Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Offshore Banking – The New York Times

 Offshore Banking  Comments Off on Offshore Banking – The New York Times
Apr 202016
 

Latest Articles

S.E.C. Held Up by Democrats | Criminal Inquiry Into Panama Papers Tax Avoidance Claims | Chinese Consortium to Buy Lexmark

The disclosures of hidden wealth in the Panama Papers have focused attention on the secrecy offered under American law to offshore companies.

By CELESTINE BOHLEN

Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain have agreed to share information on company ownership and that urged the Group of 20 Nations to do the same.

By STEPHEN CASTLE

The resignation of Jos Manuel Soria, who has not been charged with wrongdoing, comes at a time of turmoil in Spanish politics, after inconclusive elections in December.

By RAPHAEL MINDER

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif left Pakistan to receive medical treatment in London in the middle of an unfolding scandal over his familys offshore wealth.

By SALMAN MASOOD

Many in Africa have long known that billions of dollars are being spirited away to tax havens every year, making their lives even more precarious.

By ALAN COWELL

The tax code is rigged to give Americas biggest corporations a free ride.

By NICHOLAS KRISTOF

Officials said they were looking for evidence of illegal activities during the search of the headquarters of Mossack Fonseca, which specializes in setting up offshore accounts.

By KIRK SEMPLE

The proposed rules, in the works before the Panama Papers leak, are intended in some ways to lift the veil on similar types of corporate secrets.

By JAMES KANTER

The leaked documents show the many ways offshore shell companies are used to conceal the ownership of art. Heres a look at three cases.

By SCOTT REYBURN

The British prime minister confronted the Labour Party in Parliament in a spirited debate over economic fairness that was set off by the Panama Papers.

By STEVEN ERLANGER and SEWELL CHAN

David Lammy, a member of the Labour Party, asked Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain about property owned by offshore companies, what he called dirty money.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The revelations of a vast off shore industry require new laws and new transparency, not finger-pointing, President Juan Carlos Varela says.

By JUAN CARLOS VARELA

Mr. Cameron, the British prime minister, admitted that he had bungled his response to questions about his inheritance from his father, who had an offshore investment company.

By STEVEN ERLANGER

The prime minister has condemned offshore accounts used to avoid taxes, but leaked documents show that his family has profited from an offshore investment fund.

By KIMIKO DE FREYTAS-TAMURA

First Ashley Madison accounts, now offshore accounts?

By YRSA SIGURDARDOTTIR

The Financial Conduct Authority has given 20 lenders and other financial institutions until April 15 to respond to the request.

By REUTERS

While most nations have agreed to share information to root out tax havens, Panama has dragged its feet.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The new Obama administration rules will ultimately discourage companies from investing in the U.S.

By DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH

Readers react to disclosures about the use of tax havens by prominent political figures and their families and associates worldwide.

S.E.C. Held Up by Democrats | Criminal Inquiry Into Panama Papers Tax Avoidance Claims | Chinese Consortium to Buy Lexmark

The disclosures of hidden wealth in the Panama Papers have focused attention on the secrecy offered under American law to offshore companies.

By CELESTINE BOHLEN

Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain have agreed to share information on company ownership and that urged the Group of 20 Nations to do the same.

By STEPHEN CASTLE

The resignation of Jos Manuel Soria, who has not been charged with wrongdoing, comes at a time of turmoil in Spanish politics, after inconclusive elections in December.

By RAPHAEL MINDER

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif left Pakistan to receive medical treatment in London in the middle of an unfolding scandal over his familys offshore wealth.

By SALMAN MASOOD

Many in Africa have long known that billions of dollars are being spirited away to tax havens every year, making their lives even more precarious.

By ALAN COWELL

The tax code is rigged to give Americas biggest corporations a free ride.

By NICHOLAS KRISTOF

Officials said they were looking for evidence of illegal activities during the search of the headquarters of Mossack Fonseca, which specializes in setting up offshore accounts.

By KIRK SEMPLE

The proposed rules, in the works before the Panama Papers leak, are intended in some ways to lift the veil on similar types of corporate secrets.

By JAMES KANTER

The leaked documents show the many ways offshore shell companies are used to conceal the ownership of art. Heres a look at three cases.

By SCOTT REYBURN

The British prime minister confronted the Labour Party in Parliament in a spirited debate over economic fairness that was set off by the Panama Papers.

By STEVEN ERLANGER and SEWELL CHAN

David Lammy, a member of the Labour Party, asked Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain about property owned by offshore companies, what he called dirty money.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The revelations of a vast off shore industry require new laws and new transparency, not finger-pointing, President Juan Carlos Varela says.

By JUAN CARLOS VARELA

Mr. Cameron, the British prime minister, admitted that he had bungled his response to questions about his inheritance from his father, who had an offshore investment company.

By STEVEN ERLANGER

The prime minister has condemned offshore accounts used to avoid taxes, but leaked documents show that his family has profited from an offshore investment fund.

By KIMIKO DE FREYTAS-TAMURA

First Ashley Madison accounts, now offshore accounts?

By YRSA SIGURDARDOTTIR

The Financial Conduct Authority has given 20 lenders and other financial institutions until April 15 to respond to the request.

By REUTERS

While most nations have agreed to share information to root out tax havens, Panama has dragged its feet.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The new Obama administration rules will ultimately discourage companies from investing in the U.S.

By DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH

Readers react to disclosures about the use of tax havens by prominent political figures and their families and associates worldwide.

Original post:
Offshore Banking – The New York Times

 Posted by at 10:44 am  Tagged with:

Singularitarianism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Singularitarianism  Comments Off on Singularitarianism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mar 232016
 

Singularitarianism is a movement[1] defined by the belief that a technological singularitythe creation of superintelligencewill likely happen in the medium future, and that deliberate action ought to be taken to ensure that the Singularity benefits humans.

Singularitarians are distinguished from other futurists who speculate on a technological singularity by their belief that the Singularity is not only possible, but desirable if guided prudently. Accordingly, they might sometimes dedicate their lives to acting in ways they believe will contribute to its rapid yet safe realization.[2]

Time magazine describes the worldview of Singularitarians by saying that “they think in terms of deep time, they believe in the power of technology to shape history, they have little interest in the conventional wisdom about anything, and they cannot believe you’re walking around living your life and watching TV as if the artificial-intelligence revolution were not about to erupt and change absolutely everything.”[1]

Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, author of the 2005 book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, defines a Singularitarian as someone “who understands the Singularity and who has reflected on its implications for his or her own life”; he estimates the Singularity will occur around 2045.[2]

Singularitarianism coalesced into a coherent ideology in 2000 when artificial intelligence (AI) researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote The Singularitarian Principles,[2][3] in which he stated that a Singularitarian believes that the singularity is a secular, non-mystical event which is possible and beneficial to the world and is worked towards by its adherents.[3]

In June 2000 Yudkowsky, with the support of Internet entrepreneurs Brian Atkins and Sabine Atkins, founded the Machine Intelligence Research Institute to work towards the creation of self-improving Friendly AI. MIRI’s writings argue for the idea that an AI with the ability to improve upon its own design (Seed AI) would rapidly lead to superintelligence. These Singularitarians believe that reaching the Singularity swiftly and safely is the best possible way to minimize net existential risk.

Many people believe a technological singularity is possible without adopting Singularitarianism as a moral philosophy. Although the exact numbers are hard to quantify, Singularitarianism is a small movement, which includes transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom. Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, who predicts that the Singularity will occur circa 2045, greatly contributed to popularizing Singularitarianism with his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology .[2]

What, then, is the Singularity? It’s a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian or dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself. Understanding the Singularity will alter our perspective on the significance of our past and the ramifications for our future. To truly understand it inherently changes one’s view of life in general and one’s particular life. I regard someone who understands the Singularity and who has reflected on its implications for his or her own life as a singularitarian.[2]

With the support of NASA, Google and a broad range of technology forecasters and technocapitalists, the Singularity University opened in June 2009 at the NASA Research Park in Silicon Valley with the goal of preparing the next generation of leaders to address the challenges of accelerating change.

In July 2009, many prominent Singularitarians participated in a conference organized by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) to discuss the potential impact of robots and computers and the impact of the hypothetical possibility that they could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the possibility and the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire any level of autonomy, and to what degree they could use such abilities to possibly pose any threat or hazard (i.e., cybernetic revolt). They noted that some machines have acquired various forms of semi-autonomy, including being able to find power sources on their own and being able to independently choose targets to attack with weapons. They warned that some computer viruses can evade elimination and have achieved “cockroach intelligence.” They asserted that self-awareness as depicted in science fiction is probably unlikely, but that there were other potential hazards and pitfalls.[4] Some experts and academics have questioned the use of robots for military combat, especially when such robots are given some degree of autonomous functions.[5] The President of the AAAI has commissioned a study to look at this issue.[6]

Science journalist John Horgan has likened singularitarianism to a religion:

Let’s face it. The singularity is a religious rather than a scientific vision. The science-fiction writer Ken MacLeod has dubbed it the rapture for nerds, an allusion to the end-time, when Jesus whisks the faithful to heaven and leaves us sinners behind. Such yearning for transcendence, whether spiritual or technological, is all too understandable. Both as individuals and as a species, we face deadly serious problems, including terrorism, nuclear proliferation, overpopulation, poverty, famine, environmental degradation, climate change, resource depletion, and AIDS. Engineers and scientists should be helping us face the world’s problems and find solutions to them, rather than indulging in escapist, pseudoscientific fantasies like the singularity.[7]

Kurzweil rejects this categorization, stating that his predictions about the singularity are driven by the data that increases in computational technology have been exponential in the past.[8]

Original post:

Singularitarianism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 10:45 pm  Tagged with:

Obamas Supreme Court Nominee Revealed

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Obamas Supreme Court Nominee Revealed
Mar 192016
 

UPDATE 11:43 a.m. ET: President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, citing bipartisan respect in the past, to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by the death to Justice Antonin Scalia.

Garland, 63, is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where he has served since 1997.

I said I would take this process seriously and I did. I chose a serious man and an exemplary judge, Obama said standing next to Garland in the Rose Garden Wednesday morning. To find someone who just about everyone not only respects, but genuinely likesthat is rare.

Judge Merrick B. Garland speaks after being nominated to the US Supreme Court as U.S. President Barack Obama looks on, in the Rose Garden at the White House, March 16, 2016 in Washington, DC. Garland currently serves as the chief judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and if confirmed by the US Senate, would replace Antonin Scalia who died suddenly last month. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Senate Republicans have vowed to block any nominee Obama puts forward, preferring to let voters choose the kind of justice who will replace Scalia through the 2016 presidential elections.

Garland comes in with a mixed record and will likely face scrutiny from Republicans about his stance on the Second Amendment.

As a Justice Department attorney in the 1990s, he assisted in the high profile prosecutions of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

President Bill Clinton named Garland to the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997 and he was confirmed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate.

Fidelity to the constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life and it is the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be for the past 18 years, Garland said Tuesday in the Rose Garden. If the Senate sees fit to confirm me to the position for which I have been nominated today, I promise to continue on that course. Mr. president, its a great privilege to be nominated by a fellow Chicagoan.

In the D.C. vs. Heller gun case, which eventually made it to the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit struck down most of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. However, Garland joined Judge David Tatel in voting to have the full court reconsider the decision. Garland and Tatel were on the losing side when the Supreme Court recognized the individual right to bear arms in the Heller case and struck down the districts ban.

There is no freedom more fundamental than the right to defend ones life and family, said Erich Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America. The Heller and McDonald decisions are hanging by a thread, as both were decided by 5-4 majorities. If Garland were confirmed, we can expect to see more gun registration, more gun bans, more limitations on ammunition, and all of it would be approved by the Supreme Court.

In a National Review piece, Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, also wrote about Garland voting to uphold an executive action by President Clinton to establish what some considered a de facto gun registration requirement.

But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalias most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in ones own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the [t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, theres a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldnt have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years

Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that hes willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners. Thats not so moderate, is it?

Garland does have a somewhat centrist record, siding with the Bush administration in a key terror case. In 2003, he joined an opinion on the D.C. Circuit prohibiting Guantanamo Bay prisoners from challenging their detention from appealing in civilian courts. The Supreme Court, in 2008, overturned this ruling in the case of Rasul v. Bush.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the choice should be up to the voters, and without speaking no ill of Garland, said: This is not about the person. It is about the principle.

Obama said he is doing his job in nominating a justice and called on the Senate and insisted that Republicans in the Senate give Garland a hearing and a vote.

Presidents dont stop working in the final year of their term, Obama said. Neither should a Senator.

Read more here:
Obamas Supreme Court Nominee Revealed

 Posted by at 8:41 pm  Tagged with:

Top Ten Illuminati Symbols | Illuminati Rex

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Top Ten Illuminati Symbols | Illuminati Rex
Feb 242016
 

Top Ten Illuminati Symbols The Illuminati loves taunting the Profane by putting their symbols in plain sight for all to see. Only the Illuminati insiders are privy to the symbols true meaning. Symbols of the Illuminati are present on our currencies, and are plastered all over our television, movies and newspapers.

The All-Seeing Eye or the Eye of Providence is the preeminent symbol and most widely recognized symbol of the Illuminati.

The All-Seeing Eye as seen on the United States one dollar note.

The All-Seeing Eye was added to the original design of the Great Seal of the United States in 1776 by Pierre Eugne Du Simitire and remained on the Seal with the addition of an unfinished pyramid (see Illuminati symbol #2) when it was finally adopted in 1782. In 1935 the Great Seal was added to the $1 dollar note, the most widely circulated note on the planet, by President and Freemason Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Links to the Illuminati: To conspiracy theorists, the all-seeing eye represents the Eye of Lucifer. The Eye can see all and oversees its minions which are represented by the individual bricks of the pyramid. The 13 steps of the pyramid represent the 13 Illuminati Bloodlines which collectively rule over the planet. The year 1776 represent the founding of the Bavarian Illuminati by Adam Weishaupt.

US Government: The Eye is a representation of God who favors the prosperity of the United States. It is positioned above an unfinished pyramid representing the future growth of the United States. The 13 steps of the pyramid represent the original thirteen states. The year 1776 represent the birth of the United States.

Links to the Bavarian Illuminati: There is no evidence that the Bavarian Illuminati used the eye in any of its rituals. However, they used the point within a circle, circled dot, circumpunct, or circle with a point at its centre a () to represent the Order.

Links to Freemasonry: The Master Mason learns that the All Seeing Eye represents the Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU) who watches and sees everything and will judge us according to our works.

The Freemasons also use the symbol. In Arcana of Masonry (p. 188), Masonic Historian Albert Churchward writes:

The point in the centre of a Circle is equal to the point at the tip of the Triangle, and this Glyph is equivalent to the Eye; the two are synonymous.

Other secret societies: In the Order of the Golden Dawn the represents Kether.

Masonic Vice-President Henry A. Wallace and Masonic President FDR added the pyramid to the dollar bill in 1935

All-Seeing Eye on the CBS logo

Original design for the Great Seal of the United States

Masonic tracing board, Germany 1770

The Illuminati Elite is represented by the capstone of the pyramid and the Profane by the stones.

The pyramid represents the top-down command structure of the Illuminati with the Illuminati plutocrats at the top and the peons at the bottom.

Links to the Illuminati: In Illuminati conspiracy theories the presence of a pyramid usually represents the top-down command structure of the Illuminati rulers of the universe. The theory has become more mainstream following the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement who refer to the rulers as the One Percent.

Links to the Bavarian Illuminati: The pyramid was featured prominently at Minerval Assemblies of the Bavarian Illuminati. A carpet was laid out on the rooms floor featuring a Pyramid flanked on either side by the letters D and P on each of its side. (Deo Proximo God is near) There are stones scattered at the pyramids base.

The unfinished pyramid signifies that the goals of the Most Serene Order of the Illuminati are still incomplete. By working together, the Illuminati is able to make great strides towards completing their task for the glory of the Grand Architect.

Links to Freemasonry: The George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Virginia is capped by a seven steps pyramid. The House of the Temple, the Headquarters for the Supreme Council of the southern jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Masonry is also capped by an unfinished pyramid.

Bavarian Illuminati pyramid vs. Great Seal pyramid

HW Bushs pet pyramid

Being There movie

Step pyramid surmounting George Washington Masonic National Memorial

DARPAs Information Awareness Office

Grave of Charles Taze Russell, Founder of the Jehovahs Witnesses

The owl was the symbol for Minerva, the goddess of wisdom. The Enlightened Ones see themselves as the wise rulers of the planet.

Owl at the Bohemian Grove

Links to the Illuminati: The Bohemian Grove, an exclusive elite 2,700-acre encampment situated in the Redwood forest of northern California features an owl on its logo. The planning meeting for the ultra-secret Manhattan Project is also rumored to have taken place at the Grove. It is also where Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan worked out a deal on who would run for President of the United States.

Owl on Dollar bill?

Bohemian Grove Napkin

Druid with Owl painting at the George Washington Masonic National Memorial

Justin Bieber Illuminati Minerval?

Illuminati Minerval Owl

Frost Bank Tower Austin, Texas

Links to the Bavarian Illuminati: The owl is an important symbol for Illuminati Minerval. The owl was a symbol of Pallas Athena and represented wisdom and vigilance. The owl was also included on the Illuminati Minerval and Illuminati Minor medallions.

The eternal flame is a powerful symbol of the Enlightenment.

The Statue of LIberty

Links to the Illuminati: Illuminati researcher Dr. Stan Monteith claims that the Statue of Liberty is the pagan goddess Semiramis, the whore of Babylon a homewrecker and a harlot. She represents the destruction of the Old World Order and the creation of the New World Order.

Illuminati researcher Mark Dice claims that the Statue of Liberty is an Illuminati symbol. The statues radiant crowns rays are a symbol of the sun or Enlightenment. The Enlightenment represents Lucifer, the torch bearer.

The Olympic Flame torch rally was first introduced by the Nazis for the 1936 Olympics. Prometheus gave fire (knowledge) to humans. For this transgression, the King of the Gods, Zeus punished Prometheus to have is liver eaten for eternity by an eagle.

Links to the Bavarian Illuminati: Weishaupt was aroused by Zoroastrianism and philosophies of the ancient Parsees. He planned to use fire allegories in the symbols and rituals of the higher degrees of the Illuminati. The color red is prominent in the higher degrees of Illuminati Priest and Illuminati Regent.

Links to Freemasonry: The Statue of Liberty was designed by Freemason Frederic Bartholdi.

The name Lucifer literally means bringer of light.

Statue of Liberty

Columbia Pictures logo

Olympic Torch

Rockefellers Standard Oil

Prometheus at Rockefeller Plaza

The Illuminati and the practice and promotion of black magic

The Pentagram with Baphomets head at its center

Aka: Sigil of Baphomet, (two points up)

The name Baphomet first appeared as a pagan idol in the trial transcripts of the Knights Templar by the Inquisition.

The pentagram was originally a protection charm against demons. The inverted pentagram came to have its own distinctive meaning as a sign of evil especially after the publication of famed French occultist Lvi liphas publication of Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual in 1854:

A reversed pentagram, with two points projecting upwards, is a symbol of evil and attracts sinister forces because it overturns the proper order of things and demonstrates the triumph of matter over spirit. It is the goat of lust attacking the heavens with its horns, a sign execrated by initiates.

Links to the Illuminati: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson appointed French-born freemason Pierre Charles LEnfant to design Washington D.C. A pentagram is clearly visible in the street layout leading many to speculate whether or not LEnfant deliberately inserted Masonic symbols.

However, the pentagram is not complete. Rhode Island Avenue does not connect with Pennsylvania Avenue, leaving the pentagram incomplete. Freemasons often point to this as proof that the streets of Washington DC are not Masonic. If the masons are all powerful architects, why cant they get a pentagram right? The answer might be found in the wrings of Illuminatus Johann Goethe (nom de guerre: Abaris) and famous author of Faust:

Mephistopheles: I must confess, my stepping oer Thy threshold a slight hindrance doth impede; The wizard-foot doth me retain.

Faust: The pentagram thy peace doth mar? To me, thou son of hell, explain, How camest thou in, if this thine exit bar? Could such a spirit aught ensnare?

Mephistopheles: Observe it well, it is not drawn with care, One of the angles, that which points without, Is, as thou seest, not quite closed.

Links to the Bavarian Illuminati: The Illuminati did not use the pentagram in its ceremonies.

Links to Freemasonry: The Order of the Eastern Star a female Masonic organization for wives and family of Freemasons uses the pentagram with two points up as its emblem.

Order of the Eastern Star

Ke$ha Die Young

Streets of Washington, D.C.

Washington posing Baphomet-style (As above, so below)

The Illuminati, the number of the Beast and the Anti-Christ.

six hundred sixty-six

Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.

~ Revelation 13: 18 New King James Version (NKJV)

Links to the Illuminati: The number of the Beast is associated with the Anti-Christ who would eventually take helm of the Illuminati as he brings forth the New World Order. The music industry is a prime recruiting ground for the Illuminati. Illuminated musicians incorporate Illuminati symbolism in their work as a nudge to their Illuminati handlers.

The 666 numerals can also be found in corporate logos such as Taco Bell, Google Chrome and Vodafone. When AT&T changed the name of one of its subsidiaries to Lucent Technologies, Illuminati symbolism researcher Texe Marrs was quick to point out the new names similarity with Lucifer, and asked:

But, does AT&Ts new baby have horns? Does the name Lucent have any link to the name Lucifer? Could it be that, as one writer has suggested, Lucent stands for Lucifers Enterprise?

~ Texe Marrs, PROJECT L.U.C.I.D., 1996

Links to the Bavarian Illuminati: Only deists and atheists could hope to reach the higher mystery degrees of the Illuminati. As such, they would have regarded Satan as a mythological figure.

Links to Freemasonry:

Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!

~ Albert Pike, Moral and Dogma

Note: Fear of the number 666 is called hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia. There will be a test.

Barcode/UPC 666

Monster Energy Drink 666

Vodafone 666 or KKK

Walt Disney 666

Google Chrome 666

A symbol of mortality and the Illuminatis mark on the Skulls and Bones

Skull reminds young initiates of their own mortality

Links to the Illuminati: The Skull and Bones is an elite fraternity at Yale University, a prestigious American university. Their headquarters is known as the Tomb. Theres a painting of skulls with the quote:

Who was the fool, who the wise man, beggar or king? Whether poor or rich, alls the same in death.

Wer war der Thor, wer Weiser, Bettler oder Kaiser? Ob Arm, ob Reich, im Tode gleich.

Links to the Bavarian Illuminati: The Illuminati Regent or Illuminati Prince initiation rituals consisted of three rooms which the initiate had to visit in succession. In the first room the candidate would find a skeleton with a sword and a crown at its feet. The candidate would then be asked if the bones were the bones of a king, a nobleman or a beggar. As in the Order of the Skull and Bones, the scene intended to make the candidate reflect on his own mortality.

Links to Freemasonry: The Master Mason carpet features a skull to remind the initiate of his own mortality, just as in the Illuminati and in the Skull and Bones.

Fools and Kings

Skull and Bones, 1948 The grandfather clock is always set at 8 oclock

Master Mason Tracingboard

Snakes, Dragons and Serpents and the lure of forbidden knowledge

Serpent from the Book of Genesis

The snake or serpent one of the most ancient symbols used in myths and was widely used throughout the world. They often act as guardians, such as the statue of Draco guarding the entrance of The City of London.

Snakes are identified with forbidden wisdom or knowledge as in the serpent in the Garden of Eden from Genesis.

Being poisonous, and generally dangerous to humans, the snake symbol is commonly used in western culture as a representation of evil.

Continued here:
Top Ten Illuminati Symbols | Illuminati Rex

Definitions of Libertarianism – The Advocates for Self-Government

 Misc  Comments Off on Definitions of Libertarianism – The Advocates for Self-Government
Feb 242016
 

There are many ways of saying the same thing, and libertarians often have unique ways of answering the question What is libertarianism? Weve asked many libertarians that question, and below are some of our favorite definitions.

Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life and uses his property as long as he simply respects the equal right of others to do the same. Sharon Harris, President, Advocates for Self-Government

The CATO Insistutes David Boaz

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each persons right to life, liberty, and property rights that people possess naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have themselves used force actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud. David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it. definition written by theU.S. Internal Revenue Service, during the process of granting theAdvocates for Self-Governmentstatus as a nonprofit educational organization

Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and dont hit your sister. Ken Bisson, board member, Advocates for Self-Government

Former Congressman and 3-time Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul

The core of libertarianism is respect for the life, liberty and property rights of each individual. This means that no one may initiate force against another, as that violates those natural rights. While many claim adherence to this principle, only libertarians apply the non-aggression axiom to the state. Ron Paul

Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility and freedom from government on all issues at all times A libertarian is someone who thinks you should be free to live your life asyouwant to live it, not as [the President of the United States] thinks you should who believes you should raise your children byyourvalues, not those of some far-off bureaucrat whos using your child as a pawn to create some brave new world who thinks that, because youre the one who gets up every day and goes to work, you should be free to keepevery dollaryou earn, to spend it, save it, give it away asyouthink best. Harry Browne(1933-2006);1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and author ofLiberty A-Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now!

In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence legal or illegal to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today. -Dean Russell,author at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), 1955

Fox Business Host John Stossel

We want government to largely leave us alone, protect our personal security, but then to butt-out, leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we dont hurt anybody else. John Stossel, host of Stossel on Fox Financial News Network and author ofMyths, Lies and Downright Stupidity

Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility and freedom from government on all issues at all times A libertarian is someone who thinks you should be free to live your life asyouwant to live it, not as [the President of the United States] thinks you should who believes you should raise your children byyourvalues, not those of some far-off bureaucrat whos using your child as a pawn to create some brave new world who thinks that, because youre the one who gets up every day and goes to work, you should be free to keepevery dollaryou earn, to spend it, save it, give it away asyouthink best. Harry Browne(1933-2006);1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and author ofLiberty A-Z: 872 Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now!

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each persons right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. from the Preamble to theLibertarian PartyPlatform

Author and Political Scientist Charles Murray

Applied to personal behavior, the libertarian ethic is simple but stark: Thou shalt not initiate the use of force. Thou shalt not deceive or defraud. Anyone who observes both these injunctions faithfully has gone a long way toward being an admirable human being as defined by any of the worlds great ethical systems. Charles Murray, political scientist and author ofWhat It Means To Be a Libertarian

Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe governments only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. Libertarians value individual responsibility and tolerate economic and social diversity. Carole Ann Rand, former president, Advocates for Self-Government

Libertarianism is what you probably already believe Libertarian values are American values. Libertarianism is Americas heritage of liberty, patriotism and honest work to build a future for your family. Its the idea that being free and independent is a great way to live. That each of us is a unique individual with great potential. That you own yourself, and that you have the right to decide whats best for you. Americans of all races and creeds built a great and prosperous country with these libertarian ideals. Lets use them to build Americas future. David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and author ofLibertarianism in One Lesson

Author L. Neil Smith

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. authorL. Neil Smith

Libertarianism is self-government. It combines the best of both worlds: The left leg of self-government is tolerance of others; the right leg is responsible economic behavior. The combination of both legs leads to social harmony and material abundance. -Marshall Fritz(1943-2008), Founder of the Advocates for Self-Government and of the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, inventor of the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz

Free minds and free markets. – slogan ofReasonmagazine

Individual liberty, free markets and peace. – slogan of Cato Institute

Central to libertarianism is its non-aggression principle. Each of us has the obligation under justice not to aggress against anyone else for any reason personal, social or political. Doris Gordon,Libertarians for Life

Small government: one that stays out of peoples wallets and out of their bedrooms. Jeffrey Miron, Harvard Professor and author ofLibertarianism from A to Z

True and impartial liberty is therefore the right of every man to pursue the natural, reasonable and religious dictates of his own mind; to think what he will, and act as he thinks, provided he acts not to the prejudice of another; to spend his own money himself and lay out the produce of his labor his own way; and to labor for his own pleasure and profit, and not for others who are idle, and would live and riot by pillaging and oppressing him and those that are like him. Thomas Gordon,1722, submitted byDavid Nalle,Republican Liberty Caucus

The political and legal philosophy rooted in natural law of individual liberty and personal responsibility under a rule of law. David J. Theroux,Founder and President, Independent Institute

Author and Loyola University Professor Walter Block

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It is concerned solely with the proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be illegal to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property without his permission; force is justified only in defense or retaliation.That is it, in a nutshell. The rest is mere explanation, elaboration, and qualification. -Walter Block,Loyola University Professor and author ofDefending the Undefendable

Libertarianism is the simple morality we learned as children: dont strike first, dont steal or cheat, keep your promises.If you inadvertently fail to live up to these standards, make it up to the person youve harmed.If someone harms you, you may defend yourself as needed to stop the aggressor and obtain reparations. This simple morality works group-to-group just as it works one-to-one to bring about a peaceful and prosperous world. Mary Ruwart, author ofHealing Our World in an Age of Aggression

A political system guided by the basic principles of natural individual human rights (to ones life, liberty, property, etc.). Tibor Machan,philosopher, Chapman University Professor and author ofThe Promise of Liberty

The political philosophy in which individual and economic liberty constitute the highest societal value. Robert Poole, Founder , Reason Foundation

The freedom to live your life as you see fit as long as you do not harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Jeff Frazee, Executive Director, Young Americans for Liberty

Other people are not your property. Roderick Long, philosopher, Auburn University Professor and author ofReason and Value: Aristotle Vs. Rand

Nobel Prize-winning Economist Milton Friedman

Libertarians want the smallest, least-intrusive government consistent with maximum freedom for each individual to follow his own ways, his own values, as long as he doesnt interfere with anyone elses doing the same. -Milton Friedman(1912-2006), Noble Prize-winning economist

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates little or no initiation of force in society. That view is derived from the philosophys core premise, namely, that each and every person is born into this world as a distinct and precious individual, possessing the right to do anything that is peaceful. Lawrence Reed, President, Foundation for Economic Education

Link:
Definitions of Libertarianism – The Advocates for Self-Government

 Posted by at 11:46 pm  Tagged with:

The International Offshore Banking Guide – 2015 edition

 Offshore Banking  Comments Off on The International Offshore Banking Guide – 2015 edition
Jan 262016
 

Protect Yourself From The Ongoing Banking Crisis

Dont just Survive it … Thrive from it!

Karl Marx once infamously said, that … Religion is the Opium of the People

Today it seems that those who believe the current Banking & Financial system has gone back to normal, are just equally as hooked on a drug.

It is a drug thats now vital to the survival of the system, and hence perhaps even more addictive and persistent than religion itself.

That drug is commonly referred to as … Hope-ium.

The term Hope-ium was first coined in the 1870s, and is probably best defined as:

“The irrational belief that, despite all evidence to the contrary, things will turn out for the best”

Its also known in simpler terms as being delusional … and surely fits the put all your eggs in one basket approach that so many people employ with regard to how they bank and arrange their financial affairs.

In the wake of the recent rise in stock markets, a near universal state of psychological denial seems to permeate at least part of the psyche of those who invest in, and benefit most from, the current deeply flawed Banking & Financial system.

The denial is the refusal to see that the recovery from the Great Recession that began in 2008, has been anything other than an artificially contrived one.

Because of such denial then, the recent Hope-ium-fuelled Recovery has become infinitely more fabricated & fragile than most in the past, and hence infinitely more dangerous and misleading.

The wholly contrived economic Recovery has spurred on many savvy investors to diversify and protect themselves.

One of the tools that they have been using comes in the form of a Banking Guide that was first published back in 2007, before the 2008 Crash.

Value $197 Today Only $97

As you will soon see, this Guide is an invaluable route-map that has proven itself to be a cant do without for many of the most switched-on investors in the world.

The chart below amply demonstrates why the Guide is so crucial.

The chart graphically demonstrates the accelerating fragility and volatility, of the recent major crashes in the global economy.

Of course very few outside the core coterie of Central Bankers can predict with any degree of certainty exactly when the next bust will come, but, savvy observers and Central Banking watchers, recognize 2008 for what it was; a true watershed moment in financial history.

What marks the 2008-2015 recovery cycle out as being beyond interesting, is the forces that didnt so much allow it to happen naturally, but that created it extremely unnaturally!

And it is precisely because of the forced and unnatural conditions of the 2008-2015 Recovery, that discerning investors, entrepreneurs, and Central Banking watchers alike, became increasingly suspicious and were driven to action.

The seemingly blind believers in the system, on the other hand, appear completely oblivious to the dangers, despite knowing that their system only survived by the skin of its teeth, due to the injection of massive doses of yet another drug, the life support drug otherwise known as … Quantitative Easing.

That QE drug then, along with their own addiction to the drug of Hope-ium, are what has both inflated and sustained the 2009-2015 (and counting) Recovery Bull Run.

What well-informed group investors realise is that the can of the economic problem, was really only kicked down the road, ready to explode sometime later.

Of course, any success in the markets, however fabricated and short-sighted it may be, always has investors coming back for just one more fix as if nothing extraordinary had happened!

But we all know deep down inside that something extraordinary DID happen back in 2008, that despite mere appearances, the real economy, outside the Ivory Towers of Wall Street, is far from being out of the woods, almost 7 years later.

Despite the all clear being sounded by multiple talking heads on TV, the alarm bells are ringing louder than ever, with an increasing number of veteran investors, like Stanley Druckenmiller, George Soros, Ray Dalio, Jeremy Grantham, and Bill Gross, all warning that the Supercycle Bull Run is in dire jeopardy.

Discerning investors then instinctively know that a fundamental change occurred back in 2008 and ever since, they have been putting their insurance – and their escape plans – firmly in place.

The purpose of what follows then, is to introduce to you the most practical Banking Report that you will find, anywhere. It is a Report that will arm you with all you need to know in order to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your assets from potential harm.

Make no mistake, what happened from 2008 onwards represents possibly the biggest financial paradigm changing event that any of us will ever experience; one that savvy investors ever since then, have been quietly shifting their assets in order to take advantage of, as well as remain protected from.

The nature of the financial paradigm shift that is going on in front of our very eyes then, is perhaps best illustrated by looking at the following flat lining graph.

The graph represents a 7-year phenomenon that is without either parallel or precedent in all of modern financial history.

It is a shift that has truly broken the mould of 20th century economics, one that means we are currently in uncharted and inherently dangerous waters.

What it has meant too, is that the smart money has been preparing accordingly ever since.

We would urge everyone then, to join them, by getting yourself a copy of …

The Practical International Banking Guide

Value $197 Today Only $97

The Guide, now in its 8th Edition, has proven its worth many times over the years and has a core of avid readers who wait for every updated edition, and who truly understand its value.

As the name suggests, the 90+ page Guide is first of all practical, providing an extensive detailed resource list and database of direct contacts to banks and facilitators, who can help you to arrange your financial affairs in such a way as to shield yourself from the worst affects of the next, inevitable, Bust in the economic cycle.

The longer that the flat lining interest Rate trend is forced to continue, the more it becomes obvious that Central Banks are hamstrung and that what has always worked in the past, is simply no longer effective.

Whats worse, is not simply that Interest Rate Cuts may no longer be effective, but that they may no longer even be possible without tipping the entire economy into full blown depression and chaos. Such is the Catch 22 situation that Central Bankers, and by extension, every one of us, undeniably face.

The very Old Rules then, that traditional free market economics have always claimed to operate under, have been fundamentally challenged and changed.

We are now in a full blown financial world of contrived Artificial Reality, one dominated by High Speed Trading algorithms that literally fix and rig the markets, and of course, one of unlimited injections of fabricated money, supplied by increasingly desperate Central Banks.

Even The Don of Central Banking himself, Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, fully reversed what by then was over 40 years of his own understanding of the markets, when, in October 2008, right after the Crash, he made the following astonishing, and all too late, admission :

I had been going for 40 years or more, with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well …

And what Im saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw … … a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure, that defines how the world works, so to speak.”

Now that is well worth reading again…..

What hes talking about here remember, is literally … How The World Works!

Over 40 years of accumulated market wisdom about how the very world itself works, and suddenly Greenspan admits to a flaw in his assumptions; a flaw so critical that he is forced to make an admission like that?

Rest assured then, Greenspans admission ranks as the most astonishing climb downs by any economist, in history, especially coming from one in a position of such unbridled power: power that by his own admission, means that the Federal Reserve Chairman is in a position that is beyond oversight even by the elected President of The United States himself!

About a year before the 2008 Crash, the looming sub-Prime crisis was well understood, although it had not yet exploded into a full blown crisis that it was to become.

In the September of 2007, a full year before that 2008 Crash, a still bullish and not yet chastened & contrite Alan Greenspan, was asked the following question by PBS anchor, Jim Lehrer :

What should be the proper relationship be, between a Chairman of the Fed and a President of the United States?

His reply, was illuminating to say the least. He said the following….

Well first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place … then what the relationships are, don’t frankly matter.

So make no mistake, the Central Banking power of a Chairman of the Federal Reserve knows no bounds, is not even challenged by purportedly most powerful man in the world, The U.S. President. Such is the unheralded power that Central Banking possesses at its finger tips.

Clearly, Alan Greenspan knew even back then, that the interest Rate chart above would develop as it did, and he knew too, that the worn out tool and blunt instrument of mere Interest Rate Cuts, was never ever going to be enough to combat the consequences of his flaw.

And sure enough, even flat lining, near 0% Interest Rates proved to be as good as useless, in reviving the patient.

As Greenspan and other Central Bankers have since readily admitted … … Economics had changed forever.

If such slashed to the bone interest rates (which constituted virtually free money for banks) were still not enough, then what else could be done?

Remember, that on top of those virtually 0% rates, Central Bankers had already secured a TARP bail out that they had originally promised would be limited to an already eye-watering sum of $700 BILLION dollars in relief funding!

But of course, as we now know, that sum rapidly morphed and mutated into an out of control and unimaginable sum of over $25 TRILLION DOLLARS, all being made available to Banks to mop up their toxic bets and gambling debts and not just banks from the U.S.A. either, but from all around the world too.

Such already unprecedented interventions and over-rides of the so-called free market then, made the lack of movement in the real economy (rather than the manufactured micro-bubble of Wall Street) even more inexplicable.

Remember too, that those TRILLIONS of dollars of Bail Out money werent just sitting idly in some Rainy Day Fund in the basement of the Fed!

That money was essentially extorted from (and charged down to) the future earnings capacity of millions of as yet unborn tax payers in the future!

Central Bankers then, were clearly panicked by the total lack of response from this DOUBLE injection of life support drugs … and in desperation, they knew that they had no choice … they simply had to resort to the unthinkable.

And so it was, that the decision was made to once again, fire up the printing presses, and start printing literally tens of billions of dollars … every month!

All in order to keep the charade going for a little longer.

They even coined a new phrase to deflect attention away from such naked printing of money; they dubbed the furious printing that they were suddenly engaging in, Quantitative Easing.

It sounded almost benign, but make no mistake, what they were doing amounted to :

1. Blatant counterfeiting and currency debasement

2. An embarrassing admission of the failure of the old order of Economics

This THIRD overt and sustained injection of artificial QE life support into the Banking system did the trick and the stock exchanges at last had the funding necessary to recover and shoot for the stars.

But it was still a trick nonetheless … and a trick it surely remains.

Dont be fooled by the temporary lull in the U.S. Version of QE either.

QE continues, only in a different guise and through a different source.

Japan and the EU are currently filling the void, with the Mario Draghi of The European Central Bank, as recently as January 2015, announcing that they will pump 1.1 TRILLION EUROS … at a rate of 60bn a month (?!) … into European financial markets, until September 2016!

And whod bet against QE2, QE3, and on and on? Not many!

All of this of course, is an attempt to prevent the fragile Eurozone economy from grinding to a complete halt!

With youth unemployment still languishing at rates in excess of 50% in some Southern European countries, such financial artificial life support drugs are surely needed.

Historic 10-Year Treasury Bond Yields, 1870 – 2010. Notice Black Tuesday 1929, and Black Monday, 1987

The fact that such unprecedented measures have been needed, in order to reanimate the corpse of the global village economy, ought to have awakened everyone by now, to the illusory nature of the so-called safety of Western Banking and financial markets.

According to the Old Rules of free market economics, such unprecedented flat-lining Interest Rates alone ought to have been more than enough to jump start the economy.

But it wasnt enough. Far from it.

But the measures did serve one extremely useful purpose.

They provided savvy Central Bank watchers with all the data they needed to finally know that something was very wrong and uniquely different about the Bust of 2008.

What logically follows then is that the subsequent Post-Crash Boom in the Stock Markets must also be regarded as being equally suspect, fragile and fabricated.

So, while many savvy investors and readers of The Practical International Banking Guide have been happy enough to ride the wave up they are also well informed enough, and switched on enough to never have been fooled by the Smoke & Mirrors and Sleight of Hand that the Money Magicians of Central Banking have doled out.

Readers of the Banking Guide long ago saw the writing on the wall and have been quietly preparing themselves accordingly, ever since.

So we would again urge you to follow their example!

Prepare for and protect yourself against, what increasingly shows all the signs of being a massive shift away from the forced and contrived dominance, enjoyed by Western banking for centuries now.

So, while many savvy investors and readers of The Practical International Banking Guide have been happy enough to ride the wave up they are also well informed enough, and switched on enough to never have been fooled by the Smoke & Mirrors and Sleight of Hand that the Money Magicians of Central Banking have doled out.

It is a case of WHEN, not IF, such a turnaround comes

Dont get caught out

It is a trade that we simply cannot afford to be late getting into

The one common denominator realization that binds this small group of well informed people together then, is that they realise that the incoming financial hurricane is bound to make land fall with the most devastating impact, in the heart of the current Western financial capitals.

That is why, for years now, they have been quietly diversifying and moving their assets out of these seemingly invincible, but ultimately extremely vulnerable, jurisdictions.

They have instead, been moving them into safer, calmer waters of international jurisdictions where privacy and the rule of law still mean something, and where they are still relatively respected.

That is why we are proud to encourage you to access the latest, fully updated, 2015 Edition of

The Practical International Banking Guide – 2015 edition

The rest is here:
The International Offshore Banking Guide – 2015 edition

 Posted by at 11:42 pm  Tagged with:

NSA warrantless surveillance (200107) – Wikipedia, the free …

 NSA  Comments Off on NSA warrantless surveillance (200107) – Wikipedia, the free …
Jan 252016
 

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (“warrantless wiretapping”) concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of allegedly foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the touted war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the terrorist surveillance program,[1] part of the broader President’s Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. However, it has been discovered that all U.S. communications have been digitally cloned by government agencies, in apparent violation of unreasonable search and seizure.

Critics claim that the program was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and its handling of several controversial issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration allegedly ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.[2] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.

During the Obama Administration, the NSA has allegedly continued operating under the new FISA guidelines despite campaign promises to end warrantless wiretapping.[3] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court’s authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.[4]

All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al-Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an “apparently accidental” “glitch” resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.

The exact scope of the program remains secret, but the NSA was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation’s largest telecommunication companies’ major interconnected locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic.[6] Critics said that such “domestic” intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[7] The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts were not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).[8] FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.[9] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.[10]

After an article about the program, (which had been code-named Stellar Wind), was published in The New York Times on December 16, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed its existence.[11][12][13]The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block its publication.[14]Bill Keller, the newspaper’s former executive editor, had withheld the story from publication since before the 2004 Presidential Election, and the story that was ultimately published was essentially the same as reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had submitted in 2004. The delay drew criticism from some in the press, arguing that an earlier publication could have changed the election’s outcome.[15] In a December 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself to be the initial whistle-blower to The Times.[16] The FBI began investigating leaks about the program in 2005, with 25 agents and 5 prosecutors on the case.[17]

Gonzales said the program authorized warrantless intercepts where the government had “a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda” and that one party to the conversation was “outside of the United States.”[18] The revelation raised immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse. Since then, the controversy has expanded to include the press’ role in exposing a classified program, the role and responsibility of the US Congress in its executive oversight function and the scope and extent of presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution.[19]

In mid-August 2007, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in two lawsuits challenging the surveillance program. The appeals were the first to reach the court after dozens of civil suits against the government and telecommunications companies over NSA surveillance were consolidated last year before the chief judge of the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker. One of the cases is a class-action lawsuit against AT&T, focusing on allegations that the company provided the NSA with its customers’ phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation. Plaintiffs in the second case are the al-Haramain Foundation Islamic charity and two of its lawyers.[20][21]

On November 16, 2007, the three judgesM. Margaret McKeown, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Harry Pregersonissued a 27-page ruling that the charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, could not introduce a key piece of evidence in its case because it fell under the government’s claim of state secrets, although the judges said that “In light of extensive government disclosures, the government is hard-pressed to sustain its claim that the very subject matter of the litigation is a state secret.”[22][23]

In an August 14, 2007, question-and-answer session with the El Paso Times which was published on August 22, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector helped the warrantless surveillance program. McConnell argued that the companies deserved immunity for their help: “Now if you play out the suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies”.[24] Plaintiffs in the AT&T suit subsequently filed a motion with the court to have McConnell’s acknowledgement admitted as evidence in their case.[25]

The program may face an additional legal challenge in the appeal of two Albany, New York, men convicted of criminal charges in an FBI anti-terror sting operation. Their lawyers say they have evidence the men were the subjects of NSA electronic surveillance, which was used to obtain their convictions but not made public at trial or made available in response to discovery requests by defense counsel at that time.[26]

In an unusual related legal development, on October 13, 2007, The Washington Post reported that Joseph P. Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest Communications, is appealing an April 2007 conviction on 19 counts of insider trading by alleging that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal. According to court documents unsealed in Denver in early October as part of Nacchio’s appeal, the NSA approached Qwest about participating in a warrantless surveillance program more than six months before the Sep 11, 2001, attacks which have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its efforts. Nacchio is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper.[27] According to a lawsuit filed against other telecommunications companies for violating customer privacy, AT&T began preparing facilities for the NSA to monitor “phone call information and Internet traffic” seven months before 9/11.[28]

On August 17, 2007, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said it would consider a request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union which asked the intelligence court to make public its recent, classified rulings on the scope of the government’s wiretapping powers. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, presiding judge of the FISC, signed an order calling the ACLU’s motion “an unprecedented request that warrants further briefing.”[29] The FISC ordered the government to respond on the issue by August 31, saying that anything involving classified material could be filed under court seal.[30][31] On the August 31 deadline, the National Security Division of the Justice Department filed a response in opposition to the ACLU’s motion with the court.[32]

In previous developments, the case ACLU v. NSA was dismissed on July 6, 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[33] The court did not rule on the spying program’s legality. Instead, its 65-page opinion declared that the American Civil Liberties Union and the others who brought the case including academics, lawyers and journalists did not have the legal standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they had been direct targets of the clandestine surveillance.[34] Detroit District Court judge Anna Diggs Taylor had originally ruled on August 17, 2006 that the program is illegal under FISA as well as unconstitutional under the First and Fourth amendments of the United States Constitution.[35][36][37]Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, discovered that at the time of the ruling Taylor “serves as a secretary and trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case.”[38] On February 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union, letting stand the earlier decision dismissing the case.[39]

On September 28, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825).[40] That bill now has been passed to the U.S. Senate, where three competing, mutually exclusive, billsthe Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455) (the DeWine bill), the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455) (the Specter bill), and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 (S.3001) (the Specter-Feinstein bill) were themselves referred for debate to the full Senate by the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 13, 2006.[41] Each of these bills would in some form broaden the statutory authorization for electronic surveillance, while still subjecting it to some restrictions. The Specter-Feinstein bill would extend the peacetime period for obtaining retroactive warrants to seven days and implement other changes to facilitate eavesdropping while maintaining FISA court oversight. The DeWine bill, the Specter bill, and the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (passed by the House) would all authorize some limited forms or periods of warrantless electronic surveillance subject to additional programmatic oversight by either the FISC (Specter bill) or Congress (DeWine and Wilson bills).

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed U.S. Senate leaders by letter that the program would not be reauthorized by the President.[2] “Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” according to his letter.[42]

On September 18, 2008, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an Internet-privacy advocacy group, filed a new lawsuit against the NSA, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other government agencies and individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless surveillance. They sued on behalf of AT&T customers to seek redress for what the EFF alleges to be an illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. An earlier, ongoing suit by the EFF may be bogged down by the recent changes to FISA provisions, but these are not expected to impact this new case.[43][44]

On January 23, 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama adopted the same position as his predecessor when it urged U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to set aside a ruling in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Obama, et al.[45] The Obama administration also sided with the former administration in its legal defense of July 2008 legislation that immunized the nation’s telecommunications companies from lawsuits accusing them of complicity in the eavesdropping program, according to testimony by Attorney General Eric Holder.[46]

On March 31, 2010, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, ruled that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been “subjected to unlawful surveillance”, the judge said the government was liable to pay them damages.[47]

In 2012, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment against the United States and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claim against Mueller.[48]

The Trailblazer Project, an NSA IT project that began in 2000, has also been linked to warrantless surveillance. It was chosen over ThinThread, which had included some privacy protections. Three ex-NSA staffers, William Binney, J. Kirke Wiebe, and Ed Loomis, all of whom had quit NSA over concerns about the legality of the agency’s activities, teamed with Diane Roark, a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, to ask the Inspector General to investigate. A major source for the IG report was Thomas Andrews Drake, an ex-Air Force senior NSA official with an expertise in computers. Siobhan Gorman of The Baltimore Sun published a series of articles about Trailblazer in 20062007.

The FBI agents investigating the 2005 The New York Times story eventually made their way to The Baltimore Sun story, and then to Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, Roark, and Drake. In 2007 armed FBI agents raided the houses of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe. Binney claimed they pointed guns at his head. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union. None were charged with crimes except for Drake. In 2010 he was indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917, as part of Obama’s unprecedented crackdown on leakers.[49][50] The charges against him were dropped in 2011 and he pled to a single misdemeanor.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) regulates U.S. government agencies’ carrying out of physical searches, and electronic surveillance, wherein a significant purpose is the gathering of foreign intelligence information. “Foreign intelligence information” is defined in 50 U.S.C.1801 as information necessary to protect the U.S. or its allies against actual or potential attack from a foreign power, sabotage or international terrorism. FISA defines a “foreign power” as a foreign government or any faction(s) of a foreign government not substantially composed of US persons, or any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. FISA provides for both criminal and civil liability for intentional electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.

FISA provides two documents for the authorization of surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant for the electronic cameras if “there is probable cause to believe that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” 50 U.S.C. 1805(a)(3). Second, FISA permits the President or his delegate to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party”. 50 U.S.C. 1802(a)(1).[51]

Soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct surveillance of certain telephone calls without obtaining a warrant from the FISC as stipulated by FISA (see 50 U.S.C.1802 50 U.S.C.1809 ). The complete details of the executive order are not known, but according to statements by the administration,[52] the authorization covers telephone calls originating overseas from or to a person suspected of having links to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda or its affiliates even when the other party to the call is within the US. The legality of surveillance involving US persons and extent of this authorization is at the core of this controversy which has steadily grown to include:

About a week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) which authorized the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The administration has argued that the language used in the AUMF implicitly authorized the President to exercise those powers “incident to the waging of war”, including the collection of enemy intelligence, FISA provisions notwithstanding.[8]

On January 20, 2006, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee along with lone co-sponsor Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. Res. 350, a resolution “expressing the sense of the Senate that Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and subsequently enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens.”[55][56] This non-binding resolution died in the Senate without being brought up for debate or being voted upon.[57]

Because of its highly classified status, little is publicly known about the actual implementation of the NSA domestic electronic surveillance program. Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit including limited technical details known to him personally in support of a class-action lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in federal district court in San Francisco in January 2006 on behalf of AT&T customers who alleged that they had been damaged by the telecommunications corporation’s cooperation with the NSA. The lawsuit is called Hepting v. AT&T.[60][61]

A January 16, 2004 statement by Mr. Klein includes additional technical details regarding the secret 2003 construction of an NSA-operated monitoring facility in Room 641A of 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, the site of a large SBC phone building, three floors of which are occupied by AT&T.[62][63]

According to Klein’s affidavit, the NSA-equipped room uses equipment built by Narus Corporation to intercept and analyze communications traffic, as well as perform data-mining functions.[64]

In an article appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers journal of Security and Privacy, noted technology experts from academia and the computing industry analyzed potential security risks posed by the NSA program, based on information contained in Klein’s affidavits as well as those of expert witness J. Scott Marcus, a designer of large-scale IP-based data networks, former CTO at GTE Internetworking and at Genuity, and former senior advisor for Internet Technology at the US Federal Communications Commission.[65] They concluded that the likely architecture of the system created serious security risks, including the danger that such a surveillance system could be exploited by unauthorized users, criminally misused by trusted insiders, or abused by government agents.[66]

Journalist Barton Gellman reported in the Washington Post that David Addington who was at that time legal counsel to former Vice President Dick Cheney was the author of the controlling legal and technical documents for the NSA surveillance program, typing the documents on a TEMPEST-shielded computer across from his desk in room 268 of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and storing them in a vault in his office.[67][68][69]

The NSA surveillance controversy involves legal issues that fall into two broad disciplines: statutory interpretation and Constitutional law. Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation to the facts of a given case. Constitutional law is the body of law that governs the interpretation of the United States Constitution and covers areas of law such as the relationship between the federal government and state governments, the rights of individuals, and other fundamental aspects of the application of government authority in the United States.[70]

However, there are analogies between the NSA Spying Scandal (20012007) and Hewlett-Packard spying scandal (2006)[71] that may ease to predict the court outcomes. HP, in order to find the leak source of its board strategic minutes revealed to press, employed several contractors to investigate the leak issue but without engaging any external legal firm and supervisory stakeholder. Contractors, under supervision of the HP’s internal investigation team, confidentially used false pretense and social security numbers a spying technique namely Pretexting for obtaining phone records of suspicious board members and several journalists. Later on, the HP’s surveillance extended beyond the board of directors leaking issue and became a conspiracy for interest of the probe initiators; through which it was claimed that the informational privacy rights of even innocent employees and directors of the board, who had nothing to do with the board leaks, were violated.

In October 2006, HP’s chairwoman Patricia Dunn and HP’s former chief ethics officer Kevin Hunsaker and several private investigators were charged for criminal cases under California Penal Code such as

All of these charges were dismissed.[72]

18 U.S.C.2511(2)(f) provides in relevant part that “the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C.1801(f) … and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted.” The interpretation of this clause is central to the controversy because both sides agree that the NSA program operates outside of the procedural framework provided by FISA. The interpretive conflict arises because other provisions of FISA, including the criminal sanctions subpart 50 U.S.C.1809 include an “unless authorized by statute” provision, raising the issue of statutory ambiguity. The administration’s position is that the AUMF is an authorizing statute which satisfies the FISA criteria.

The U.S. Supreme Court faced a similar issue in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld where the government claimed that the AUMF authorized the President to detain U.S. citizens designated as an enemy combatant despite its lack of specific language to that intent and notwithstanding the provisions of 18 U.S.C.4001(a) which requires that the United States government cannot detain an American citizen except by an act of Congress. In that case, the Court ruled:

[B]ecause we conclude that the Government’s second assertion [“that 4001(a) is satisfied, because Hamdi is being detained “pursuant to an Act of Congress” [the AUMF] is correct, we do not address the first. In other words, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals … and that the AUMF satisfied 4001(a)’s requirement that a detention be “pursuant to an Act of Congress”

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld however, the court rejected the government’s argument that the AUMF implicitly authorized the President to establish military commissions in violation of the UCMJ. The opinion of the Court held:

Neither of these congressional Acts, [AUMF or ATC] however, expands the President’s authority to convene military commissions. First, while we assume that the AUMF activated the President’s war powers, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)) (plurality opinion), and that those powers include the authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances, see id., at 518; Quirin, 317 U. S., at 2829; see also Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 11, there is nothing in the text or legislative history of the AUMF even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in Article 21 of the UCMJ. Cf. Yerger, 8 Wall., at 105 (“Repeals by implication are not favored”)

Determining when explicit congressional authorization is and is not required appears by this decision to require a court to first determine whether an implicit authorization would amount to a “repeal by implication” of the governing Act.

The exclusivity clause also raises a separation of powers issue. (See Constitutional law issues below)

The arguments against the legality of the NSA fall into two broad categories, those who argue that FISA raises no Constitutional issues and therefore the NSA program is illegal on its face

Common to both of these views is the argument that the participation of “US persons” as defined in FISA 50 U.S.C.1801 renders the objectional intercepts “domestic” in nature.[73] Those advocating the “no constitutional issue” position, argue that Congress has the authority it needs to legislate in this area under Article I and the Fourth Amendment[74] while those who see a constitutional conflict[75] acknowledge that the existing delineation between Congressional and Executive authority in this area is not clear[76] but that Congress, in including the exclusivity clause in FISA, meant to carve out a legitimate role for itself in this arena.

The administration holds that an exception to the normal warrant requirements exists when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent attack from a foreign threat. Such an exception has been upheld at the Circuit Court level when the target was a foreign agent residing abroad,[77][78] a foreign agent residing in the US,[79][80][81][82] and a US citizen abroad.[83] The warrantless exception was struck down when both the target and the threat was deemed domestic.[84] The legality of targeting US persons acting as agents of a foreign power and residing in this country has not been addressed by the US Supreme Court, but has occurred at least once, in the case of Aldrich Ames.[85]

The Administration’s position with regard to statutory interpretation, as outlined in the DOJ whitepaper, is to avoid what it has termed the “difficult Constitutional questions” by

This argument, as outlined in the DOJ whitepaper, is based on the language of the AUMF, specifically, the acknowledgment of the President’s Constitutional authority contained in the preamble; “Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States”, and the language in the resolution itself;

[Be it resolved] [t]hat the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The administration also adds that the program is legal under Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act entitled Enhanced Surveillance Procedures,[citation needed] although it is not relying upon the domestic law enforcement provisions of the PATRIOT Act for authorization of any of the NSA program activities.[citation needed] The President had said prior to this, that Americans’ civil liberties were being protected and that purely domestic wiretapping was being conducted pursuant to warrants under applicable law, including the Patriot Act.[87]

These arguments must be compared to the language of the FISA itself, which states:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.[88]

Because the law only authorizes the President to bypass the FISA court during the first 15 days of a war declared by Congress (see “Declaration of war”), the administration’s argument rests on the assumption that the AUMF gave the President more power than was understood as absolutely implicit in any Congressional “declaration of war” at the time of the statute’s enactment. However, as a “declaration of war by the Congress” encompasses all military actions so declared, no matter how small, brief or otherwise constrained by Congress, the above citation could be seen as setting not a default or typical level of Presidential wartime authority, but instead a presumptive minimum, which might more often than not be extended (explicitly or implicitly) by Congress’s war declaration.

According to Peter J. Wallison, former White House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan: “It is true, of course, that a president’s failure to report to Congress when he is required to do so by law is a serious matter, but in reality the reporting requirement was a technicality that a President could not be expected to know about.”[89] In regard to this program, a Gang of Eight (eight key members of Congress, thirteen in this case between the 107th and 109th Congressional Sessions) have been kept informed to some degree:

Under the National Security Act of 1947, 501503, codified as 50 USC 413-413b,[90] the President is required to keep Congressional intelligence committees “fully and currently” informed of U.S. intelligence activities, “consistent with … protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.” For covert actions, from which intelligence gathering activities are specifically excluded in 413b(e)(1), the President is specifically permitted to limit reporting to the so-called “Gang of Eight”.[91]

The administration contends that with regard to the NSA surveillance program, the administration fulfilled its notification obligations by briefing key members of Congress (thirteen individuals in this case between the 107th and 109th Congressional sessions) have been briefed on the NSA program more than a dozen times[citation needed] but they were forbidden from sharing information about the program with other members or staff.[citation needed]

On January 18, 2006 the Congressional Research Service released a report, “Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions”.[92][93] That report found that “[b]ased upon publicly reported descriptions of the program, the NSA surveillance program would appear to fall more closely under the definition of an intelligence collection program, rather than qualify as a covert action program as defined by statute”, and, therefore, concluded there was no specific statutory basis for limiting briefings on the terrorist surveillance program to the Gang of Eight.[94] However, the report goes on to note in its concluding paragraph that limited disclosure is also permitted under the statute “in order to protect intelligence sources and methods”.[95]

Thus, although the specific statutory “Gang of Eight” notification procedure for covert action would not seem to apply to the NSA program, it is not clear if a limited notification procedure intended to protect sources and methods is expressly prohibited. Additionally, should the sources and methods exception apply it will require a factual determination as to whether it should apply to disclosure of the program itself or only to specific sensitive aspects.

The constitutional debate surrounding executive authorization of warrantless surveillance is principally about separation of powers (“checks and balances”). If, as discussed above, no “fair reading” of FISA can be found in satisfaction of the canon of avoidance, these issues will have to be decided at the appellate level, by United States courts of appeals. It should be noted that in such a separation of powers dispute, the burden of proof is placed upon the Congress to establish its supremacy in the matter: the Executive branch enjoys the presumption of authority until an Appellate Court rules against it.[citation needed]

Article I vests Congress with the sole authority “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The U.S. Supreme Court has used the “necessary and proper” clause of Article I to affirm broad Congressional authority to legislate as it sees fit in the domestic arena[citation needed] but has limited its application in the arena of foreign affairs. In the landmark Curtiss-Wright decision, Justice Sutherland writes in his opinion of the Court:

The [“powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs”] are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature. The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.

Article II vests the President with power as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” and requires that he “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has historically used Article II to justify wide deference to the President in the arena of foreign affairs.[citation needed] Two historical and recent Supreme Court cases define the secret wiretapping by the NSA. Quoting again from the Curtiss-Wright decision:

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relationsa power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

The extent of the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief has never been fully defined, but two U.S. Supreme Court cases are considered seminal in this area:[96][97]Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer and Curtiss-Wright.

In addition, two relatively new cases, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, have clarified, and in the case of Hamdan limited, the scope of executive power to detain and try suspected terrorists as enemy combatants.

In Hamdan, the Court’s opinion in footnote 23, rejected the notion that Congress is impotent to regulate the exercise of executive war powers:

Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The Government does not argue otherwise.

Whether “proper exercise” of Congressional war powers includes authority to regulate the gathering of foreign intelligence, which in other rulings[citation needed] has been recognized as “fundamentally incident to the waging of war”, is a historical point of contention between the Executive and Legislative branches.[8][98]

As noted in “Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information”, published by The Congressional Research Service:

A review of the history of intelligence collection and its regulation by Congress suggests that the two political branches have never quite achieved a meeting of the minds regarding their respective powers. Presidents have long contended that the ability to conduct surveillance for intelligence purposes is a purely executive function, and have tended to make broad assertions of authority while resisting efforts on the part of Congress or the courts to impose restrictions. Congress has asserted itself with respect to domestic surveillance, but has largely left matters involving overseas surveillance to executive self-regulation, subject to congressional oversight and willingness to provide funds.

The same report makes clear the Congressional view that intelligence gathered within the U.S. and where “one party is a U.S. person” qualifies as domestic in nature and as such completely within their purview to regulate, and further that Congress may “tailor the President’s use of an inherent constitutional power”:

The passage of FISA and the inclusion of such exclusivity language reflects Congress’s view of its authority to cabin the President’s use of any inherent constitutional authority with respect to warrantless electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence.

The Senate Judiciary Committee articulated its view with respect to congressional power to tailor the President’s use of an inherent constitutional power:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and helps guard against “unreasonable” searches and seizures by agents of the government. It is solely a right of the people that neither the Executive nor Legislative branch can lawfully abrogate, not even if acting in concert: no statute can make an unreasonable search reasonable, nor a reasonable search unreasonable.

The term “unreasonable” is deliberately imprecise but connotes the sense that there is a rational basis for the search and that it is not an excessive imposition upon the individual given the motivation for and circumstances of the search, and is in accordance with customary societal norms. It is conceived that a judge will be sufficiently distanced from the authorities seeking a warrant that they can render an impartial decision unaffected by any prejudices or improper motivations they (or the legislators who enacted a law they are seeking to enforce) may harbor.

An individual who believes their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by an unreasonable search or seizure may file a civil suit for monetary compensation and seek a court-ordered end to a pattern or practice of such unlawful activities by government authorities, although the plaintiff will need to have evidence that such a wiretap is taking place in order to show standing (Amnesty International v. Clapper). Such civil rights violations are sometimes punishable by state or federal law. Evidence obtained in an unlawful search or seizure is generally inadmissible in a criminal trial.

The law countenances searches without warrant as “reasonable” in numerous circumstances, among them (see below): the persons, property, and papers of individuals crossing the border of the United States and those of paroled felons; in prisons, public schools and government offices; and of international mail. Although these are undertaken as a result of statute or Executive order, they should not be seen as deriving their legitimacy from these, rather, the Fourth Amendment explicitly allows reasonable searches, and the government has instituted some of these as public policy.

The Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States (1967), that the monitoring and recording of private conversations within the United States constitutes a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes, and therefore the government must generally obtain a warrant before undertaking such domestic recordings.

The Supreme Court has also held in Smith v Maryland (1979) that citizens have no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in the business records (sometimes termed metadata) of their communications. This means that the court can subpoena data such as the numbers that an individual has phoned, when and, to a limited degree, where (subject to Jones v. United States) the phone conversation occurred, although a full judicial warrant would be required for the government to acquire or admit audio content from the telephone call. Under Section 215 of the PATRIOT act, the FBI can subpoena some or all such records from a business record holder using a warrant applied for in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The protection of “private conversations” has been held to apply only to conversations where the participants have not only manifested a desire but also a reasonable expectation that their conversation is indeed private and that no other party is listening in. In the absence of such a reasonable expectation, the Fourth Amendment does not apply, and surveillance without warrant does not violate it. Privacy is clearly not a reasonable expectation in communications to persons in the many countries whose governments openly intercept electronic communications, and is of dubious reasonability in countries against which the United States is waging war.

The law also recognizes a distinction between domestic surveillance taking place within U.S. borders and foreign surveillance of non-U.S. persons either in the U.S. or abroad.[99] In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the Constitution does not extend protection to non-U.S. persons located outside of the United States, so no warrant would be required to engage in even physical searches of non-U.S. citizens abroad.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of warrantless searches targeting foreign powers or their agents within the US. There have been, however, a number of Circuit Court rulings upholding the constitutionality of such warrantless searches.[100] In United States v. Bin Laden, the Second Circuit noted that “no court, prior to FISA, that was faced with the choice, imposed a warrant requirement for foreign intelligence searches undertaken within the United States.”[101] Assistant Attorney General William Moschella in his written response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee explained that in the administration’s view, this unanimity of pre-FISA Circuit Court decisions vindicates their argument that warrantless foreign-intelligence surveillance authority existed prior to FISA and since, as these ruling indicate, that authority derives from the Executive’s inherent Article II powers, they may not be encroached by statute.[102] In 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) met for the first time and issued an opinion (In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001) which seems to echo that view. They too noted all the Federal courts of appeal having looked at the issue had concluded that there was constitutional power for the president to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. Furthermore, based on these rulings it “took for granted such power exits” and ruled that under this presumption, “FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.” Professor Orin Kerr argues in rebuttal that the part of In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 that dealt with FISA (rather than the Fourth Amendment) was nonbinding obiter dicta and that the argument does not restrict Congress’s power to regulate the executive in general.[103]

Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School, Suzanne Spaulding, former general counsel for the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate, and former Counsel to the President John Dean, contend that FISA clearly makes the wiretapping illegal and subject to the criminal penalties of FISA,[104] (in seeming disagreement with the FISA Court of Review finding above) and that the president’s own admissions already constitute sufficient evidence of a violation of the Fourth Amendment, without requiring further factual evidence. Professor John C. Eastman, in his analysis, prepared at the behest of the House Judiciary Committee, comparing the CRS and DOJ reports, concluded instead that under the Constitution and ratified by both historical and Supreme Court precedent, “the President clearly has the authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications in time of war and of the communications to and from those he reasonably believes are affiliated with our enemies. Moreover, it should go without saying that such activities are a fundamental incident of war.”[105]

Orin S. Kerr, associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School[106] and a leading scholar in the subjects of computer crime law and internet surveillance,[107] points to an analogy between the NSA intercepts and searches allowed by the Fourth Amendment under the border search exception.

The border search exception permits searches at the border of the United States “or its functional equivalent.” (United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985)). The idea here is that the United States as a sovereign nation has a right to inspect stuff entering or exiting the country as a way of protecting its sovereign interests, and that the Fourth Amendment permits such searches. Courts have applied the border search exception in cases of PCs and computer hard drives; if you bring a computer into or out of the United States, the government can search your computer for contraband or other prohibited items at the airport or wherever you are entering or leaving the country. See, e.g., United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005) (Wilkinson, J.)…At the same time, I don’t know of a rationale in the case law for treating data differently than physical storage devices. The case law on the border search exception is phrased in pretty broad language, so it seems at least plausible that a border search exception could apply to monitoring at an ISP or telephone provider as the “functional equivalent of the border,” much like airports are the functional equivalent of the border in the case of international airline travel…the most persuasive case on point: United States v. Ramsey, [held] that the border search exception applies to all international postal mail, permitting all international postal mail to be searched.

Evidence gathered without warrant may raise significant Fourth Amendment issues which could preclude its use in a criminal trial. As a general rule of law, evidence obtained improperly without lawful authority, may not be used in a criminal prosecution.[citation needed] The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the constitutionality of warrantless searches (which has been broadly defined by the court to include surveillance) targeting foreign powers or their agents, the admissibility of such evidence in a criminal trial nor whether it is permissible to obtain or use evidence gathered without warrant against US persons acting as agents of a foreign power.[citation needed]

The National Security Act of 1947[108] requires Presidential findings for covert acts. SEC. 503. [50 U.S.C. 413b] (a) (5) of that act states: “A finding may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States.”

On August 17, 2006, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional under the Fourth and First Amendments and enjoined the NSA from using the program to conduct electronic surveillance “in contravention of [FISA or Title III]”.[36] In her ruling,[109] she wrote:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.

Even some legal experts who agreed with the outcome have criticized the reasoning set forth in the opinion.[110] Others have argued that the perceived flaws in the opinion in fact reflect the Department of Justice’s refusal to argue the legal merits of the program (they chose to focus solely on arguments about standing and state secrets grounds).[111]

On October 4, 2006, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously ruled that the government can continue the program while it appeals the lower court decision.[112][113]

On July 6, 2007 the Sixth Circuit dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs had no standing.

The Court found that:[114]

[T]he plaintiffs do not and because of the State Secrets Doctrine cannot produce any evidence that any of their own communications have ever been intercepted by the NSA, under the TSP, or without warrants. Instead, they assert a mere belief, which they contend is reasonable and which they label a well founded belief,…

Implicit in each of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries is the underlying possibility which the plaintiffs label a “well founded belief” and seek to treat as a probability or even a certainty that the NSA is presently intercepting, or will eventually intercept, communications to or from one or more of these particular plaintiffs, and that such interception would be detrimental to the plaintiffs’ clients, sources, or overseas contacts. This is the premise upon which the plaintiffs’ entire theory is built.

But even though the plaintiffs’ beliefs based on their superior knowledge of their contacts’ activities may be reasonable, the alternative possibility remains that the NSA might not be intercepting, and might never actually intercept, any communication by any of the plaintiffs named in this lawsuit.

Corporate secrecy is also an issue. Wired reported: In a letter to the EFF, AT&T objected to the filing of the documents in any manner, saying that they contain sensitive trade secrets and could be “used to ‘hack’ into the AT&T network, compromising its integrity.”[115] However, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker stated, during the September 12, 2008 hearing in the class-action lawsuit filed by the EFF, that the Klein evidence could be presented in court, effectively ruling that AT&T’s trade secret and security claims were unfounded.

The majority of legal arguments supporting the NSA warrantless surveillance program have been based on the War Powers Resolution. There have not been any other noteworthy types of supporting legal arguments. The War Powers Resolution has been questioned as unconstitutional since its creation, and its adaptation to the NSA warrantless surveillance program has been questionable.

More:
NSA warrantless surveillance (200107) – Wikipedia, the free …

 Posted by at 3:44 pm  Tagged with:

Spratly Islands – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Islands  Comments Off on Spratly Islands – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jan 242016
 

The Spratly Islands (Chinese: ; pinyin: Nnsh Qndo, Malay: Kepulauan Spratly, Tagalog: Kapuluan ng Kalayaan,[8]Vietnamese: Qun o Trng Sa) are a disputed group of more than 750 reefs, islets, atolls, cays and islands in the South China Sea.[9] The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines, Malaysia, and southern Vietnam. Named after the 19th-century British whaling captain Richard Spratly who sighted Spratly Island in 1843, the islands contain approximately 4km2 (1.5sq mi) of land area spread over a vast area of more than 425,000km2 (164,000sq mi).

The Spratlys are one of the major archipelagos in the South China Sea that comprise more than 30,000 islands and reefs, and which complicate governance and economics in this part of Southeast Asia due to their location in strategic shipping lanes. The islands have no indigenous inhabitants, but offer rich fishing grounds and may contain significant oil and natural gas reserves.[10][11] and as such are important to the claimants in their attempts to establish international boundaries.

The area northeast of the Spratlys is known to mariners as Dangerous Ground and is characterized by its many low islands, sunken reefs, and atolls with coral often rising abruptly from ocean depths greater than 1,000 metres (3,300ft) – all of which makes the area dangerous for navigation.

In addition to various territorial claims, some of the features have civilian settlements, but of the approximately 45 islands, reefs, cays and other features that are occupied all contain structures that are occupied by military forces (from China (PRC), Taiwan (ROC), Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia). Additionally, Brunei has claimed (but does not occupy) an exclusive economic zone in the southeastern part of the Spratlys, which includes the Louisa Reef. These claims and occupations have led to escalating tensions between these countries over the status and “ownership” of the islands.

The Spratly Islands contain almost no significant arable land, have no indigenous inhabitants, and very few of the islands have a permanent drinkable water supply. Natural resources include fish and guano, as well as the possible potential of oil and natural gas reserves.[12]Economic activity has included commercial fishing, shipping, guano mining, and more recently, tourism.

The Spratlys are located near several primary shipping lanes.

The Spratly Islands consist of reefs, banks and shoals that consist of biogenic carbonate. These accumulations of biogenic carbonate lie upon the higher crests of major submarine ridges that are uplifted fault blocks known by geologists as horsts. These horsts are part of a series of parallel and en echelon, half-grabens and rotated fault-blocks. The long axes of the horsts, rotated fault blocks and half-grabens form well-defined linear trends that lie parallel to magnetic anomalies exhibited by the oceanic crust of the adjacent South China Sea. The horsts, rotated fault blocks, and the rock forming the bottoms of associated grabens consist of stretched and subsided continental crust that is composed of Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous strata that include calc-alkalic extrusive igneous rocks, intermediate to acid intrusive igneous rocks, sandstones, siltstones, dark-green claystones, and metamorphic rocks that include biotite-muscovite-feldspar-quartz migmatites and garnet-mica schists.[13][14][15]

The dismemberment and subsidence of continental crust into horsts, rotated fault blocks and half-grabens that underlie the Spratly Islands and surrounding sea bottom occurred in 2 distinct periods. They occurred as the result of the tectonic stretching of continental crust along underlying deeply rooted detachment faults. During the Late Cretaceous and Early Oligocene, the earliest period of tectonic stretching of continental crust and formation of horsts, half-grabens, and rotated fault-blocks occurred in association the rifting and later sea-floor spreading that created the South China Sea. During the Late Oligocene-Early Miocene additional stretching and block faulting of continental crust occurred within the Spratly Islands and adjacent Dangerous Ground. During and after this period of tectonic activity, corals and other marine life colonised the crests of the horsts and other ridges that lay in shallow water. The remains of these organisms accumulated over time as biogenic carbonates that comprise the current day reefs, shoals and cays of the Spratly Islands. Starting with their formation in Late Cretaceous, fine-grained organic-rich marine sediments accumulated within the numerous submarine half-grabens that underlie sea bottom within the Dangerous Ground region.[13][14][15]

The geological surveys show localised areas within the Spratly Islands region are favourable for the accumulation of economic oil and gas reserves. They include thick sequences of Cenozoic sediments east of the Spratly Islands. Southeast and west of them, there also exist thick accumulations of sediments that possibly might contain economic oil and gas reserves lie closer to the Spratly Islands.[10][16]

In some cays in the Spratly Islands, the sand and pebble sediments form the beaches and spits around the island. Under the influence of the dominant wind direction, which changes seasonally, these sediments move around the island to change the shape and size of the island. For example, Spratly Island is larger during the northeast monsoon, (about 700 300 meters), and smaller during the southwest monsoon (approximately 650 320 meters).[17]

Some islands may contain fresh groundwater fed by rain. Groundwater levels fluctuate during the day with the rhythm of the tides.[18]

Phosphates from bird faeces (guano) are mainly concentrated in the beach rocks by the way of exchange-endosmosis. The principal minerals bearing phosphate are podolite, lewistonite and dehonite.[19]

Coral reefs are the predominant structures of these islands; the Spratly group contains over 600 coral reefs in total.[9] In April 2015 the New York Times reported that China were using “scores of dredgers” to convert Fiery Cross Reef and several other reefs into military facilities (runways, etc.).[20][21]

Little vegetation grows on these islands, which are subject to intense monsoons. Larger islands are capable of supporting tropical forest, scrub forest, coastal scrub and grasses. It is difficult to determine which species have been introduced or cultivated by humans. Taiping Island (Itu Aba) was reportedly covered with shrubs, coconut, and mangroves in 1938; pineapple was also cultivated there when it was profitable. Other accounts mention papaya, banana, palm, and even white peach trees growing on one island. A few islands that have been developed as small tourist resorts had soil and trees brought in and planted where there was none.[9]

A total of 2,927 marine species have been recorded in the Spratly Sea, including 776 benthic species, 382 species of hard coral, 524 species of marine fish, 262 species of algae and sea grass, 35 species of seabirds, 20 species of marine mammals and sea turtles, etc.[22]

Terrestrial vegetation in the islands includes 103 species of vascular plants of magnolia branches (Magnoliophyta) of 39 families and 79 genera.[22]

The islands that do have vegetation provide important habitats for many seabirds and sea turtles.[9]

Both the green turtle (Chelonia mydas, endangered) and the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata, critically endangered) formerly occurred in numbers sufficient to support commercial exploitation. These species reportedly continue to nest even on islands inhabited by military personnel (such as Pratas) to some extent, though it is believed that their numbers have declined.[9]

Seabirds use the islands for resting, breeding, and wintering sites. Species found here include: streaked shearwater (Calonectris leucomelas), brown booby (Sula leucogaster), red-footed booby (S. sula), great crested tern (Sterna bergii), and white tern (Gygis alba). Little information is available regarding the current status of the islands’ seabird populations, though it is likely that birds may divert nesting sites to smaller, less disturbed islands. Bird eggs cover the majority of Song Tu, a small island in the eastern Danger Zone.[9]

This ecoregion is still largely a mystery. Scientists have focused their research on the marine environment, while the ecology of the terrestrial environment remains relatively unknown.[9]

Political instability, tourism and the increasing industrialisation of neighbouring countries has led to serious disruption of native flora and fauna, over-exploitation of natural resources, and environmental pollution. Disruption of nesting areas by human activity and/or by introduced animals, such as dogs, has reduced the number of turtles nesting on the islands. Sea turtles are also slaughtered for food on a significant scale. The sea turtle is a symbol of longevity in Chinese culture and at times the military personnel are given orders to protect the turtles.[9]

Heavy commercial fishing in the region incurs other problems. Although it has been outlawed, fishing methods continue to include the use of bottom trawlers fitted with chain rollers. In addition, during a recent[timeframe?] routine patrols[by whom?], more than 200kg of Potassium cyanide solution was confiscated from fishermen who had been using it for fish poisoning. These activities have a devastating impact on local marine organisms and coral reefs.[9]

Some interest has been taken[by whom?] in regard to conservation of these[which?] island ecosystems. J.W. McManus[who?] has explored the possibilities of designating portions of the Spratly Islands as a marine park. One region of the Spratly Archipelago, named Truong Sa, was proposed by Vietnam’s Ministry of Science, Technology, and the Environment (MOSTE) as a future protected area. The site, with an area of 160km2 (62sq mi), is currently managed by the Khanh Hoa Provincial People’s Committee of Vietnam.[9]

Military groups in the Spratlys have engaged in environmentally damaging activities such as shooting turtles and seabirds, raiding nests and fishing with explosives. The collection of rare medicinal plants, collecting of wood, and hunting for the wildlife trade are common threats to the biodiversity of the entire region, including these islands. Coral habitats are threatened by pollution, over-exploitation of fish and invertebrates, and the use of explosives and poisons as fishing techniques.[9]

Chinese texts of the 12th century record these islands being a part of Chinese territory and that they had earlier (206BC) been used as fishing grounds during the Han dynasty.[23][not in citation given] Further records show the islands as inhabited at various times in history by Chinese and Vietnamese fishermen, and during the second world war by troops from French Indochina and Japan.[24][25][26] However, there were no large settlements on these islands until 1956, when Filipino adventurer Toms Cloma, Sr., decided to “claim” a part of Spratly islands as his own, naming it the “Free Territory of Freedomland”.[27]

Evidence of man’s presence in the region extends back nearly 50,000 years at Tabon Caves on Palawan. Therefore, it is difficult to say when man first came upon this island group. Within historical times, several groups may have passed through or occupied the islands. Between 600BCE to 3BCE there was an East to West migration by members of the seafairing Sa Hunh culture. This may have led them through the Spratly Islands on their way to Vietnam. These migrants were the forebears of the Cham people that founded the Old Champa empire that ruled what was known for centuries as the Champa Sea.[28][29]

In the Song Dynasty work Zhu fan zhi by Zhao Rugua, the name “Thousand Li Stretch of Sands” (Qianli Changsha , ) and the “Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools/Beds” (Wanli Shitang , or Wanli Shichuang ) were given, interpreted by some to refer to Paracel and Spratly respectively.[30]Wanli Shitang is also recorded in the History of Yuan to have been explored by the Chinese during the Yuan dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries.[31][32][33] They are also referenced, sometimes with different names, in the Ming dynasty.[34] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[35] 1755,[36] 1767,[37] 1810,[38] and 1817.[39]

A Vietnamese map from 1834 also combines the Spratly and Paracel Islands into one region known as “Vn L Trng Sa”[citation needed], a feature commonly incorporated into maps of the era () that is, a combination of half of the 2 aforementioned Chinese island names, “Wanli” and “Changsha”.[40] According to Hanoi, Vietnamese maps record Bi Ct Vng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both the Spratly and Paracel Islands), which lay near the coast of the central Vietnam, as early as 1838.[41] In Ph Bin Tp Lc (The Frontier Chronicles) by scholar L Qu n, both Hong Sa and Trng Sa were defined as belonging to the Qung Ngi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the L dynasty, 200years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[41]

Despite the fact that China and Vietnam both made a claim to these territories simultaneously, at the time, neither side was aware that its neighbour had already charted and made claims to the same stretch of islands.[41]

The islands were sporadically visited throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries by mariners from different European powers (including Richard Spratly, after whom the island group derives its most recognisable English name).[42] However, these nations showed little interest in the islands.

In the 1950s, a group of individuals claimed sovereignty over the islands in the name of Morton F. Meads, supposedly an American descendant of a British naval captain who gave his name to Meads Island (Itu Aba) in the 1870s. In an affidavit made in 1971, the group claimed to represent the Kingdom of Humanity/Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads,[43] which they asserted was in turn the successor entity for a supposed Kingdom of Humanity established between the two world wars on Meads Island, allegedly by the son of the British captain. This claim to this would-be micronation fell dormant after 1972, when several members of the group drowned in a typhoon.[44][45][46][47]

In 1883, German boats surveyed the Spratly and the Paracel Islands but eventually withdrew the survey, after receiving protests from the Guangdong government representing the Qing dynasty. Many European maps before the 20th century do not even mention this region.[48]

The following are political divisions for the Spratly Islands claimed by various area nations (in alphabetical order):

In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually sojourned on the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys.[51][52]

When the Spratlys and Paracels were being surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests against them. The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands.[53][54] China sent naval forces on inspection tours in 1902 and 1907 and placed flags and markers on the islands. The Qing dynasty’s successor state, the Republic of China, claimed the Spratly and Paracel islands under the jurisdiction of Hainan.[54]

In 1933, France asserted its claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands[55] on behalf of its then-colony Vietnam.[56] It occupied a number of the Spratly Islands, including Taiping Island, built weather stations on two of the islands, and administered them as part of French Indochina. This occupation was protested by the Republic of China (ROC) government because France admitted finding Chinese fishermen there when French warships visited nine of the islands.[57] In 1935, the ROC government also announced a sovereignty claim on the Spratly Islands. Japan occupied some of the islands in 1939 during World War II, and it used the islands as a submarine base for the occupation of Southeast Asia. During the Japanese occupation, these islands were called Shinnan Shoto (), literally the New Southern Islands, and together with the Paracel Islands (), they were put under the governance of the Japanese colonial authority in Taiwan.

Japan occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys from February 1939 to August 1945.[58] Japan administered the Spratlys via Taiwan’s jurisdiction and the Paracels via Hainan’s jurisdiction.[51] Parts of the Paracels and Spratlys were occupied by Republic of China after the 1945 surrender of Japan,[59] since the Allied powers assigned the Republic of China to receive Japanese surrenders in that area,[54] however no successor was named to the islands.[59]

In November 1946, the ROC sent naval ships to take control of the islands after the surrender of Japan.[58] It had chosen the largest and perhaps the only inhabitable island, Taiping Island, as its base, and it renamed the island under the name of the naval vessel as Taiping. Also following the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II, the ROC re-claimed the entirety of the Spratly Islands (including Taiping Island) after accepting the Japanese surrender of the islands based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. The Republic of China then garrisoned Itu Aba (Taiping) island in 1946 and posted Chinese flags and markers on it along with Woody island in the Paracels. France tried, but failed, to make them leave Woody island.[51] The aim of the Republic of China was to block the French claims.[54][60] The Republic of China drew up the map showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[54] Japan had renounced all claims to the islands in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty together with the Paracels, Pratas and other islands captured from the Chinese, and upon these declarations, the government of the Republic of China reasserted its claim to the islands. The KMT force of the ROC government withdrew from most of the Spratly and Paracel Islands after they retreated to Taiwan from the opposing Communist Party of China due to their losses in the Chinese Civil War and the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949.[56] The ROC quietly withdrew troops from Taiping Island in 1950, but then reinstated them in 1956 in response to Toms Cloma’s sudden claim to the island as part of Freedomland.[61] As of 2013[update], Taiping Island is administered by the ROC.[62]

After pulling out its garrison in 1950 when the Republic of China evacuated to Taiwan, when the Filipino Tomas Cloma uprooted an ROC flag on Itu Aba laid claim to the Spratlys and, the Republic of China (now Taiwan) again regarrisoned Itu Aba on 1956.[63] In 1946, the Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[51] The Philippines then claimed the Spratlys in 1971 under President Marcos, after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[64]

Taiwan’s garrison from 19461950 and 1956-now on Itu Aba represents an “effective occupation” of the Spratlys.[64][65] China established a coastal defence system against Japanese pirates or smugglers.[66]

North Vietnam recognised China’s claims on the Paracels and Spratlys during the Vietnam War as it was being supported by China. Only after winning the war and conquering South Vietnam did North Vietnam retract its recognition and admitted it recognised them as part of China to receive aid from China in fighting the Americans.[67]

In 1988, the Vietnamese and Chinese navies engaged in a skirmish in the area of Johnson South Reef (also called Yongshu reef in China and Mabini reef in Philippines).[68]

Under President Lee Teng-hui, Taiwan stated that “legally, historically, geographically, or in reality”, all of the South China Sea and Spratly islands were Taiwan’s territory and under Taiwanese sovereignty, and denounced actions undertaken there by Malaysia and the Philippines, in a statement on 13 July 1999 released by the foreign ministry of Taiwan.[69] Taiwan and China’s claims “mirror” each other; during international talks involving the Spratly islands, China and Taiwan have cooperated with each other since both have the same claims.[64][70]

It was unclear whether France continued its claim to the islands after WWII, since none of the islands, other than Taiping Island, was habitable. The South Vietnamese government took over the Trng Sa administration after the defeat of the French at the end of the First Indochina War. In 1958, the PRC issued a declaration defining its territorial waters that encompassed the Spratly Islands. North Vietnam’s prime minister, Phm Vn ng, sent a formal note to Zhou Enlai, stating that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) respected the Chinese decision regarding the 12nmi (22km; 14mi) limit of territorial waters.[71] While accepting the 12-nmi principal with respect to territorial waters, the letter did not actually address the issue of defining actual territorial boundaries.

In 1999, a Philippine navy ship (Number 57 – BRP Sierra Madre) was purposely run aground near Second Thomas Shoal to enable establishment of an outpost. As of 2014[update] it had not been removed, and Filipino troops have been stationed aboard since the grounding.[72][73]

Taiwan and China are largely strategically aligned on the Spratly islands issue, since they both claim exactly the same area, so Taiwan’s control of Itu Aba (Taiping) island is viewed as an extension of China’s claim.[53] Taiwan and China both claim the entire island chain, while all the other claimaints only claim portions of them. China has proposed co-operation with Taiwan against all the other countries claiming the islands. Taiwanese lawmakers have demanded that Taiwan fortify Itu Aba (Taiping) island with weapons to defend against the Vietnamese, and both China and Taiwanese NGOs have pressured Taiwan to expand Taiwan’s military capabilities on the island, which played a role in Taiwan expanding the island’s runway in 2012.[74] China has urged Taiwan to co-operate and offered Taiwan a share in oil and gas resources while shutting out all the other rival claimaints. Taiwanese lawmakers have complained about repeated Vietnamese aggression and trespassing on Taiwan’s Itu Aba (Taiping), and Taiwan has started viewing Vietnam as an enemy over the Spratly Islands, not China.[75] Taiwan’s state run oil company CPC Corp’s board director Chiu Yi has called Vietnam as the “greatest threat” to Taiwan.[74] Taiwan’s airstrip on Taiping has irritated Vietnam.[76] China views Taiwan’s expansion of its military and airstrip on Taiping as benefiting China’s position against the other rival claimaints from southeast Asian countries.[65] China’s claims to the Spratlys benefit from legal weight because of Taiwan’s presence on Itu Aba, while America on the other hand has regularly ignored Taiwan’s claims in the South China Sea and does not include Taiwan in any talks on dispute resolution for the area.[77]

Taiwan performed live fire military exercises on Taiping island in September 2012; reports said that Vietnam was explicitly named by the Taiwanese military as the “imaginary enemy” in the drill. Vietnam protested against the exercises as violation of its territory and “voiced anger”, demanding that Taiwan stop the drill. Among the inspectors of the live fire drill were Taiwanese national legislators, adding to the tensions.[78]

On 23 May 2011, the President of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III, warned visiting Chinese Defence Minister Liang Guanglie of a possible arms race in the region if tensions worsened over disputes in the South China Sea. Aquino said he told Liang in their meeting that this could happen if there were more encounters in the disputed and potentially oil-rich Spratly Islands.[79]

In May 2011, Chinese patrol boats attacked 2 Vietnamese oil exploration ships near the Spratly Islands.[80] Also in May 2011, Chinese naval vessels opened fire on Vietnamese fishing vessels operating off East London Reef (Da Dong). The 3 Chinese military vessels were numbered 989, 27 and 28, and they showed up with a small group of Chinese fishing vessels. Another Vietnamese fishing vessel was fired on near Fiery Cross Reef (Chu Thap). The Chief Commander of Border Guards in Phu Yen Province, Vietnam reported that a total of 4 Vietnamese vessels were fired upon by Chinese naval vessels.[verification needed] These incidents involving Chinese forces sparked mass protests in Vietnam, especially in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City,[81] and in various Vietnamese communities in the West (namely in the US state of California and in Paris) over attacks on Vietnamese citizens and the intrusion into what Vietnam claimed was part of its territory.[82]

In June 2011, the Philippines began officially referring to the South China Sea as the “West Philippine Sea” and the Reed Bank as “Recto Bank”.[83][84]

In July 2012, the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a law demarcating Vietnamese sea borders to include the Spratly and Paracel Islands.[85][86]

In 2010, it was reported that the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad believed Malaysia could profit from China’s economic growth through co-operation with China,[87] and said that China “was not a threat to anyone and was not worried about aggression from China”, as well accusing the United States of provoking China and trying to turn China’s neighbours against China.[88] Malaysia displayed no concern over China conducting a military exercise at James Shoal in March 2013.[89] Malaysia also suggested that it might work with China with Malaysian Defence Minister Hishamuddin Hussein saying that Malaysia had no problem with China patrolling the South China Sea, and telling ASEAN, America, and Japan that “Just because you have enemies, doesn’t mean your enemies are my enemies”.[90] However, until present Malaysia still maintained a balance relations with the countries involved in this dispute.[91] But since China has start enroaching its territorial waters,[92] Malaysia has become active in condemning China.[93][94]

The editorial of the Taiwanese news website “Want China Times” accused America for being behind the May 2014 flareup in the South China Sea, saying that Vietnam rammed a Chinese vessel on 2 May over an oil rig drilling platform and the Philippines detained 11 Chinese fishermens occurred because of Obama’s visit to the region and that they were incited by America “behind the scenes”. “Want China Times” claimed America ordered Vietnam on 7 May to complain about the drilling platform, and noted that a joint military exercise was happening at this time between the Philippines and America, and also noted that the American “New York Times” newspaper supported Vietnam.[95]

In a series of news stories on 16 April 2015, it was revealed, through photos taken by Airbus Group, that China had been building an airstrip on Fiery Cross Reef, one of the southern islands. The 10,000-foot-long (3,048m) runway covers a significant portion of the island, and is viewed as a possible strategic threat to other countries with claims to the islands, such as Vietnam and the Philippines.

Various factions of the Muslim Moro people are waging a war for independence against the Philippines. The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) of Nur Misuari declared its support for China against the Philippines in the South China Sea dispute, calling both China and the Moro people as victims of Philippine colonialism, and noting China’s history of friendly relations with the Sultanate of Sulu in the region.[96] The MNLF also denounced America’s assistance to the Philippines in their colonization of the Moro people in addition to denouncing the Philippines claims to the islands disputed with China, and denouncing America for siding with the Philippines in the dispute, noting that in 1988 China “punished” Vietnam for attempting to set up a military presence on the disputed islands, and noting that the Moros and China maintained peaceful relations, while on the other hand the Moros had to resist other colonial powers, having to fight the Spanish, fight the Americans, and fight the Japanese, in addition to fighting the Philippines.[97]

While the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) signed a peace deal with the Philippines, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) did not and renewed armed resistance against Philippine rule in Zamboanga; on September 15, 2013, in response to the MNLF’s fighting against the Philippine Army, the New York Times published an article crediting every Philippine government for having struggled to bring peace to the Muslims of Mindanao since 1946 when it became independent and claimed that it is the belief of the Muslims that they are being subjected to oppression and exploitation by the Christians that is the problem which is causing the conflict and the newspaper also claimed that the conflict stretched back to 1899 when Moro insurrectionists were quelled by the American army.[98] On January 26, 2014 the New York Times published another article claiming that “every Philippine government” has “struggled to bring peace to Mindanao” and claimed that reports of exploitation and oppression by the Filipino Christians originated from what Muslims “say” and the newspaper also praised President Benigno S. Aquino III’s “landmark peace deal” with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).[99] The New York Times labelled Moro fighters as “Muslim-led groups” and as “violent”.[100] The New York Times blamed “Islamic extremist groups” for carrying out attacks in the Philippines.[101] The New York Times editorial board endorsed Philippine President Benigno Aquino’s planned peace deal and the passage of “Bangsamoro Basic Law”, blaming the “Muslim insurgency” for causing trouble to the “largely Catholic country”.[102] The New York Times claimed that “Islamic militants” were fighting the Philippine military.[103]

The New York Times claimed the peace deal between the Philippines and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) “seeks to bring prosperity to the restive south and weaken the appeal of the extremist groups”, and linked the winding down of an American military counterterrorism operation to increased American military cooperation with the Philippines against China.[104] The New York Times hailed Mr Aquino’s “peace agreement” as an “accomplishment” as it reported on Aquino raising the “alarm” on China in the South China Sea.[105] The New York Times editorial board published an article siding with the Philippines against China in the South China Sea dispute and supporting the Philippines actions against China.[106][107] The New York Times editorial board endorsed aggressive American military action against China in the South China Sea.[108][109]

American and Filipino forces launched a joint operation against the Moros in the Mamasapano clash, in which Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) fighters manage to kill 44 Filipino police commandos and caused massive blow back for the botched raid, putting a decisive halt to American plans for its Asia military “pivot” in the Philippines.[110] Moros have reported that 4 caucasian-looking (American) soldiers were killed in the Mamasapano clash along with the 44 Filipinos.[111]

The Moro National Liberation Front published an open letter to the United States President Barack Hussein Obama and demanded to know why America is supporting Philippine colonialism against the Moro Muslim people and the Filipino “war of genocide” and atrocities against Moros, reminding Obama that the Moro people have resisted and fought against the atrocities of Filipino, Japanese, American, and Spanish invaders, and reminding Obama of past war crimes also committed by American troops against Moro women and children like the Moro Crater massacre at Bud Dajo.[112]

The Moro National Liberation Front accused the Philippines, Japan, America, and Spain of conspiring against the Moros and recounted their invasions, imperialism, and atrocities against the Moros and demanded that they end the current colonization against the Moro people, the MNLF recounted that the Spanish were greedy colonizers, that the Americans committed massacres of Moro children and women at Mount Bagsak and Bud Dajo, and that the Japanese “exhibited tyranny, cruelty and inhumanity at its lowest level”, and “had to suffer their worst defeat and highest death mortality at the hands of the Bangsamoro freedom fighters”, demanding an apology from Japan for crimes committed against the Moros.[113]

The Moro National Liberation Front questioned the humanity and morality of the Philippines, Japan, America, and Spain, noting that they have done nothing to end the colonialism and war inflicted upon the Moros and reminded them that they have resisted and fought against Japanese, American, and Spanish atrocities and war crimes while the Filipinos bent over, capitulated and submitted to the invaders, the MNLF brought up the massacre committed by American troops at Bud Dajo against Moro women and children and boasted that compared to the Japanese casualty rate in the Visayas and Luzon, the amount of Japanese imperialists slaughtered by the Moro freedom fighters was greater by the thousands and that there was no capitulation like the “Fall of Bataan” to the Japanese by the Moros while the Luzon Filipinos submitted.[114] The MNLF said that the Japanese, American, and Spanish cruelty has been continued by Filipino rule.[115]

Japanese scholar Taoka Shunji criticized Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for trying to falsely portray China as a threat to Japan and that it was invading its neighbors like the Philippines, and pointed out that the Spratly islands were not part of the Philippines when the US acquired the Philippines from Spain in the Treaty of Paris in 1898, and the Japanese ruled Taiwan itself had annexed the Spratly islands in 1938 and the US ruled Philippines did not challenge the move and never asserted that it was their territory, he also pointed out that other countries did not need to do full land reclamation since they already control islands and that the reason China engaged in extensive land reclamation is because they needed it to build airfields since China only has control over reefs.[116]

Champa historically had a large presence in the South China Sea. The Vietnamese broke Champa’s power in an invasion of Champa in 1471, and then finally conquered the last remnants of the Cham people in an invasion in 1832. A Cham named Katip Suma who received Islamic education in Kelantan declared a Jihad against the Vietnamese, and fighting continued until the Vietnamese crushed the remnants of the resistance in 1835. The Cham organisation Front de Libration du Champa was part of the United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races, which waged war against the Vietnamese for independence in the Vietnam War along with the Montagnard and Khmer Krom minorities. The last remaining FULRO insurgents surrendered to the United Nations in 1992. Vietnam has settled over a million ethnic Vietnamese on Montagnard lands in the Central Highlands. The Montagnard staged a massive protest against the Vietnamese in 2001, which led to the Vietnamese to forcefully crush the uprising and seal the entire area off to foreigners.

The Vietnamese government fears that evidence of Champa’s influence over the disputed area in the South China Sea would bring attention to human rights violations and killings of ethnic minorities in Vietnam such as in the 2001 and 2004 uprisings, and lead to the issue of Cham autonomy being brought into the dispute, since the Vietnamese conquered the Hindu and Muslim Cham people in a war in 1832, and the Vietnamese continue to destroy evidence of Cham culture and artefacts left behind, plundering or building on top of Cham temples, building farms over them, banning Cham religious practices, and omitting references to the destroyed Cham capital of Song Luy in the 1832 invasion in history books and tourist guides. The situation of Cham compared to ethnic Vietnamese is substandard, lacking water and electricity and living in houses made out of mud.[117]

The Cham in Vietnam are only recognised as a minority, and not as an indigenous people by the Vietnamese government despite being indigenous to the region. Both Hindu and Muslim Chams have experienced religious and ethnic persecution and restrictions on their faith under the current Vietnamese government, with the Vietnamese state confisticating Cham property and forbidding Cham from observing their religious beliefs. Hindu temples were turned into tourist sites against the wishes of the Cham Hindus. In 2010 and 2013 several incidents occurred in Thnh Tn and Phc Nhn villages where Cham were murdered by Vietnamese. In 2012, Vietnamese police in Chau Giang village stormed into a Cham Mosque, stole the electric generator, and also raped Cham girls.[118] Cham Muslims in the Mekong Delta have also been economically marginalised and pushed into poverty by Vietnamese policies, with ethnic Vietnamese Kinh settling on majority Cham land with state support, and religious practices of minorities have been targeted for elimination by the Vietnamese government.[119]

In 2005, a cellular phone base station was erected by the Philippines’ Smart Communications on Pag-asa Island.[122]

On 18 May 2011, China Mobile announced that its mobile phone coverage has expanded to the Spratly Islands. The extended coverage would allow soldiers stationed on the islands, fishermen, and merchant vessels within the area to use mobile services, and can also provide assistance during storms and sea rescues. The service network deployment over the islands took nearly one year.[123]

Links to related articles

More here:
Spratly Islands – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 7:44 pm  Tagged with:

Liberty News Online

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty News Online
Jan 142016
 

HEADLINES USA :: Freedom and Liberty OREGON STANDOFF UPDATE: THE FEDERAL LAND TAKEOVER WAS PLANNED FOR MONTHS 01-14-2016 10:44 am – Carli Brosseau – The Oregonian It might have looked spontaneous, but the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge this month was part of a plan Ammon Bundy and a trusted associate developed largely in secret over the past two months. Bundy, the son of controversial Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and Ryan Payne, a militia leader from Montana, came to believe that an armed occupation was the only way to bring Read more … View Image USA :: Politics STATE OF THE UNION: BALD FACED LIES 01-14-2016 7:47 am – Frosty Wooldridge My dad told me, Son, if you tell a lie, you must keep telling more lies to cover up your original lie. Soon, you cant remember a lie from the truth. When that happens, you stumble into your own lies until you lose respect from friends and colleagues. Once that happens, you never regain their respect. My dad continued, But if you tell the truth, it Read more … View Image USA :: Preparedness Info FIVE INTELLIGENCE ESSENTIALS FOR COMMUNITY SECURITY 01-14-2016 5:44 am – Sam Culper – Oath Keeper We as veterans are blessed. Not only can we say that we answered the call and served in our nations military (many of us at time of war), but we also received some of the best training the world has to offer. I enlisted as an aimless 20 year old, and military service instilled in me discipline and taught me a skill, as well as the Read more … View Image USA :: Politics DONALD TRUMP: OUR COUNTRY NEEDS MY ANGER 01-13-2016 6:58 pm – Lisa Hagen – The Hill Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is right that he is one of the angriest voices but Trump said thats a good thing for America. She is right. I am angry, and a lot of other people are angry too at how incompetently our country’s being run, Trump said Wednesday night on CNNs Erin Burnett Outfront. I dont care, let Read more … View Image Germany :: Politics MEMBERSHIP IN GERMAN RIGHT WING PARTY SURGES AFTER RAPE EPIDEMIC BY MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS 01-13-2016 6:50 pm – The Independent UK Germanys eurosceptic right-wing party has hit a new all-time high in the opinion polls as concern about migration rises in the country. Alternative for Germany (AfD) would take 11.5 per cent of the vote is a federal general election were held today, according to a poll for Bild magazine. The party is in third place after Angela Merkels CDU/CSU, who are on 35 per cent. The Read more … View Image USA :: Constitutional Issues STANDOFF IN OREGON CENTERS ON LAND OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL 01-13-2016 6:31 pm – John McManus – John Birch Society Understanding the resistance to federal agencies currently shown in headlines and newscasts nationwide should begin with a reading of the U.S. Constitution. A good look at the venerable document will lead to the conclusion that the federal governments numerous bureaus and agencies are illicitly controlling vast parcels of land, mostly in the 12 western states. They are doing so without constitutional authority. The amount of federal Read more … View Image Netherlands :: Radical Islam GIVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES 01-13-2016 6:13 pm – Geert Wilders “Cultural enrichment” has brought us a new word: Taharrush. Remember it well, because we are going to have to deal with it a lot. Taharrush is the Arabic word for the phenomenon whereby women are encircled by groups of men and sexually harassed, assaulted, groped, raped. After the Cologne taharrush on New Year’s Eve, many German women bought pepper spray. Who can blame them? A culture Read more … View Image USA :: Constitutional Issues OBAMA WHITE HOUSE PROMISES A DICTATORIAL 2016 01-13-2016 5:35 pm – Wallace Judging by recent remarks from his chief of staff, President Barack Obamas last year in the White House is going to be a painful one for conservatives. White House chief of staff Denis McDonough told reporters this week to hold off on declaring Obama a lame duck just yet. According to the top official, 2016 is set to be a year of audacious executive action from Read more … View Image USA :: Media Bias AL JAZEERA AMERICA TO SHUT DOWN IN APRIL 2016 01-13-2016 11:56 am – Fox News Al Jazeera America, which went on the air in 2013 — and is partly funded by the ruling family of Qatar — announced Wednesday it is shutting down at the end of April, citing the “economic landscape of the media environment.” The network said in a statement that “Al Jazeera America will cease operation by April 30, 2016,” explaining that “while Al Jazeera America built a Read more … View Image USA :: Freedom and Liberty ATF STILL SQUANDERING RESOURCES AND PADDING NUMBERS EVEN AFTER ‘FAST AND FURIOUS’ SCANDAL 01-13-2016 9:33 am – David Codrea – Oath Keepers Part of Obamas executive action overreach on guns involves an increased role for ATF. In order to make that happen, his 2017 budget include[s] funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators. They just dont have enough money. Before that the excuse was they just didnt have a permanent director. That the corruption and incompetence continued and expended under the management of B. Todd Jones, and Read more … View Image USA :: Freedom and Liberty IT’S TIME FOR AMERICA TO GET UP OFF THE MAT 01-13-2016 9:16 am – Michael Savage In todays issue: Dr. Savage recalled some of the wisdom he gleaned from his years growing up in New York City that apply to the nations current, dire political and social situation. One particular source of wisdom was the owner of a bar on New Yorks Upper East Side with whom Savage and some of his middle-school aged friends would hang around. This guy was a Read more … View Image USA :: Economy U.S. ECONOMIC POLICY NEEDS A RESET 01-13-2016 4:17 am – Jason D. Meister – Fox Business News With a new year underway and the Obama administration winding down we now focus on the 2016 election. Primaries are just around the corner and will set the tone for the New Year as the race for the White House heats up. This week FOX Business Network will host the sixth Republican presidential primary debate in North Charleston South Carolina just two days after President Obama Read more … View Image USA :: Immigration Issues IT’S TIME TO END CHAIN MIGRATION INTO THE USA 01-12-2016 9:16 am – Numbers USA Chain Migration refers to the endless chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate because citizens and lawful permanent residents are allowed to bring in their non-nuclear family members. Chain Migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than 1 million annually since 1990. As such, Read more … View Image USA :: Freedom and Liberty BULDOZING MONUMENTS AND THE WAR ON AMERICAN HISTORY 01-12-2016 9:05 am – Jarret Stepman – Breitbart.com On December 17, the New Orleans City Council voted to remove four Confederate statues from the city, using obscure nuisance laws to strip these over 100-year-old historic monuments from their places of display. Mayor Mitch Landrieu said it was a courageous decision to turn a page on our divisive past and chart the course for a more inclusive future. Of course, the plan to remove the Read more … View Image Worldwide :: Radical Islam WHY ARE WESTERN LEADERS SELLOUTS TO ISLAM? 01-11-2016 7:28 pm – Nonie Darwish Is someone holding a gun to the heads of Western politicians, forcing them to state immediately after every Muslim terror attack that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with terror? Who cares about whether Islam has or has not something to do with terror? The only people who care about Islams reputation are the so-called moderate Muslims who have been making excuses for jihad terror, and Read more … View Image USA :: Immigration Issues REPORT: THE U.N. – NOT THE U.S. GOVT – MAKES FIRST DECISION ABOUT WHICH MUSLIM REFUGEES CAN COME TO AMERICA 01-11-2016 7:20 pm – Leah Barkoukis – Town Hall If Americans were already concerned about the U.S.s vetting process for Syrian refugees, theyre really not going to like to hear what a new report says about how those refugees are initially selected in the first place. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the U.S. relies on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to make first selections about who has the potential to come Read more … View Image Germany :: Radical Islam GERMAN CITIZENS PROTEST AGAINST MUSLIM REFUGEES AND VIGILANTES ATTACK SOME MUSLIM REFUGEES 01-11-2016 7:07 pm – Daily Mail UK Thousands of protesters have waved anti-migrants signs and xenophobic flags in the eastern German city of Leipzig as they demonstrated against a record refugee influx they blamed for sexual violence at New Year’s Eve events in Cologne. The rally was organised by LEGIDA, the local chapter of xenophobic group PEGIDA, the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident. Many chanted ‘We are the people’, ‘Resistance!’ Read more … View Image USA :: Freedom and Liberty OREGON STANDOFF UPDATE: THREE PERCENTERS – OATH KEEPERS AND OTHERS TRY TO MEDIATE SITUATION 01-11-2016 6:39 pm – Pacific Patriots Network Pacific Patriots Network and affiliates (Idaho and Oregon III%, Josephine county Oath Keepers, and others), made a showing of presence today at the Malheur wildlife refuge. Due to threats to members of our network and local residents, and as a deterrent to fringe groups that may have malicious intent, we arrived at the refuge in numbers, with our security teams openly armed and in full kit Read more … View Image USA :: Criminal Acts REPORT: FBI HAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROSECUTE HILLARY CLINTON FOR PUBLIC CORRUPTION 01-11-2016 6:26 pm – John Sexton – Breitbart An investigation into possible mishandling of classified information on Hillary Clintons private email server has expanded to consider whether Clintons work as Secretary overlapped with her work for the Clinton Foundation run by her family. Fox News Catherine Herridge published the report, citing unnamed FBI sources, Monday morning. The report indicates the initial security referral looking into whether or not classified information was mishandled has expanded Read more … View Image USA :: Immigration Issues GENOCIDE OF AMERICA: A REFUGEE IMMIGRANT INVASION 01-11-2016 11:41 am – Frosty Wooldridge Over New Years, the British Broadcasting Company reported that African-Syrian refugees sexually attacked 1,0000 German women. Even CBS News reported the attacks this past Sunday night, January 10, 2015! On Saturday night, a Muslim gunman screamed praises to Allah in Philadelphia as he shot 12 rounds into a police car at an intersection in praise of the Islamic State. Miraculously, the officer survived. Whether its San Read more … View Image USA :: Gun Control DONALD TRUMP ENDORSES GRANNY OAKLEY 01-11-2016 3:57 am – Howie Carr – Boston Herald Shes Barack Obamas worst nightmare a law-abiding, self-supporting, pistol-packing, Donald Trump-supporting granny who defended herself against a jailbird mugging suspect by shooting him in the chest. Call her Granny Oakley or Dirty Harriet she answers to either name. What matters is how she handled herself late Monday night as she returned home from working the night shift to her apartment in Manchester, N.H. The Read more … View Image Worldwide :: New World Order – UN REPORT: BARACK OBAMA WANTS TO BE THE NEXT SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS 01-11-2016 3:50 am – Leah Barkoukis – Town Hall It seems President Obama has no intention of stepping out of the White House and fading from the limelight. No, hes got his sights set on the world stagethis time as secretary general of the United Nations, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida. But not all world leaders are keen to see this come to fruition, including first and foremost, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu. The Washington Times Read more … View Image Sweden :: Radical Islam MUSLIM RAPE EPIDEMIC: SWEDEN SHOCKED AGAIN AFTER WOMAN ‘RAPED TO DEATH’ BY SOMALI MUSLIM IMMIGRANT 01-10-2016 6:30 pm – MSFP News A 34 year old immigrant from Somalia was arrested for savagely attacking a woman in the parking garage of a Sheraton hotel in Sweden. The woman died while being raped. Police say the perpetrator continued to rape the womans corpse well after she had died. Swedens politicians dont care about their own people. Rather than being concerned and focus on the shocking violent crime and rape Read more … View Image USA :: Politics HOW MANY DEMOCRATS DO YOU SUPPOSE WOULD VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP? SEE THE NEW POLL NUMBERS 01-10-2016 5:59 pm – The Blaze Nearly one in five Democrats almost 20 percent said they would switch sides and vote for Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, according to a new poll. And even though the poll shows 14 percent of Republicans say they would vote for Hillary Clinton, a much greater percentage of Democratic voters say theyre 100 percent sure of going for Trump than their Republican counterparts. U.S. Read more … View Image USA :: Gun Control WHY ARE LIBERALS SO STUPID ABOUT GUNS? 01-10-2016 11:33 am – Tim Dunkin Any normal, reasonably intelligent person who has ever had a conversation with a liberal about guns, gun control, or any related topic has probably asked himself or herself this very question. I realize that the title for this article could easily leave off the last two words, but because I want to write an article instead of a book, I will confine myself to answering the Read more … View Image

Visit link:
Liberty News Online

Beach Information | Beaufort.com

 Beaches  Comments Off on Beach Information | Beaufort.com
Jan 112016
 

HUNTING ISLAND STATE PARK

Hunting Island is South Carolinas single most popular state park, attracting more than a million human visitors a year.

Also attracted to the semi-tropical barrier island is an array of wildlife, ranging from loggerhead sea turtles to painted buntings, barracudas to sea horses, alligators, pelicans, dolphins and deer, raccoons, Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes and even the rare coral snake.

What they all enjoy is five miles of beach, thousands of acres of marsh, tidal creeks and maritime forest, a saltwater lagoon and ocean inlet. Amenities include a fishing pier and some of the states most desirable campsites.

Adding to the natural history of the big park is a piece of man-made history: South Carolinas only publicly accessible historic lighthouse. Dating from the 1870s, the Hunting Island Lighthouse shoots 170 feet into the air, giving those who scale its heights a breathtaking view of the sweeping Lowcountry marshland and the Atlantic Ocean.

GENERAL:

Designation: Hunting Island State Park was developed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a New Deal Program created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The program was designed to provide employment during the Great Depression while addressing national needs in conservation and recreation.The CCC was instrumental in the development of many of South Carolinas state parks. A number of buildings built by the CCC in the 1930s are still in use at this park.The park is listed on the National Register. Counties: Beaufort Acreage: 5000 When & How PRT Acquired: Donated in 1938 from Beaufort County Pets: Pets are not allowed in the cabins or the cabin areas. Pets are allowed in most other outdoor areas provided they are kept under physical restraint or on a leash not longer than six feet. Tour and Programs Information: Barrier Island educational programs and tours of the historic lighthouse complex are held March through November. There is a $2/person charge to climb the lighthouse and you must be at least 44 tall to do so. For additional program information contact the nature center at 843-838-7437. Significant Natural Features: Hunting Island is always changing. Migrating creatures in air and sea come and go with the seasons, and the natural forces of erosion constantly re-shape the island.In addition to some 3,000 acres of salt marsh and more than four miles of beach, a large lagoon, created by sand dredging in 1968, has become a natural wonderland and home to such unexpected species as seahorses and barracuda.The parks upland areas contain one of the states best examples of semi-tropical maritime forest, ancient sand dunes now dominated by such vegetation as slash pines, cabbage palmetto (the state tree) and live oak. Animal visitors include loggerhead turtles, which nest on the island in the summer months. On dry land and in and around freshwater ponds can be found deer and alligators, raccoons and even eastern diamondback rattlesnakes. Hundreds of species of birds also are resident on or visit Hunting Island, including painted buntings, tanagers and orioles, along with pelicans, oystercatchers, skimmers and terns, herons, egrets and wood storks. Pay Phone on Site: Yes

HOURS:

Admissions: $5/adult; $3.25 SC seniors; $3/ child age 6-15; Free for children 5 and younger. Office Hours: M-Fri 9am-5pm Sat&Sun 11am-5pm Days and Hours of Operation: M-Su 6am-6pm (extended to 9pm during Daylight Savings Time)

LOCATION:

Driving Directions: From I-95: Take Hwy 21 E. toward Beaufort. Drive 42 mi. Hwy 21 ends at the park. Beach Location: Yes Miles to Nearest Hospital: 17 Miles to Nearest Town: 17 Miles to Nearest Grocery Store: 14

MILES TO:

Charleston, SC: 85 Columbia, SC: 150 Florence, SC: 168 Greenville, SC: 236 Charlotte, NC: 236 Raleigh, NC: 317 Atlanta, GA: 282 Augusta, GA: 135 Savannah, GA: 56

MONTHLY AVERAGE AIR & OCEAN TEMPERATURES:

January Air 59 Ocean 52 February Air 61 Ocean 54 March Air 67 Ocean 59 April Air 76 Ocean 67 May Air 82 Ocean 75 June Air 86 Ocean 82 July Air 89 Ocean 84 August Air 89 Ocean 84 September Air 84 Ocean 80 October Air 77 Ocean 73 November Air 69 Ocean 63 December Air 61 Ocean 54

See the rest here:
Beach Information | Beaufort.com

 Posted by at 7:44 am  Tagged with:

Beaches | Beaufort.com

 Beaches  Comments Off on Beaches | Beaufort.com
Jan 112016
 

Beach Information

HUNTING ISLAND STATE PARK

Hunting Island is South Carolinas single most popular state park, attracting more than a million human visitors a year.

Also attracted to the semi-tropical barrier island is an array of wildlife, ranging from loggerhead sea turtles to painted buntings, barracudas to sea horses, alligators, pelicans, dolphins and deer, raccoons, Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes and even the rare coral snake.

What they all enjoy is five miles of beach, thousands of acres of marsh, tidal creeks and maritime forest, a saltwater lagoon and ocean inlet. Amenities include a fishing pier and some of the states most desirable campsites.

Adding to the natural history of the big park is a piece of man-made history: South Carolinas only publicly accessible historic lighthouse. Dating from the 1870s, the Hunting Island Lighthouse shoots 170 feet into the air, giving those who scale its heights a breathtaking view of the sweeping Lowcountry marshland and the Atlantic Ocean.

GENERAL:

Designation: Hunting Island State Park was developed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a New Deal Program created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The program was designed to provide employment during the Great Depression while addressing national needs in conservation and recreation.The CCC was instrumental in the development of many of South Carolinas state parks. A number of buildings built by the CCC in the 1930s are still in use at this park.The park is listed on the National Register. Counties: Beaufort Acreage: 5000 When & How PRT Acquired: Donated in 1938 from Beaufort County Pets: Pets are not allowed in the cabins or the cabin areas. Pets are allowed in most other outdoor areas provided they are kept under physical restraint or on a leash not longer than six feet. Tour and Programs Information: Barrier Island educational programs and tours of the historic lighthouse complex are held March through November. There is a $2/person charge to climb the lighthouse and you must be at least 44 tall to do so. For additional program information contact the nature center at 843-838-7437. Significant Natural Features: Hunting Island is always changing. Migrating creatures in air and sea come and go with the seasons, and the natural forces of erosion constantly re-shape the island.In addition to some 3,000 acres of salt marsh and more than four miles of beach, a large lagoon, created by sand dredging in 1968, has become a natural wonderland and home to such unexpected species as seahorses and barracuda.The parks upland areas contain one of the states best examples of semi-tropical maritime forest, ancient sand dunes now dominated by such vegetation as slash pines, cabbage palmetto (the state tree) and live oak. Animal visitors include loggerhead turtles, which nest on the island in the summer months. On dry land and in and around freshwater ponds can be found deer and alligators, raccoons and even eastern diamondback rattlesnakes. Hundreds of species of birds also are resident on or visit Hunting Island, including painted buntings, tanagers and orioles, along with pelicans, oystercatchers, skimmers and terns, herons, egrets and wood storks. Pay Phone on Site: Yes

HOURS:

Admissions: $5/adult; $3.25 SC seniors; $3/ child age 6-15; Free for children 5 and younger. Office Hours: M-Fri 9am-5pm Sat&Sun 11am-5pm Days and Hours of Operation: M-Su 6am-6pm (extended to 9pm during Daylight Savings Time)

LOCATION:

Driving Directions: From I-95: Take Hwy 21 E. toward Beaufort. Drive 42 mi. Hwy 21 ends at the park. Beach Location: Yes Miles to Nearest Hospital: 17 Miles to Nearest Town: 17 Miles to Nearest Grocery Store: 14

MILES TO:

Charleston, SC: 85 Columbia, SC: 150 Florence, SC: 168 Greenville, SC: 236 Charlotte, NC: 236 Raleigh, NC: 317 Atlanta, GA: 282 Augusta, GA: 135 Savannah, GA: 56

MONTHLY AVERAGE AIR & OCEAN TEMPERATURES:

January Air 59 Ocean 52 February Air 61 Ocean 54 March Air 67 Ocean 59 April Air 76 Ocean 67 May Air 82 Ocean 75 June Air 86 Ocean 82 July Air 89 Ocean 84 August Air 89 Ocean 84 September Air 84 Ocean 80 October Air 77 Ocean 73 November Air 69 Ocean 63 December Air 61 Ocean 54

Beaufort is located on Port Royal Island, one of the largest Sea Islands along the southeast Atlantic coast of the United States. It is one of only a handful of U.S. towns that has had its entire downtown designated an historic district by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Filled with mansions built by the wealthy plantation owners before the Civil War, Beaufort was one of the only Southern towns chosen to be occupied by Union troops, rather than destroyed. More than 50 historic structures have been identified in Beaufort, including many lovely private homes that have been beautifully restored and are now available to view via professionally-guided walking, bus, or horse-drawn carriage tours. Special spring and fall events offer locals and visitors the opportunity to tour several private homes and gardens.

Continue reading here:
Beaches | Beaufort.com

Los Angeles Astronomical Society – Night Sky Network

 Astronomy  Comments Off on Los Angeles Astronomical Society – Night Sky Network
Dec 312015
 

The Los Angeles Astronomical Society (LAAS) has over 500 dedicated members who share a passionate interest in Astronomy andAstro Photography. Their ages range from children to adults with skills ranging from beginners to professionals in the fields of Astronomy and Space Science. Our members are helpful and enjoy teaching others about telescopes and how to use them. Our society offers the following:

Public Star Parties: Every month, hosted at the Griffith Observatory, LAAS members come from all parts of Los Angeles county to show the public the wonders of the night.

Dark Sky Site: For members and guests only. This special once a month activity allows our LAAS members a place to escape from the LA lights to darker territory where the bigger LAAS scopes, such as the 16 inch Newtonian and the 31 inch Clyde-O-Scope are used for observing. We also host Family Nights in the warmer monthswhen club members bring their families and friendsalong to enjoy a night of dark sky observation and even camp outunder the stars.

If you would like our members to bring telescopes to your school, please click on “Request An Event” above and complete the form that opens. Make sure you follow any instructions at the bottom of the form. Then click “Submit” to send us the form. Look through our calendar of events and make sure that the date you choose is available.

Mirror and Telescope Making: Extensive teaching and tools are available to help you build your very own telescope at the Garvey Ranch Observatory/Workshop. These classes are free to the public.

We encourageallyouth groups and Boy or Girl Scout troopsin Los Angeles County to join us for an evening of astronomy. Call: 213-673-7355 for info.

LAAS Library: Our library of books and magazines is available to members and to a limited extent, the public. We have afine source of booksrelated to astronomy from telescope making to supernovas.

NIGHT SKY NETWORK REGISTRATION INFORMATION

If you wish to register on the Night Sky Network (NSN), you MUST be a current member of the LAAS. Please do NOT complete a registration form if you are NOT a current member. Once your membership has been approved by our Board of Directors, you will receive an email from a club coordinator asking you to complete the registration form. If you are NOT a current member, your registration information will be deleted. You are welcome to explore the Night Sky Network and use many of the resources available for the public without being a registered member. If you have any questions, please write to Coordinator@LAAS.org for further information.

Filming the LAAS – Please contact Club President, Geo Somoza atgeovanni_somoza@hotmail.com.

.

Continued here:
Los Angeles Astronomical Society – Night Sky Network

– National Association of Speakers New Orleans

 NSA  Comments Off on – National Association of Speakers New Orleans
Nov 052015
 

The best keynote speakers and trainers in the New Orleans areas belong to the National Speakers Association of New Orleans, also known as NSA New Orleans.

The goal of NSA New Orleans is to advance the art and business skills of experts who are hired to speak and present at conferences, conventions and corporate events.

This website serves as a resource to meeting planners who wish to hire expert speakers and trainers for conference keynote speeches, conference breakout sessions or training for corporate meetings and for individual companies. It is also a resource for members who are active professional speakers, as well as individuals who aspire to be a professional speaker and earn a living as a speaker who shares his or her expertise with audiences in New Orleans, across the United States and around the world.

Walter Bond CSP & CPAE who has taken the speaking business by storm is headed our way. After being on the speaking circuit for a short period of time Walter Bond has already graced the main stage at NSA. He is now making his rounds teaching at various NSA chapter events sharing his speaking secrets. Bond says it is all in the fundamentals. I learned in the NBA how to become a real pro. There is difference between a professional speaker and a professional who speaks and Bond aims to show us the difference. After this powerful session on the basics you will be ready to take your business to the next level.

You will learn powerful insights on:

For nearly two decades, Walter Bond has been a premiere expert on peak performance. Walters mastery in two different global industries has made him an authority on peak performance. Walter has delivered his entertaining and dynamic message to companies and associations throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Europe. Clients include Accenture, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, The Dwyer Group, Allianz, Amway, GNC, Hilton, Medtronic, UPS Store, Radio Shack, Red Robin and many national associations.

Walters passion for personal development has been anchored by his professional basketball career. Although a reserve throughout his college basketball career at the University of Minnesota, Bond miraculously enjoyed an eight year career while spending time as a shooting guard for teams such as the Dallas Mavericks, Utah Jazz and Detroit Pistons. This is where he learned peak performance truths that he has also applied to a wildly successful speaking career.

Bonds college basketball career did not say NBA at all. Only hard work, dedication and commitment got him there. That mentality is what he wants to share with your audience. Whether its a new product launch, hitting sales goals, gelling as a team Bond is passionate about sharing his 31 Truths to Boost Peak Performance.

In 2013, Walter appeared as the host of The Food Networks show Giving You The Business. Walter was chosen over numerous candidates because of his infectious personality and franchise business experience. Episodes featured restaurants such as Saladworks, Famous Familia and Jersey Mikes.

Walters program is not just another session. Treat your audience to a memorable, impactful and educational experience. Walter is sure to make you look good.

Communication techniques to improve ones personal, financial, business and emotional life understanding the psychology of happiness.

40 years ago and over a half million consultations later has polished Glenn Michael Milliet into a communications expect sought often and respected throughout the beauty and fashion industry for developing, defining and refining the art of Happiness Selling through the use of time tested and power communication techniques.

Glenn Michael Milliet is now expanding his High Touch, High Energy, High Sales communication seminars for businesses and individuals that want and desire increased sales and long term happy client relationships.

In addition to How to be a Powerful Communicator, Glenns programs include:

Metrics can be like magic. Have you wondered: how can the reports and analytics of digital marketing give you the insight and key info you need to succeed? This seminar will take you step-by-step through the amazing data generated by some of the key online marketing tools and give you tips on how to use it.

Kathryn Cariglino has been a pioneer in the world of women in business since starting her Womens Yellow Pages business in 1989. In 1993 she founded one of the earliest, continuously contracted SBA Womens Business Centers based in Mobile, Alabama. Now retired, she does marketing consulting and serves as the Authorized Local Expert for the Constant Contact Company. The name of her business reflects her own philosophy of life and business: Never Give Up!

I owe much of my success to NSA, and I am proud to serve as the New Orleans Chapter President this year. If you are interested in professional speaking, or marketing yourself as an expert, you cannot afford not to check out the National Speakers Association. Please come visit us and see for yourself. Kevin Gilheany

NEW! Chapter Member All Access Pass to Monthly Workshops $25 per Month

Guest All Access Pass to Monthly Workshops $27 per month subscription

To get regular updates and meeting remindersJoin Our Mailing List

December 5, 2015 Barbara Glanz Rocket to the Top 10 Secrets for Speaking Success

January 9, 2016 Tim Richardson Sales, Marketing, and Reinvention Lessons Learned from 25+ Years in the Speaking Profession

February No Meeting

March 12, 2016 Doug Stevenson Story Theater Storytelling Mastery That Grows Your Business

April 2, 2016 Dan Thurmon Doing What It Takes How to Differentiate and Deliver In Todays Competitive Marketplace

May 14, 2016 Lenora Billings-Harris Embracing the Change Capture Your Audience

June 4, 2016 Mary Kelly Product Development to Increase Bookings and Profits for Speakers

Read more:
– National Association of Speakers New Orleans

 Posted by at 10:45 am  Tagged with:

Free speech news, articles and information: – NaturalNews

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Free speech news, articles and information: – NaturalNews
Nov 022015
 

Tell Congress to support the Free Speech about Science Act of 2011 4/13/2011 – Last year, the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), a nonprofit organization that works very hard to promote and protect freedom of health speech, came up with a very important piece of legislation called the Free Speech about Science Act (FSAS) that is designed to lift the restrictions on health speech… Support the Free Speech About Science Act and restore freedom of health speech 5/27/2010 – The Alliance for Natural Health, a nonprofit organization committed to protecting access to natural and integrative medicine, has recently come up with a Congressional bill designed to stop government censorship of truthful, scientific health claims about natural foods and herbs, and restore free speech… NaturalNews to launch Free Speech video network 5/4/2010 – On the heels of increasing video censorship committed by YouTube against natural health videos, NaturalNews is announcing the upcoming launch of its worldwide, multilingual video network called NaturalNews.TV. The service goes live in late June and is designed to offer a Free Speech platform for videos… Ron Paul Introduces Three New Bills Designed to Restore Free Speech to Health 8/10/2009 – In recent years, numerous companies have been targeted, raided, and even shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for making health claims about the products they sell. These federal agencies operate outside the realm of constitutional legitimacy and thus… FDA tyranny and the censorship of cherry health facts (opinion) 5/2/2006 – In the past, I jokingly said that broccoli might someday be banned as soon as the public begins to learn about the potent anti-cancer chemicals found in the vegetable. Thats because, as I jested, the FDA wouldnt want people treating their own cancer with the anti-cancer medicines found in cruciferous… Counterthink roundup: Free Speech, Google News, and Big Brother (satire) 1/31/2006 – New provisions in the Patriot Act, which are about to become law, will make it a felony crime for protestors to step foot outside official “protest zones” designated by the U.S. Secret Service. This is how President Bush expands the freedom of Americans — by giving them all the freedom they want, as… See all 56 free speech feature articles. Police: People: Bush: Speech: President: Free: The internet: Internet: Government: Information: Society: World: Media: California: Victory: Financial: Most Popular Stories TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, ‘food as medicine’ or natural healing 10 other companies that use the same Subway yoga mat chemical in their buns Warning: Enrolling in Obamacare allows government to link your IP address with your name, social security number, bank accounts and web surfing habits High-dose vitamin C injections shown to annihilate cancer USDA to allow U.S. to be overrun with contaminated chicken from China Vaccine fraud exposed: Measles and mumps making a huge comeback because vaccines are designed to fail, say Merck virologists New USDA rule allows hidden feces, pus, bacteria and bleach in conventional poultry Battle for humanity nearly lost: global food supply deliberately engineered to end life, not nourish it Harvard research links fluoridated water to ADHD, mental disorders 10 outrageous (but true) facts about vaccines the CDC and the vaccine industry don’t want you to know EBT card food stamp recipients ransack Wal-Mart stores, stealing carts full of food during federal computer glitch Cannabis kicks Lyme disease to the curb TV.NaturalNews.com is a free video website featuring thousands of videos on holistic health, nutrition, fitness, recipes, natural remedies and much more.

CounterThink Cartoons are free to view and download. They cover topics like health, environment and freedom.

The Consumer Wellness Center is a non-profit organization offering nutrition education grants to programs that help children and expectant mothers around the world.

Food Investigations is a series of mini-documentaries exposing the truth about dangerous ingredients in the food supply.

Webseed.com offers alternative health programs, documentaries and more.

The Honest Food Guide is a free, downloadable public health and nutrition chart that dares to tell the truth about what foods we should really be eating.

HealingFoodReference.com offers a free online reference database of healing foods, phytonutrients and plant-based medicines that prevent or treat diseases and health conditions.

HerbReference.com is a free, online reference library that lists medicinal herbs and their health benefits.

NutrientReference.com is a free online reference database of phytonutrients (natural medicines found in foods) and their health benefits. Lists diseases, foods, herbs and more.

Visit link:
Free speech news, articles and information: – NaturalNews

 Posted by at 11:41 am  Tagged with:

en.m.wikipedia.org

 NSA  Comments Off on en.m.wikipedia.org
Nov 012015
 

The National Security Agency (NSA) is an intelligence organization of the United States government, responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes a discipline known as signals intelligence (SIGINT). NSA is concurrently charged with protection of U.S. government communications and information systems against penetration and network warfare.[8][9] Although many of NSA’s programs rely on “passive” electronic collection, the agency is authorized to accomplish its mission through active clandestine means,[10] among which are physically bugging electronic systems[11] and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software.[12][13] Moreover, NSA maintains physical presence in a large number of countries across the globe, where its Special Collection Service (SCS) inserts eavesdropping devices in difficult-to-reach places. SCS collection tactics allegedly encompass “close surveillance, burglary, wiretapping, breaking and entering”.[14][15]

Unlike the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), both of which specialize primarily in foreign human espionage, NSA does not unilaterally conduct human-source intelligence gathering, despite often being portrayed so in popular culture. Instead, NSA is entrusted with assistance to and coordination of SIGINT elements at other government organizations, which are prevented by law from engaging in such activities without the approval of the NSA via the Defense Secretary.[16] As part of these streamlining responsibilities, the agency has a co-located organization called the Central Security Service (CSS), which was created to facilitate cooperation between NSA and other U.S. military cryptanalysis components. Additionally, the NSA Director simultaneously serves as the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and as Chief of the Central Security Service.

Originating as a unit to decipher coded communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by Harry S. Truman in 1952. Since then, it has become one of the largest of U.S. intelligence organizations in terms of personnel and budget,[6][17] operating as part of the Department of Defense and simultaneously reporting to the Director of National Intelligence.

NSA surveillance has been a matter of political controversy on several occasions, such as its spying on anti-Vietnam war leaders or economic espionage. In 2013, the extent of the NSA’s secret surveillance programs was revealed to the public by Edward Snowden. According to the leaked documents, the NSA intercepts the communications of over a billion people worldwide and tracks the movement of hundreds of millions of people using cellphones. Internationally, research has pointed to the NSA’s ability to surveil the domestic internet traffic of foreign countries through “boomerang routing”.[18]

The origins of the National Security Agency can be traced back to April 28, 1917, three weeks after the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany in World War I. A code and cipher decryption unit was established as the Cable and Telegraph Section which was also known as the Cipher Bureau and Military Intelligence Branch, Section 8 (MI-8). It was headquartered in Washington, D.C. and was part of the war effort under the executive branch without direct Congressional authorization. During the course of the war it was relocated in the army’s organizational chart several times. On July 5, 1917, Herbert O. Yardley was assigned to head the unit. At that point, the unit consisted of Yardley and two civilian clerks. It absorbed the navy’s cryptoanalysis functions in July 1918. World War I ended on November 11, 1918, and MI-8 moved to New York City on May 20, 1919, where it continued intelligence activities as the Code Compilation Company under the direction of Yardley.[19][20]

MI-8 also operated the so-called “Black Chamber”.[22] The Black Chamber was located on East 37th Street in Manhattan. Its purpose was to crack the communications codes of foreign governments. Jointly supported by the State Department and the War Department, the chamber persuaded Western Union, the largest U.S. telegram company, to allow government officials to monitor private communications passing through the company’s wires.[23]

Other “Black Chambers” were also found in Europe. They were established by the French and British governments to read the letters of targeted individuals, employing a variety of techniques to surreptitiously open, copy, and reseal correspondence before forwarding it to unsuspecting recipients.[24]

Despite the American Black Chamber’s initial successes, it was shut down in 1929 by U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, who defended his decision by stating: “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail”.[21]

During World War II, the Signal Security Agency (SSA) was created to intercept and decipher the communications of the Axis powers.[25] When the war ended, the SSA was reorganized as the Army Security Agency (ASA), and it was placed under the leadership of the Director of Military Intelligence.[25]

On May 20, 1949, all cryptologic activities were centralized under a national organization called the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA).[25] This organization was originally established within the U.S. Department of Defense under the command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[26] The AFSA was tasked to direct Department of Defense communications and electronic intelligence activities, except those of U.S. military intelligence units.[26] However, the AFSA was unable to centralize communications intelligence and failed to coordinate with civilian agencies that shared its interests such as the Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[26] In December 1951, President Harry S. Truman ordered a panel to investigate how AFSA had failed to achieve its goals. The results of the investigation led to improvements and its redesignation as the National Security Agency.[27]

The agency was formally established by Truman in a memorandum of October 24, 1952, that revised National Security Council Intelligence Directive (NSCID) 9.[28] Since President Truman’s memo was a classified document,[28] the existence of the NSA was not known to the public at that time. Due to its ultra-secrecy the U.S. intelligence community referred to the NSA as “No Such Agency”.[29]

In the 1960s, the NSA played a key role in expanding America’s commitment to the Vietnam War by providing evidence of a North Vietnamese attack on the American destroyer USSMaddox during the Gulf of Tonkin incident.[30]

A secret operation code-named “MINARET” was set up by the NSA to monitor the phone communications of Senators Frank Church and Howard Baker, as well as major civil rights leaders including Dr. Martin Luther King, and prominent U.S. journalists and athletes who criticized the Vietnam War.[31] However the project turned out to be controversial, and an internal review by the NSA concluded that its Minaret program was “disreputable if not outright illegal.”[31]

In the aftermath of the Watergate Scandal, a congressional hearing in 1975 led by Sen. Frank Church[32] revealed that the NSA, in collaboration with Britain’s SIGINT intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), had routinely intercepted the international communications of prominent anti-Vietnam war leaders such as Jane Fonda and Dr. Benjamin Spock.[33] Following the resignation of President Richard Nixon, there were several investigations of suspected misuse of FBI, CIA and NSA facilities.[34] Senator Frank Church uncovered previously unknown activity,[34] such as a CIA plot (ordered by the administration of President John F. Kennedy) to assassinate Fidel Castro.[35] The investigation also uncovered NSA’s wiretaps on targeted American citizens.[36]

After the Church Committee hearings, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was passed into law. This was designed to limit the practice of mass surveillance in the United States.[34]

In 1986, the NSA intercepted the communications of the Libyan government during the immediate aftermath of the Berlin discotheque bombing. The White House asserted that the NSA interception had provided “irrefutable” evidence that Libya was behind the bombing, which U.S. President Ronald Reagan cited as a justification for the 1986 United States bombing of Libya.[37][38]

In 1999, a multi-year investigation by the European Parliament highlighted the NSA’s role in economic espionage in a report entitled ‘Development of Surveillance Technology and Risk of Abuse of Economic Information’.[39] That year, the NSA founded the NSA Hall of Honor, a memorial at the National Cryptologic Museum in Fort Meade, Maryland.[40] The memorial is a, “tribute to the pioneers and heroes who have made significant and long-lasting contributions to American cryptology”.[40] NSA employees must be retired for more than fifteen years to qualify for the memorial.[40]

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the NSA created new IT systems to deal with the flood of information from new technologies like the internet and cellphones. ThinThread contained advanced data mining capabilities. It also had a ‘privacy mechanism’; surveillance was stored encrypted; decryption required a warrant. The research done under this program may have contributed to the technology used in later systems. ThinThread was cancelled when Michael Hayden chose Trailblazer, which did not include ThinThread’s privacy system.[42]

Trailblazer Project ramped up in 2002. SAIC, Boeing, CSC, IBM, and Litton worked on it. Some NSA whistleblowers complained internally about major problems surrounding Trailblazer. This led to investigations by Congress and the NSA and DoD Inspectors General. The project was cancelled in early 2004; it was late, over budget, and didn’t do what it was supposed to do. The Baltimore Sun ran articles about this in 200607. The government then raided the whistleblowers’ houses. One of them, Thomas Drake, was charged with violating 18 U.S.C.793(e) in 2010 in an unusual use of espionage law. He and his defenders claim that he was actually being persecuted for challenging the Trailblazer Project. In 2011, all 10 original charges against Drake were dropped.[43][44]

Turbulence started in 2005. It was developed in small, inexpensive ‘test’ pieces rather than one grand plan like Trailblazer. It also included offensive cyber-warfare capabilities, like injecting malware into remote computers. Congress criticized Turbulence in 2007 for having similar bureaucratic problems as Trailblazer.[44] It was to be a realization of information processing at higher speeds in cyberspace.[45]

The massive extent of the NSA’s spying, both foreign and domestic, was revealed to the public in a series of detailed disclosures of internal NSA documents beginning in June 2013. Most of the disclosures were leaked by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden.

It was revealed that the NSA intercepts telephone and internet communications of over a billion people worldwide, seeking information on terrorism as well as foreign politics, economics[46] and “commercial secrets”.[47] In a declassified document it was revealed that 17,835 phone lines were on an improperly permitted “alert list” from 2006 to 2009 in breach of compliance, which tagged these phone lines for daily monitoring.[48][49][50] Eleven percent of these monitored phone lines met the agency’s legal standard for “reasonably articulable suspicion”(RAS).[48][51]

A dedicated unit of the NSA locates targets for the CIA for extrajudicial assassination in the Middle East.[52] The NSA has also spied extensively on the European Union, the United Nations and numerous governments including allies and trading partners in Europe, South America and Asia.[53][54]

The NSA tracks the locations of hundreds of millions of cellphones per day, allowing them to map people’s movements and relationships in detail.[55] It reportedly has access to all communications made via Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube, AOL, Skype, Apple and Paltalk,[56] and collects hundreds of millions of contact lists from personal email and instant messaging accounts each year.[57] It has also managed to weaken much of the encryption used on the Internet (by collaborating with, coercing or otherwise infiltrating numerous technology companies), so that the majority of Internet privacy is now vulnerable to the NSA and other attackers.[58][59]

Domestically, the NSA collects and stores metadata records of phone calls,[60] including over 120 million US Verizon subscribers[61] as well as internet communications,[56] relying on a secret interpretation of the Patriot Act whereby the entirety of US communications may be considered “relevant” to a terrorism investigation if it is expected that even a tiny minority may relate to terrorism.[62] The NSA supplies foreign intercepts to the DEA, IRS and other law enforcement agencies, who use these to initiate criminal investigations. Federal agents are then instructed to “recreate” the investigative trail via parallel construction.[63]

The NSA also spies on influential Muslims to obtain information that could be used to discredit them, such as their use of pornography. The targets, both domestic and abroad, are not suspected of any crime but hold religious or political views deemed “radical” by the NSA.[64]

According to a report in The Washington Post in July 2014, relying on information furnished by Snowden, 90% of those placed under surveillance in the U.S. are ordinary Americans, and are not the intended targets. The newspaper said it had examined documents including emails, message texts, and online accounts, that support the claim.[65]

Despite President Obama’s claims that these programs have congressional oversight, members of Congress were unaware of the existence of these NSA programs or the secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, and have consistently been denied access to basic information about them.[66] Obama has also claimed that there are legal checks in place to prevent inappropriate access of data and that there have been no examples of abuse;[67] however, the secret FISC court charged with regulating the NSA’s activities is, according to its chief judge, incapable of investigating or verifying how often the NSA breaks even its own secret rules.[68] It has since been reported that the NSA violated its own rules on data access thousands of times a year, many of these violations involving large-scale data interceptions;[69] and that NSA officers have even used data intercepts to spy on love interests.[70] The NSA has “generally disregarded the special rules for disseminating United States person information” by illegally sharing its intercepts with other law enforcement agencies.[71] A March 2009 opinion of the FISC court, released by court order, states that protocols restricting data queries had been “so frequently and systemically violated that it can be fairly said that this critical element of the overall … regime has never functioned effectively.”[72][73] In 2011 the same court noted that the “volume and nature” of the NSA’s bulk foreign internet intercepts was “fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe”.[71] Email contact lists (including those of US citizens) are collected at numerous foreign locations to work around the illegality of doing so on US soil.[57]

Legal opinions on the NSA’s bulk collection program have differed. In mid-December 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled that the “almost-Orwellian” program likely violates the Constitution, and wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,’ would be aghast.”[74]

Later that month, U.S. District Judge William Pauley ruled that the NSA’s collection of telephone records is legal and valuable in the fight against terrorism. In his opinion, he wrote, “a bulk telephony metadata collection program [is] a wide net that could find and isolate gossamer contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly disconnected data” and noted that a similar collection of data prior to 9/11 might have prevented the attack.[75]

An October 2014 United Nations report condemned mass surveillance by the United States and other countries as violating multiple international treaties and conventions that guarantee core privacy rights.[76]

On March 20, 2013 the Director of National Intelligence, Lieutenant General James Clapper, testified before Congress that the NSA does not wittingly collect any kind of data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans, but he retracted this in June after details of the PRISM program were published, and stated instead that meta-data of phone and internet traffic are collected, but no actual message contents.[77] This was corroborated by the NSA Director, General Keith Alexander, before it was revealed that the XKeyscore program collects the contents of millions of emails from US citizens without warrant, as well as “nearly everything a user does on the Internet”. Alexander later admitted that “content” is collected, but stated that it is simply stored and never analyzed or searched unless there is “a nexus to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups”.[67]

Regarding the necessity of these NSA programs, Alexander stated on June 27 that the NSA’s bulk phone and Internet intercepts had been instrumental in preventing 54 terrorist “events”, including 13 in the US, and in all but one of these cases had provided the initial tip to “unravel the threat stream”.[78] On July 31 NSA Deputy Director John Inglis conceded to the Senate that these intercepts had not been vital in stopping any terrorist attacks, but were “close” to vital in identifying and convicting four San Diego men for sending US$8,930 to Al-Shabaab, a militia that conducts terrorism in Somalia.[79][80][81]

The U.S. government has aggressively sought to dismiss and challenge Fourth Amendment cases raised against it, and has granted retroactive immunity to ISPs and telecoms participating in domestic surveillance.[82][83] The U.S. military has acknowledged blocking access to parts of The Guardian website for thousands of defense personnel across the country,[84][85] and blocking the entire Guardian website for personnel stationed throughout Afghanistan, the Middle East, and South Asia.[86]

The NSA is led by the Director of the National Security Agency (DIRNSA), who also serves as Chief of the Central Security Service (CHCSS) and Commander of the United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and is the highest-ranking military official of these organizations. He is assisted by a Deputy Director, who is the highest-ranking civilian within the NSA/CSS.

NSA also has an Inspector General, head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), a General Counsel, head of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and a Director of Compliance, who is head of the Office of the Director of Compliance (ODOC).[87]

Unlike other intelligence organizations such as CIA or DIA, NSA has always been particularly reticent concerning its internal organizational structure.

As of the mid-1990s, the National Security Agency was organized into five Directorates:

Each of these directorates consisted of several groups or elements, designated by a letter. There were for example the A Group, which was responsible for all SIGINT operations against the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and G Group, which was responsible for SIGINT related to all non-communist countries. These groups were divided in units designated by an additional number, like unit A5 for breaking Soviet codes, and G6, being the office for the Middle East, North Africa, Cuba, Central and South America.[89][90]

As of 2013[update], NSA has about a dozen directorates, which are designated by a letter, although not all of them are publicly known. The directorates are divided in divisions and units starting with the letter of the parent directorate, followed by a number for the division, the sub-unit or a sub-sub-unit.

The main elements of the organizational structure of the NSA are:[91]

In the year 2000, a leadership team was formed, consisting of the Director, the Deputy Director and the Directors of the Signals Intelligence (SID), the Information Assurance (IAD) and the Technical Directorate (TD). The chiefs of other main NSA divisions became associate directors of the senior leadership team.[99]

After president George W. Bush initiated the President’s Surveillance Program (PSP) in 2001, the NSA created a 24-hour Metadata Analysis Center (MAC), followed in 2004 by the Advanced Analysis Division (AAD), with the mission of analyzing content, internet metadata and telephone metadata. Both units were part of the Signals Intelligence Directorate.[100]

The NSA maintains at least two watch centers:

The number of NSA employees is officially classified[4] but there are several sources providing estimates. In 1961, NSA had 59,000 military and civilian employees, which grew to 93,067 in 1969, of which 19,300 worked at the headquarters at Fort Meade. In the early 1980s NSA had roughly 50,000 military and civilian personnel. By 1989 this number had grown again to 75,000, of which 25,000 worked at the NSA headquarters. Between 1990 and 1995 the NSA’s budget and workforce were cut by one third, which led to a substantial loss of experience.[103]

In 2012, the NSA said more than 30,000 employees worked at Ft. Meade and other facilities.[2] In 2012, John C. Inglis, the deputy director, said that the total number of NSA employees is “somewhere between 37,000 and one billion” as a joke,[4] and stated that the agency is “probably the biggest employer of introverts.”[4] In 2013 Der Spiegel stated that the NSA had 40,000 employees.[5] More widely, it has been described as the world’s largest single employer of mathematicians.[104] Some NSA employees form part of the workforce of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the agency that provides the NSA with satellite signals intelligence.

As of 2013 about 1,000 system administrators work for the NSA.[105]

The NSA received criticism early on in 1960 after two agents had defected to the Soviet Union. Investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee and a special subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee revealed severe cases of ignorance in personnel security regulations, prompting the former personnel director and the director of security to step down and leading to the adoption of stricter security practices.[106] Nonetheless, security breaches reoccurred only a year later when in an issue of Izvestia of July 23, 1963, a former NSA employee published several cryptologic secrets.

The very same day, an NSA clerk-messenger committed suicide as ongoing investigations disclosed that he had sold secret information to the Soviets on a regular basis. The reluctance of Congressional houses to look into these affairs had prompted a journalist to write “If a similar series of tragic blunders occurred in any ordinary agency of Government an aroused public would insist that those responsible be officially censured, demoted, or fired.” David Kahn criticized the NSA’s tactics of concealing its doings as smug and the Congress’ blind faith in the agency’s right-doing as shortsighted, and pointed out the necessity of surveillance by the Congress to prevent abuse of power.[106]

Edward Snowden’s leaking of PRISM in 2013 caused the NSA to institute a “two-man rule” where two system administrators are required to be present when one accesses certain sensitive information.[105] Snowden claims he suggested such a rule in 2009.[107]

The NSA conducts polygraph tests of employees. For new employees, the tests are meant to discover enemy spies who are applying to the NSA and to uncover any information that could make an applicant pliant to coercion.[108] As part of the latter, historically EPQs or “embarrassing personal questions” about sexual behavior had been included in the NSA polygraph.[108] The NSA also conducts five-year periodic reinvestigation polygraphs of employees, focusing on counterintelligence programs. In addition the NSA conducts aperiodic polygraph investigations in order to find spies and leakers; those who refuse to take them may receive “termination of employment”, according to a 1982 memorandum from the director of the NSA.[109]

There are also “special access examination” polygraphs for employees who wish to work in highly sensitive areas, and those polygraphs cover counterintelligence questions and some questions about behavior.[109] NSA’s brochure states that the average test length is between two and four hours.[110] A 1983 report of the Office of Technology Assessment stated that “It appears that the NSA [National Security Agency] (and possibly CIA) use the polygraph not to determine deception or truthfulness per se, but as a technique of interrogation to encourage admissions.”[111] Sometimes applicants in the polygraph process confess to committing felonies such as murder, rape, and selling of illegal drugs. Between 1974 and 1979, of the 20,511 job applicants who took polygraph tests, 695 (3.4%) confessed to previous felony crimes; almost all of those crimes had been undetected.[108]

In 2010 the NSA produced a video explaining its polygraph process.[112] The video, ten minutes long, is titled “The Truth About the Polygraph” and was posted to the website of the Defense Security Service. Jeff Stein of The Washington Post said that the video portrays “various applicants, or actors playing them it’s not clear describing everything bad they had heard about the test, the implication being that none of it is true.”[113] AntiPolygraph.org argues that the NSA-produced video omits some information about the polygraph process; it produced a video responding to the NSA video.[112] George Maschke, the founder of the website, accused the NSA polygraph video of being “Orwellian”.[113]

After Edward Snowden revealed his identity in 2013, the NSA began requiring polygraphing of employees once per quarter.[114]

The number of exemptions from legal requirements has been criticized. When in 1964 the Congress was hearing a bill giving the director of the NSA the power to fire at will any employee, the Washington Post wrote: “This is the very definition of arbitrariness. It means that an employee could be discharged and disgraced on the basis of anonymous allegations without the slightest opportunity to defend himself.” Yet, the bill was accepted by an overwhelming majority.[106]

The heraldic insignia of NSA consists of an eagle inside a circle, grasping a key in its talons.[115] The eagle represents the agency’s national mission.[115] Its breast features a shield with bands of red and white, taken from the Great Seal of the United States and representing Congress.[115] The key is taken from the emblem of Saint Peter and represents security.[115]

When the NSA was created, the agency had no emblem and used that of the Department of Defense.[116] The agency adopted its first of two emblems in 1963.[116] The current NSA insignia has been in use since 1965, when then-Director, LTG Marshall S. Carter (USA) ordered the creation of a device to represent the agency.[117]

The NSA’s flag consists of the agency’s seal on a light blue background.

Crews associated with NSA missions have been involved in a number of dangerous and deadly situations.[118] The USS Liberty incident in 1967 and USS Pueblo incident in 1968 are examples of the losses endured during the Cold War.[118]

The National Security Agency/Central Security Service Cryptologic Memorial honors and remembers the fallen personnel, both military and civilian, of these intelligence missions.[119] It is made of black granite, and has 171 names carved into it, as of 2013[update] .[119] It is located at NSA headquarters. A tradition of declassifying the stories of the fallen was begun in 2001.[119]

NSANet stands for National Security Agency Network and is the official NSA intranet.[120] It is a classified network,[121] for information up to the level of TS/SCI[122] to support the use and sharing of intelligence data between NSA and the signals intelligence agencies of the four other nations of the Five Eyes partnership. The management of NSANet has been delegated to the Central Security Service Texas (CSSTEXAS).[123]

NSANet is a highly secured computer network consisting of fiber-optic and satellite communication channels which are almost completely separated from the public internet. The network allows NSA personnel and civilian and military intelligence analysts anywhere in the world to have access to the agency’s systems and databases. This access is tightly controlled and monitored. For example, every keystroke is logged, activities are audited at random and downloading and printing of documents from NSANet are recorded.[124]

In 1998, NSANet, along with NIPRNET and SIPRNET, had “significant problems with poor search capabilities, unorganized data and old information”.[125] In 2004, the network was reported to have used over twenty commercial off-the-shelf operating systems.[126] Some universities that do highly sensitive research are allowed to connect to it.[127]

The thousands of Top Secret internal NSA documents that were taken by Edward Snowden in 2013 were stored in “a file-sharing location on the NSA’s intranet site” so they could easily be read online by NSA personnel. Everyone with a TS/SCI-clearance had access to these documents and as a system administrator, Snowden was responsible for moving accidentally misplaced highly sensitive documents to more secure storage locations.[128]

The DoD Computer Security Center was founded in 1981 and renamed the National Computer Security Center (NCSC) in 1985. NCSC was responsible for computer security throughout the federal government.[129] NCSC was part of NSA,[130] and during the late 1980s and the 1990s, NSA and NCSC published Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria in a six-foot high Rainbow Series of books that detailed trusted computing and network platform specifications.[131] The Rainbow books were replaced by the Common Criteria, however, in the early 2000s.[131]

On July 18, 2013, Greenwald said that Snowden held “detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do”, thereby sparking fresh controversy.[132]

Headquarters for the National Security Agency is located at 39632N 764617W / 39.10889N 76.77139W / 39.10889; -76.77139 in Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, although it is separate from other compounds and agencies that are based within this same military installation. Ft. Meade is about 20mi (32km) southwest of Baltimore,[133] and 25mi (40km) northeast of Washington, DC.[134] The NSA has its own exit off Maryland Route 295 South labeled “NSA Employees Only”.[135][136] The exit may only be used by people with the proper clearances, and security vehicles parked along the road guard the entrance.[137]

NSA is the largest employer in the U.S. state of Maryland, and two-thirds of its personnel work at Ft. Meade.[138] Built on 350 acres (140ha; 0.55sqmi)[139] of Ft. Meade’s 5,000 acres (2,000ha; 7.8sqmi),[140] the site has 1,300 buildings and an estimated 18,000 parking spaces.[134][141]

The main NSA headquarters and operations building is what James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets, describes as “a modern boxy structure” that appears similar to “any stylish office building.”[142] The building is covered with one-way dark glass, which is lined with copper shielding in order to prevent espionage by trapping in signals and sounds.[142] It contains 3,000,000 square feet (280,000m2), or more than 68 acres (28ha), of floor space; Bamford said that the U.S. Capitol “could easily fit inside it four times over.”[142]

The facility has over 100 watchposts,[143] one of them being the visitor control center, a two-story area that serves as the entrance.[142] At the entrance, a white pentagonal structure,[144] visitor badges are issued to visitors and security clearances of employees are checked.[145] The visitor center includes a painting of the NSA seal.[144]

The OPS2A building, the tallest building in the NSA complex and the location of much of the agency’s operations directorate, is accessible from the visitor center. Bamford described it as a “dark glass Rubik’s Cube”.[146] The facility’s “red corridor” houses non-security operations such as concessions and the drug store. The name refers to the “red badge” which is worn by someone without a security clearance. The NSA headquarters includes a cafeteria, a credit union, ticket counters for airlines and entertainment, a barbershop, and a bank.[144] NSA headquarters has its own post office, fire department, and police force.[147][148][149]

The employees at the NSA headquarters reside in various places in the Baltimore-Washington area, including Annapolis, Baltimore, and Columbia in Maryland and the District of Columbia, including the Georgetown community.[150]

Following a major power outage in 2000, in 2003 and in follow-ups through 2007, The Baltimore Sun reported that the NSA was at risk of electrical overload because of insufficient internal electrical infrastructure at Fort Meade to support the amount of equipment being installed. This problem was apparently recognized in the 1990s but not made a priority, and “now the agency’s ability to keep its operations going is threatened.”[151]

Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE, now Constellation Energy) provided NSA with 65 to 75 megawatts at Ft. Meade in 2007, and expected that an increase of 10 to 15 megawatts would be needed later that year.[152] In 2011, NSA at Ft. Meade was Maryland’s largest consumer of power.[138] In 2007, as BGE’s largest customer, NSA bought as much electricity as Annapolis, the capital city of Maryland.[151]

One estimate put the potential for power consumption by the new Utah Data Center at $40million per year.[153]

When the agency was established, its headquarters and cryptographic center were in the Naval Security Station in Washington, D.C.. The COMINT functions were located in Arlington Hall in Northern Virginia, which served as the headquarters of the U.S. Army’s cryptographic operations.[154] Because the Soviet Union had detonated a nuclear bomb and because the facilities were crowded, the federal government wanted to move several agencies, including the AFSA/NSA. A planning committee considered Fort Knox, but Fort Meade, Maryland, was ultimately chosen as NSA headquarters because it was far enough away from Washington, D.C. in case of a nuclear strike and was close enough so its employees would not have to move their families.[155]

Construction of additional buildings began after the agency occupied buildings at Ft. Meade in the late 1950s, which they soon outgrew.[155] In 1963 the new headquarters building, nine stories tall, opened. NSA workers referred to the building as the “Headquarters Building” and since the NSA management occupied the top floor, workers used “Ninth Floor” to refer to their leaders.[156] COMSEC remained in Washington, D.C., until its new building was completed in 1968.[155] In September 1986, the Operations 2A and 2B buildings, both copper-shielded to prevent eavesdropping, opened with a dedication by President Ronald Reagan.[157] The four NSA buildings became known as the “Big Four.”[157] The NSA director moved to 2B when it opened.[157]

On March 30, 2015, shortly before 9am, a stolen sports utility vehicle approached an NSA police vehicle blocking the road near the gate of Fort Meade, after it was told to leave the area. NSA officers fired on the SUV, killing the 27-year-old driver, Ricky Hall (a transgender person also known as Mya), and seriously injuring his friend, 20-year-old Kevin Fleming. An NSA officer’s arm was injured when Hall subsequently crashed into his vehicle.[158][159]

The two, dressed in women’s clothing after a night of partying at a motel with the man they’d stolen the SUV from that morning, “attempted to drive a vehicle into the National Security Agency portion of the installation without authorization”, according to an NSA statement.[160] The NSA is investigating the incident, with help from the FBI. FBI spokeswoman Amy Thoreson said the incident is not believed to be related to terrorism.[161]

An anonymous police official told The Washington Post, “This was not a deliberate attempt to breach the security of NSA. This was not a planned attack.” The two are believed to have made a wrong turn off the highway, while fleeing from the motel after stealing the vehicle. A small amount of cocaine was found in the SUV. A local CBS reporter initially said a gun was found,[162] but her later revision does not.[163] Dozens of journalists were corralled into a parking lot blocks away from the scene, and were barred from photographing the area.[164]

In 1995, The Baltimore Sun reported that the NSA is the owner of the single largest group of supercomputers.[165]

NSA held a groundbreaking ceremony at Ft. Meade in May 2013 for its High Performance Computing Center 2, expected to open in 2016.[166] Called Site M, the center has a 150 megawatt power substation, 14 administrative buildings and 10 parking garages.[147] It cost $3.2billion and covers 227 acres (92ha; 0.355sqmi).[147] The center is 1,800,000 square feet (17ha; 0.065sqmi)[147] and initially uses 60 megawatts of electricity.[167]

Increments II and III are expected to be completed by 2030, and would quadruple the space, covering 5,800,000 square feet (54ha; 0.21sqmi) with 60 buildings and 40 parking garages.[147]Defense contractors are also establishing or expanding cybersecurity facilities near the NSA and around the Washington metropolitan area.[147]

As of 2012, NSA collected intelligence from four geostationary satellites.[153] Satellite receivers were at Roaring Creek Station in Catawissa, Pennsylvania and Salt Creek Station in Arbuckle, California.[153] It operated ten to twenty taps on U.S. telecom switches. NSA had installations in several U.S. states and from them observed intercepts from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Latin America, and Asia.[153]

NSA had facilities at Friendship Annex (FANX) in Linthicum, Maryland, which is a 20 to 25-minute drive from Ft. Meade;[168] the Aerospace Data Facility at Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora outside Denver, Colorado; NSA Texas in the Texas Cryptology Center at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas; NSA Georgia at Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia; NSA Hawaii in Honolulu; the Multiprogram Research Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and elsewhere.[150][153]

On January 6, 2011 a groundbreaking ceremony was held to begin construction on NSA’s first Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative (CNCI) Data Center, known as the “Utah Data Center” for short. The $1.5B data center is being built at Camp Williams, Utah, located 25 miles (40km) south of Salt Lake City, and will help support the agency’s National Cyber-security Initiative.[169] It is expected to be operational by September 2013.[153]

In 2009, to protect its assets and to access more electricity, NSA sought to decentralize and expand its existing facilities in Ft. Meade and Menwith Hill,[170] the latter expansion expected to be completed by 2015.[171]

The Yakima Herald-Republic cited Bamford, saying that many of NSA’s bases for its Echelon program were a legacy system, using outdated, 1990s technology.[172] In 2004, NSA closed its operations at Bad Aibling Station (Field Station 81) in Bad Aibling, Germany.[173] In 2012, NSA began to move some of its operations at Yakima Research Station, Yakima Training Center, in Washington state to Colorado, planning to leave Yakima closed.[174] As of 2013, NSA also intended to close operations at Sugar Grove, West Virginia.[172]

Following the signing in 19461956[175] of the UKUSA Agreement between the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who then cooperated on signals intelligence and ECHELON,[176] NSA stations were built at GCHQ Bude in Morwenstow, United Kingdom; Geraldton, Pine Gap and Shoal Bay, Australia; Leitrim and Ottawa, Canada; Misawa, Japan; and Waihopai and Tangimoana,[177] New Zealand.[178]

NSA operates RAF Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire, United Kingdom, which was, according to BBC News in 2007, the largest electronic monitoring station in the world.[179] Planned in 1954, and opened in 1960, the base covered 562 acres (227ha; 0.878sqmi) in 1999.[180]

The agency’s European Cryptologic Center (ECC), with 240 employees in 2011, is headquartered at a US military compound in Griesheim, near Frankfurt in Germany. A 2011 NSA report indicates that the ECC is responsible for the “largest analysis and productivity in Europe” and focusses on various priorities, including Africa, Europe, the Middle East and counterterrorism operations.[181]

In 2013, a new Consolidated Intelligence Center, also to be used by NSA, is being built at the headquarters of the United States Army Europe in Wiesbaden, Germany.[182] NSA’s partnership with Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the German foreign intelligence service, was confirmed by BND president Gerhard Schindler.[182]

Thailand is a “3rd party partner” of the NSA along with nine other nations.[183] These are non-English-speaking countries that have made security agreements for the exchange of SIGINT raw material and end product reports.

Thailand is the site of at least two US SIGINT collection stations. One is at the US Embassy in Bangkok, a joint NSA-CIA Special Collection Service (SCS) unit. It presumably eavesdrops on foreign embassies, governmental communications, and other targets of opportunity.[184]

The second installation is a FORNSAT (foreign satellite interception) station in the Thai city of Khon Kaen. It is codenamed INDRA, but has also been referred to as LEMONWOOD.[184] The station is approximately 40 ha (100 acres) in size and consists of a large 3,7004,600 m2 (40,00050,000ft2) operations building on the west side of the ops compound and four radome-enclosed parabolic antennas. Possibly two of the radome-enclosed antennas are used for SATCOM intercept and two antennas used for relaying the intercepted material back to NSA. There is also a PUSHER-type circularly-disposed antenna array (CDAA) array just north of the ops compound.[185][186]

NSA activated Khon Kaen in October 1979. Its mission was to eavesdrop on the radio traffic of Chinese army and air force units in southern China, especially in and around the city of Kunming in Yunnan Province. Back in the late 1970s the base consisted only of a small CDAA antenna array that was remote-controlled via satellite from the NSA listening post at Kunia, Hawaii, and a small force of civilian contractors from Bendix Field Engineering Corp. who job it was to keep the antenna array and satellite relay facilities up and running 24/7.[185]

According to the papers of the late General William Odom, the INDRA facility was upgraded in 1986 with a new British-made PUSHER CDAA antenna as part of an overall upgrade of NSA and Thai SIGINT facilities whose objective was to spy on the neighboring communist nations of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.[185]

The base apparently fell into disrepair in the 1990s as China and Vietnam became more friendly towards the US, and by 2002 archived satellite imagery showed that the PUSHER CDAA antenna had been torn down, perhaps indicating that the base had been closed. At some point in the period since 9/11, the Khon Kaen base was reactivated and expanded to include a sizeable SATCOM intercept mission. It is likely that the NSA presence at Khon Kaen is relatively small, and that most of the work is done by civilian contractors.[185]

NSA’s eavesdropping mission includes radio broadcasting, both from various organizations and individuals, the Internet, telephone calls, and other intercepted forms of communication. Its secure communications mission includes military, diplomatic, and all other sensitive, confidential or secret government communications.[187]

According to the Washington Post, “[e]very day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. The NSA sorts a fraction of those into 70 separate databases.”[188]

Originally posted here:
en.m.wikipedia.org

Top Ten Secret Societies | Illuminati Rex

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Top Ten Secret Societies | Illuminati Rex
Oct 292015
 

Annual meeting of around 130 North-Atlantic elites from the fields of energy, finance, government, intelligence, academia and the media.

Official site: http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org

Famous Attendees: David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Murdoch, Jean-Claude Trichet (EU Bank President), Mervyn King (Bank of England), Edmond de Rothschild, Robert Oppenheimer, Robert McNamara, Henry Ford II

List of Bilderberg participants (wiki) 2012 list of US participants on They Rule Infographic showing how members of the Bilderberg are connected to absolutely everything.

With 65 to 70 regular members, the Bilderberg Group is the most exclusive group on this list. The group came to be identified with the Bilderberg Hotel in Holland where the group first met in 1954. The ultra secret group was founded by Denis Healey, Joseph Retinger, David Rockefeller and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (of the infamous Lockheed scandal in which he took kickbacks selling exploding planes).

From the get-go the Bilderbergers sought to develop a strategy and create European consensus for a European Common Market. They were behind the Amsterdam Treaty, the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Rome, and finally the European Constitution. Leaked 1955 transcripts revealed that Bilderbergers had discussed the creation of a United European with its own currency. They are also working on merging Canada, United states and Mexico into a North American Union. The Bilderberg discussed improving business relations and extending IMF loans to China before Nixons famous 1972 visit. At the Bilderberg meeting of 1991, David Rockefeller told then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton to support NAFTA.

The groups major source of funds is the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. The members are cherry picked most prominent members of other influential organization and national think tanks such as the Brookings, Carnegie Endowment, and Council of Foreign Relations. Much of the leadership of the Bilderberg is also groomed within these foundations. All these organization have similar ideologies. Henri de Castries of the French House of Castries currently heads the Bilderberg.

The High Priests of Globalization at the first Bilderberg Group Meeting in Oosterbeek, Netherlands

The annual meetings are held in a different country each year and is attended by around 130 elites with about 65 regulars. Forty percent of Bilderbergers are Americans. Each international region is roughly represented by one member from the finance sector, one from the government sector, and one from academia. The Group is separated into 6 panels with around 20 people in each panel. There are 3 main speakers per panel and everyone is obligated to comment.

As a whole the membership manages the planets resources and their membership is especially concentrated in the energy and banking sectors. Their goals are a one world constitution, a one world government, a one army and they work tirelessly towards that goal. The typical globalist agenda.

Potential candidate are observed a for a few meetings before being asked to join. Bilderberg researchers often point out that according to the Logan Act, it is illegal for any American government official to be present at the Bilderberg meetings.

Researcher and author of True Story Of Bilderberg Daniel Estulin has investigated the Bilderberg Group for 15 years. He stresses that the Bilderberg is not a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. His book is the book on the Bilderberg. Strangely, Estulin claims that Bilderberg Steering Committee member and founder of Canadas largest book chain Heather Reisman has banned True Story Of Bilderberg from her stores. However, that doesnt appear to be the case.

Jim Tucker has dedicated his entire life to chasing the Bilderbergers around the world after learning of the Groups existing in the 70s. Tucker has an informer inside the group who has consistently leaked him list of participants and talking points for years.

Secret Bavarian secret society active at the end of the 18th century and modern blanket term for the crme de la elite crme.

The Bavarian Illuminati was founded by Adam Weishaupt on May 1, 1776. The Illuminati is a secret society within secret societies. In 1784, the order was banned by the Bavarian government. Today, the term Illuminati is usually used as a blanket term for the inner circle of the elite.

The Illuminati was separated into three classes; 1. The Nursery Class; 2. The Masonic Class; 3. The Mystery Class. Each class was separated into degrees. Lower classes were unaware of the existence of higher classes. Non Illuminati were called the Profane.

I. Nursery Class: 1. Illuminati Novice (1-2 year trial period) 2. Illuminati Minerval 3. Illuminati Minor

II. Masonic Class: Symbolic Masonry 1. Entered Apprentice 2. Fellow Craft 3. Master Mason

Scottish Masonry 1. Illuminati Major (Scot Novice) 2. Illuminati Dirigens (Scot Knight)

III. Mystery Class: Lesser Mysteries 1. Illuminati Priest 2. Illuminati Prince (Regent)

Greater Mysteries 1. Illuminati Magus 2. Illuminati Rex

I am currently exposing the secrets of the Bavarian Illuminati in comic format and Terry Melanson has written a detailed non-fiction book about Adam Weishaupts Order of the Illuminati.

Exactly what the illuminati is varies a great deal from one conspiracy theorist to the next. Different versions of it continues to appear in computer games, music, television and movies. Illuminati Researcher Mark Dices book Illuminati: Facts & Fiction does a great job at weeding through the various modern Illuminati incarnations and separating the wheat from the chaff. It has saved me hours of work in establishing the root of various Illuminati theories and rumors. (although he considers the Bavarian Illuminati to be Luciferian, which is something I should ask him about) Nevertheless, Dice book is essential.

Some researchers believe the Illuminati originated before and that Adam Weishaupt simply reincarnated a much older society. The 13 Bloodlines of the Illuminati is a popular theory about ancient families secretly ruling the United States.

Others believe that the modern elite and the current proponents of the New World Order grew out of Weishaupts movement. However, we have access to most of the original writings of the Illuminati and we know that the abolishment of private property was one of the goals of the Order. This is hardly in line with the modern capitalist plutocrats who make up todays Illuminati. Todays Illuminati is anything but enlightened.

Elite senior fraternity at Yale University

Famous Bonesmen: William H. Taft (Us President), George H.W. Bush (Us President, CIA), George W. Bush (US President) Averell Harriman, H.J. Heinz II, Henry Luce (Time-Life,CIA), Bill Bundy (CIA) and William F. Buckley. (CIA)

AKA Chapter 322, is a secret society at Yale University established by William Russell and Alphonso Taft in 1832. Each year 15 juniors are selected to join the Skulls in their senior year.

The Tomb, Yale

Investment banking firm Brown Brothers Harriman pays the tax bill. No one lives inside the Tomb. At the mention of the words Skull and Bones, they must leave the room. Meetings are on Thursdays and they always have dinner on Sundays. In the 2004 US Election, two Bonesmen, John Kerry and George W. Bush went head-to-head for the Presidency of the United States.

Skull and Bones, do you accept?

If the neophyte accepts, he is given a rolled up message tied with a black ribbon and sealed with the skulls emblem imprinted into black wax. The message instructs the neophyte of the time of place of his initiation. He is also instructed not to bring any metal. (Note that Masons are also divested of all metals during their initiation ceremonies.) Once they accept, they are members for life.

Skull and Bones owns Deer Island in St-Lawrence river

The clock is 5 minutes faster, which represents Skull and Bones which is to differentiate time spend inside the tomb from the outside, which is referred to as Barbarian time.

In 1876 a group of students calling themselves File and Claw broke into the Tomb and discovered that the Order was founded in 1832 (32) as the second chapter (+2) of a German secret society. They discovered a painting of a skull surrounded by Masonic symbols in Room 322 and released floor plans of the Tomb. The Skull themselves claim that 322 represents 322 bce, the year Demosthenes died. In keeping with this legend, their calendar begins 322 years before the Roman calendar. The year 2013 would be 2335 Anno Demostheni in Bonespeak.

They reportedly have the bones of Geronimo and Pancho Villa hidden in 322. Room 322 is the inner temple of the Skull and Bones. It features an encased skeleton which the Bonesmen called Madame Pompadour. There are other compartments in the case including manuscripts, secrecy oaths and initiation rituals.

HW Bush, Bonesman, 1948

Author of Fleshing out the Skull and Bones Kris Milliken, claims that the core group of Skull and Bones is still very much involved in the dope trade. They are Sorcerers of Death performing black magic. Taft Russells family fortune came from opium and according to Eustace Mullins, the fraternity continued to be involved in the dope trade all the way up to the Vietnam war.

3000 elites from academia, government, media, intelligence, military, banking and top corporations.

Official site: http://www.cfr.org

Famous Members: David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Conrad Black, William F. Buckley, Bill Bundy, Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, Angelina, Jolie George Kennan, Carl Sagan, Paul Warburg, Oprah Winfrey, George Soros, Colin Powell, Bill Moyers, Rupert Murdoch, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Edgar Bronfman, Sr.

List of Council on Foreign Relations Members (wiki) Membership map on They Rule

The Council on Foreign Relations grew out of the round table groups and began as a gathering of scholars known as the Inquiry which included the power behind FDRs throne and author of Philip Dru: Administrator, Colonel House and Walter Lippmann.

This group attended the Paris Peace Conference where powerful members of the elite attended a private gathering at the Majestic Hotel. Round Table member Lionel Curtis suggested the creation a Royal Institute for International Affair in London and the Council of Foreign Relations, its US counterpart in New York. The CFR was officially founded in 1921.

Council on Foreign Relations HQ at 58 East 68th Street and Park Avenue

It is one of the most powerful private organizations and has a major influence on U.S. foreign policy. Its equally powerful British sister organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs has been renamed Chatham House. Today the CFR has over 3000 members.

The group suggested the formation of a League of Nation. Five of the 6 men of the Agenda Group which drafted the United States proposal for a United Nations were members of the CFR. Carol Quigley called its members the international financial coterie The CFR was instrumental in planning the post World War 2 economic and political world order.

About the round table groups: De Beers Cecil Rhodes and journalist William T. Stead organized a secret society with an executive committee known as the Circle of Initiate. The secret society had an outer circle known as the Association of Helpers which eventually evolved into the Round Table Groups.

Sources and further information: Memoirs (Amazon) David Rockefeller, 2003

David Rockefellers elite think tank of over 300 private citizens from Europe, Asia, and North America.

Official site: http://www.trilateral.org

Famous Members: David Rockefeller, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jean-Claude Trichet, Henry Kissinger and Jimmy Carter.

List of List of Trilateral Commission Members (tilateral.org .PDF) Membership map on They Rule.

David Rockefeller had been looking for a way to include Japan into international cooperation discussion. At the Belgium Bilderberg conference of 1972, Rockefeller discussed the idea with Columbia University Russian Studies professor Zbigniew Brzezinski (Zbig) who had himself previously approached the Bilderberg Steering Committee. The Steering Committee had been unreceptive to the idea.

The think tank had its first executive committee meeting in Tokyo in October 1973. The Trilateral Commission receive funds mostly from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and is deeply rooted in the CFR. The commission helps governments around the world reach constructive accords with other governments. They promote closer cooperation between Europe, Asia, and North America. In 1974 they published The Crisis of Democracy calling for democracy in moderation.

Ancient secret society sworn to protect the holy bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene

Famous Grandmasters: Jean de Gisors (11881220), Nicolas Flamel (13981418), Ren dAnjou (14181480), Lonard de Vinci (15101519), Isaac Newton (16911727), Charles de Lorraine (17461780), Maximilian de Lorraine (17801801), Victor Hugo (18441885), Claude Debussy (18851918),Jean Cocteau (19181963)

Certainly one of the most intriguing of all secret societies, unfortunately, it isnt real. The Priory of Sion legend is completely made up! (almost)

He also included Rennes-le-Chteau restaurant owner Nol Corbus (another admitted hoaxer) legend of Father Franois Brenger Saunire about discovering parts of the Knights Templarss lost treasure. It all made for a great story.

The strange events of the Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Chteau were finally epitomized on the big screen in 2006 Da Vinci Code starring Tom Hanks.

Note to Mr. Langdon: Vinegar freezes at just under 0C (32F ). Next time you encounter an impossible-to-open-without-the-combination-type Cryptex, consider sticking the thing in the freezer for a few hours.

Researchers Lynn Pickett and Clive Prince have found evidence for the existence of a Priory of Sion within the Masonic Strict Observance Rites of Germany. Their goal was to form a United states of Europe.

Male elites meet every July for a 2 week encampment at private campground.

Famous Attendees: Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, GW Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Malcolm Forbes, William F. Buckley, Clint Eastwood, and William Randolph Hearst. Camp Membership

Founded in 1872, the Bohemian Grove is a 2700-acre campground in the midst of ancient Redwood trees located in Sonoma County, California. Every July, elites participate in a 2 week encampment to make ritual sacrifices to the sinister owl-god Moloch. Power brokers assemble at The Owl Shrine for informal Lakeside Talks. Nixon canceled his scheduled Lakeside Talk in 1971 because the media was insisting on covering it.

Thanks to the work of Alex Jones, Chris Jones and Phillip Weiss who have each individually infiltrated the Grove, the outside world has been able to assemble a lot of information on what happens there. Alex Jones footage can be seen in Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove (Youtube, 2:02:56) and Chris Joness (who worked undercover at the Grove) can be seen in Alex Jones The order of Death, which was released 5 years later to commemorate Alex Jones infiltration of the Grove. (Youtube, 44:46)

President Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, 1967

Weiss stayed as a guess at Bohemian Grove for 7 days in 1989. Weiss heard Walter Cronkite himself as the voice of the infamous owl. He even shook Ronald Reagans hand who confirmed that it was indeed at the Grove in 67 that he had assured Nixon that he would not challenge him in the upcoming Republican nomination. (so much for non-weaving. spiders) He also witnessed a Grover engaging in unBohemian behavior when Henry Kissinger rudely cut in line at the phone banks.

The Founding Founders, Freemasonry and the capital of the United States

Mostly harmless today, the freemasons held immense power in the 18th and 19th century. The earliest historical document mentioning the Old Charges of Freemasonry is the Regius Poem and dates to around 1425. The Grand Lodge of England formed in 1717. Masonic expressions that have become common idioms include: On the square, On the level, giving/getting the third degree and blackballing.

Blue Lodge and 2 major appendant bodies

Due to multiple bans on Freemasonry by Popes, a good catholic is still expected join the Knights of Columbus, as President Kennedy did, the Vaticans answer to Freemasonry. The Vatican is yet to reverse its stance on Freemasonry.

Freemasonry is composed of three levels, referred to as the Blue Lodge degrees:

1. Entered Apprentice 2. Fellow craft 3. Master Mason

Non-masons are called Cowans. There are multiple other degrees that a mason can obtain once he has become a Master Mason (Third degree) which masons call Appendant degrees. The most popular ones are the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, with 33 degrees and the York Rite .

In addition there are Masonic Lodges not recognized by the Grand Loge of England, and as a result, by the majority of regular Masonic lodges. For example, the Rite of Memphis-Misraim has 99 degrees and the Grand Orient de France accepts women.

A group of Three Hundred ruling individual descendant from the Black Nobility

Famous Members: British royals, Dutch royals, House of Hapsburg (?),Lord Halifax, Winston Churchill, Cecil Rhodes, George Bush, Aldous Huxley, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Giuseppe Mazzini and H.G. Wells

The existence of the Committee of 300 is wholly dependent on the word of Dr John Coleman, author of Conspirators Hierarchy The Story of The Committee of 300.

Joseph Pavlonksy John Clarke Doctor Coleman tells us that he gazed upon a mention of the supranational Committee of 300 or the Olympians while stationed with MI6 in Angola. He then decided to dedicate the rest of his life to exposing the group. His status as a MI6 whistleblower and the origin of his doctorate are never discussed in interviews. (leading Eustace Mullins to question his motives.)

Coleman uses the core of conspiracy theory literature and adds his own secret group which allegedly controls all the other ones. (Popular author David Icke added shape-shifting Reptilians to conspiracy lore and became an international bestseller) All the usual players are there. The Bilderberg Group, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations all make an appearance and serve as the executive arms of the Committee of 300. In Colemans scenario, the RIIA is above all the others and chooses the American Secretary of State and through him/her give the US President his marching orders. Prime Minister Disraeli had MI6 snuff out Abraham Lincoln and later, William Stevenson of Mi6 ordered the hit on JFK.

He also throws in popular nuggets such as the Black Nobility, (the group varies a great deal in conspiracy lore from the historical Black Nobility) who according to Coleman, made the Borgias look like Sunday school teachers. (The mysterious nobles are always a crowd pleaser.) According to Dr. Colemans decade long studies at the Cairo Museum (?), no member of the families of the Black Nobility or their servants has ever died from the Black Plague. He discovered that they drank a secret herbal compound and exposed themselves to low-frequency radiation making them immune to the disease.

The Queen of England is the head of the Committee of 300. The 300 families all rule with equal shares! (highly doubtful) The Queen is actually from the Black Nobility family of the House of Guelph. (Rex note: It is true that they change their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor)

The Committee of 300 were behind Beatlemania and used the Beatles to induce young Americans towards drugs and Rock n Roll. They even came up with the word teenager (or not)

New words and new phrases prepared by Tavistock were introduced to America along with the Beatles. Words such as rock in relation to music sounds, teenager, cool, discovered and pop music were a lexicon of disguised code words signifying the acceptance of drugs and arrived with and accompanied the Beatles wherever they went, to be discovered by teenagers. Incidentally, the word teenagers was never used until just before the Beatles arrived on the scene, courtesy of the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations.

Colemans own deep hatred seeps into his work:

I hate to use these beautiful words in the context of Beatlemania; it reminds me of how wrongly the word lover is used when referring to the filthy interaction between two homosexuals writhing in pigswill. To call rock music, is an insult, likewise the language used in rock lyrics.

Is there any collaboration for Colemans Committee of 300 claims?

No.

Coleman claims to have heard Gorbachev referred to the Committee of 300 on CNN but no one has been able to confirm it and the clip has disappeared from the CNN archives. Proponents of the group often point to German industrialist Walter Rathenaus quote, but there is no indication that Rathenau was referring to an actual group rather than a number.

Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves. Geschftlicher Nachwuchs, Neue freie Presse, Walter Rathenau, 1909

Original post:
Top Ten Secret Societies | Illuminati Rex

 Posted by at 1:41 pm  Tagged with:

Annotation 6 – First Amendment – FindLaw

 Misc  Comments Off on Annotation 6 – First Amendment – FindLaw
Oct 282015
 

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION–SPEECH AND PRESS

Adoption and the Common Law Background

Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ”The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: ”The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.”2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: ”That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference.

Debate in the House is unenlightening with regard to the meaning the Members ascribed to the speech and press clause and there is no record of debate in the Senate.5 In the course of debate, Madison warned against the dangers which would arise ”from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.”6 That the ”simple, acknowledged principles” embodied in the First Amendment have occasioned controversy without end both in the courts and out should alert one to the difficulties latent in such spare language. Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. ”The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.”7

Whatever the general unanimity on this proposition at the time of the proposal of and ratification of the First Amendment,8 it appears that there emerged in the course of the Jeffersonian counterattack on the Sedition Act9 and the use by the Adams Administration of the Act to prosecute its political opponents,10 something of a libertarian theory of freedom of speech and press,11 which, however much the Jeffersonians may have departed from it upon assuming power,12 was to blossom into the theory undergirding Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence in modern times. Full acceptance of the theory that the Amendment operates not only to bar most prior restraints of expression but subsequent punishment of all but a narrow range of expression, in political discourse and indeed in all fields of expression, dates from a quite recent period, although the Court’s movement toward that position began in its consideration of limitations on speech and press in the period following World War I.13 Thus, in 1907, Justice Holmes could observe that even if the Fourteenth Amendment embodied prohibitions similar to the First Amendment, ”still we should be far from the conclusion that the plaintiff in error would have us reach. In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is ‘to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,’ and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare . . . . The preliminary freedom extends as well to the false as to the true; the subsequent punishment may extend as well to the true as to the false. This was the law of criminal libel apart from statute in most cases, if not in all.”14 But as Justice Holmes also observed, ”[t]here is no constitutional right to have all general propositions of law once adopted remain unchanged.”15

But in Schenck v. United States,16 the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in the opinion of the Court, while upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military service by circulation of leaflets, suggested First Amendment restraints on subsequent punishment as well as prior restraint. ”It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints although to prevent them may have been the main purpose . . . . We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Justice Holmes along with Justice Brandeis soon went into dissent in their views that the majority of the Court was misapplying the legal standards thus expressed to uphold suppression of speech which offered no threat of danger to organized institutions.17 But it was with the Court’s assumption that the Fourteenth Amendment restrained the power of the States to suppress speech and press that the doctrines developed.18 At first, Holmes and Brandeis remained in dissent, but in Fiske v. Kansas,19 the Court sustained a First Amendment type of claim in a state case, and in Stromberg v. California,20 a state law was voided on grounds of its interference with free speech.21 State common law was also voided, the Court in an opinion by Justice Black asserting that the First Amendment enlarged protections for speech, press, and religion beyond those enjoyed under English common law.22 Development over the years since has been uneven, but by 1964 the Court could say with unanimity: ”we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”23 And in 1969, it was said that the cases ”have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”24 This development and its myriad applications are elaborated in the following sections. The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by Congress, and not to the actions of private persons. Supp.15 This leads to a ”state action” (or ”governmental action”) limitation similar to that applicable to the Fourteenth Amendment. Supp.16 The limitation has seldom been litigated in the First Amendment context, but there is no obvious reason why analysis should differ markedly from Fourteenth Amendment state action analysis. Both contexts require ”cautious analysis of the quality and degree of Government relationship to the particular acts in question.” Supp.17 In holding that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a governmental entity for purposes of the First Amendment, the Court declared that ”[t]he Constitution constrains governmental action ‘by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken.’. . . [a]nd under whatever congressional label.”Supp.18 The relationship of the government to broadcast licensees affords other opportunities to explore the breadth of ”governmental action.”Supp.19

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] 1 Annals of Congress 434 (1789). Madison had also proposed language limiting the power of the States in a number of respects, including a guarantee of freedom of the press, Id. at 435. Although passed by the House, the amendment was defeated by the Senate, supra, p.957.

[Footnote 2] Id. at 731 (August 15, 1789).

[Footnote 3] The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1148-49 (B. Schwartz ed. 1971).

[Footnote 4] Id. at 1153.

[Footnote 5] The House debate insofar as it touched upon this amendment was concerned almost exclusively with a motion to strike the right to assemble and an amendment to add a right of the people to instruct their Representatives. 1 Annals of Congress 731-49 (August 15, 1789). There are no records of debates in the States on ratification.

[Footnote 6] Id. at 738.

[Footnote 7] 4 W. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England 151-52 (T. Cooley 2d rev. ed. 1872). See 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1874-86 (Boston: 1833). The most comprehensive effort to assess theory and practice in the period prior to and immediately following adoption of the Amendment is L. Levy, Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History (1960), which generally concluded that the Blackstonian view was the prevailing one at the time and probably the understanding of those who drafted, voted for, and ratified the Amendment.

[Footnote 8] It would appear that Madison advanced libertarian views earlier than his Jeffersonian compatriots, as witness his leadership of a move to refuse officially to concur in Washington’s condemnation of ”[c]ertain self-created societies,” by which the President meant political clubs supporting the French Revolution, and his success in deflecting the Federalist intention to censure such societies. I. Brant, James Madison–Father of the Constitution 1787-1800, 416-20 (1950). ”If we advert to the nature of republican government,” Madison told the House, ”we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.” 4 Annals of Congress 934 (1794). On the other hand, the early Madison, while a member of his county’s committee on public safety, had enthusiastically promoted prosecution of Loyalist speakers and the burning of their pamphlets during the Revolutionary period. 1 Papers of James Madison 147, 161-62, 190-92 (W. Hutchinson & W. Rachal eds. 1962). There seems little doubt that Jefferson held to the Blackstonian view. Writing to Madison in 1788, he said: ”A declaration that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing anything they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed.” 13 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 442 (J. Boyd ed. 1955). Commenting a year later to Madison on his proposed amendment, Jefferson suggested that the free speech-free press clause might read something like: ”The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property, or reputation of others or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations.” 15 Papers, supra, at 367.

[Footnote 9] The Act, Ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596 (1798), punished anyone who would ”write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute.” See J. Smith, Freedom’s Fetters–The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties (1956).

[Footnote 10] Id. at 159 et seq.

[Footnote 11] L. Levy, Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History, ch. 6 (Cambridge, 1960); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273-76 (1964). But compare L. Levy, Emergence of a Free Press (1985), a revised and enlarged edition of Legacy of Suppression, in which Professor Levy modifies his earlier views, arguing that while the intention of the Framers to outlaw the crime of seditious libel, in pursuit of a free speech principle, cannot be established and may not have been the goal, there was a tradition of robust and rowdy expression during the period of the framing that contradicts his prior view that a modern theory of free expression did not begin to emerge until the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[Footnote 12] L. Levy, Jefferson and Civil Liberties–The Darker Side (Cambridge, 1963). Thus President Jefferson wrote to Governor McKean of Pennsylvania in 1803: ”The federalists having failed in destroying freedom of the press by their gag-law, seem to have attacked it in an opposite direction; that is, by pushing its licentiousness and its lying to such a degree of prostitution as to deprive it of all credit. . . . This is a dangerous state of things, and the press ought to be restored to its credibility if possible. The restraints provided by the laws of the States are sufficient for this if applied. And I have, therefore, long thought that a few prosecutions of the most prominent offenders would have a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the presses. Not a general prosecution, for that would look like persecution; but a selected one.” 9 Works of Thomas Jefferson 449 (P. Ford, ed. 1905).

[Footnote 13] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), provides the principal doctrinal justification for the development, although the results had long since been fully applied by the Court. In Sullivan, Justice Brennan discerned in the controversies over the Sedition Act a crystallization of ”a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment,” id. at 273, which is that the ”right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials . . . [is] a fundamental principle of the American form of government.” Id. at 275. This ”central meaning” proscribes either civil or criminal punishment for any but the most maliciously, knowingly false criticism of government. ”Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. . . . [The historical record] reflect[s] a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment.” Id. at 276. Madison’s Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and his Report in support of them brought together and expressed the theories being developed by the Jeffersonians and represent a solid doctrinal foundation for the point of view that the First Amendment superseded the common law on speech and press, that a free, popular government cannot be libeled, and that the First Amendment absolutely protects speech and press. 6 Writings of James Madison, 341-406 (G. Hunt. ed. 1908).

[Footnote 14] Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907) (emphasis original). Justice Frankfurter had similar views in 1951: ”The historic antecedents of the First Amendment preclude the notion that its purpose was to give unqualified immunity to every expression that touched on matters within the range of political interest. . . . ‘The law is perfectly well settled,’ this Court said over fifty years ago, ‘that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had from time immemorial been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.’ That this represents the authentic view of the Bill of Rights and the spirit in which it must be construed has been recognized again and again in cases that have come here within the last fifty years.” Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 521-522, 524 (1951) (concurring opinion). The internal quotation is from Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897).

[Footnote 15] Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 461 (1907).

[Footnote 16] 249 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1919) (citations omitted).

[Footnote 17] Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919); Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466 (1920); Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (1920); United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921). A state statute similar to the federal one was upheld in Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325 (1920).

[Footnote 18] Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). The Brandeis and Holmes dissents in both cases were important formulations of speech and press principles.

[Footnote 19] 274 U.S. 380 (1927).

[Footnote 20] 283 U.S. 359 (1931). By contrast, it was not until 1965 that a federal statute was held unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967).

[Footnote 21] And see Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938).

[Footnote 22] Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263-68 (1941) (overturning contempt convictions of newspaper editor and others for publishing commentary on pending cases).

[Footnote 23] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).

[Footnote 24] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

[Footnote 15 (1996 Supplement)] Through interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prohibition extends to the States as well. See discussion on incorporation, main text, pp. 957-64.

[Footnote 16 (1996 Supplement)] See discussion on state action, main text, pp.1786-1802.

[Footnote 17 (1996 Supplement)] CBS v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 115 (1973) (opinion of Chief Justice Burger).

[Footnote 18 (1996 Supplement)] Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 115 S. Ct. 961, 971 (1995) (quoting Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346-47 (1880)). The Court refused to be bound by the statement in Amtrak’s authorizing statute that the corporation is ”not . . . an agency or establishment of the United States Government.” This assertion can be effective ”only for purposes of matters that are within Congress’ control,” the Court explained. ”It is not for Congress to make the final determination of Amtrak’s status as a governmental entity for purposes of determining the constitutional rights of citizens affected by its actions.” 115 S. Ct. at 971.

[Footnote 19 (1996 Supplement)] In CBS v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973), the Court held that a broadcast licensee could refuse to carry a paid editorial advertisement. Chief Justice Burger, joined only by Justices Stewart and Rehnquist in that portion of his opinion, reasoned that a licensee’s refusal to accept such an ad did not constitute ”governmental action” for purposes of the First Amendment. ”The First Amendment does not reach acts of private parties in every instance where the Congress or the [Federal Communications] Commission has merely permitted or failed to prohibit such acts.” Id. at 119.

Visit link:
Annotation 6 – First Amendment – FindLaw

Calisphere – The Free Speech Movement

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Calisphere – The Free Speech Movement
Oct 262015
 

Questions to Consider

Where did the Free Speech Movement start?

Who were the leaders of the movement?

What did they want?

These images show UC Berkeley’s Free Speech Movement as it happened. Photographs record the standoff and the aftermath.

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a college campus phenomenon inspired first by the struggle for civil rights and later fueled by opposition to the Vietnam War. The Free Speech Movement began in 1964, when students at the University of California, Berkeley protested a ban on on-campus political activities. The protest was led by several students, who also demanded their right to free speech and academic freedom. The FSM sparked an unprecedented wave of student activism and involvement.

Many images in this group make it clear that the center of the activity on the UC Berkeley campus was in Sproul Plaza. One photograph shows students occupying the balconies of Sproul Hall, a campus administration building, holding FSM banners and an American flag. Another photograph shows student leader Mario Savio leading a group of students through Sather Gate toward a meeting of the UC Regents.

In defiance of the ban on on-campus political activities, graduate student Jack Weinberg set up a table with political information and was arrested. But a group of approximately 3,000 students surrounded the police car in which he was held, preventing it from moving for 36 hours. Photographs show Weinberg in the car, both Mario Savio and Jack Weinberg on top of the surrounded car speaking to the crowd, and the car encircled by protesters and police.

Other photographs that portray key people and events of the Free Speech Movement include the eight students (including Mario Savio) suspended for operating a table on campus without a permit and raising money for unauthorized purposes; Mario Savio speaking to a crowd; students signing a pledge; and students sleeping on the steps of Sproul Plaza. Photographs of students being arrested, holding a mass sit-in, and picketing in support of the student-faculty strike as they protest demonstrators’ arrests reflect other aspects of the Free Speech Movement.

Singer Joan Baez supported the FSM, and a photograph shows her singing to the demonstrators. Bettina Aptheker, who later became a professor of Feminist Studies at UC Santa Cruz, also supported the FSM. A photograph shows her speaking in front of Sproul Hall. Other photographs in this topic demonstrate that groups such as Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the International Workers of the World (IWW) showed solidarity and supported the FSM. Other images in this group include UC President Clark Kerr speaking at the UC Berkeley Greek Theater, and CORE co-founder James Farmer at a CORE rally.

Learn more, visit these UC Berkeley sites: Free Speech Movement Digital Archives Social Activism Sound Recording Project

1.0 Writing Strategies: Research and Technology

2.0 Writing Applications 2.4 Write historical investigation reports.

2.0 Speaking Applications 2.2 Deliver oral reports on historical investigations. 2.4 Delivery multimedia presentations.

3.0 Historical and Cultural Context Understanding the Historical Contributions and Cultural Dimensions of the Visual Arts. Students analyze the role and development of the visual arts in past and present cultures throughout the world, noting human diversity as it relates to the visual arts and artists.

Read more here:
Calisphere – The Free Speech Movement

 Posted by at 1:41 am  Tagged with:

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949 – 19451952 …

 NATO  Comments Off on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949 – 19451952 …
Oct 232015
 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union.

Signing of the NATO Treaty

NATO was the first peacetime military alliance the United States entered into outside of the Western Hemisphere. After the destruction of the Second World War, the nations of Europe struggled to rebuild their economies and ensure their security. The former required a massive influx of aid to help the war-torn landscapes re-establish industries and produce food, and the latter required assurances against a resurgent Germany or incursions from the Soviet Union. The United States viewed an economically strong, rearmed, and integrated Europe as vital to the prevention of communist expansion across the continent. As a result, Secretary of State George Marshall proposed a program of large-scale economic aid to Europe. The resulting European Recovery Program, or Marshall Plan, not only facilitated European economic integration but promoted the idea of shared interests and cooperation between the United States and Europe. Soviet refusal either to participate in the Marshall Plan or to allow its satellite states in Eastern Europe to accept the economic assistance helped to reinforce the growing division between east and west in Europe.

In 19471948, a series of events caused the nations of Western Europe to become concerned about their physical and political security and the United States to become more closely involved with European affairs. The ongoing civil war in Greece, along with tensions in Turkey, led President Harry S. Truman to assert that the United States would provide economic and military aid to both countries, as well as to any other nation struggling against an attempt at subjugation. A Soviet-sponsored coup in Czechoslovakia resulted in a communist government coming to power on the borders of Germany. Attention also focused on elections in Italy as the communist party had made significant gains among Italian voters. Furthermore, events in Germany also caused concern. The occupation and governance of Germany after the war had long been disputed, and in mid-1948, Soviet premier Joseph Stalin chose to test Western resolve by implementing a blockade against West Berlin, which was then under joint U.S., British, and French control but surrounded by Soviet-controlled East Germany. This Berlin Crisis brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of conflict, although a massive airlift to resupply the city for the duration of the blockade helped to prevent an outright confrontation. These events caused U.S. officials to grow increasingly wary of the possibility that the countries of Western Europe might deal with their security concerns by negotiating with the Soviets. To counter this possible turn of events, the Truman Administration considered the possibility of forming a European-American alliance that would commit the United States to bolstering the security of Western Europe.

Signing of the Brussels Treaty

The Western European countries were willing to consider a collective security solution. In response to increasing tensions and security concerns, representatives of several countries of Western Europe gathered together to create a military alliance. Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg signed the Brussels Treaty in March, 1948. Their treaty provided collective defense; if any one of these nations was attacked, the others were bound to help defend it. At the same time, the Truman Administration instituted a peacetime draft, increased military spending, and called upon the historically isolationist Republican Congress to consider a military alliance with Europe. In May of 1948, Republican Senator Arthur H. Vandenburg proposed a resolution suggesting that the President seek a security treaty with Western Europe that would adhere to the United Nations charter but exist outside of the Security Council where the Soviet Union held veto power. The Vandenburg Resolution passed, and negotiations began for the North Atlantic Treaty.

In spite of general agreement on the concept behind the treaty, it took several months to work out the exact terms. The U.S. Congress had embraced the pursuit of the international alliance, but it remained concerned about the wording of the treaty. The nations of Western Europe wanted assurances that the United States would intervene automatically in the event of an attack, but under the U.S. Constitution the power to declare war rested with Congress. Negotiations worked toward finding language that would reassure the European states but not obligate the United States to act in a way that violated its own laws. Additionally, European contributions to collective security would require large-scale military assistance from the United States to help rebuild Western Europes defense capabilities. While the European nations argued for individual grants and aid, the United States wanted to make aid conditional on regional coordination. A third issue was the question of scope. The Brussels Treaty signatories preferred that membership in the alliance be restricted to the members of that treaty plus the United States. The U.S. negotiators felt there was more to be gained from enlarging the new treaty to include the countries of the North Atlantic, including Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, and Portugal. Together, these countries held territory that formed a bridge between the opposite shores of the Atlantic Ocean, which would facilitate military action if it became necessary.

President Truman inspecting a tank produced under the Mutual Defense Assistance Program

The result of these extensive negotiations was the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. In this agreement, the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom agreed to consider attack against one an attack against all, along with consultations about threats and defense matters. This collective defense arrangement only formally applied to attacks against the signatories that occurred in Europe or North America; it did not include conflicts in colonial territories. After the treaty was signed, a number of the signatories made requests to the United States for military aid. Later in 1949, President Truman proposed a military assistance program, and the Mutual Defense Assistance Program passed the U.S. Congress in October, appropriating some $1.4 billion dollars for the purpose of building Western European defenses.

Soon after the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the outbreak of the Korean War led the members to move quickly to integrate and coordinate their defense forces through a centralized headquarters. The North Korean attack on South Korea was widely viewed at the time to be an example of communist aggression directed by Moscow, so the United States bolstered its troop commitments to Europe to provide assurances against Soviet aggression on the European continent. In 1952, the members agreed to admit Greece and Turkey to NATO and added the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955. West German entry led the Soviet Union to retaliate with its own regional alliance, which took the form of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and included the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe as members.

The collective defense arrangements in NATO served to place the whole of Western Europe under the American nuclear umbrella. In the 1950s, one of the first military doctrines of NATO emerged in the form of massive retaliation, or the idea that if any member was attacked, the United States would respond with a large-scale nuclear attack. The threat of this form of response was meant to serve as a deterrent against Soviet aggression on the continent. Although formed in response to the exigencies of the developing Cold War, NATO has lasted beyond the end of that conflict, with membership even expanding to include some former Soviet states. It remains the largest peacetime military alliance in the world.

Read more here:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949 – 19451952 …

 Posted by at 11:47 pm  Tagged with:

Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginias …

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginias …
Oct 232015
 

Sir Francis Galton. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society. [2.1]

ENLARGE [2.2] Faces and Races, illustration from a eugenical text, Racial History of Mankind. Courtesy of Special Collections, Pickler Memorial Library, Truman State University.

[2.3] Harry H. Laughlin and Charles Davenport at the Eugenics Record Office. Courtesy of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Archives.

Sir Francis Galton first coined the term eugenics in 1883. Put simply, eugenics means well-born. Initially Galton focused on positive eugenics, encouraging healthy, capable people of above-average intelligence to bear more children, with the idea of building an improved human race. Some followers of Galton combined his emphasis on ancestral traits with Gregor Mendels research on patterns of inheritance, in an attempt to explain the generational transmission of genetic traits in human beings.

Negative eugenics, as developed in the United States and Germany, played on fears of race degeneration. At a time when the working-class poor were reproducing at a greater rate than successful middle- and upper-class members of society, these ideas garnered considerable interest. One of the most famous proponents in the United States was President Theodore Roosevelt, who warned that the failure of couples of Anglo-Saxon heritage to produce large families would lead to race suicide.

The center of the eugenics movement in the United States was the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Biologist Charles Davenport established the ERO, and was joined in his work by Director Harry H. Laughlin. Both men were members of the American Breeders Association. Their view of eugenics, as applied to human populations, drew from the agricultural model of breeding the strongest and most capable members of a species while making certain that the weakest members do not reproduce.

Eugenicists attempted to demonstrate the power of heredity by constructing pedigree charts of defective families. These charts were used to scientifically quantify the assertion that human frailties such as profligacy and indolence were genetic components that could be passed from one generation to the next. Two studies were published that charted the propensity towards criminality, disease, and immoral behavior of the extended families of the Jukes and the Kallikaks. Eugenicists pointed to these texts to demonstrate that feeblemindedness was an inherited attribute and to reveal how the care of such degenerates represented an enormous cost to society.

The ERO promoted eugenics research by compiling records or pedigrees of thousands of families. Charles Davenport created The Family History Book, which assisted field workers as they interviewed families and assembled pedigrees specifying inheritable family attributes which might range from allergies to civic leadership. Even a propensity for carpentry or dress-making was considered a genetically inherited trait. Davenport and Laughlin also issued another manual titled How to Make a Eugenical Family Study to instruct field workers in the creation of pedigree charts of study subjects from poor, rural areas or from institutionalized settings. Field workers used symbols to depict defective conditions such as epilepsy and sexual immorality.

The American Eugenics Society presented eugenics exhibits at state fairs throughout the country, and provided information encouraging high-grade people to reproduce at a greater rate for the benefit of society. The Society even sponsored Fitter Family contests.

ENLARGE [2.4] Kallikak family of New Jersey Normal and Degenerate Lines (enlarge to view additional eugenical pedigree charts). Courtesy of Paul Lombardo.

ENLARGE [2.5] Eugenics Display. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.

[2.6] Winners of Fittest Family Contest. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.

[2.7] Harry H. Laughlin photograph. Courtesy of American Philosophical Society.

ENLARGE [2.8] Comparative Intelligence Chart. Courtesy of the American Philosophical Society.

ENLARGE [2.9] Virginias Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (enlarge to view additional Virginia legislative acts). Courtesy of Special Collections, Pickler Memorial Library, Truman State University.

In 1914, Harry H. Laughlin attended the first Race Betterment Conference, sponsored by J. H. Kellogg. The same year, in his Model Sterilization Law, Laughlin declared that the socially inadequate of society should be sterilized. This Model Law was accompanied by pedigree charts, which were used to demonstrate the hereditary nature of traits such as alcoholism, illegitimacy, and feeblemindedness. Laughlin asserted that passage of these undesirable traits to future generations would be eradicated if the unfortunate people who possessed them could be prevented from reproducing. In 1922 Laughlins Model Law was included in the book Eugenical Sterilization in the United States. This book compiled legal materials and statistics regarding sterilization, and was a valuable reference for sterilization activists in states throughout the country.

Proponents of eugenics worked tirelessly to assert the legitimacy of this new discipline. For Americans who feared the potential degradation of their race and culture, eugenics offered a convenient and scientifically plausible response to those fears. Sterilization of the unfit seemed a cost-effective means of strengthening and improving American society.

By 1924 Laughlins influence extended in several directions. He testified before Congress in support of the Immigration Restriction Act to limit immigration from eastern and southern Europe. Laughlin influenced passage of this law by presenting skewed data to support his assertion that the percentage of these immigrant populations in prisons and mental institutions was far greater than their percentage in the general population would warrant.

Laughlin also provided guidance in support of Virginias Racial Integrity Act, which made it illegal for whites in Virginia to marry outside their race. The act narrowly defined who could claim to be a member of the white race stating that the term white person shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian. Virginia lawmakers were careful to leave an escape clause for colleagues who claimed descent from Pocahontasthose with 1/16 or less of the blood of the American Indian would also count as white.

The language of Laughlins Model Sterilization Act was used in Virginias Eugenical Sterilization Act to legalize compulsory sterilizations in the state. This legislation to rid Virginia of defective persons was drafted by Aubrey E. Strode, a former member of the Virginia General Assembly, at the request of longtime associate, Albert Priddy, who directed the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded in Lynchburg, Virginia.

2004 Claude Moore Health Sciences Library

Excerpt from:
Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginias …

 Posted by at 9:44 am  Tagged with:



Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism