas professor, advocated such policies when he said that China's one-child policy, enforced by a brutal police state, was a good thing.

Censorship is widespread in China, particularly since the advent of the internet. The state has introduced cartoon cyber cops in an attempt to make the totalitarian regime internet-user friendly. In reality the characters are there to warn the people that Big Brother is watching them.

The Internet police icons have been responsible for a 60% decline in the filtering of Internet postings for content challenging the political order. The sites that cannot be patrolled are simply shut down. New rules have been issued banning Internet news services from inciting illegal assemblies, marches and demonstrations as well as prohibiting activities on behalf of unauthorized civil groups.

In a startlingly similar fashion, laws have been passed in both the UK and the US to impose "free speech zones" and bans upon any demonstrations that have not been okayed by the authorities beforehand.

The search engine company Google has also attracted controversy recently by pandering to the Communist police state and agreeing to install government search filters on its Chinese based search engine.

Not even the Rolling Stones could escape censorship when they toured in China. However, the Stones were censored TO A GREATER DEGREE when they played the Superbowl half time show in the US. I guess if its good for the totalitarian Chinese rulers, its good for the sweet Neocons.

Since 2003 China has recorded details of more than 96 percent of its population on a police database, supplementing Internet and other state-sanctioned surveillance. The state is also to issue 1.3 billion RFID identification cards.

Terrible you would agree, yet in Britain currently there is a program underway to add 100% of the population to a national database. The ID card act has been passed and, by 2008, anyone who requires a passport (and access to healthcare, education and the ability to buy or sell no doubt) MUST be registered and must carry an ID card.

In addition, under current UK laws, if you are arrested for any recordable offense, police are allowed to take your fingerprints and a sample your DNA. Even if you are subsequently released and found innocent, police can still keep your DNA, which is added to a PERMANENT database. Worse still, hundreds of thousands of children aged between 10 and 18 have had their DNA added to the database despite never being cautioned or charged for any offence.

When it's China, our governments agree such policies are dehumanizing, demoralizing and degrading, yet when it happens in our own countries that's just fine and dandy.

Furthermore, in the leading police state regime in the world and the benchmark for the new world order control system, surveillance still lags behind that of the UK, with Chinese authorities learning lessons from the Orwellian surveillance capital of the world.

"In this regard we've taken particular note of England, where basically everyone lives under the electronic eye," Mayor Xu Zhongheng of Shenzhen has said, remarking how important surveillance cameras were in tracking down the perpetrators of attacks on the London transport system last year.

Were they important? Really? That's not what we were told. We were told that the cameras WERE NOT FUNCTIONING.

The Chinese model is the benchmark test for the prison planet... as the state becomes more powerful and the people there become more downtrodden, more controlled and less able to resist, we see the same policies being transferred to our own countries. In many cases our countries are now even preceding China in their police state tactics.

Furthermore our own economies and infrastructures are being systematically sold out to the Chinese government.

Recently the Associated Press reported that Hutchison Whampoa Ltd was given a no-bid contract by the US government to take over radiation detecting security just 65 miles away from Freeport in the Bahamas with no oversight. Hutchinson Whampoa is admittedly a holding of the Chinese navy and the People's Liberation Army.

In 1997 the Communist Chinese government took over the Long Beach Naval Air Base, the only major deep water port that can take large ships on the west coast. In 2000, the Communist
Chinese, Hutchinson Whampoa, which is run by the PLA, took over the Panama Canal and has stationed between 15,000 and 30,000 troops at the facility.

Topping even that, U.S. taxpayers are lending Westinghouse Electric Co. almost $5 billion to build nuclear power plants in China.

American tax money is directly funding the might of the Chinese Red Army despite the fact that we are told over and over that they are the future military threat and despite top Chinese generals continue to threaten nuclear attacks on America.

Alex Jones' first documentary film America: Destroyed By Design, made in 1997, warned Americans that the sell-out to the Chinese was the first step on the road to the sacking of the American economy and pulling the plug on key US infrastructure.

Click here to view a segment where Alex Jones discusses the Chinese sell-out.

It is a stated goal of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the CFR to promote what they call 'interdependence' and to lobby governments to sell off key infrastructure such as roads, lakes, ports, and highways to international corporations so that corporations can grow to be bigger in size than government.

People everywhere are not just being robbed of their ability to create wealth, we are being robbed of our infrastructure, our land, and our capacity to work the land. Our currencies, our futures, and our sovereignties are systematically being dismantled, looted and sold to the highest bidder by the corrupt elite and the corporations and governments they control like chess pieces.

World Mourns As Communist Darkness Falls Upon America

"Communism will never succeed until the myth of [the Biblical] God is removed from the minds of men." - V. I. Lenin

"Communism is not a new faith. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: 'Ye shall be as gods.' It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision... The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God. It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man's liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man's destiny and reorganizing man's life and the world." - Whittaker Chambers

EU Times
March 22, 2010

In what is being described as one of the most astounding power grabs in modern history by newspaper headlines around the World, President Obama has succeeded in his audacious plan to remake America into a full fledged godless communist empire barely one year into his term with the enactment into law by the US Congress of his mammoth health care plan -- innocuously named H.R. 3200-Americas Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, and described by one Kremlin legal expert as having “nothing at all to do with health, but everything to do with control.”

To fully grasp the full and grim implications of Obama’s power grab over the American people with his Nationalization of the United States entire health care industry and student loan programme [accomplished with the passing of this new law], it must be remembered that [since taking office on January 20, 2009] he has also taken over their automobile, mortgage, and banking industries too, with the Internet said being next “in his sights.”

More insidious than these takeovers that have been destroying America’s once vibrant capitalistic system is the new regime that these once free peoples are now destined to live under; and where, under their new health care law, will require all of them to carry a National ID card (page 58) and allow their government unlimited access to all of their bank accounts and personal records (page 159).

And in a chilling instance of the ancient prophecies for these times of “The Mark of the Beast” becoming reality, the National ID card that all of the American people will now be required to possess (regardless of age) is to be combined with their new government ID card under their upcoming new immigration laws, [which is required to allow them to work and which is biometrically designed to “read” the backs of their hands].

[Note: According to the Christian Bible's Book of Revelation, the ancients warned of a future time when everyone, both small and great, rich and poor, free or slave, would receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads, which without they would not be able buy or sell anything.]

Though many have tried to warn these Americans about the plans for their Nation's destruction at the hands of the Obama-backed communist forces who have taken over their country [including our March 2nd report “Russia Warns US Communist Threat Endangering Entire World”], the propaganda organs in the United States have rendered silent nearly all opposition and dissident views from reaching them; and they remain asleep to the true dangers soon to come upon them.

The same, however, cannot be said about the rest of the world where, during this past week alone, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon signed a cooperation agreement with a Russia-led security group of ex-Soviet Nations as a counterbalance to the US-led NATO forces (who are currently expanding their wars against the Muslim Nations to steal their vast oil and gas wealth); and one of China’s top military officers called for his Nation to build the world’s strongest military and to move swiftly to topple the United States as the global “champion.”

To how ignorant the American people have become to the yoke of communist oppression being pressed upon them by Obama’s forces, we can glimpse from a report in today’s Los Angeles Times that says:

“The Democratic administration of Barack Obama, who denounced his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the most secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than the Republican did.”

And as to why Obama and his communist forces would seek to keep from the American people what is really being done to them, we had also previously warned about in our February 12th report “End of Days” Are Upon Us, Warns Russian Patriarch,” wherein we had stated:

“Patriarch Cyril warns in his report though that the Motherlands efforts to halt the West’s godlessness “may be too late” as evidenced by the rising use among their political, military, banking and celebrity elite classes of the ancient Babylonian “Sign of the Horns” [formed by extending the index and little fingers while holding the middle and ring fingers down with the thumb] honoring the ancient god Marduk (Sumerian spelling in Akkadian: AMAR.UTU meaning “solar calf”).”

It is important to remember about these ancient enemies of our human race, which Obama and his communist forces have aligned themselves with. They are truly predictable, including the passage of the U.S. health care bill during the 2010 Vernal (Spring) Solstice [when daytime and nighttime are equal length as a “celebration” to the ancient goddess Ēostre, whose name was given to the Christian festival of Easter, but whose origins stretch back into the mists of time to the mystery religions of Rome where the Cybele cult preformed their child sacrifices on what was then known as Vatican hill, but today is known as the home of the Pope.]

And in these monsters' predictability [by aligning themselves with the ancient dates and ceremonies of old] also comes the most secure protection from their destructive plans -- such as the United States March 4, 2001 airing of the Lone Gunman television programmes pilot episode where an American government plot to fly remotely controlled planes into the World Trade Center was discovered, and which was exactly 6 months and 7 days from when the actual attack occurred.

It goes without saying, of course, that the propaganda media organs beholden to their godless communist masters will never inform their peoples about these things; and for those of us who do, there is always great danger. But as the events in the United States are now showing to even those most in denial about what is truly happening, the time nears when hard choices will have to be made by everyone if freedom for our human race is to be saved.

China’s influence on US Congress growing steadily
China hosting major talks with Europe, US
China and the United States: From Hostility to Engagement
A world dominated by the Communist Chinese
When China was socialist
China Warns Against Protectionism
Chinese and United States: Wealth of Nations Redefined
Communist China sends US Tainted Flouride
China, the new "Best Enemy That Money Can Buy"
FCC Talks Up Sovietization of Media
China, America and a New World Order
Production line workers at China iPhone plant to get 30 pct raise following string of suicides
America and China, in the same boat on human rights
US Is ‘Practically Owned’ by China

Updated 9/30/10 (Newest Additions at End of List)