February 29, 2012

Obama Issues ‘Policy Directive’ Exempting American Citizens from Indefinite Detention Under NDAA

Obama Issues ‘Policy Directive’ Exempting American Citizens from Indefinite Detention

As with an executive order, a presidential directive would not lose its legal effectiveness upon a change of administration. Rather, in our view, because a presidential directive issues from the Office of the Chief Executive, it would remain in force, unless otherwise specified, pending any future presidential action. Skeptics fear the president will lift the directive and still incarcerate US citizens under NDAA.

February 29, 2012

Infowars.com - Despite the fact that it was his administration that specifically demanded the controversial ‘indefinite detention’ provisions of the NDAA be applied to Americans, President Obama has issued a ‘Presidential Policy Directive’ that forbids the law from being used against US citizens.

A “fact sheet” released by the White House last night contains details of a “Presidential Policy Directive” which explains that the administration will not seek to use the so-called ‘kidnapping provision’ of the National Defense Authorization Act to incarcerate American citizens without trial.

“Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States,” states the White House fact sheet (PDF).

Obama’s PDD contains a number of other circumstances in which people would be exempt from indefinite detention, but the language concerning American citizens states that to be exempt, a US citizen must be “arrested in this country or arrested by a federal agency on the basis of conduct taking place in this country,” meaning Americans arrested abroad could still be kidnapped and held without trial.

The NDAA bill, which was signed into law by President Obama under the radar on New Years Eve while he was on vacation in Kailua, hands the federal government the power to “allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.”

There’s no doubt that this represents a victory for civil libertarians on both sides of the political spectrum, but skeptics will be keen to stress that just because the Obama administration, which could be out of office by this time next year, has indicated it will not indefinitely detain Americans under the NDAA, doesn’t necessarily mean that future administrations will also refrain from doing so.

Indeed, if the administration was so concerned about the indefinite detention provisions, why did it specifically lobby for them to be applied to American citizens in the first place?

As we documented at the time, shortly before the bill was signed into law, Senator Carl Levin revealed that it was the administration which demanded the removal of language that would have protected Americans from the ‘kidnapping’ provisions of the NDAA.

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Don’t expect Obama’s PDD to be the end of the matter. Senators John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) have already indicated that they will argue against exempting American citizens from indefinite detention.

“Although we have not been able to fully examine all the details of these new regulations, they raise significant concerns that will require a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee,” they said in a joint statement. “We are particularly concerned that some of these regulations may contradict the intent of the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress last year.”

In issuing the policy directive, Obama is attempting to head off a potential states’ rights rebellion against the federal government. With Virginia already having passed a bill in the House and Senate that nullifies the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, Utah has introduced a resolution with the ultimate intention of doing the same, along with several other states.

See: Obama Signs Phony ‘Policy Directive’: NDAA Still Applies to All Americans


Government, Not Terrorism, Poses the Threat

New Film Exposes the Blueprint of Madness Unleashed by the New World Order

COMING TO PRISONPLANET.TV: Alex Jones’ latest documentary turns the tables on fear: Government, not terrorism, poses the real threat.

February 29, 2012

PrisonPlanet.tv - A new documentary from Alex Jones definitively declares war against the attempts to control the population through a fear of false dangers. The facts are in– terrorism as a mass threat is a hoax. It is government, and the elite who control it, that pose the real threat to humanity. This new film will serve as evidence to the fact that government is history’s greatest killer– with various regimes claiming more than 262,000,000 unnatural deaths in the 20th Century alone. Now, a 21st century technocratic global corporate tyranny seeks to kill not mere millions but billions– through their superweapons, central banking warfare model and eugenics mindset.

New World Order: Blueprint of Madmen, which premiered to sold out audiences at the ‘Blueprint to Defeat the New World Order‘ twin events that took place in Dallas and Orlando this past week, will be available to PrisonPlanet.tv subscribers within hours and will later be available to the public, in hopes that it will serve as a warning.

Watch this preview of the film:

New World Order: Blueprint of Madmen (TRAILER)

The film begins with a humorous intro, mocking the false sense of power carried by those who serve the system in the name of spotting a terrorist. Alex Jones portrays an everyday citizen snitch in the service of government, reporting on potential terrorists who pay for coffee with cash or use the Internet in a cafe. He’s part of the “federal family” that “Big Sis” Janet Napolitano speaks of– part of a self-feeding paranoia that assumes anyone can be a terrorist anywhere, anytime. The FBI’s recent Communities Against Terrorism campaign embodies this, by continuing to paint a broad brush nationwide that demonizes ordinary citizens, returning veterans and political activists as potential terrorists and domestic extremists.

Forget the fear. Routine activities in life pose more danger than the Pentagon’s shadow puppet al Qaeda.

Instead, Alex reveals a host of statistics from ordinary life that have proven much more deadly. In short, these statistics make clear that terrorism is a complete hoax. It was deliberately created as a false alarm to secure funds for national security contractors building a Stasi state built to control the population through the power of “fear itself.”

But what are the REAL threats our society faces?

Alex turns the tables on the constant propaganda about a projected enemy. He documents proven academic research in Democide, or Death by Government, demonstrating that the real killers throughout history have always been in government. From Mao in Communist China, Stalin in the U.S.S.R., Hitler in Nazi Germany, Pol Pot under the Khmer Rouge and so many others, governments have killed more than 260 million people in just the last one hundred years.

Through this important documentary, you will understand how history’s mega-killers are now poised to kill not millions but billions in a new age of dominance under world government. The elite psychopathic rulers, along with their technocratic Renfield minions, are pursuing a transhumanist vision where they seek to become gods while the masses of humanity are sacrificed in the name of saving the earth, all while risking our very planet in their destructive experimentation.

The existing danger of government has been heightened by the designs of an elite trying to legitimize their corporate-driven world government system– launched in part to carry out the forcible reduction of the population.

Hidden behind another hoax, the very billionaires hailed as saints for their philanthropy have met in secret to ‘solve’ the overpopulation problem by pushing trojan horse vaccines, GMOs and other soft kill weapons on a global scale.

Bunkered down with Arctic seed vaults, endless wealth and private organic food supplies, the elite have in reality waged a war by siege, using food as a weapon to depopulate the earth. Studies confirm that pesticide-producing GMOs are linked to organ failure, sterility and other dangers, yet testing and even labeling of these engineered foods has been blocked by government regulators bought & paid for by Big Agra and Monsanto, putting the general public in harm’s way.

Yet privately, these same elite have been caught in a revealing hypocrisy: From David Rockefeller, to the Queen of England, Bill Gates and China’s ruling class or Monsanto’s own employees and research scientists, the very people pushing GMO refuse to eat it. The same is true for vaccines– as in the case where German politicians received a “clean” flu vaccine while exposing the public to the experimental live virus cocktail jab. This elite knows well the genocidal potential of these dangerous policies, as well as the effects of hundreds of other chemicals that have been spiked into our modern lifestyles. From fluoride, to BPA, aspartame and more, reducing fertility and inducing cancer has been underway for decades by design.

But covert poisoning of the population is only the beginning of the power elites’ megadeath design. The 21st Century happened upon us only after extensive testing and experimentation had long ago risked opening Pandora’s Box. Unlocking the codes to atomic energy, chemical and biological warfare, genetic engineering, etc., has already risked total existence of life on earth. Scientists theorized and tried the explosion of the atmosphere in the fifties. Today CERN’s super hadron collider and other high technology refuses to yield to the possibilities of a black hole and other phenomena while nanotech, genetic engineering and an unfolding age of viral warfare, including race-specific bioweapons, have again threatened to wipe out entire peoples. The “big prize” for these eugenicists is a 90-95% total population reduction, as called for repeatedly in their thoroughly documented Endgame strategy.

Yet they have been so reckless and destructive that not even the elite are safe. Full of hubris, they believe they are gods, but in fact are not. Like failed rulers before, their downfall will come from their arrogance. There is no way to truly contain many of the contagions that have already been released, or are waiting ready for deployment.

“One of the biggest threats we face is the fact that these eugenicists who run our governments have produced literally hundreds of superweapons, and are just waiting until they have their police state grid in place to release them,” Alex Jones states in the documentary.

Yes, they are poised and waiting to use the powers they’ve long built up. As a hand fits into a glove, the elite have wielded science and laboratory research, built up national security & emergency powers, conditioned us that humanity is a menace, and have prepared the masses to cling to government in a disaster, while toying always with destruction. Whether or not we stop these madmen will determine our future, our destiny as a species. What happens is up to you.

But this documentary is another powerful tool in exposing the false threats used by the elite to control us– powerful because it casts an even greater light on their own dangerous megalomaniacal quest for total power. It’s time to see through the propaganda and face the real threats to humanity.

Stockton, California Could Become Biggest City to Go Bankrupt

Stockton Could Become Biggest City to Go Bankrupt

February 29, 2012

AP - The city of Stockton in California's crop-abundant Central Valley has the second-highest foreclosure rate in the nation and one of the highest crime and unemployment rates. It was named America's most miserable city in a national magazine — twice.

And now, officials say this river port city of 290,000 is on the brink of insolvency and could become the nation's largest city to fall into Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.

The City Council voted late Tuesday to use a new California law to enter mediation with its creditors. City leaders said they hoped the plan to renegotiate Stockton's debt would help it avoid bankruptcy.

Dozens of residents spoke against the move, saying they feared it would do the opposite, KRCA-TV reported.

"If they vote for mediation, it is the first step towards bankruptcy," former City Manager Dwane Milnes said. "That means 1,000 people could lose retirement benefits."

Stockton will be the first city to test the state law, Assembly Bill 506, which is less than 2 months old. It requires local government agencies to undergo mediation or hold a public hearing and declare a fiscal emergency before filing for bankruptcy.

In 2008, Vallejo became the biggest California city to file for bankruptcy, and it emerged from bankruptcy last year.

In recent years, thousands of new homes mushroomed in Stockton, part of a housing boom in suburban development that attracted buyers from the Bay area and beyond.

But when the economy crashed and the construction bubble burst, Stockton was battered by foreclosures and lost income from property taxes and other fees. Multi-year labor contracts with escalating costs added to the burden, forcing officials to make deep emergency cuts to the city payroll, including its police department.

"It's been so challenging. Since 2008, the whole market was essentially turned upside down," said Randy Thomas, a Stockton real estate broker with the Cornerstone Real Estate Group. "A lot of folks were losing their homes. A lot of people were getting evicted, and it's been tough on a lot of people."

City leaders say Stockton could soon be unable to pay its debts. The city has a $15 million deficit — $6.6 million from the last fiscal year and $8.7 million expected for the current fiscal year, according to documents.

Forecasts also show deficits ranging from $20 million to $38 million for the fiscal year 2012-2013 and increasing in subsequent years.

Some residents are losing faith.

Marty Carlson, a waitress at Bradley's American Bistro in downtown Stockton, said business, along with her tips, has been on the decline for years. She's had enough, she said, and plans on leaving Stockton soon.

"They're (the city) not the only one going bankrupt," Carlson said. "It's time to move on. I'm ready."

Upper Classes ‘More Likely to Lie and Cheat’

Are Rich People Unethical?

February 28, 2012

ABC News - At last, an explanation for Wall Street's disgrace, Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme and other high-society crimes and misdemeanors: A new study published in the Proceedings of that National Academy of Sciences found that wealthier people were more apt to behave unethically than those who had less money.

Scientists at the University of California at Berkeley analyzed a person's rank in society (measured by wealth, occupational prestige and education) and found that those who were richer were more likely to cheat, lie and break the law than those who were poorer.

"We found that it is much more prevalent for people in the higher ranks of society to see greed and self-interest … as good pursuits," said Paul Piff, lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate at Berkeley. "This resonates with a lot of current events these days."

In the first of two studies, researchers found that those who drove more expensive cars (an admittedly questionable indicator of economic worth) were more likely to cut off other cars and pedestrians at a busy San Francisco four-way intersection than those who drove older, less-expensive vehicles.

In other experiments, wealthier study participants were more likely to admit they would behave unethically in a variety of situations and lie during negotiations. In another, researchers found wealthier people were more likely to cheat in an online game to win a $50 prize.

Greed is a "robust" determinant of unethical behavior, according to the study.

"This has some pretty clear implications," said Piff. "Inequality is very much on Americans' minds, and the potential effects of severe inequality on individual levels of behavior are major."

Large sums of money may give people greater feelings of entitlement, causing those people to be the most averse to wealth distribution, Piff continued. Poorer people may be less likely to cheat, because they are more dependent on their community at large, he said. In other words, they don't want to rock the boat.

"People in power who are more inclined to behave unethically in the service of gains and self-interest can have great effects on society as a whole," said Piff.

And it's difficult to say whether richer people get to the top because of their unethical behavior or whether wealth causes people to become this way.

"It seems like a vicious cycle," he said.

Nevertheless, Piff said these results obviously don't apply to all wealthy people. He noted that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett were among the wealthiest people in the world and also the most philanthropic. He also pointed to high rates of violent crime in the poorest neighborhoods in the country that counteract the study's findings.

Piff said he hoped to further his research by figuring out ways to curb these patterns of behavior among wealthier individuals.

"What it comes down to, really, is that money creates more of a self-focus, which may account for larger feelings of entitlement," said Piff. "We hope to further study how we can curb these patterns and how that will affect our social environment."

Upper Classes ‘More Likely to Lie and Cheat’

February 27, 2012

Telegraph - Members of the upper classes are more likely to lie, cheat and even break the law than people from less privileged backgrounds, a study has found.

In contrast, members of the “lower” classes appeared more likely to display the traditional attributes of a gentleman.

It suggests that the traditional notion of the upper class “cad” or “bounder” could have a scientific basis.

But psychologists at the University of California in Berkeley, who carried out the study, also suggested that the findings could help explain the origins of the banking crisis – with self-confident, wealthy bankers more likely to indulge in reckless behaviour.

The team lead by Dr Paul Piff, asked several groups of people from different social backgrounds to perform a series of tasks designed to identify different traits such as honesty and consideration for others. Each person was asked a series of questions about their wealth, schooling, social background, religious persuasions and attitudes to money in an attempt to put them into different classes.

The tasks included asking participants to pretend to be an employers conducting a job interview to test whether they would lie or sidestep awkward facts in pay negotiation.

They were told that the job might become redundant within six months but were encouraged conceal this from the interview candidate.

There was also an online game involving rolling dice in which participants they were asked to report their own score, thinking they would be in line for a cash prize for a higher score – and that no one was checking.

Members of another group were given a series of made-up scenarios in which people spoke about doing something unethical at work to benefit themselves and then questioned to assess how likely they were to do likewise.

The scientists also carried out a series of observations at a traffic junction in San Francisco.

Different drivers’ social status was assessed on the basis of what car they were driving as well as visible details such as their age.

Those deemed to be better off appeared more likely to cut up other drivers and less likely to stop for pedestrians.

Overall the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that those from richer or powerful backgrounds appeared greedier, more likely to lie in negotiation and more likely to cheat.

Being in a higher social class – either by birth or attainment – had a “causal relationship to unethical decision-making and behaviour”, they concluded.

Dr Piff concluded that having an elevated social rank were more likely to display “self focused” behaviour patterns than those from more modest backgrounds, were less aware of others, and were less good at identifying the emotions of others.

He said that the findings appeared to bear out the teachings of Aristotle, Plato and Jesus that greed is at the root unethical behaviour.

“On the one hand, lower-class individuals live in environments defined by fewer resources, greater threat and more uncertainty,” he said.

“It stands to reason, therefore, that lower-class individuals may be more motivated to behave unethically to increase their resources or overcome their disadvantage.

“A second line of reasoning, however, suggests the opposite prediction: namely, that the upper class may be more disposed to the unethical.

“Greater resources, freedom, and independence from others among the upper class give rise to self-focused social cognitive tendencies, which we predict will facilitate unethical behaviour.

“Historical observation lends credence to this idea. For example, the recent economic crisis has been attributed in part to the unethical actions of the wealthy.

“Religious teachings extol the poor and admonish the rich with claims like, ‘It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven’.”

See: The World's Richest Give Billions to Remake the World in Their Image

Democracies Rarely or Never Elect the Best Leaders and the Tiny Elite Ruling the World Will Succeed in World Government Because People Aren't Smart Enough to Figure It Out

People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

February 28, 2012

LiveScience.com - The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.

As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them.

On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.

He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. Whether the researchers are testing people's ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as "above average" — even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It]

We're just as undiscerning about the skills of others as about ourselves.

"To the extent that you are incompetent, you are a worse judge of incompetence in other people," Dunning said.
In one study, the researchers asked students to grade quizzes that tested for grammar skill.
"We found that students who had done worse on the test itself gave more inaccurate grades to other students."
Essentially, they didn't recognize the correct answer even when they saw it.

The reason for this disconnect is simple:

"If you have gaps in your knowledge in a given area, then you’re not in a position to assess your own gaps or the gaps of others," Dunning said.
Strangely though, in these experiments, people tend to readily and accurately agree on who the worst performers are, while failing to recognize the best performers.

The most incompetent among us serve as canaries in the coal mine signifying a larger quandary in the concept of democracy; truly ignorant people may be the worst judges of candidates and ideas, Dunning said, but we all suffer from a degree of blindness stemming from our own personal lack of expertise.

Mato Nagel, a sociologist in Germany, recently implemented Dunning and Kruger's theories by computer-simulating a democratic election. In his mathematical model of the election, he assumed that voters' own leadership skills were distributed on a bell curve — some were really good leaders, some, really bad, but most were mediocre — and that each voter was incapable of recognizing the leadership skills of a political candidate as being better than his or her own. When such an election was simulated, candidates whose leadership skills were only slightly better than average always won.

Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."

Obamacare and the Individual Mandate to Purchase Insurance: Powers Not Granted to the Federal Government via the U.S. Constitution are Reserved to the States; Absolute Power Given to the Feds Leads to Tyranny

Gallup Poll: 72 Percent of Americans Call Individual Mandate ‘Unconstitutional’

February 29, 2012

The Daily Caller - Even among Americans who support President Obama’s health care overhaul, a large majority believe that the law is out of step with the U.S. Constitution, a Gallup poll released Monday revealed.

The poll, conducted Feb. 20-21, indicates that 72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate — the government’s requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance — is unconstitutional. Even among Americans who feel the president’s health care law is a “good thing,” 54 percent think the provision is unconstitutional.

Just 37 percent of Democrats said the individual health care mandate is constitutional. A mere 6 percent of Republicans and 21 percent of Independents agreed.

The poll question read, “As you may know, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month concerning a requirement in the healthcare law that every American must buy health insurance or pay a fine. Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the law, do you think this requirement is constitutional or unconstitutional?”

“The individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional,” Northwestern University Law School Professor Stephen Presser told The Daily Caller. “All you have to do is read the Tenth Amendment, which says the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states … and the founders meant that.”
The Obama administration touts the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as one of its most significant achievements. That law, however, has yet to attract a groundswell of support from a majority of the American people.

(RELATED: Full coverage of the health care law)

Additionally, 27 U.S. states have filed lawsuits against the federal government over the law, and a new battle is brewing over the so-called “contraception mandate” found in the bill. That provision threatens to force religious employers to provide health insurance that includes access to contraceptives and abortion-inducing medications that conflict with some faiths’ teachings.

A critical showdown for President Obama’s health care law will be a series of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments beginning on March 26. Arguments will span across three days with the individual mandate set for discussion on day two.

Some experts remain unconvinced that the individual mandate is an example of the federal government overreaching its authority.

Southern Methodist University law professor Nathan Cortez said that because the health care industry makes up one-sixth of the U.S. economy, the U.S. Constitution’s so-called “commerce clause” gives the federal government the authority to enforce the individual mandate.

Cortez told TheDC on Tuesday that the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate not only obvious things, such as products sold across state lines, but activities that substantially affect interstate commerce — including modern healthcare – even if the activities themselves are local.
“There is not much debate that health care is truly a national problem, not a local one,” he explained. “The mandate is a good way to solve some of our systemic problems [by] creating a more coherent health care system.”
The commerce clause is one of the most widely used constitutional arguments in support of the Affordable Care Act, though Presser said it isn’t a very convincing one.
“The commerce clause does not in any way attempt to overrule the Tenth Amendment,” he told TheDC. “If the federal government starts mandating that we buy things, they begin to wield a sort of power that the Tenth Amendment can no longer keep in check. And absolute power leads to tyranny.”
The Gallup poll, consisting of a random sample of 1,040 people, also revealed that only 24 percent of all Americans — including 40 percent of Democrats and just 3 percent of Republicans — believe that the health care law would improve their families’ health care situations.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.


February 28, 2012

53 U.S. States and Territories are Embracing REAL ID

REAL ID Implementation

Februray 21, 2012

PRNewswire via COMTEX - Annual Report Finds Major Progress in Securing Driver's License Issuance Against Identity Theft and Fraud

The Center for Immigration Studies has released its second comprehensive assessment of the status of secure driver's license standards. The report fills a void left by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has been silent on the implementation of state license standards in the REAL ID Act of 2005.

The report concludes that by the deadline of January 13, 2013, 36 of the 56 jurisdictions (50 states, Washington D.C., and the five island territories) will be substantially or materially or fully compliant with REAL ID, even if there remains a wide gap between the strongest of state systems and the weakest.

The report is online at: http://cis.org/real-id-implementation-report

This assessment is by Janice Kephart, former 9/11 Commission counsel and National Security Policy Director at the Center. It covers state driver's license improvements in line with the REAL ID Act, including: overall compliance, production of tamper-resistant cards, verifying and protecting identity before and after issuance, secure card production, and federal funding.

The data is compiled in a chart that forms the heart of the report. Chart analysis shows that

(1) states see value in pursuing REAL ID standards because the improvements reduce identity theft and fraud, increase efficiencies, improve customer service, and support law enforcement;

(2) states are paying for those improvements with their own budgets outside of federal grant monies; and

(3) states are often exceeding REAL ID minimum standards in order to achieve more complete credentialing security.

Specifically, this study finds that:

In overall compliance, 53 states and territories are embracing REAL ID or the technical tenets of REAL ID; 5 states have submitted REAL ID compliance packages to DHS with a total of 36 materially or substantially materially compliant now or likely will be by the REAL ID deadline of January 15, 2013.

At least 43 jurisdictions are issuing tamper-resistant cards;

In identity verification and protection:

51 are checking SSNs and the remaining five are currently getting online;

47 are registered with DHS to check legal presence through the SAVE database;

only 5 motor vehicle agencies intend to check vital records prior to issuing a driver's license despite nearly all vital record agencies having digitized their birth and death records and 36 having installed the EVVE network that enables interstate queries;

In secure card issuance:

32 are issuing their cards from secure or central locations;

38 have installed facial recognition software to help reduce fraud and support law enforcement; this technology is expensive and not required by REAL ID.

The states contacted for this report said they no longer have guidance or support from DHS in implementing REAL ID. The Center for Immigration Studies is not in a position to determine the accuracy of state assertions about compliance; instead, the report focuses on states' self-assessments as to whether benchmarks are met. Thus, the possibility for error exists. Suggestions for corrections from state motor vehicle agencies are welcome.

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institute that examines the impact of immigration on the United States.

CONTACT: Janice Kephart, jlk@cis.org, +1-202-466-8185

SOURCE Center for Immigration Studies

Implantable Microchip May Replace Daily Medical Injections

MIT Chip May Replace Repeated Immunizations

February 21, 2012

baylorlariat.com - There might be a sigh of relief coming from doctors and patients in the next few years.

Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are developing a microchip that could eventually take the place of required daily medical injections for people with chronic diseases.

The chip has 20 tiny reservoirs that hold a prescribed drug and is programmed to release a dose into the body whenever the patient needs it up to once daily for 20 days. Doctors can reprogram the chip with a remote from outside the body in case the dosage needs to be changed.

The first successful test of this chip in a human was announced last Thursday. The MIT researchers tested the chip on a group of eight women, ages 65 to 70, and found there were no foreseeable side effects. The subjects did not have discomfort and the doses were accurate.

The chip is less than 2 inches long and is implanted under the skin in a regular doctor’s office using a local anesthetic.

It is not the first invention of its kind, but it is supposedly more reliable than previous under-skin pumps since it proved equally as effective as daily injections, Michael Cima, professor of engineering at MIT, said.

Diabetics, the most obvious candidates for this treatment, could not use the device to replace insulin injections, because insulin molecules are not small enough to fit into the chip. However, they could potentially keep a medicine in the chip for emergencies, if they install a sensor to detect low blood sugar, Cima said.

Implanted treatments sometimes give people the illusion that their problems are solved, Dr. Lauren Barron, lecturer in medical humanities at Baylor, said.

“But that’s not the case,” she said. “In some cases, you need more vigilance to make sure it’s working properly.”

Barron also said the needles people usually use for the daily injections they give themselves are so small that the shots are not nearly as onerous as they used to be.

Dr. Sharon Stern, medical director at Baylor’s health clinic, believes there could be a problem with the medicines being stored in a chip inside the body because “most medicines are kept at a considerably lower temperature to increase shelf life.”

Stern also said it will take years of testing for scientists to determine whether there are negative side effects or major risks.

“Biomedical engineering is fascinating and may reveal the future of medicine,” she said. “However, scientists are cautious and repeat studies many times in order to make sure that all devices are safe and effective.”

There could be other complications, like the inability for patients to have an MRI because of the metal in their body, Barron said.

Also, infections or allergic reactions could be an issue.

“If you have a bad reaction to a pill, we can just discontinue it,” she said. “If it’s implanted in your skin, it’s harder.”

Barron also said absorption of drugs can vary based on a person’s body composition, and that physical things like “bumping around on a tractor in a field” could affect how well the chip works.

“It’s a brilliant idea, and we’ve had success with implanted things like pacemakers and insulin pumps, but it wouldn’t erase the person’s need to be aware and take care of themselves in other ways,” Barron said. “Lifestyle changes can be powerful for treating many medical problems.”

Agenda 21 Targets American Lifestyle

Insidious Agenda 21 Targets American Lifestyle

February 15, 2012

Letters to the Editor/The News of Cumberland County - Agenda 21 was born in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 during the United Nations Earth Summit.

The Secretary General of that summit, Maurice Strong, said,
“Current lifestyle and consumption patterns of the affluent middleclass involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, homes or work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
Basically saying that the American lifestyle, liberty, production, and our way of living is bad and is unsustainable. It is outrageous that some U.N. official assumes the right to tell Americans what they should and should not do and how they should live.

Knowing that Americans would not stand for this program, the UN insidiously slipped Agenda 21 into our political and economic systems with the purpose of undermining our Constitution and our right to self-governance, our right to own private property and to use that property as we see fit. Agenda 21 is huge, complex and consists of numerous tentacles. It was designed to be complex to make it hard for the average citizen to recognize and oppose it.

One such tentacle is “sustainable development.” Sustainable development is the step-by-step abolition of American private property, primarily through the implementation of the Wild Lands Project and Smart Growth. It also wants to educate our children to prepare them for “global citizenship.”

Further, sustainable development seeks to control and ultimately reduce human population. The United Nations define sustainable development as one that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

What that means is the “needs” they mentioned refers not to human needs but to the needs of the “planet.”

It concludes we can only meet these needs by “eliminating or reducing activities (like the lifestyles of Americans) that are “unsustainable.”

It is important that Americans make learning about Agenda 21 a high priority. Contact their local, state and federal officials to find out where they stand on Agenda 21. More information can be found at the following websites:



Germany is Looting Greece

Just Loan the Greeks Some More Money

February 25, 2012

Vox Popoli - Greece will be fine. A little bureaucratic red tape is no hindrance to business. The Greek economy is merely a little light on liquidity, otherwise it would be growing like gangbusters.

As e-commerce continues to gain ground apace abroad, and even Greeks seem to be warming to the idea of Internet shopping, opening an online store based in Greece is no job for the fainthearted.

“An online store is more complicated than a regular store basically because of the way payments are carried out,” explained Fotis Antonopoulos, one of the co-founders of www.oliveshop.com, which sells olive oil-based products such as cosmetics, mostly to foreign markets.

Antonopoulos and his partners spent hours collecting papers from tax offices, the Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the municipal service where the company is based, the health inspector’s office, the fire department and banks. At the health department, they were told that all the shareholders of the company would have to provide chest X-rays, and, in the most surreal demand of all, stool samples.

Once they climbed the crazy mountain of Greek bureaucracy and reached the summit, they faced the quagmire of the bank, where the issue of how to confirm the credit card details of customers ended in the bank demanding that the entire website be in Greek only, including the names of the products.

I wish everyone who still believes that government can provide the solution to anything, including the very small number of tasks that the U.S. government is Constitutionally responsible for carrying out, was forced to open an online store in Greece before being permitted to vote.

By the time the Germans have finished looting Greece, it will probably be necessary for Greeks to have their stool samples manually extracted by American TSA agents contracted out to the IMF before they are provided with their licenses to collect a daily subsistence ration.

Father Arrested, Strip Searched After Daughter Draws Picture of Toy Gun at School

A father is demanding answers from police after he was arrested because his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a handgun in class. Jessie Sansone, 26, arrived to Forest Hills public school in Waterloo, Ontario to pick up his daughter, Neaveh, when he was hauled to a station and strip-searched. No charges were filed, however, a voluntary search of the family home uncovered no more than a plastic toy gun. [Source]

Canadian Man Shocked by Arrest After Daughter Draws Picture of Gun at School

February 24, 2012

therecord.com - A plastic toy gun is to blame for the mayhem that saw a man arrested at his daughter’s school this week.

A Kitchener father is upset that police arrested him at his children’s’ school Wednesday, hauled him down to the station and strip-searched him, all because his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun at school.

“I’m picking up my kids and then, next thing you know, I’m locked up,” Jessie Sansone, 26, said Thursday.

“I was in shock. This is completely insane. My daughter drew a gun on a piece of paper at school.”

The school principal, police and child welfare officials, however, all stand by their actions. They said they had to investigate to determine whether there was a gun in Sansone’s house that children had access to.

“From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child,” said Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services.

Waterloo Regional Police Insp. Kevin Thaler said there was a complaint from Forest Hills public school that “a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.” Their concern wasn’t based on the drawing alone, he said.

Neaveh, the child who made the drawing, also made comments about it that raised more flags.

Sansone thinks police overreacted. He didn’t find out until hours after his arrest what had actually sparked the incident.

He said he went to the school Wednesday afternoon to pick up his three children. He was summoned to the principal’s office where three police officers were waiting. They said he was being charged with possession of a firearm.

He was escorted from the school, handcuffed and put in the back of a cruiser.

At the same time, other police officers went to his home, where his wife and 15-month-old child were waiting for his return.

They made his wife come to the police station while the other three children were taken to Family and Children’s Services to be interviewed.

“Nobody was given any explanation,” said his wife, Stephanie Squires. “I didn’t know why he was being arrested.

“He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them. ‘You’re making a mistake.’ ”

At the police station, Sansone talked to a lawyer who said only that he was being charged with possession of a firearm, Sansone said.

He kept asking questions. He was given a blanket and told he would appear before a judge in the morning to post bail.

“I was getting pretty scared at that point,” Sansone said. “It seemed like I was actually being charged at this point.”

He was forced to remove his clothes for a full strip search. Several hours later, a detective apologized and said he was being released with no charges, Sansone said.

The detective told him that his four-year-old daughter had drawn a picture of a man holding a gun. When a teacher asked her who the man was, the girl replied,

“That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”

“To be honest with you, I broke down,” Sansone said. “My character got put down so much. I was actually really hurt, like it could happen that easy.

“How do you recognize a criminal from a father?’’

He said he thought he had good relations with the principal who offered him a job last year counselling students at the school.

“We’re educated,’’ he said. “I’m a certified PSW (personal support worker) and a life issues counsellor. I go into schools to try to make a difference.’’

After he was released, Sansone was asked to sign a paper authorizing a search of his home. He signed, even though he didn’t have to, he said.

“I just think they blew it out of proportion,’’ Squires said. “It was for absolutely nothing. They searched our house upside down and found nothing. They had the assumption he owned a firearm.

“The way everything happened was completely unnecessary, especially since we know the school very well. I don’t understand how they came to that conclusion from a four-year-old’s drawing.’’

Scott, of Family and Children’s Services, said the agency was obligated to investigate after getting a report from the school.

“Our community would have an expectation if comments are made about a gun in a house, we’d be obligated to investigate that to ensure everything is safe.”

If there’s a potential crime that’s been committed, the agency must call in police, she said

“In the end, it may not be substantiated. There may be a reasonable explanation for why the child drew that gun. But we have to go on what gets presented to us.

“I’m sure this was a very stressful thing for the family,” she acknowledged.

The school principal, Steve Zack, said a staff member called child welfare officials because the law requires them to report anything involving the safety or neglect of a child.

The agency chose to involve police, he said.

“Police chose to arrest Jessie here. Nobody wants something like this to happen at any time, especially not at school. But that’s out of my hands.”

Sansone says he got into some trouble with the law five years ago, and was convicted of assault and attempted burglary. But he’s put all that behind him. He never had any firearms-related charges.

As for the strip search, Thaler said it was done “for officer safety, because it’s a firearms-related incident.

“At the point in the investigation when it was determined it was not a real firearm, the individual was released unconditionally,” he said.

U.S. Government is Monitoring Social Media for Dissent

Homeland Security Manual Lists Government Key Words for Monitoring Social Media, News

February 25, 2012

Huffington Post - Ever complain on Facebook that you were feeling "sick?" Told your friends to "watch" a certain TV show? Left a comment on a media website about government "pork?"

If you did any of those things, or tweeted about your recent vacation in "Mexico" or a shopping trip to "Target," the Department of Homeland Security may have noticed.

In the latest revelation of how the federal government is monitoring social media and online news outlets, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has posted online a 2011 Department of Homeland Security manual that includes hundreds of key words (such as those above) and search terms used to detect possible terrorism, unfolding natural disasters and public health threats. The center, a privacy watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request and then sued to obtain the release of the documents.

The 39-page "Analyst's Desktop Binder" used by the department's National Operations Center includes no-brainer words like ""attack," "epidemic" and "Al Qaeda" (with various spellings). But the list also includes words that can be interpreted as either menacing or innocent depending on the context, such as "exercise," "drill," "wave," "initiative," "relief" and "organization."

These terms and others are "broad, vague and ambiguous" and include "vast amounts of First Amendment protected speech that is entirely unrelated to the Department of Homeland Security mission to protect the public against terrorism and disasters," stated the Electronic Privacy Information Center in letter to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

The manual was released by the center a week after Homeland Security officials were grilled at a House hearing over other documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that revealed analysts were scrutinizing online comments that "reflect adversely" on the federal government.

Mary Ellen Callahan, the chief privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, and Richard Chavez, director for the National Operations Center, testified that the released documents were outdated and that social media was monitored strictly to provide situational awareness and not to police disparaging opinions about the federal government. On Friday, Homeland Security officials stuck by that testimony.

A senior Homeland Security official who spoke to The Huffington Post on Friday on condition of anonymity said the testimony of agency officials last week remains "accurate" and the manual "is a starting point, not the endgame" in maintaining situational awareness of natural and man-made threats. The official denied Electronic Privacy Information Center's charge that the government is monitoring dissent. The manual's instruction that analysts should identify "media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities" was not aimed at silencing criticism but at spotting and addressing problems, she added.

Still, the agency agrees that the manual's language is vague and in need of updating. For instance, under terrorism watchwords, the manual lists "Hamas" and "Hezbollah" but also the "Palestinian Liberation Organization." The PLO was once considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government but now that it has a diplomatic mission in Washington and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has met with presidents Bush and Obama, the inclusion of this term could be deemed questionable.

"To ensure clarity, as part of ... routine compliance review, DHS will review the language contained in all materials to clearly and accurately convey the parameters and intention of the program," agency spokesman Matthew Chandler told HuffPost.

The Huffington Post was given a sample of the social media nuggets and news reports picked up by Homeland Security analysts by using its watchword list. An internal report circulated by the agency on Feb. 17 to top officials indicated it had collected reports about everything from hotels in Nigeria increasing security as the terrorist group Boko Haram regroups to the arrest of a Bakersfield, Calif., teen in connection with a bomb plot. Other reports covered subjects including a multi-vehicle crash that resulted in the closing of I-85 in North Carolina, a norovirus outbreak at George Washington University, a suspicious package at an Alabama courthouse and an evacuation of a school in New York City's Bronx borough as a result of an unknown substance.

Read the Homeland Security manual here:


Watch a video of Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), chairing a hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence about the Department of Homeland Security's monitoring of social media.

Get Your Kids Out of the Government Schools

Our Kids Are Not Learning Anything In Public Schools

February 28, 2012

End of the American Dream - It should be painfully obvious to everyone by now that it is time to get all of our kids out of the government schools. The public school system in the United States has been dramatically declining for a long time, and in most areas of the country the public schools are open sewers at this point.

Yes, there are some U.S. public schools that are still very good and that do a decent job of preparing our young people for their adult lives. But those good schools are the exception to the rule.

Hopefully the school shooting that just happened in Ohio will be a wake up call to millions of parents out there. Drugs, sex and violence are rampant in American public schools today.

The "teachers" are endlessly pushing specific political and social agendas down the throats of our kids, and the skills that our children really need such as reading, writing and mathematics are often badly neglected.

Hopefully we can get more parents educated about what is really going on in these schools. After all, why would any parents want to send their children into an environment that is going to be highly destructive for them for six to eight hours a day?

Sadly, "destructive" is not too hard a word to use for the environment in these public schools. I went to public schools all my life, and they were absolutely horrible. Unfortunately, they have gotten even worse since the time that I left them.

As I have documented before, American public school students are being dumbed-down and millions of them end up dumb as a rock and yet still are able to graduate from high school somehow….

The following are some of the absolutely amazing results of a study conducted a few years ago by Common Core….

*Only 43 percent of all U.S. high school students knew that the Civil War was fought some time between 1850 and 1900.

*More than a quarter of all U.S. high school students thought that Christopher Columbus made his famous voyage across the Atlantic Ocean after the year 1750.

*Approximately a third of all U.S. high school students did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion. (This is a topic that I touched on yesterday).

*Only 60 percent of all U.S. students knew that World War I was fought some time between 1900 and 1950.

Sadly, we are rapidly falling behind the rest of the globe. At this point, 15-year-olds that attend U.S. public schools do not even rank in the top half of all advanced nations when it comes to math or science literacy.

Click Here for the 10 Other Reasons To Get Your Kids Out Of The Government Schools


Public Schools are Quasi-prison Facilities Organized Along the Same Principles as Factory Farming

Granting of Power to Bureaucrats is an Inherently Evil Thing That Must be Limited If Freedom is to Survive

A Government That Knows No Bounds

February 27, 2012

News With Views - The freedom to choose unmolested by government agents has long defined liberty for the American people. This administration has no love of that liberty and regards use of government, for any end deemed by state planners in the public interest, fully justified (even if it comes at the loss of individual liberty).

This past month North Carolina agents from the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services were on a mission given them by the federal government. They were in receipt of new school lunch rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under those regulations, memorialized in a January 26, 2012 USDA Final Rule, state and local administrators of the federal school lunch program are required to take steps to “enhance the diet and health of school children, and help mitigate the childhood obesity trend.” Moving beyond redefining the content of federally funded lunches offered in the schools, the new rule deputizes state authorities to audit school menus and instantaneously compel alterations of meals if they do not meet federal standards.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack embraced this food fascism with authoritarian zeal. Appearing on ABC’s Good Morning America, Vilsack explained,

“[t]he more we can reinforce the right set of choices and encourage the right set of choices, the greater the chances are that we will get a handle on obesity.”
As if in proof of the ridiculousness inherent in any system that dictates the kinds of foods Americans may eat, Vilsack digressed,
“[t]his doesn’t mean that we are going to eliminate treats, not at all. But it is a circumstance, situation where treats have a special meaning, a special occasion, a special circumstance that we celebrate with a treat.”
Perhaps the birthday of Barack Obama would suffice as that special occasion.

Equipped with new rules and federal encouragement to transform the public school cafeteria, North Carolina DHHS agents descended on West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford. After thoroughly investigating the foods in the lunch room, the dutiful state agent then examined the lunch box held by one petite four year old preschooler. He identified a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips, and apple juice.

Brilliant as these agents so often are, and feeling empowered (feeling his oats to use a metaphor drawing from the grain group), the agent pronounced the home lunch deficient. He ordered the girl not to eat it. He made her eat the school lunch instead, thereby exercising his new federally backed power to ensure that every child receives all foods required to meet the national nutritional standard. This state agent did his part to save a skinny girl from an impending risk of obesity. Secretary Vilsack should be proud. His Gestapo like transformation of the school cafeteria is taking place.

Forced to buy the “official” school lunch, the petite girl examined the fare offered and decided it was not to her liking. She consumed three chicken nuggets from among the “official” offerings and rejected everything else. She does not like vegetables, according to her mother. Mom prepares delectable concoctions that include veggies that the little girl eats at home.

Thus far in the insinuation of government control over the school menu, the little girl was not kept under state supervision while she ate and was not manacled and forced to take her veggies intravenously when she rejected the state offerings (but wait and see what tomorrow brings).

When the little girl returned home, she presented her mother with a $1.25 bill for the school lunch, and she returned to her mother the lunch from home, the “officially” rejected lunch. Her mother decided not to take this lying down, probably because she thought she lived in a country that protected her right to feed her child as she thought best.

In the Carolina Journal Online, reporter Sara Burrows quotes the mother’s statements to her state representative G. L. Pridgen,

“I don’t feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home.”
Indeed. Her daughter had been traumatized by a state agent who made her feel guilty for the food she customarily consumed, and that for a lunch which, in the end, actually met the federal guidelines! The meal contained one serving of meat, one serving of dairy, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit.

The agent, uh, messed up (as happens all too often). He apparently misunderstood that the rule requires two servings of fruit OR of vegetables. The word is not “and,” it’s “or.” It appears to be okay for North Carolina’s DHHS agents to be incapable of comprehending what they read, because the wayward DHHS agent retains his job.

I suspect that few of the North Carolina DHHS agents eat as well as the typical grade school student. I doubt that even Secretary Vilsack eats from all of the major food groups at every meal.

You see rarely do the dictator’s own rules apply to the dictator. Rather, the dictator is free and all the rest of us are slaves.

Although the North Carolina DHHS agent apparently lacked the brain power necessary to discern what the new food rule required, that did not stop him from employing his newly granted enforcement powers against a defenseless toddler. When in doubt, act.

Jonathan M. Seidl of The Blaze contacted the North Carolina Division of Child Development to inquire of Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division, whether the little girl’s lunch from home satisfied the federal guidelines. The answer:

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy . . . . It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.”

The point amply illustrated by this example of tyranny is that a grant of power is an inherently evil thing that must be limited if freedom is to survive. The freedom of a parent to decide what his or her child eats is, of course, basic. Federal deprivation of it, through the vehicle of complicit state agents, constitutes a gross violation of rights, one that no one respectful of liberty would ever commit. It is this administration, and ultimately President Barack Obama, who must account for this national violation of a most basic right.

If we focus on this abuse alone, it proves the Obama administration’s utter disregard for constitutional limits on federal government power and amply justifies making President Obama’s a single term presidency.

Sadly, the abuse visited upon this sweet four year old is typical of the abuses of the federal government against other law abiding Americans, throughout Obama’s presidency. There is no exercise of freedom this administration believes off limits for the federal government, no private decision it thinks government cannot regulate and “improve upon,” not even the choice of what foods a mother deems best for her child.

February 27, 2012

Elite Campaign to Re-Elect Obama in Full Swing?

This year's the run-of-the-mill campaigns by all of the GOP presidential candidates other than Ron Paul and their rhetoric are nothing new; it has been the same old story and false paradigm on display every four years for almost 100 years. Our legitimate government and rule by the people was overthrown in 1913 by banking interests who created the Federal Reserve and Federal Income Tax. This 2012 GOP presidential nomination campaign ritual (that actually began in early 2011) is coming to a close. Historically, presidential campaigns and the pre-approved chosen-ones battle in the arena of democracy, with the candidate finally chosen by the false holy sacrament of democracy through a controlled electoral process, is designed to convey a measure of legitimacy to those who rule over us and nothing more. It is pure entertainment, just like the old Roman circuses, coliseum diversions and free bread during the latter days of the Roman Empire to calm the public while their empire fell and their wealth and liberties were destroyed. [Source]

Elite Campaign to Re-Elect Obama in Full Swing?

February 4, 2012

The Daily Bell - From the Washington Post, we learn that "January job gains have economists rethinking outlooks."

Oh, really? Last I looked, the bear leg of the larger business cycle was still in full effect. Nothing's changed in other words, since 2001 – or more pertinently 2008, when according to our elvish analysis the fiat-dollar economy, worldwide, collapsed.

How do we know it collapsed? Well, various central banks have committed possibly more than US$50 trillion since then to propping up various financial facilities. That doesn't sound very healthy, does it? Say, you go ask for a US$50 trillion loan (if you can figure out where to apply) and see whether you get it.

More on this in a minute. The idea of an up-trending of the US economy is nothing more than a bald-faced lie, the most devious kind of propaganda. Here's a bit more from the article:

An unexpectedly rosy jobs report set off a chain reaction Friday, upending economists' gloomy predictions for the coming year, leading to a surge on Wall Street and potentially boggling the political calculus of the 2012 presidential campaigns.

The surprise — that the unemployment rate had dipped for the fifth straight month, to 8.3 percent — was first reflected in the stock market, where the Dow Jones industrial average soared to its highest mark since the beginning of the financial crisis. The tech-heavy Nasdaq, meanwhile, hit an 11-year high.

By noon, President Obama, whose reelection chances have been threatened by the nation's economic woes, seized on the figures as proof that the recovery from the recession "is speeding up."

They should convince us (along with numerous previous articles of late on the same theme) that there is a mysterious, organizing force behind Obama that has thrown its weight behind his election. Call it Money Power. Call it the power elite. Obama is its chosen receptacle. They may stop at nothing to gain his reelection.

And even among horrible presidents, he's truly a horror. Bush was a horrible warmonger and statist. Obama is perhaps even a bit less tolerable because of his sanctimoniousness. He doesn't have any principals (none of them do) but he surely believes in "Obama."

Of course it really doesn't matter. They are nothing but employees at this point, though before the Civil War they were perhaps something else. Some of them anyway. He's the latest chosen one, but chosen the way a promising employee is chosen.

Why is Barack Obama the chosen one? Who knows? The obvious answers for those who study conspiratorial – or directed – history is that Obama has Anglosphere Intel connections. His father and mother both supposedly worked for the CIA, or so its been reported at length in the alternative media.

This would explain one reason why Obama's records – even apparently including his kindergarten records – remain sealed. The release of too much data would likely make Obama's connections to the powers-that-be obvious and intimate.

And who are these shadowy powers-that-be? Why, they're what we call the Anglosphere power elite, a group of families initially located in the City of London for the most part that controls central banking around the world.

In aggregate, the power elite consists of these families (one in particular, from what we can tell) plus various enablers and associates in the religious, military and corporate worlds.

It is this small and inconceivably wealthy group that is driving everyone else – seven billion people – toward a New World Order that will resemble a feudal system in which a few will live in mile-long Keeps and the rest will serve in various serf-like capacities.

The ideal carrying weight of the world is around 500 million, according to these elites. We know this from the Georgia Guidestones. These strange, prophetic carvings state clearly how many people should reside on the planet.

The Georgia Guidestones are part of a larger elite "signaling" compulsion. Some believe that this is religious in nature and that the elites in aggregate worship the "Illuminated One."

But there is a much simpler explanation and it has to do with the way campaigns for supremacy are waged. One doesn't merely arrange one's troops and strategies in a certain manner. One also wages psychological war. One may even "signal" one's intentions. Its part of a methodology of demoralization.

Another strategy in the elite toolkit is something we call dominant social themes. These fear-based promotions are designed to frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to specially designed globalist receptacles such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc.

We recently noticed that Google has recorded thousands of cites for "dominant social theme" and for "Internet Reformation" – both phrases our modest paper has popularized. We're happy to add to the popular vocabulary, though even in aggregate we're certainly no Marshall McLuhan!

We also noticed the "re-elect Obama" meme a while ago and began to write about it. It's proven to be a popular observation. Many in the alternative news press who are apt to cover this sort of thing have noticed the fake "positive economic news" that is starting to be issued out of the controlled mainstream press.

Of course, here at the Daily Bell, we've been charting this power elite meme for quite a while – and we predicted that, if we were correct, the amount and rhetorical energy of the "American economy rising" meme would soon be evident.

We think it is. Such evidence is, to some degree, apocryphal. But it seems increasingly indisputable that the idea the US economy is in a "recovery" and is generating additional jobs has taken root throughout the American media.

Of course, the US is NOT in recovery, from my point of view. The US cannot be in recovery as a collective economy because the economy itself is filled with propped-up financial enterprises that in turn support the failed, monopoly fiat-money system that the power elite for the moment insists on continuing.

The charade expands because there is no other way, apparently, to re-elect Barack Obama. And Obama is seemingly important to power elite plans to create world government. They seem to want to keep him in power for another four years.

There is a lawsuit against Obama in Georgia that may knock him off the ballot in that state. I can't begin to imagine the pressure that will be brought on that presiding judge to ensure that Obama remains in contention in Georgia and everywhere else. [See Ed. Note at end of article.]

This despite the evident forgery of his "long" birth certificate that I've read contains four separate PDF layers and the continuing refusal of the administration to release pertinent personal records. Obama seems to be an obvious elite agent, and I have a sneaking suspicion that much of what he is supposed to accomplish may come in the second term. Call it a hunch.

It seems to me – and we have written about this at length – that there is a pincer-technique in play at the moment. It consists first of all of the Occupy Wall Street crowd controlled apparently by George Soros, which is doing what it can, in aggregate, to cast further doubts on free markets while playing up the sanitizing resources of big government.

The second part of the pincer is the mainstream media, which is whipping up antipathy against Wall Street and the "one percent." This is actually a kind of "French Revolution" strategy intended to foment class warfare. We've written about it at length.

Obama may be called on to do his part by helping to set up a kind of neo-Pecora Hearing in Washington DC. The Pecora Hearings were responsible for the current misery of the Wall Street regulatory regime that has done nothing but allow Wall Street itself to capture the larger regulatory apparatus.

The new Pecora Hearings, if they come about, will likely deal a death blow to America's capital-raising mechanisms and turn the US into a kind of Europe when it comes to entrepreneurial activity. In other words, those who wish to create business and wealth will be subservient to the regulatory and political class.

This would be, of course, the outcome sought by the Anglosphere elite that deems competition "a sin." It is feasible for people to have access to capital, but only those people who are "appropriate" and "chosen."

There is something else going on with Obama, too, which has to do with his skin color and putative Islamic background. He is being positioned as a "citizen of the world" in a disturbing way. There seems to be about him a whiff of globalist strategy that has not yet been exercised.

What this is isn't clear. Perhaps we shall know more if he achieves a second term. And he WILL achieve a second term if the elites have any say in it, or so it appears. The phony meme of an "improving economy" seems to show that clearly.

Anyone who knows anything about Austrian, free-market, business cycle economics understands we're in a bear-market super-cycle when it comes to fiat dollars. This is just like the 1970s, except on steroids. There is NO WAY that a fiat-dollar economy recovers in the middle of a gold-bull market leg. My humble perspective, anyway.

This gold bull probably has a lot further to travel, between the laxness of the silver/gold ratio and the (un)popularity of paper gold. When we see the silver-gold ratio closing and when junior mining stocks are being bid up like bullion we'll conclude the cycle is ending.

Of course, we may never see the end of this cycle. The idea that the elites will tolerate US$5,000 gold or whatever it gets to is a fairly dubious proposition, in my view. Something else may take the place of the current fiat-dollar-reserve standard that has been central to the world's economy for the past 50 years.

If I were a betting man, I'd probably give Obama a second term. Elite backing – if that's what we're seeing – signals a pervasive effort, in my view. It likely extends beyond media bias to programmable voting machines (with no paper trail) and other kinds of programmatic elements that will not leave anything to chance.

So ... four more years of Obama? There are always alternative scenarios, of course. Life is never certain. Someone like Congressman Ron Paul could still catch fire on the national stage and boost himself into true contention. Alternatively, Obama could be knocked off the ballot in various states, etc. It is even (just) possible that Mitt Romney could win, though that probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

But still ... what we're seeing in the major media confirms my suspicion that the fix is in. Obama may not have performed well but his "sponsors" are signaling that he's still their man. Just watch the ongoing "resurgent economy" promotion expand if you've got any doubts. That may be the key. It's right on time.

The big question in my view is not whether he will be re-elected but what will he do afterwards.

Ed Note: Obama’s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot, according to a recent ruling by a state law judge. "In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth ... The findings by Malihi, a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings, go to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will make the final determination." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)