Bush Confirms He Will Seek More Dictatorial Power

After securing supreme status for his office and a six month window to implement whatever surveillance methods he wishes, Bush says his work is not yet complete
Infowars.net | August 7, 2007
Steve Watson

While Constitutional experts and even sectors of the corporate mainstream media have denounced the latest power grab by the Bush administration as "unnecessary and highly dangerous", the President himself has confirmed that he will seek even more authority from Congress and will attempt to pass more legislation aimed at granting the government unquestionable power over the people.

Legislation signed Sunday gives the government the green light to install permanent backdoors in communications systems that allow warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.

The administration has a 6 month window in which to impose any surveillance program it chooses and that program will go unchallenged and remain legally binding in perpetuity - it cannot be revoked. Under the definitions of the legislation, Bush has been granted absolute dictator status for a minimum of 6 months, dovetailing with a recent Presidential Decision Directive that also appoints Bush as a supreme dictator during an announced emergency.

The bill was passed on Friday after the president jawboned Congress , saying lawmakers could not leave for their August recess at the weekend unless they "pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States."

Despite these huge freedom crushing steps, Bush says he is not done:

"While I appreciate the leadership it took to pass this bill, we must remember that our work is not done," Bush said in his Sunday statement . "This bill is a temporary, narrowly focused statute to deal with the most immediate shortcomings in the law."

The statement continues:

"When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001."

This basically means that the administration will push for liability for ISP's and cell phone companies in order to head off court cases brought by the ACLU and others, including retroactive protection which would neutralize all attempts to challenge the administration's wiretapping activities spanning back to 9/11.

Constitutional expert and Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin has slammed the statement and pointed out the use of Orwellian doublespeak by Bush whereby he effectively admits to breaking the law and illegally spying on American citizens without actually saying so:

"Apparently 'allegedly helped us stay safe' is Bush Administration code for telecom companies and government officials who participated in a conspiracy to perform illegal surveillance... Because what they did is illegal, we do not admit that they actually did it, we only say that they are alleged to have done it." --------

As the popular left leaning blog Think Progress has pointed out, even the corporate controlled mainstream media has editorialized against the FISA legislation, with the New York Times today calling it an “unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush's powers.”:

USA Today:

A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. When it returns to Washington, it should do what it can to make sure that the sun goes down on this flawed measure.

Washington Post:

To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law — or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions.

The New York Times:

While serving little purpose, the new law has real dangers. It would allow the government to intercept, without a warrant, every communication into or out of any country, including the United States. Instead of explaining all this to American voters — the minimal benefits and the enormous risks — the Democrats have allowed Mr. Bush and his fear-mongering to dominate all discussions on terrorism and national security.

The Los Angeles Times:

You know something's wrong with this Congress when a Democratic champion of privacy rights feels compelled to vote for Republican legislation that compromises those rights. That's what California Sen. Dianne Feinstein did last week when she joined a stampede to approve a temporar

San Francisco Chronicle:

No-limits spying is on a roll. In rushed votes, both the House and Senate meekly accepted a White House plan to vastly expand phone and e-mail eavesdropping. The changes were sold as a key step in tracking foreign terrorists and their allies on American soil. But the shift guts any semblance of oversight, leaving the picking and choosing of targets to spy agencies.

The Boston Globe:

The administration maintains that technological changes have created problems with the 1978 law. But never has Bush demonstrated why the terms of that law, which permitted officials to get warrant approvals up to 72 hours after they started a wiretap, are no longer workable. This and other questions could have been answered if Congress had demanded an open debate on the administration's bill. Its failure to do so is a shameful abdication of its own responsibility. It's difficult to maintain a system of checks and balances when one branch simply checks out.

Rocky Mountain News:

Now the authority to approve wiretaps rests with the attorney general - hardly a reassuring prospect given Alberto Gonzales' performance in that office - and the director of national intelligence. … Given the administration's expansive view of its own powers, this FISA rewrite could allow much wider eavesdropping, with little outside oversight.

Sacramento Bee:

After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush did an end run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which prohibits eavesdropping on Americans without judicial oversight. Instead of going to Congress to change the law, Bush decided to simply monitor without warrants the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States. Six years later, the Bush administration belatedly has gone to Congress. But instead of promoting modernization in the law, the administration has ginned up new fears about terrorist attacks and cowed Congress into passing hasty, ill-considered changes.

Seattle Post Intelligencer :

The redeeming aspect of the political theater involving Americans' rights to privacy is that Congress wrote itself an option for a better ending in six months.

The latest power grabs represent a move to legalize already existing covert programs that are in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. The neocon administration has brought its crimes out into the open and the puppet Congress, rather than holding it accountable, is actively legalizing criminality.

y “fix” sought by the Bush administration in a law governing electronic surveillance.

The Timeline to Tyranny

Ten advances towards the end of freedom and privacy in the United States

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 7, 2007

The top ten advances towards tyranny in the United States during the tenure of the Bush administration, from the Patriot Act to the latest expansion of the illegal eavesdropping surveillance program.

1) The USA Patriot Act

The party line often heard from Neo-Cons in their attempts to defend the Patriot Act either circulate around the contention that the use of the Patriot Act has never been abused or that it isn't being used against American citizens. Here is an archive of articles that disproves both of these fallacies.

The Patriot Act was the boiler plate from which all subsequent attacks on the Constitution were formed.

2) Total Information Awareness

"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database," infamously wrote New York Times writer William Safire, announcing the birth of Total Information Awareness, a kind of Echelon on steroids introduced a year after 9/11.

TIA was not canned, it was simply removed from the newspaper, renamed and continues to operate under a guise of different programs.3) USA Patriot Act II

The second Patriot Act was a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganized the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command.

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.

Military Commissions Act

Slamming the final nail in the coffin of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror in passing the Military Commissions Act and officially ending Habeas Corpus.

There is nothing in the "detainee" legislation that protects American citizens from being kidnapped by their own government and tortured.

The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

John Warner Defense Authorization Act

The Bush Junta quietly "tooled up" to utilize the U.S. military in engaging American dissidents after the next big crisis, with a frightening and overlooked piece of legislation that was passed alongside the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which greased the skids for armed confrontation and abolishes posse comitatus.

Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program

"Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials," reported the New York Times on December 16, 2005

The secret warrantless spying program was a complete violation of both the 4th Amendment and FISA.

Expansion of Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program

Not content with now being lawfully allowed to force ISP's and cell phone companies to turn over data about customers without a warrant, the Bush administration is pushing for even more authority to spy on American citizens, and has already been handed a 6 month window within which to impose any surveillance policy it likes, and for that program to remain legal in perpetuity.

The administration has a 6 month window in which to impose any surveillance program it chooses and that program will go unchallenged and remain legally binding in perpetuity - it cannot be revoked. Under the definitions of the legislation, Bush has been granted absolute dictator status for a minimum of 6 months.

If he so chooses, and so long as it's implemented within the next half year, Bush could build a database of every website visited by every American - and the policy would be immune from Congressional challenge even after the "surveillance gap" legislation reaches its sunset

Martial Law Presidential Decision Directive 51

New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, which also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security", was signed earlier this month without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.

Destruction of the Dollar

Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no,".

Stiglitz caused controversy in October 2001 when he exposed rampant corruption within the IMF and blew the whistle on their nefarious methods of inducing countries to fall under their debt before stripping them of sovereignty and hollowing out their economies. Stiglitz agreed that the process of hijacking and looting key infrastructure on the part of the IMF and World Bank, as an offshoot of predatory globalization, had now moved from the third world to Europe, the United States and Canada.

Amnesty & The North American Union

The open plan to merge the US with Mexico and Canada and create a Pan American Union has long been a Globalist brainchild but its very real and prescient implementation on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations has finally been reported on by mainstream news outlets.

The framework on which the American Union is being pegged is the NAFTA Super Highway, a four football-fields-wide leviathan that stretches from southern Mexico through the US up to Montreal Canada .Coupled with Bush's blanket amnesty program, the Pan American Union is the final jigsaw piece for the total dismantling of America as we know it.

For an explanation of the timeline to tyranny in a wider context, click here to listen to Alex Jones' rant on the subject.

Bloomberg freedom of the press subway ride

Related: New York Moves To Ban Public Filming And Photography

Google And The Personalized Search -- All's Well.. Or Orwell

Scott Buresh
Post Chronicle
Monday Aug 6, 2007

You go to Google and enter your search term. Big Brother, the totalitarian character from George Orwell's novel 1984, watches with detached interest. You see, to Big Brother, you are only a number - but he'd like to know as much about you as he can. Knowing you allows Big Brother to do many things - both good and evil.

Alright, enough of the "Big Brother" comparison - it's been done many times before (and done many times better). However, there is an important central point to be made about personalized search. Google is now (and has been for some time) collecting data on individual users, and they are assuming that users will trust them with this data to "Do No Evil," as their famous slogan goes. Only time will tell whether the trust is well-placed, or if people are willing to trust search engines with this type of data at all.

The basic principle behind personalized search is simple. When you go to Google and type in a search query, Google stores the data. As you return to the engine, a profile of your search habits is built up over time. With this information, Google can understand more about your interests and serve up more relevant search results.

For instance, let's say that you have shown an interest in the topic of sport fishing in your search queries, while your neighbor has shown an interest in musical instruments in his search queries. Over time, as these preferences are made clear to the engine, your personalized search results for the term "bass" will largely be comprised of results that cover the fish while your neighbor's results for "bass" will be comprised of results that primarily cover the musical instrument.

At present, you need to have signed up for a Google service for your results to be personalized. Such services include Gmail, AdWords, Google Toolbar, and many others. By default, as long as you are signed in to one of these programs, your personal search data will be collected. The term "at present" is used because Google certainly could implement personalized search on any user of the engine, regardless of whether he or she has a Google account. Google already places a cookie, or unique identifier, on the machine of anyone who types in a search query on Google - it would not be hard for them to use that information, rather than the Google account, to collect individual user data and personalize results. It is quite possible that Google is testing the waters of personalized search with people who have opted in to one of its services, and will expand the system to all users if there is limited uproar or government intervention.

For search engine optimization firms, the major shift brought about by personalized search will be in how they report on Google ranking data to clients. When collecting this data, they will have to run from a "clean" machine - that is, one that has no Google programs or cookies on it. The baseline results that are reported to the client will essentially be a snapshot of what a search engine user would see if they had no Google software installed. The good news is that Google account holders who have shown an interest in certain products and services will likely have results more favorable to the client than the baseline results indicate since personalized search assures that their search histories will be reviewed and the results likely skewed toward the client's industry. The bad news is that the search engine optimization firm will be hard-pressed to demonstrate this - not to mention that the results that the client using a Google program has on its own personal machines will almost certainly not match up with the results that the firm is reporting (although the client machines should have better results, for the same reasons cited above).

Some people find the practice of storing information for personalized search purposes disturbing; others find the end result to be useful (still others find themselves experiencing an odd combination of both reactions). In defense of the engines, it is not as if they are building a dossier on individuals - again, you are only a number to them. However, the potential for misuse of the data is fairly high.

There are many advertising firms out there already that go through the cookies on your machine to figure out which ads will have the best effect on you. If you've ever been on a website and seen a banner ad that is directly related to something you have been doing research on lately, it is most likely not a coincidence. The ad platform simply browsed through the cookies on your machine to find out what topic held your interest, and dropped in a related ad once it determined what that topic was. Search engines have been buying firms with this technology lately; notable recent purchases include that of DoubleClick by Google and aQuantive by Microsoft. There seems to be little doubt that your search history will be combined with existing ad-serving technology to deliver even more relevant ads. Whether this constitutes misuse seems to be debatable - some people seem to have no problem with it, while it makes many others fairly uneasy.

Privacy issues that arise from personalized search are also a big question. The EU recently announced that it is probing into how long Google stores user information (this probe was subsequently extended to include all search engines). AOL recently committed a serious blunder when it released search data from 500,000 of its users, and it was discovered that it was fairly easy to identify many people by the search terms that they use (anybody ever "ego surf" - that is, type your own name into a search engine to see what comes up? If so, you wouldn't be hard to spot). In addition, since the IP address of the computer creating the query is also reportedly tracked, a court order forcing the engine and the ISP (Internet Service Provider) to provide specific search data on individuals is a distinct possibility - the technology required to deliver upon such a demand is already in use.

Unless the government intervenes, the question will probably be decided by personal preference. As it becomes more common knowledge that Google (and other engines) store this type of data to enable personalized search, many users will take measures to block its use.

Are the search engines that collect this data "Doing No Evil?" The answer, I believe, will depend on each individual's definition of evil. In the meantime, don't be surprised when you type in a search query, and the engine seems to be reading your mind. It isn't, really - it's merely parsing through your memories.

Microchips in humans: High-tech helpers or Big Brother surveillance?

AP | Aug 2, 2007
CityWatcher.com, a provider of surveillance equipment, attracted little notice itself -- until a year ago, when two of its employees had glass-encapsulated microchips with miniature antennas embedded in their forearms.

The "chipping" of two workers with RFIDs -- radio frequency identification tags as long as two grains of rice, as thick as a toothpick -- was merely a way of restricting access to vaults that held sensitive data and images for police departments, a layer of security beyond key cards and clearance codes, the company said.

"To protect high-end secure data, you use more sophisticated techniques," Sean Darks, chief executive of the Cincinnati-based company, said. He compared chip implants to retina scans or fingerprinting. "There's a reader outside the door; you walk up to the reader, put your arm under it, and it opens the door."

Innocuous? Maybe.

But the news that Americans had, for the first time, been injected with electronic identifiers to perform their jobs fired up a debate over the proliferation of ever-more-precise tracking technologies and their ability to erode privacy in the digital age.

To some, the microchip was a wondrous invention -- a high-tech helper that could increase security at nuclear plants and military bases, help authorities identify wandering Alzheimer's patients, allow consumers to buy their groceries, literally, with the wave of a chipped hand.

To others, the notion of tagging people was Orwellian, a departure from centuries of history and tradition in which people had the right to go and do as they pleased without being tracked, unless they were harming someone else.

Chipping, these critics said, might start with Alzheimer's patients or Army Rangers, but would eventually be suggested for convicts, then parolees, then sex offenders, then illegal aliens -- until one day, a majority of Americans, falling into one category or another, would find themselves electronically tagged.

Thirty years ago, the first electronic tags were fixed to the ears of cattle, to permit ranchers to track a herd's reproductive and eating habits. In the 1990s, millions of chips were implanted in livestock, fish, pets, even racehorses.

Microchips are now fixed to car windshields as toll-paying devices, on "contactless" payment cards (Chase's "Blink," or MasterCard's "PayPass"). They're embedded in Michelin tires, library books, passports and, unbeknownst to many consumers, on a host of individual items at Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

But CityWatcher.com employees weren't appliances or pets: They were people, made scannable.

"It was scary that a government contractor that specialized in putting surveillance cameras on city streets was the first to incorporate this technology in the workplace," says Liz McIntyre, co-author of "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID."

Darks, the CityWatcher.com executive, said his employees volunteered to be chipped. "You would think that we were going around putting chips in people by force," he told a reporter, "and that's not the case at all."

Implants in humans spark outrage

Yet, within days of the company's announcement, civil libertarians and Christian conservatives joined to excoriate the microchip's implantation in people.

"Ultimately," says Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate who specializes in consumer education and RFID technology, "the fear is that the government or your employer might someday say, 'Take a chip or starve."'

Some critics saw the implants as the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy that describes an age of evil in which humans are forced to take the "Mark of the Beast" on their bodies, to buy or sell anything. Others saw it as a big step toward the creation of a Big-Brother society.

"We're really on the verge of creating a surveillance society in America, where every movement, every action -- some would even claim, our very thoughts -- will be tracked, monitored, recorded and correlated," says Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Program at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington D.C.

In design, the tag is simple: A medical-grade glass capsule holds a silicon computer chip, a copper antenna and a "capacitor" that transmits data stored on the chip when prompted by an electromagnetic reader.

Implantations are quick, relatively simple procedures. After a local anesthetic is administered, a large-gauge, hypodermic needle injects the chip under the skin on the back of the arm, midway between the elbow and the shoulder.

John Halamka, an emergency physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, got chipped two years ago, "so that if I was ever in an accident, and arrived unconscious or incoherent at an emergency ward, doctors could identify me and access my medical history quickly." (A chipped person's medical profile can be continuously updated, since the information is stored on a database accessed via the Internet.)

Hazards and benefits

But it's also clear to Halamka that there are consequences to having an implanted identifier. "My friends have commented to me that I'm 'marked' for life, that I've lost my anonymity. And to be honest, I think they're right."

Indeed, as microchip proponents and detractors readily agree, Americans' mistrust of microchips and technologies like RFID runs deep. Many wonder:

Do the current chips have global positioning transceivers that would allow the government to pinpoint a person's exact location, 24-7? (No; the technology doesn't yet exist.)

But could a tech-savvy stalker rig scanners to video cameras and film somebody each time they entered or left the house? (Quite easily, though not cheaply. Currently, readers cost $300 and up.)

What's the average lifespan of a microchip? (About 10-15 years.) What if you get tired of it before then -- can it be easily, painlessly removed? (Short answer: No.)

How about thieves? Could they make their own readers, aim them at unsuspecting individuals, and surreptitiously pluck people's IDs out of their arms? (Yes. There's even a name for it -- "spoofing.")

The company that makes implantable microchips for humans, VeriChip Corp., of Delray Beach, Florida, concedes that's a problem -- even as it markets its radio tag and its portal scanner as imperatives for high-security buildings, such as nuclear power plants.

"To grab information from radio frequency products with a scanning device is not hard to do," Scott Silverman, the company's chief executive, says. However, "the chip itself only contains a unique, 16-digit identification number. The relevant information is stored on a database."

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been selling radio tags for animals for more than a decade, has sold 7,000 microchips worldwide, of which about 2,000 have been implanted in humans.

The company's present push: tagging of "high-risk" patients -- diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer's disease.

In an emergency, hospital staff could wave a reader over a patient's arm, get an ID number, and then, via the Internet, enter a company database and pull up the person's identity and medical history.

To doctors, a "starter kit" -- complete with 10 hypodermic syringes, 10 VeriChips and a reader -- costs $1,400. To patients, a microchip implant means a $200, out-of-pocket expense to their physician. Presently, chip implants aren't covered by insurance companies, Medicare or Medicaid.

For almost two years, the company has been offering hospitals free scanners, but acceptance has been limited. According to the company, 515 hospitals have pledged to take part in the VeriMed network, yet only 100 have actually been equipped and trained to use the system.

Some wonder why they should abandon noninvasive tags such as MedicAlert, a low-tech bracelet that warns paramedics if patients have serious allergies or a chronic medical condition.

"Having these things under your skin instead of in your back pocket -- it's just not clear to me why it's worth the inconvenience," says Westhues.

Silverman responds that an implanted chip is "guaranteed to be with you. It's not a medical arm bracelet that you can take off if you don't like the way it looks..."

In fact, microchips can be removed from the body -- but it's not like removing a splinter.

The capsules can migrate around the body or bury themselves deep in the arm. When that happens, a sensor X-ray and monitors are needed to locate the chip, and a plastic surgeon must cut away scar tissue that forms around the chip.

The relative permanence is a big reason why Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is suspicious about the motives of the company, which charges $20 a year for customers to keep one its database a record of blood type, allergies, medications, driver's license data and living-will directives. For $80 a year, it will keep an individual's full medical history.

Julian Huxley's Enviro-Eugenics Agenda Exposed on TV During Great Global Warming Swindle Debate

Environmental Movement Steeped in Eugenics and Land-Consolidation Agenda Aimed at Third World Population Control
Aaron Dykes / JonesReport.com | August 8, 2007

Australia hosted a televised debate to air out questions arising from the Great Global Warming Swindle-- a film that challenges the notion that humans are to blame for a crisis in changing temperatures.

One woman takes the opportunity to challenge the foundations of the environmental movement itself, and what agenda that may reveal-- particularly for the third world.

(CUE VIDEO TO 4:21 FOR RELEVANT QUESTION)

"I'd like to take the debate into another quick-- I mean, we've been debating the science here; we've not debated anything in terms of the credibility of the environmentalism movement. The environmentalist movement was formed by Sir Julian Huxley who was the founder of the Eugenics Society, the WWF and these other organizations are actually [offshoots] of that eugenics society. Now this has huge implications for developing countries. Is that the intention behind the environmentalist scam behind the global warming swindle?"

The woman's question is fielded by Greg Bourne, the CEO of the Australian branch of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), who basically ignores the substance of the question, claims that all concerns have been taken into consideration and asks that the audience please trust environmental movements to do good work. He rattles off meaningless claims about his friends in exotic-sounding countries.

Meanwhile, the WWF is implementing an agenda to consolidate 200 ecoregions worldwide and is one of the largest contributors to depopulation efforts worldwide. Both of these planks coincide with U.S. state department memos from1974 penned by Henry Kissinger.

Indeed, Julian Huxley was a top eugenicist from a very eugenics-friendly family (see T.H. Huxley). After eugenics was stripped of its good name in the post-World War II world, Huxley coined the term "transhumanism" to encompass eugenical beliefs inside a general belief in human "advancement" through scientific processes.

A number of other notable WWF heads may reveal some of the agenda at hand. Prince Bernhard, of the Netherlands, served as the first president of the fund from 1962-1976, and is certainly a nefarious character. He not only founded the Bilderberg group-- a shadowy organization that is pursuing world government and heavily influences the agenda of nearly every nation in the Western world-- Bernhard is also a former Nazi SS officer.

HRH Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Philip) was also a president of the WWF from 1981-1996. He stated more than once that: "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation"-- an idea that promotes a radical agenda, to say the least.

What indeed lies in the shadows of the environmental movement and what impact indeed will it have on the third world? Questions worth asking, even if the figureheads of our loving NGOs will not give a straight answer.

"Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Sir Julian Huxley, first director general of UNESCO (1946-1948)

Coming Soon: The Mother Of All 9/11 Truth Hit Pieces

History Channel, Popular Mechanics, NBC & Hearst Publishing team up for smear job as conflicts of interest run rife

Steve Watson & Paul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetThursday, August 2, 2007

An upcoming documentary entitled The 9/11 Conspiracies, to be aired on the History Channel, may represent the biggest hit piece to date on the 9/11 truth movement and is rife with bias, cronyism and conflicts of interest.';
An upcoming documentary entitled The 9/11 Conspiracies, to be aired on the History Channel, may represent the biggest hit piece to date on the 9/11 truth movement and is rife with bias, cronyism and conflicts of interest.
The so-called documentary promises not to look at the flaws in the official story from a neutral perspective but to start out by suggesting that any deviation from the official line is "outrageous".
The program also features so called independent "experts" who are actually in the employ of the program makers themselves who in turn rely on scores of multi-million dollar contracts with the government and the military-industrial complex.
The program, scheduled for Sunday, August 12 at 8:00 PM and Monday, August 13 at 12:00 AM, will feature Alex Jones, the Loose Change crew and other 9/11 researchers such as Professor Steven Jones and Webster Tarpley. One may therefore be forgiven for thinking the piece could allow for a fair representation of the 9/11 truth movement. However, a short blurb on the History Channel's website sets a rather familiar one sided tone (click for screenshot).
An Internet search for "9/11 conspiracy theories" yields nearly two million hits. Were the attacks on 9/11 perpetrated by the Bush Administration to advance its own interests? Could a government missile have hit the Pentagon? As outrageous as these ideas may sound, many people believe them. Why do these theories arise in the first place? An interview with James Meigs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who refutes many of these theories. Watch as experts in the fields of aeronautics, engineering and the military put these theories to the test.
This suggests that we should be prepared for more pseudo psychology as "experts" condescendingly explain why people turn to "conspiracy theories" for comfortable simple explanations of complicated world events. Maybe the History Channel will even seek the expert analysis of the former director of the X-files just as the BBC did in their own 9/11 hit piece which was broadcast earlier this year and received a great deal of criticism for its reliance on emotional bias and avoidance of the core issues.
In the same vein as the BBC piece, the new documentary will once again feature James Meigs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who is neither an expert on 9/11 research nor on engineering, but rather is an expert on yellow journalism and shilling for the Bush Administration.
Meigs has an illustrious pedigree that puts him right up there with the professors and scholars that have studied 9/11 and the architects who designed the WTC - we just can't decide which title to give prominence, his position on the editorial staff of that bastion of scientific empiricism Entertainment Weekly or the equally respected Video Review.
Meigs has flatly refused to debate 9/11 questions with either Alex Jones or the Loose Change producers and will now only appear unopposed.
Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Publishing. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst (pictured below) wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

Enter the term "yellow journalism" in the Encyclopedia Britannica and one of the first entries you will see is William Randolph Hearst. The listing attributes to Hearst a legacy of "distorted" and "lurid" reporting, and cites him as being hugely influential in fanning the flames of the Spanish-American war as a result of his newspaper's sensationalist yellow journalism.
Popular Mechanics is owned by the very corporation that defined yellow journalism!

Popular Mechanics is not politically independent nor is it non-partisan. Indeed, the foreword to Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths book was written by Republican Senator and presidential candidate John McCain.
In the foreword, McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did. "We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks the Arizona Senator.
Does this sound politically neutral to you?
In addition, Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 farce has been thoroughly debunked itself and shown to be nothing more than a strawman assault based around nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.
Hardly a good starting point for any serious or balanced investigation into 9/11 questions.
Further investigation into the makers of the new documentary also throws up a whole host of conflicts of interest.

Loose Change's Jason Bermas an Korey Rowe during taping for the upcoming History Channel hit piece.

Firstly, The History Channel is part of the A&E Television Network which is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%).
Immediately then it becomes apparent that the owners of Popular Mechanics are also the joint owners of the History Channel. Once again it is not a good starting point for a neutral investigation when the people you choose to represent one side of a factual debate are actually on the payroll.
No doubt there will be a great deal of advertising of Popular Mechanics' 9/11 debunking book within the so-called documentary in order to fatten up Hearst's profits.
Furthermore, the other joint owner of The History Channel, NBC Universal, is run by General Electric, the world's second largest corporation and one of the major players within the military industrial complex.
GE is a major supplier of arms and the “war on terrorism” has seen GE’s government and military contracts rise substantially to over $2.2 billion.
In short GE really has very little to gain and a great deal to lose from probing into questions concerning the possibility of 9/11 being a military intelligence operation to seed the "war on terror" and to justify a huge increase in military activity around the globe.
We spoke to the producer Brad Davis about the upcoming show and he refused to comment on the conflicts of interest, but did tell us in a previous conversation that the show would not be a hit piece, so we will reserve full judgement until the documentary is aired and then it will become immediately apparant if Mr. David was telling the truth or not.
On average the History channel has up to 10 million viewers prime time in the US alone and their programs repeat ad infinitum for years. Infowars and Prisonplanet.com will be all over this program as soon as it airs exposing and countering each and every lie and piece of misinformation it contains, just as we have done with every other hit piece so far.
In the meantime, it would be fairer if the History Channel add a proviso, as do CNN when they carry a story about their parent company Time Warner, that their upcoming show is nothing more than an infomercial for the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths and that any attempt to portray it as a neutral investigation would permanently taint the reputation of the channel as nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Bush administration in the same league as Fox News and Popular Mechanics.

Analyst: Al-Qaeda Videotapes Digitally Doctored

IntelCenter and As-Sahab logos added at same time, indicating Pentagon linked "middleman" is directly releasing Al-Qaeda videos
Prison Planet August 2, 2007 Paul Joseph Watson
An expert computer analyst has presented evidence that so-called "Al-Qaeda" tapes are routinely digitally doctored and has also unwittingly exposed an astounding detail that clearly indicates a Pentagon affiliated organization in the U.S. is directly responsible for releasing the videos.
"Neal Krawetz, a researcher and computer security consultant, gave an interesting presentation today at the BlackHat security conference in Las Vegas about analyzing digital photographs and video images for alterations and enhancements," reports Wired News .
"Using a program he wrote (and provided on the conference CD-ROM) Krawetz could print out the quantization tables in a JPEG file (that indicate how the image was compressed) and determine the last tool that created the image -- that is, the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image. "
Krawetz's most telling discovery comes in the form of a detail contained in a 2006 Ayman al-Zawahiri tape. From his analysis he concludes that the As-Sahab logo (the alleged media arm of Al-Qaeda) and the IntelCenter logo (a U.S. based private intelligence organization that "monitors terrorist activity") were both added to the video at the same time . This clearly indicates IntelCenter itself is directly creating or at least doctoring the Al-Qaeda tapes before their release. After all, why would Al-Qaeda terrorists be interested in branding their videos with the logo of a U.S. based organization that is run by individuals with close ties to the military-industrial complex?
In our previous groundbreaking investigation , we exposed IntelCenter, the middleman between "Al-Qaeda's media arm" and the press, and the organization that routinely obtains the tapes, as little more than a Pentagon front group staffed by individuals with close connections to Donald Rumsfeld and the U.S. war machine.
IntelCenter were also behind the release of the recent "new" Bin Laden tape , which in actual fact was old footage filmed in 2001 and had been released, including by IntelCenter itself, on no less than two previous occasions spanning back five years.
IntelCenter is run by Ben Venzke, former director of intelligence at a company called IDEFENSE , which is a Verisign company. IDEFENSE is a web security company that monitors intelligence from middle east conflicts and focuses on cyber threats among other things.
It is also heavily populated with long serving ex-military intelligence officials.
The Director of Threat intelligence, Jim Melnick, served 16 years in the US army and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and worked in psychological operations. From the IDEFENSE website:
Prior to joining iDefense, Mr. Melnick served with distinction for more than 16 years in the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency. During this period, Mr. Melnick served in a variety of roles, including psychological operations, international warning issues with emphasis on foreign affairs and information operations and Russian affairs. He also served in active political/military intelligence roles with an emphasis on foreign affairs. Mr. Melnick is currently a U.S. Army Reserve Colonel with Military Intelligence, assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Melnick has been published in numerous military and foreign affairs journals, and has received numerous military and DIA awards. Mr. Melnick has a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College, a Master of Arts in Russian studies from Harvard University, and a Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Political Science from Westminster College.
So here we have a company that by its own admission has ties to a senior military psy-op intelligence officer who has worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld. As Intelcenter and Ben Venzke are directly connected to IDEFENSE, this puts Rumsfeld just three steps away from the Al Qaeda propaganda videos.

The business of releasing Al-Qaeda tapes is also very profitable for IntelCenter, they charge well over $4,000 dollars a year for packages aimed at "Intelligence, Military and Federal agencies".
Add to this the fact that IntelCenter are digitally doctoring the videos and then adding the logo of a purported terrorist group before their release and the ramifications become clear - elements within the U.S. are patently editing if not directly creating "Al-Qaeda" tapes for their own purposes.
Al-Qaeda, or more accurately IntelCenter, always seem to make a point of releasing the videos at the most politically expedient times for the benefit of the Bush administration.
Whether it's to justify a war, win an election or divert from a scandal, Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri or their stooges can always be relied upon to come up with the goods and save Bush's bacon.
As soon as the 6 month wait and see period for the "surge" was up and right when Bush's last remaining Republican cheerleaders deserted him on Iraq, Bin Laden popped up to remind us all of the necessity of "staying the course" and winning the war on terror by feeding more troops into the meatgrinder.
Both Kerry and Bush attributed the President's 2004 re-election to Osama Bin Laden's appearance in a video tape just days before the vote. Veteran newsman Walter Cronkite mused that the whole farce was a Karl Rove orchestrated set-up.
On the eve of the Iraq war during Colin Powell's infamous presentation to the UN, an audio tape in which bin Laden claimed he was allied with Saddam Hussein surfaced, a gift-wrapped present for the Neo-Cons who had consistently been proven wrong in their assertion that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Ayman Al-Zawahiri appeared right on cue at the exact same time two years running , days before the State of the Union, to slam Bush as a "butcher" and a "failure." His timing is impeccable! Right when Bush needs to reinforce the fear of the shadowy enemy each January to mute his critics before the big speech, al-Zawahiri pops up with the goods. Krawetz's analysis ( view in PDF ) further concludes that different objects and green screen backgrounds have been artificially added to certain videos, including that of probable Mossad double agent Adam Pearlman , in order to "lend authority and reverence to the video".
The smoking gun remains the fact that the two logos, the As-Sahab "terrorist" media arm and the IntelCenter organization, were added at exactly the same time, meaning either that IntelCenter, with its close ties to the U.S. government and psychological operation, has terrorists on the payroll or that IntelCenter itself is doctoring and directly releasing Al-Qaeda propaganda tapes.
Both conclusions are equally disturbing and demand an immediate FBI investigation of IntelCenter and its owners.

ZEITGEIST

What does Christianity, 911 and The Federal Reserve have in common?

Cheney Says He Is A ‘Unique Creature,’ Refuses To Say He Is Part Of Executive Branch

Think Progress July 31, 2007

In June, House investigators revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney had exempted his office from an executive order order designed to safeguard classified national security information by claiming that the Office of the Vice President is not an “entity within the executive branch.”

After Congressional Democrats called his bluff by threatening to withhold funding from his office, the White House was forced to roll back their rhetoric, claiming “that the rationale had been the view of the vice president’s lawyers, not Cheney himself.”

But in an interview with CBS News’ Mark Knoller today, Cheney refused to say he was a member of the executive branch:

Mark Knoller: Are you part of the executive branch, sir?

Vice President Cheney: Well, the job of Vice President is an interesting one, because you have a foot in both the executive and the legislative branch. Obviously, I have an office in the West Wing of the White House, I am an adviser to the president, I sit as a member of the National Security Council. At the same time, under the constitution, I have legislative responsibilities. I’m actually paid by the Senate, not by the executive. […]

KNOLLER: But you are principally a part of the executive branch, are you not?

CHENEY: Well, I suppose you could argue it either way. The fact is I do work in both branches.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Cheney conceded that he was part of the executive branch during the two hours and five minutes he served as acting President two weeks ago while Bush was in surgery. Throughout the entire interview, however, he refused to say whether or not the Office of the Vice President itself was classified as part of the executive branch.

Cheney has been happy to treat the Office of the Vice President as part of the executive branch when it suits his political purposes:

- In 2001, the White House argued that a probe into Cheney’s energy task force “would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch.”

- Cheney himself said that the probe concerned “meetings in the Executive Branch between the Vice President and other individuals.”

- On April 9, 2003, Cheney lauded a recent court ruling, stating, “I think it restored some of the legitimate authority of the executive branch, the president and the vice president, to be able to conduct their business.”

Now that the political tempest over Cheney’s exemption of his office has subsided a bit, the Vice President is back to claiming he is a branch of government all to himself — or as he says it, “a unique creature” in constitutional government.

The full interview can be heard here.