Executive Order 13603: National Defense Resources Preparedness

"The second I knew about the movie The Hunger Games I knew I had to see it; and when I saw it, it was extremely easy for me to pick out all the obvious things that are being sold to us (particularly our youth) in the form of predictive programming. I sure hope I'm not around when times similar to those come into existence. What's going on now is MORE than sufficient. By the way, I also noticed that all of the valuable resources are controlled by the elite. Reminds me of a little something recently signed off by Obama, where it gives the government full control of our resources in the event of a national crisis. Slowly and surely, they are setting the stage for a world damn near identical to the one depicted in this film." - Andy, April 2012, “The Hunger Games”: A Glimpse at the Future?

On March 16, 2012, President Barack Obama issued a National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order (13603) that gives the president unprecedented new powers to appropriate national resource, which prompted Congresswoman Kay Granger to pen the missive quoted below:

With all that is going in Washington these days some things don’t make the news the way they should. Fourteen days ago President Obama issued an Executive Order that you should know about. This order gives an unprecedented level of authority to the President and the federal government to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy - in the name of national security - in times of national emergency. This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas - even farm equipment - can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries. The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.

By issuing this as an Executive Order the President puts the federal government above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen.

As President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he has the Constitutional authority to issue executive orders. And while similar orders have been made before by presidents from Eisenhower and Reagan to Clinton and George Bush - it has never been done to this extent.

It is still unclear why this order was signed now and what the consequences are for our nation - especially during times of peace. This type of Martial Law imposes a government takeover on U.S. citizens that is typically reserved for national emergencies, not in a time of relative peace.

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 16, 2012

 

EXECUTIVE ORDER

NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

PART I  -  PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION

Section 101.  Purpose.  This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the "Act").

Sec. 102.  Policy.  The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.  The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.  The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

Sec. 103.  General Functions.  Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a)  identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

(b)  assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

(c)  be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

(d)  improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and

(e)  foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Sec. 104.  Implementation.  (a)  The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.

(b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(1)  advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;

(2)  provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and

(3)  report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.

(c)  The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:

(1)  in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and

(2)  prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).

(d)  The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:

(1)  analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and

(2)  perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.

PART II  -  PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS

Sec. 201.  Priorities and Allocations Authorities.  (a)  The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1)  the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2)  the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3)  the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4)  the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5)  the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6)  the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b)  The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.  Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

(c)  Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand.  In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order.  Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency.  In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.

(d)  If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

(e)  The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b).  This finding shall be submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.

Unemployed Coal Miner Confronts Clinton About Saying "We're Going to Put a Lot of Coal Miners and Coal Companies Out of Business"

October 27, 2016

Yahoo News - What did Hillary Clinton mean when she said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”?

To Bo Copley, a 39-year-old unemployed West Virginia coal miner, her remark at a CNN forum in March was a direct threat to his future livelihood, family and town. So when Clinton showed up to campaign in Williamson, he let her know how he felt:

“I just want to know how you can say you’re going to put a lot of coal miners out of jobs and then come in here and tell us how you’re gonna be our friend,” he said, sliding a picture of his three children across the table toward her — a moment captured by reporters that catapulted him to at least fleeting local fame.

Months later, when Republican West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito held a hearing in October on “the devastating effects that EPA’s anti coal regulations are having on our state,” Copley was a star witness, describing the events leading up to his layoff as a maintenance planner and foreman at a subsidiary of the mining giant Arch Coal:

“With increasing regulations forcing other mines to close, we would see more and more inspectors on our job. At one point, we had 12 inspectors on our property on the same day. They told us they were all there that day because they had nowhere else to go … That would lead to more violations because of their interpretation of laws. More violations lead to higher cost per ton. Higher cost per ton leads to less profits. Less profits lead to job loss.”

It was a report from the trenches of what Republicans have been calling, since long before the campaign even began, the Obama administration’s “war on coal.” This was a message Donald Trump sought to reinforce at a rally in West Virginia by donning a miner’s hardhat and pretending to wield a shovel, violating a principle of campaigning dating back to 1988, when Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was photographed in a tank turret, wearing a helmet that memorably reminded many observers of Snoopy: Never put anything weird on your head.

To Clinton, her remark was just a recognition of something that was happening already, and would continue, a result not just of environmental concerns but competition for coal from cheap natural gas. She apologized to Copley for her “misstatement”:

“What I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. That’s what I meant to say and I think that seems to be supported by the facts.” As the media noted, she was actually making a point about the need to bring jobs back to Appalachia and support laid-off miners.

Copley, for his part, was unconvinced, telling reporters after the confrontation that he “would have liked to have heard more of what her plan is” for coal country. He could have read her plan, all 2,180 words of it, including job training, expanded broadband access, combatting drug abuse, and promoting the rich cultural heritage of Appalachia, here. But it probably wouldn’t have mattered; as he also told reporters, he was a Republican who would never support her anyway: “Coal is not the only priority,” he explained. “Her stance on abortion and other things are things I can’t get behind either.” — By Jerry Adler

Putin Promises ‘Confrontation’ If Clinton Keeps Up Russia Talk

October 25, 2016

New York Post - Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a veiled threat to Hillary Clinton, saying his country will engage in “confrontation” with the US if she continues to provoke the Motherland, according to a new report.

Putin, 64, accused the Democratic presidential nominee of putting forth continued “harsh rhetoric” and “threats” against Russia for her own political gain, The Daily Star reported.

“Jeopardizing Russian-American relations in order to gain brownie points internally – I consider this to be harmful and counterproductive, Putin recently told reporters in Russia.

“It’s not funny anymore. If somebody out there wants confrontation. This is not our choice but this means that there will be problems,” Putin warned.

The former KGB spy added that Clinton was trying “to distract [American] voters from the country’s problems” by unifying voters against two common enemies – Russia and Iran.
And Putin made no secret over who he favors in the Nov. 8 election.

“Mrs. Clinton has chosen to take up a very aggressive stance against our country, against Russia. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, calls for cooperation – at least when it comes to the international fight against terrorism,” Putin said.

“Naturally we welcome those who would like to cooperate with us. And we consider it wrong, that we always have to be in conflict with one another, creating existential threats for each other and for the whole world,” Putin noted.

Chaos Will Erupt Across America in Less Than 100 Days… No Matter Who Wins the Election

August 30, 2016
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger (NaturalNews)

The clock is ticking for America. There are 70 days remaining until the presidential election, and after the results are counted, America will be a tinderbox ready to explode no matter who wins.

What follows is an educated analysis of the political friction now escalating in America. Note carefully that nothing in this article should be construed as any intention to call for violence of any kind. I do reference such acts, however, as part of human history as well as likely outcomes in our near future. What I’m offering here is an analysis and a warning, along with a call to prepare for what’s coming.

If Trump wins, the left goes full terror

As I’ve publicly predicted numerous times over the last year, if Donald Trump wins, the radical extreme leftists go on a violent rampage that leads to the rest of us begging for martial law. After half a dozen cities burn with riots and looting, Trump invokes a national emergency, deploying National Guard troops across the most devastated urban areas, and the radical left finds itself in a shooting war with the government.

If Hillary Clinton wins, all the Trump supporters who have been violently assaulted, spat upon and physically attacked by the radical left un-holster their concealed weapons and start shooting back. This quickly escalates into open warfare between lunatic leftist Hillary supporters and armed Trump “Second Amendment” people who basically figure they’ve got nothing left to lose anyway, so why not fight to save America?

This was all pointed out in an insightful reader comment posted to The Burning Platform on August 29th:

With the rise of Donald Trump, the plan of the political elites has been to provoke violence and blame it on him, thus scaring the normal populace. Early-on there were the road-blockings, the threatened riots, the cancelled events in Chicago and Cincinnati, the beatings, the police ordered to “look the other way”…and it has continued: The screaming harassment and physical attacks on Trump supporters as they leave his rallies. The spitting. The intimidation. The thrown eggs. The shoves and punches. The cars blocked and damaged. The hats snatched off people’s heads, stomped on, and then burned on the ground…

The people who support Trump are increasingly well-armed, and increasingly seething with justifiable rage. For now they hold back. Donald Trump himself has repeatedly observed that “the safest place in America” for anti-Trump protesters is at Trump rallies. And that is true. For now (except for the one old cowboy who punched out the protester, he was an octogenarian outlier). Why is this? Why the docility in the face of clear provocation?

It is because Trump supporters understand that any retaliatory violence now will be instantly, widely, and incessantly portrayed by the whorish mainstream media as proof that “Trump is dangerous” and “Trump’s movement is violent” and “Trump invites violence.” So his supporters endure the abuse. They endure the spittle. They endure the shoves and punches. They endure the theft of their possessions. They endure the damaged cars and the incessant harassment. For now, for the sake of their political movement and the candidacy of Donald Trump, they do not strike back…

But what happens after the election? It matters not who wins. If Hillary Clinton is elected, by hook or by crook, the mass movement harnessed by Donald Trump will be free to respond to physical attacks.  

If Donald Trump wins the Presidency, there will similarly be no reason to continue to endure physical attacks and humiliations by the street thugs of the Democrats. Whether Trump or Hillary Clinton is in the White House, there will be no reason to hold back.

Hundreds of millions of guns across America are now in the hands of people who are fed up with being stomped on, ridiculed and marginalized by a corrupt leftist regime that’s destroying America

Do the math on this one: You’ve got 44% of U.S. households that now own guns (and not just one gun each, but several different types of guns). Over the last 8 years, President Obama’s anti-gun rhetoric has resulted in the largest surge of gun sales to private citizens ever recorded in American history. As a result of Obama’s criminal efforts to try to destroy the Second Amendment via false flag operations such as Operation Fast and Furious, more Americans than ever now own battle rifles such as ARs, AKs and PTR 91s.

People bought all these guns for a reason. And they sure didn’t buy them just to turn them over to a corrupt criminal government.

The reader comment continues:

Whatever happens after this Presidential election, it will have been unleashed by the corporate elites and their servants in the media and elsewhere. They will be responsible for blood in the streets… And many will cheer it.

What the author is saying is, essentially, America is quite likely just 70 days away from the start of the next revolution… or even events that could escalate into Civil War.

A Hillary victory would set off an immediate popular revolt

If Hillary wins the election, it’s hard not to imagine some sort of popular revolt across America as the citizens reject the obvious criminality and corruption of not just the Clinton crime family but also a complicit mainstream media. The same media that has funneled millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation also intentionally downplays all the Clinton scandals. The entire system is a corrupt, incestuous, rigged f–kfest that benefits the deceitful plutocrats whom the voters are sick and tired of seeing remain in power.

Election Fraud? Get Ready for Martial Law

September 6, 2016

Times of San Diego (Opinion) - This election is where faux news, conspiracy theories and fears are colliding like a Super Nova explosion.

Already, no less than the FBI, Homeland Security, and others are issuing clarion calls about possible cyber interference in the coming presidential and local elections.

A national coordination task force is in the making. Fears of the “Russians are coming. The Russians are coming” permeate usually sane media spaces.

Add to this the very real possibility (if the latest polls are to be believed) that the race is tightening—with Donald Trump ahead in the popular vote and Hillary Clinton leading in the Electoral College—and the ingredients for political chaos are complete.

First, the establishment fears.

– The FBI issued a “flash” alert this summer to state election officials that foreign hackers had breached the election systems in two states, Arizona and Illinois. Arizona shut down its network for a week, according to the staid Sacramento Bee.

– The Washington Post reported that intelligence and law enforcement officials are looking into a secret, widespread effort by Russia to undermine public trust in the U.S. presidential election and in the country’s political institutions. The newspaper said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was “deeply shaken” following a briefing about the investigation by a top official in the intelligence community.

– Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson suggested that the nation’s election system, an uneven mosaic of 50 state-operated fiefdoms, should be viewed like the national power grid, part of the country’s “critical infrastructure.”

– Johnson volunteered his agency’s help by offering to inspect state election systems for holes hackers could crawl through. Several states have taken up his offer. Others – such as Georgia, which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1996 but where polls now show the race between Democrat Clinton and Republican Trump tied – have spurned it.

The recent purging of voter registration lists, the history of voting graveyards, the previous Diebold election machines’ errors, and the chad debacle of the Bush v. Gore race, make the latest conspiracy theory of “martial law” look plausible.

If this is what the “establishment” is saying, imagine what the Twitterverse is suggesting, let alone the late night radio talk shows if Trump does win the popular vote and Clinton takes the Electoral College.

Our democracy is at risk.

Little do Americans realize, but our “elections” and “democracy” have always been at risk.

Once upon a time, we had no political parties (thought to be almost evil and divisive by the Founding Fathers), no secret ballots (they interfered with landowners and overseers from marching their captive workers to the polls to mark their “X” in the proper slot (or lose their jobs) and no votes for blacks or women.

Remember, in the original U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 for the purposes of taxation and representation, slaves would be counted as 3/5ths a human being. It took a Civil War, and the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights movement to alter this. Women won their vote after WWI.

Until then, the local Sheriff was the most powerful official because he decided when the polls would open and close. Open long enough to get his herded voters to the make shift polling spot (only disclosed to his friends) and closed as soon as the opposition showed up.

Horses, wagons, carts, or feet carried the bodies to the polls. Not a love of “democracy.”

Fraud has almost always existed in our campaigns, politics, and voting. As has “dark money,” salacious attacks, voter suppression, and nonsensical conspiracy theories.

Here is the latest “martial law” conspiracy theory gaining traction:

If Trump loses, the election is “rigged,” as the candidate himself asserts. “Rigged” is this seasons’ coin of the realm used by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the Left and Trump and others on the Right.

A split election (popular v. electoral votes) will cause riots in the streets (stoked by an overwhelming mistrust in the government and globalism), and President Obama will be “forced” to declare “martial law;” thus securing the status quo indefinitely.

See: “The Russians are coming. The Russians are coming.” It is not just a Cold War slogan or spoof any more. It is the prevalent conspiracy theory held by the establishment; only this time, the “Russians” are using computer malware, not tanks.

What an election! It is vintage American.

Trump Insider Says Establishment May Declare Martial Law If Trump Wins

Trump insider Roger Stone told Alex Jones on Wednesday the establishment may pull a range of dirty tricks, including the imposition of martial law, to prevent Donald Trump from assuming office if he wins the election in November.

April 28, 2016

EndingTheFed - “I think they are capable of anything, including martial law,” Stone said. “The establishment is petrified that the Trump wave is coming and they see no way to stop it.”

Over the last 40 years, at least since the racial riots of the late 1960s, the establishment and its military have put into place numerous initiatives designed to implement martial law, most recently Obama’s Authorization for Use of Military Force which allows the president to deploy the military anywhere in the world, including the United States.

A multiplication of domestic military exercises, most recently Jade Helm, have prepared the military for deployment inside the United States. The Jade Helm exercise involved soldiers operating “undetected amongst civilian populations,” to see if they can infiltrate without being noticed.

“The history of the federal government and the U.S. military’s preparations for martial law in America is manifestly provable. That is not to say that a military takeover is imminent, but to dismiss the militarization of law enforcement and verifiable plans for using troops to deal with domestic unrest as ‘alarmist’ or mere ‘conspiracy theory’ is completely erroneous,” Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson wrote last March ahead of the Jade Helm exercise.

There exists a large number of official documents, white papers, proclamations, and executive orders spelling out how the military will take control of America, ostensibly during a national emergency.

Keep in mind the political elite that has ruled under the dictates of the national security state since the end of the Second World War would assuredly consider the election of Donald Trump a “national emergency” requiring serious and concerted action.

Joseph Farah Seeks Clarification of Obama's Intentions Come January 20, 2017

August 3, 2016

WND.com - Barack Obama is a president known for unprecedented statements and behavior.

He lived up to that reputation this week when he asserted that GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is “unfit to serve” as his successor.

It’s important to listen to the words he uttered and measure their implications carefully.

• He said Trump would not abide by “norms and rules and common sense.”
• He questioned whether he would “observe basic decency” should he reach the Oval Office.
• He said he would have been disappointed to lose the elections of 2008 and 2012, but never doubted whether his rivals in those elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney, could function as president or had the knowledge to make government work. “That’s not the situation here,” he added.
• He added Trump “doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding, to occupy the most powerful position in the world.”
• He said he was “woefully unprepared to do this job.”
• Obama said Trump lacked knowledge about Europe, the Middle East and other parts of Asia.

It’s clear Obama has no use for Donald Trump. But that’s not really the point here.

Like it or not, and I don’t like it, Obama is the sitting president of the United States until Jan. 20, 2017.

The question this harsh, unprecedented attack by a sitting president on a major-party nominee to succeed him raises should be obvious: What happens if Donald Trump wins the election in November?

Given what Obama has said about Trump, would he not have an obligation to prevent Trump from assuming office? And what would that mean to the peaceful process America has enjoyed for more than two centuries of transitions of power?

These are questions Americans have never before been confronted with in American history.

Should we not be concerned about what Obama might do?

Should he not be asked pointedly about the implications of his stunning statements?

Should he not express exactly what his intentions are beforehand rather than to leave any doubt in the minds of the people?

If no one else will ask the question, I will: “Mr. President, if Donald Trump wins the election to become the next president of the United States, will you willingly and peacefully leave office and cooperate fully with the transition of power the way all of your predecessors in the White House have done in the past?”

It’s a simple question that needs to be asked and answered – given Obama’s highly inflammatory rhetoric over the last week.

There should be no doubt in the minds of the American people. There should be no veiled threats hanging over the heads of the citizenry as we prepare for the next election. It’s time for Obama to lay his cards on the table.

Will America follow the rule of law and the will of the people after the November election no matter what Obama might think about his successor?

Some may accuse me of being hyperbolic here – of raising questions that have no foundation for being asked. Maybe that’s true.

But never before in American history have we had a situation quite like this, in which a sitting president has used the power and prestige of his office – and, in this case, doing so inappropriately in the context of a joint press conference with a foreign leader – to declare in no uncertain terms that the nominee of one of the two major parties is uniquely unqualified and disqualified for the office of the presidency.
It’s time for clarity.

It’s time for Obama to address forthrightly and unequivocally the ramifications and implications of his shocking indictment of Trump.

It’s time for Obama to go on record as to whether he will respect the rule of law and the will of the people with regard to the 2016 election results.

Martial Law Coming?

July 24, 2016

Scott Adam's Blog - Let’s say Donald Trump wins the election. And let’s say Democrats believe everything they say about him – that he’s the next Hitler. Wouldn’t President Obama be obligated to declare martial law and remain in power?

I realize this question sounds silly when you first hear it. But keep in mind that Democrats have successfully sold the “racist strongman” narrative about Trump to their own ranks. If they’re right about Trump, we need to start getting serious about planning for martial law, for the good of the country and the world. No one wants another Hitler. And if they’re wrong, we still need to plan for martial law because Democrats think they are right. That’s all it takes.

Imagine, for example, that violence against police escalates because of the rhetoric on the left. That seems likely. Then add in some more videos of police shooting unarmed African-American men and you have all the ingredients for riots, followed by martial law.

Years ago, during Obama’s first term, a Republican friend bet me that Obama would declare martial law and stay in office after losing his reelection bid. I laughed and agreed to the bet. My friend paid the bet when Obama won reelection. My friend is a nut, right?

Or was he just premature?

My best guess is that 30% of the country believes (incorrectly) that we are heading toward some sort of pre-Nazi situation in the United States, where President Trump calls on his legion of racist supporters to do some ethnic cleansing. That’s all completely ridiculous, but it doesn’t stop perhaps 30% of the country from believing it.

Unlike most campaign rhetoric of the past, the attacks against Trump are designed to generate action, not words. Normal campaigns ask for little more than your vote. But this time, Clinton’s side – mostly surrogates and supporters – have defined their opponent as a Nazi-like dictator who will destroy the country, if not the entire world. In that situation, action is morally justified. And that action could include riots and violence against authority.

How much violence against authority would it take for President Obama to declare martial law and stay in power?

Less than you think. Television coverage will make every act of violence seem a hundred times worse than it is.

I don’t predict that we will see martial law in this country. But all of the ingredients are in place. Keep that in mind when you do your mental calculation about which political party is the reckless one.

Related:

• Who is ‘unfit’ to be president by Jack Cashill
• Will the U.S. Military Fire upon U.S. Citizens?Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens without Charge or Trial - The National Defense Authorization Act 
• Executive Order 13603: National Defense Resources Preparedness

Why the Trump vs Clinton Election is a Complete Sham

“Presidents are selected; not elected” – President Franklin D. Roosevelt

On one side: A billionaire accused of racism and xenophobia. On the other: A puppet completely sold to the world elite. And in the middle, voters who wonder why their democracy is forcing them to choose between two terrible options.

The Clinton Foundation lists Donald J. Trump as a contributor with a cumulative lifetime donation amount between $100,001 to $250,000. It’s not clear if Trump himself made a personal contribution, but tax forms show that the Donald J. Trump Foundation (which Trump controls) donated $100,000 to the foundation in 2009 and reserved a table at the Clinton Foundation gala for $10,000 in 2010. Trump’s daughter Ivanka is also listed as a donor who gave between $5,001 and $10,000 and her father-in-law, Charles Kushner, gave between $250,001 and $500,000. Trump’s gift amount places him in the top 0.2 percent of the foundation’s donors. Most of its 300,000 donors (85.5 percent) gave less than $250. We estimated that the foundation has received at least $800 million in donations, over 70 percent of which came from gifts of $1 million or more. [Politifact] 

"One thing is for sure, the same shadow government that has been ruling the country (and the world) for decades, is still there. And the ‘chaos’ factor of Trump might very well play in their favor." - Vigilant Citizen

September 22, 2016

Vigilant Citizen - I am sometimes asked why I write mostly about popular culture when I could focus on “more important” issues such as the presidential election. The short answer? Presidential elections are not important. At the risk of sounding like an old cynic: The game is rigged. No matter who is in office, the same agenda moves forward, and that agenda is set by people who stay far away from anything resembling a democratic process. For this reason, presidential elections are nothing more than gigantic puppet shows intended for a gigantic audience. While the masses are dazzled by the puppets’ crazy antics, only a few pay attention to the actual puppet-masters. Whether it is the Democrats or the Republicans in the White House, the same shadow government is behind the scenes, advancing policy laid out by the world elite.

Presidential elections, along with the media circus that surrounds them, are not a “democratic process”. They are a facade with little to no substance. Some issues are allowed to be discussed while others are totally ignored. This year’s election is no different. The agenda is already set and the candidates are each playing their role. While they appear to be in sharp opposition on various topics, the candidates are actually part of the same team.


The Clintons as guests at Trump’s wedding in January 2005.


Trump and Clinton at the Trump National Golf Club in 2008.

Read the rest of the article at Vigilant Citizen.

Social Security Recipients to Get Tiny Increase in Benefits

October 18, 2016

WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of Social Security recipients and federal retirees will get a 0.3 percent increase in monthly benefits next year, the fifth year in a row that older Americans will have to settle for historically low raises.

There was no increase this year. Next year's benefit hike will be small because inflation is low, driven in part by lower fuel prices.

The federal government announced the cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, Tuesday morning. By law, the COLA is based on a government measure of consumer prices.

The COLA affects more than 70 million people — about 1 in 5 Americans.

The average monthly Social Security payment is $1,238. That translates into a monthly increase of less than $4 a month.

More bad news for seniors: Medicare Part B premiums, which are usually deducted from Social Security payments, are expected to increase next year to the point in which they will probably wipe out the entire COLA.

By law, the dollar increase in Medicare's Part B premium cannot exceed a beneficiary's cost-of-living raise. That's known as the "hold harmless" provision, and it protects the majority of Medicare recipients.
But another federal law says that the Part B premium must raise enough money to cover one-fourth of expected spending on doctors' services. That means that a minority of beneficiaries, including new enrollees and higher-income people, have to shoulder the full increase. Their premiums would jump.

Millicent Graves, a retired veterinary technician, says Medicare and supplemental insurance premiums eat up nearly a third of her $929 monthly Social Security payment. And don't tell the 72-year-old from Williamsburg, Virginia, that consumer prices aren't going up. She says her insurance premiums went up by $46.50 this year, and her cable TV, Internet and phone bill went up, too.

"I just lose and lose and lose and lose," Graves said.

More than 60 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children get Social Security benefits. The COLA also affects benefits for about 4 million disabled veterans, 2.5 million federal retirees and their survivors, and more than 8 million people who get Supplemental Security Income, the disability program for the poor. Many people who get SSI also receive Social Security.

Since 2008, the COLA has been above 2 percent only once, in 2011. It's been zero three times.

"This loss of anticipated retirement income compounds every year, causing people to spend through retirement savings far more quickly than planned," said Mary Johnson of the Senior Citizens League. "Over the course of a 25- or 30-year retirement, it reduces anticipated Social Security income by tens of thousands of dollars."

By law, the cost-of-living adjustment is based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W, a broad measure of consumer prices generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It measures price changes for food, housing, clothing, transportation, energy, medical care, recreation and education.

The COLA is calculated using the average CPI-W for July, August and September. If prices go up, benefits go up. If prices drop or stay flat, benefits stay the same.

The numbers for July and August suggest COLA of just 0.3 percent. The numbers for September are to be released Tuesday.

Some advocates complain that the government's measure of inflation doesn't reflect the costs many older Americans face.

For example, gasoline prices have fallen by nearly 18 percent over the past year, according to the August inflation report, while the cost of medical care has gone up by more than 5 percent.

For seniors who don't drive much, they don't get the full benefit of low gas prices, said Max Gulker, a senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. Many seniors, however, spend more of their income on health care.

Graves said she appreciates lower gas prices, but doesn't drive much.

"I just have to rely more each month on cashing in investments," Graves said. "I'm lucky I can do that."

Obama Sets 2017 Pay Raise for Civilian, Military Employees

What agency has the most employees? Which feds get paid the most? Federal News Radio looks at the latest data from the Office of Personnel Management.

August 31, 2016

FEDERAL NEWS RADIO - President Barack Obama is exercising his authority to give federal civilian employees and uniformed service members a pay raise effective Jan. 1, 2017.

Civilian employees will receive an across-the-board raise of 1 percent, with an additional 0.6 percent adjusted in locality pay.

“I have determined that for 2017, across-the-board pay increases will be 1.0 percent,” Obama wrote in an Aug. 31 letter to congressional leaders. “Also, I will make a decision by November 30, 2016, regarding an alternative plan for locality payments under 5 U.S.C. 5304a. The alternative plan for locality payments will be limited so that the total combined cost of the 1.0 percent across-the-board base pay increase and the varying locality pay increases will be 1.6 percent of basic payroll, consistent with the assumption in my 2017 budget. These decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well-qualified federal workforce.”

Uniformed service members will also receive a monthly basic pay increase of 1.6 percent.

“This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2017 budget. It will not materially affect the federal government’s ability to attract and retain well-qualified members for the uniformed services,” Obama wrote in a separate letter to congressional leaders.

The raise is just slightly above the 1.3 percent Obama approved last fiscal year.

Russia Suspends Nuclear Agreement, Ends Uranium Research Pact with United States

October 5, 2016

Reuters - Russia further curtailed its cooperation with the United States in nuclear energy on Wednesday, suspending a research agreement and terminating one on uranium conversion, two days after the Kremlin shelved a plutonium pact with Washington.The Russian government said that as counter-measures to the U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia over Ukraine, it was putting aside a nuclear and energy-related research pact with the United States.
 
It also said it was terminating for the same reasons an agreement between its nuclear corporation Rosatom and the U.S. Department of Energy on feasibility studies into conversion of Russian research reactors to low-enriched uranium.
 
On Monday, President Vladimir Putin suspended a treaty with Washington on cleaning up weapons grade plutonium, signaling he is willing to use nuclear disarmament as a new bargaining chip in disputes with the United States over Ukraine and Syria.
 
"The regular renewal of sanctions against Russia, which include the suspension of Russian-American cooperation in the field of nuclear energy demands the adoption of countermeasures against the U.S. side," the Russian government said on its website.
 
In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the United States had not received an official notification from Russia although he had seen media reports of the suspension of the research agreement.
 
"If they're accurate, we would regret the Russian decision to unilaterally suspend cooperation on what we believe is a very important issue that's in the interest of both of our countries," spokesman Mark Toner said at a daily news briefing.
 

Russian Television Warns of Nuclear War Amid US Tensions

October 14, 2016

Good Morning America - With diplomatic relations between Moscow and Washington at their lowest point since the Cold War, turning on Russian television can be an alarming experience. For the past month, Russian media outlets have been punctuated with reports asking people whether they are ready for nuclear war.

"If it should one day happen, every one of you should know where the nearest bomb shelter is. It’s best to find out now," according to one particularly fevered report on the Russian state-owned channel, NTV.

Russia’s main current affairs show, hosted by a presenter known by critics as the country’s propagandist-in-chief, recently spent two hours warning that Russia would defend itself with nuclear arms.

"We’ve had it with American abuse over Syria," the show’s host, Evgeny Kiselyov, told his audience. "Impudent behavior," from the U.S. towards Russia, he said, can now take on "nuclear dimensions."

Anti-Americanism is not rare on Russian state news, nor is an inclination for the apocalyptic. But more notable than the intensity of the warnings has been how Russian government ministries have joined in the alarms in recent weeks. Since September, Russia has conducted a nationwide civil defense drill, purportedly involving 40 million people, preparing them for catastrophes -- among them nuclear fallout. Russia’s military announced who would run the country in the event of war and ran an exercise simulating that in the south.
Even more bluntly, Russia announced this week it was moving nuclear-capable ballistic missiles into its Northern European enclave, Kaliningrad, putting them within striking distance of Western capitals. In the same week, Russia test-fired 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Such moves have further raised the temperature with the West, already exceptionally high since the U.S. publicly accused Moscow of trying to interfere in its presidential elections and efforts by the two countries to reach a cease-fire deal terrorists in Syria, collapsed amid mutual recrimination and the renewal of ferocious airstrikes by Russian jets on the besieged city of Aleppo.

But the blood-curdling statements and military posturing, however, are very far from heralding imminent war, analysts said.

"It’s ridiculous," said Aleksander Baunov, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center. "It’s not preparation for war."

Like other Russia observers, he said the atomic-fueled reports and exercises may have several purposes, but none of them were to prepare the populace for major conflict. The nuclear threats, while frightening, reflected an sense in Russia that they could be made without real fear of being taken sincerely.

"The ease with which people in this country use the nuclear threat in their aggressive rhetoric is truly amazing and of course alarming," Maria Lipman, a veteran Russian analyst and editor-in-chief of Counterpoint journal.

That relative unconcern is perhaps reflected in that the war talk does not appear to have much traction among Russians. What's more Baunov said, anti-Americanism not especially high among ordinary people currently, limited he said to official discourse.

That discourse, rather than heralding war, Baunov said, was meant to deter Western countries from intervening in Syria and in particular perhaps was meant to prevent the U.S. from responding too strongly to suspected Russian interference in the U.S. elections. Moscow, he said, is trying to set the field ahead of an incoming U.S. president, whoever wins.

Putin Sends Russian Warships to English Channel

October 15,  2016

NEWSMAX - Russian President Vladimir Putin Saturday sent a fleet of warships to the English Channel to test bombs off the British coast, according to news reports.The move put the Royal Navy on high alert, as vessels would seek to intercept the fleet as it passes within a mile of the British coast en route to Syria, The Sun reports.

The vessels are headed to the Mediterranean Sea and would join Russian naval forces in support of Moscow's bombing campaign in Syria, according to the report.

Putin's action is seen as a bold display of strength amid rising tensions between Russia and the West. The ships are expected to perform drills north of Scotland before sailing off the English coast.

NATO allies, however, are developing plans to intercept the Russian warships, The Telegraph has reported.

"It’s not catching us by surprise," a NATO official said. "We are working up what to do and we are all over it.

"The most likely thing is that they will go through the North Sea, down the Dover Strait and through the Channel.

"They might even stop off the North East coast to fly for a bit," the official told the Telegraph.

A NATO source told the Sun that Moscow's vessels could pass Britain as early as next week.

Alan West, a lord in the House of Commons who is a former Royal Navy senior officer, told the Telegraph that Russia's move risked heightening tensions.

"When people start posturing, things become dangerous," he said. "It all raises tensions and makes things more difficult and that’s not a clever thing to do.
"I find Russia very worrying at the moment," he added. "Their economy is on a war footing."

Putin's action comes days after British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson called for protests outside the Russian Embassy as he condemned Moscow's bombing campaign.

"A war crime is defined as when you attack something, attack a civilian target in the knowledge that it is a civilian target," Johnson told the Star.

He charged that Moscow could be guilty of war crimes in Syria because an aid convoy was hit by airstrikes.

"Now, Putin’s regime is not only as it were handing [Syrian President Bashar] Assad the revolver," Johnson added. "He is in some instances actually firing the revolver himself.

"The Russians themselves are actually engaged."

Russia is Building Fallout Shelters to Prepare for a Potential Nuclear Strike

Is this self-defense, an implied threat to the West, an excuse for political repression, or all of the above? 

October 17, 2016

THE DAILY BEAST — Managers of the Zenit Arena, a giant half-built stadium in St. Petersburg, received an official letter from the Ministry of Emergency Situations last week demanding that they immediately create shelter facilities for wartime. The stadium, under construction for the upcoming World Cup 2018, is located outside the city boundaries, the letter said, but in case of nuclear attack it is in the potential “zone of war destruction and radiation fallout.”

The last time Russians heard authorities talk like this about a potential mobilization for a nuclear strike was 20 years ago, and it all seemed highly improbable. Now, it appears, the Kremlin is not joking. Up to 40 million people participated in recent civil-defense exercises all across the country, learning about how to hide and where exactly to run to in case of a nuclear war.

But whether the motive behind this is self-defense, an implied threat to the West, a means to mobilize and control public opinion, or all of the above, is not entirely clear.

“These are the most serious tensions between Moscow and Washington in decades, said Sergei Markov, a member of the Civic Chamber, a Moscow-based state institution. “The war might begin even before the November elections in the U.S.”

“I personally plan to stock 200 cans of pork to be ready for a potential war crisis,” Markov told The Daily Beast in an interview, “and I advise everybody to do the same.”

State Duma Deputy Vadim Dengin said he hoped that there would be no war with United States.

“I cannot understand why the West cannot just leave us in peace, let us be,” the official said. “Americans should realize that it will be their children looking for shelters, too, if they are serious about attacking Russia.”

On Thursday, Vladimir Gladkov, a 19-year-old student, said he heard from a neighbor that the closest bomb shelter to his apartment building was Kitai Gorod metro station.

A thermonuclear bomb on Moscow?

Gladkov, who was born years after the Soviet Cold War with the United States was over, sounded frustrated: “Americans are not crazy to bomb us, I am not sure why our authorities want people to experience hysterical panic attacks. Maybe somebody feels annoyed that we feel too free and happy,” he suggested.

In Russia, where generations have suffered from wars or economic crises, panic takes over quickly as a kind of contagious epidemic and some respond with millennial obsessions.

During the impoverished years of the early 1990s, thousands of Russians moved to settlements in the Taiga seeking mystical salvation. Over 3,000 believers in Christ Vissarion still live in the Siberian woods waiting for the End of Light.

In 2012 many in Russia waited in fear for the Mayan Doomsday. People bought bottles of vodka, matches, and candles to survive the dark times.

There is an expression that every Russian knows well: “To save for a black day.” And there are so many black days in Russian history—not just days, but years of devastation.

“My life is just one everlasting black day,” says Baba Zoya, an old woman living alone in the village of Bezvodnoye in the Nizhny Novgorod region. The 82-year-old pensioner finds winters especially hard to survive.

“On some cold winter days when every joint, every bone hurts, I have no energy to go out and buy a piece of bread,” she told The Daily Beast. Her only comforts are her old dog and a falling-apart armchair outside of her old dark wood isba, a Russian traditional log house. She remembers World War II only too well—dozens of Bezvodnoye men left one day and never came back. “I wish, my dear, that you live your life without such awful memories,” she said.

Last week Perm, a city of more than 1 million people in the Ural region, prepared shelters “for the employees who would continue to work during wartime,” the state Russia channel reported.

Experts from the Ministry of Emergency Situations inspected one of the shelters to make sure there is enough space, medicine, and minimal provision; the daily norm of water was three liters per person, the channel reported.

Television shows devoted to the civil-defense drills explained to Russians that there was no reason to panic, that during wartime authorities would make sure that there was no radiation on public transport, that every person would have at least 300 grams of bread per day.

From early morning on Thursday, activists received boxes with baby food, plastic bags full of diapers and used warm clothes at Russia Behind Bars NGO, which had been supporting Russian convicts for the last eight years.

Were there bomb shelters for the population of Russia’s prisons?

“No chance to survive in prison,” the head of the NGO, Olga Romanova, told The Daily Beast. “Russian prisoners will be doomed, everybody in jail realizes that.”

For her part, Romanova said she knew exactly where she would go and how many minutes it would take for NATO missiles to reach Moscow.

“If they bomb Moscow, I might make it to Taganka metro station, it takes me about 5 minutes to run from my house,” Romanova told The Daily Beast. “My husband and I have already discussed and decided that we would only bring a couple of water bottles and our passports.”

Paris Climate Accord to Take Effect; Obama Hails 'Historic Day'

October 5, 2016

Reuters - A global agreement to combat climate change will take force after support from European nations sent the accord across an important threshold on Wednesday, prompting U.S. President Barack Obama to hail it as a "historic day" for protecting the planet.

European nations raised backing for the 2015 Paris Agreement to countries representing 56.75 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, above the 55 percent needed for implementation, a United Nations website showed.

The deal will formally start in 30 days on Nov. 4, four days before the U.S. presidential election in which Republican Donald Trump opposes the accord and Democrat Hillary Clinton strongly supports it.

China and the United States joined up last month in a joint step by the world's top emitters.

Obama called Wednesday "a historic day in the fight to protect our planet for future generations" and he told reporters on the White House Rose Garden:

"If we follow through on the commitments that this Paris agreement embodies, history may well judge it as a turning point for our planet."

Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia and Malta - European Union nations which have completed domestic ratification and account for about four percent of emissions - formally signed up on Wednesday.

In total, 72 countries out of 195 have ratified the agreement, according to the U.N. website.

"Great job!" tweeted European Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete.

The Europeans brought forward a formal submission of documents to the United Nations from a ceremony planned on Friday, fearing that other nations might ratify and trigger entry into force without them.

"We didn't want to be upstaged," an EU diplomat said.

Many praised the rapid ratification of an agreement meant to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, to limit floods, droughts, more powerful storms and rising ocean levels.

"What once seemed unthinkable is now unstoppable," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement.

But all said more work was needed.

"It is no exaggeration to say we are in a race against time," said Thoriq Ibrahim, Environment Minister for the Maldives and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States which fears the impact of rising sea levels.

By contrast, it took eight years for the previous U.N. climate deal, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, to gain enough backing to take effect. It obliged only rich nations to cut emissions and the United States stayed out of it.

Opposition continues in the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress to Democrat Obama's climate change policies.

"The Paris climate deal would be disastrous for the American economy," said House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican.

By contrast, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever and Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, said ratification showed that a shift to a low-carbon economy is "urgent, inevitable, and accelerating faster than we ever believed possible".

Yahoo Secretly Scanned Customer Emails for U.S. Intelligence - Sources

October 4, 2016

Reuters -Yahoo Inc last year secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials, according to people familiar with the matter.

The company complied with a classified U.S. government demand, scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the National Security Agency or FBI, said three former employees and a fourth person apprised of the events.
 
Some surveillance experts said this represents the first case to surface of a U.S. Internet company agreeing to an intelligence agency's request by searching all arriving messages, as opposed to examining stored messages or scanning a small number of accounts in real time.
 
It is not known what information intelligence officials were looking for, only that they wanted Yahoo to search for a set of characters. That could mean a phrase in an email or an attachment, said the sources, who did not want to be identified.
 
Reuters was unable to determine what data Yahoo may have handed over, if any, and if intelligence officials had approached other email providers besides Yahoo with this kind of request.
 
According to two of the former employees, Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer's decision to obey the directive roiled some senior executives and led to the June 2015 departure of Chief Information Security Officer Alex Stamos, who now holds the top security job at Facebook Inc.

"Yahoo is a law abiding company, and complies with the laws of the United States," the company said in a brief statement in response to Reuters questions about the demand. Yahoo declined any further comment.

Through a Facebook spokesman, Stamos declined a request for an interview.
 
The NSA referred questions to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which declined to comment.
 
The request to search Yahoo Mail accounts came in the form of a classified edict sent to the company's legal team, according to the three people familiar with the matter.
 
U.S. phone and Internet companies are known to have handed over bulk customer data to intelligence agencies. But some former government officials and private surveillance experts said they had not previously seen either such a broad demand for real-time Web collection or one that required the creation of a new computer program.

"I've never seen that, a wiretap in real time on a 'selector,'" said Albert Gidari, a lawyer who represented phone and Internet companies on surveillance issues for 20 years before moving to Stanford University this year. A selector refers to a type of search term used to zero in on specific information.

"It would be really difficult for a provider to do that," he added.

Experts said it was likely that the NSA or FBI had approached other Internet companies with the same demand, since they evidently did not know what email accounts were being used by the target. The NSA usually makes requests for domestic surveillance through the FBI, so it is hard to know which agency is seeking the information.
 
Alphabet Inc's Google and Microsoft Corp, two major U.S. email service providers, separately said on Tuesday that they had not conducted such email searches.

"We've never received such a request, but if we did, our response would be simple: 'No way'," a spokesman for Google said in a statement.

A Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement, "We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo." The company declined to comment on whether it had received such a request.
 
CHALLENGING THE NSA
 
Under laws including the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, intelligence agencies can ask U.S. phone and Internet companies to provide customer data to aid foreign intelligence-gathering efforts for a variety of reasons, including prevention of terrorist attacks.
 
Disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and others have exposed the extent of electronic surveillance and led U.S. authorities to modestly scale back some of the programs, in part to protect privacy rights.

U.S. Suspends Syria Ceasefire Talks with Russia, Blames Moscow

October 3, 2016

Reuters - The United States broke off talks with Russia on Monday on implementing a ceasefire agreement in Syria and accused Moscow of not living up to its commitments under the Sept. 9 deal to halt fighting and ensure aid reached besieged communities.

The confirmation that the U.S.-Russian talks on Syria have collapsed suggests that there is little hope, if any, of a diplomatic solution emerging anytime soon to end a 5-1/2-year-old civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced 11 million.

"The United States is suspending its participation in bilateral channels with Russia that were established to sustain the cessation of hostilities," U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

Secretary of State John Kerry last spoke to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, on Saturday, a senior State Department official said, after Kerry threatened last week to walk away from the talks.

In Moscow, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Russian news agencies the United States was trying to shift blame onto Russia, which in recent days had tried to sustain the agreement.

But Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, supported by Iranian-backed militia and Russian air power, have since last week stepped up their offensive against rebel-held areas of Aleppo, Syria's biggest city, bombing hospitals and damaging water supplies.

In the northeastern city of Hasaka, a bomb killed at least 20 people at a Kurdish wedding, according to a Kurdish militia and a monitoring group.

A U.S. intelligence official said the bombing campaign was "one of the deadliest" since the civil war erupted in 2011.

"These air strikes, mostly focused on Aleppo, have utilized a wide variety of deadly munitions, including barrel bombs, thermobaric bombs, incendiary munitions, cluster bombs and bunker busters," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The end of the talks could trigger deeper U.S. consideration of military options such as providing more sophisticated arms, logistical support, and training to Syrian rebel groups, either directly or via Gulf Arab states or Turkey.

Stop Throwing Kids into Debtors' Prison

September 29, 2016

Jessica Feierman and Alex R. Piquero- In Arkansas, a 13-year-old was incarcerated for three months in a juvenile correctional facility, placed in solitary confinement and forced to miss even more school because he and his family couldn't afford to pay a $500 truancy fine. In California, a mother was still paying off $7,000 for her son's jail fees months after he was killed on the streets. A mother who had been laid off from her curtain factory job pawned her jewelry and rented out half of the family home to pay for her son's juvenile probation and placement fees. Stories like these documenting the adverse toll that fines and court costs exert on juvenile offenders and their families are common across the country.

This Dickensian situation is not limited to just a few unlucky kids. Each year, approximately 1 million youth appear in juvenile court, which is ostensibly created to provide services to youth in trouble or in need. Far too often, youth are assessed a variety of court-ordered fines, fees or restitution that they cannot afford. Youth who cannot pay are pushed deeper into the juvenile justice system; many face removal from their families and incarceration in facilities with high rates of violence and harmful practices like solitary confinement and strip searches.

Our new Juvenile Law Center report, Debtors' Prisons for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System, examines the national prevalence of financial obligations in juvenile court and the dire consequences for many youth and families. Youth are fined for skipping school, underage drinking, and smoking tobacco. They are charged for the cost of expunging their juvenile records, the cost of public defenders, the cost of treatment or probation, mental health evaluations, and HIV tests, often without regard to their ability to pay. They may even be asked to pay for the cost of diversion services like arts programs, parenting classes or group therapy sessions designed to prevent juvenile court involvement. Costs can range from minimal amounts to tens of thousands of dollars.

In most states, a failure to pay court-ordered costs can lead to secure confinement for youth. Once youth are locked up, costs continue to pile on, with many families owing child support to the state, or a per-night cost of incarceration.

These policies exacerbate an already pronounced economic divide: When youth with money get in trouble, they are often allowed to stay at home, remain in school and receive community-based services, but youth in poverty experience incarceration and further justice system involvement because they can't afford the price of their freedom.

Costs and fees also make our communities less safe. We found that imposing fines, fees and restitution actually increased the likelihood of recidivism in a sample of more than 1,000 adolescent offenders, even after ruling out many other potential factors. Moreover, the higher these imposed costs, the higher the recidivism rates.

Netanya-who? The Media’s Short Attention Span on Israel

18 months after the press covered his speech to Congress like it was World War III, the media largely ignored his U.N. address. 

September 23, 2016

Poynter - Irrelevance takes hold so quickly among the press. Only Fox News went live to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to the U.N. Thursday. CNN and MSNBC opted for a North Carolina district attorney's press conference. So much for the single biggest foreign policy mess the U.S. confronts, the Middle East.

Remember his speech to Congress, which everybody covered as if it was World War III? Perpetually tanned, cigarette-sneaking, golf-loving John Boehner was Speaker of the House. That was a very long 18 months ago.

Yes, some did acknowledge Bibi was in New York Thursday to speak to the entire world.

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress on Tuesday laid out, in the starkest terms yet, his differences with the Obama administration on how to deal with the threat of Iran's nuclear program." (Los Angeles Times) Very proper.

There was the U.N.'s own sanitized version. "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has never been about settlements, or about establishing a Palestinian state, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the United Nations General Assembly today, saying 'It’s always been about the existence of a Jewish State […] in any boundary.” (U.N.)

But it's the Israeli press that was most instructive and displayed its counterpart to the Fox vs. Huffington Post contrasts when it comes to coverage of President Obama in the U.S.

There was the marshmallow-soft right-of-center Jerusalem Post: "This time there were no props — like a cartoon of a bomb — and no gimmicks, such as a 45-second pause to ram home a point, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday." (Jerusalem Post)

But then came Haaretz, the left-of-center newspaper. Its headline was short on ambiguity: "Netanyahu does his usual schtick before U.N. audience with zero expectations."

"Usual schtick?"

Ah, yes: "It’s true, however, that Netanyahu had good reason to be smug this year, and the best evidence of that was, in fact, the scores of U.N. diplomats who abandoned their seats in favor of a lunch at some posh East Side restaurant or solid schmoozing over a sandwich outside in the hall. They didn’t leave because of anti-Semitism, God forbid, but to prevent themselves from falling asleep in their seats. Netanyahu, in a surprising collaborative effort with Abbas, has managed to exhaust just about everyone." (Haaretz)

Detroit Public School Scandal: Judge Locks Up 4 More Detroit Principals for Robbing Students in a Kickback Scheme

September 9, 2016

Detroit Free Press - One by one, the convicted principals pleaded for mercy, insisting they lived for their students and had suffered enough already.One called himself “a hero.”

But the judge sentenced them all to prison — longer than the defendants preferred, but shorter than what prosecutors had hoped — for helping a millionaire businessman cheat the state’s poorest schoolchildren out of $2.7 million in supplies.

“They need to know that they all deserve better than what these principals gave us,” U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said Thursday in sentencing four more Detroit principals to prison for stealing from the students they were supposed to protect.

In a sensational school corruption trial that has triggered public outrage and planted a bull's-eye  on Detroit’s struggling schools, Roberts handed down sentences that ranged from six months to one year to four ex-principals who took kickbacks from vendor Norman Shy as rewards for approving his phony invoices.

The scheme, prosecutors said, cheated DPS out of $2.7 million in school supplies that were paid for but never delivered.

Prosecutors had argued for stiffer penalties — in some cases double what the defendants got — but Roberts took into account the principals' otherwise clean records and years of good deeds.

For Spain Elementary Principal Ronald Alexander, whose school won a $500,000 giveaway on the Ellen DeGeneres talk show in February, any prison sentence was too severe. At least that’s what he argued to the judge as he called himself “a hero” who lived for his students and school community.

“All I have ever done is give my best to these children,” Alexander said. “I buried three students because the kids’ parents didn’t have money — out of my own pocket … I love this school. It think it's unfair."

Alexander, who received a one-year prison sentence for accepting $23,000 in kickbacks from Shy and a $23,000 restitution order, blamed his legal troubles on the vendor.

"Mr. Shy — he did me wrong. He was saying he gave me donations," Alexander said, referring to the gift cards and checks that Shy gave him over the years.

“Mr. Shy — he did me wrong. He was saying he gave me donations.”

Alexander said he spent it on the kids.

"I did not pad my pockets … some of the gift cards are still at home," he said later, blaming Shy again. "He's a known crook and he's been doing it for years."

Alexander also stressed that he needed to stay out of prison so that he could care for his 87-year-old mother. He also talked about his army of supporters — students, staff, religious leaders and the parent association at Spain Elementary School, which wrote the judge a letter saying it wants Alexander back.

"Nobody knows how bad I feel to have to go out from my job like this," Alexander said.

"I'm sad. I'm hurt. I feel bad. … I should be judged by the life I have lived. … I'm not the bad person that the federal (government) has accused me" of being.

Roberts reminded him that he had pleaded guilty.

"Despite your guilty plea, it sounds to me that you think you're guilty of nothing," said Roberts, who then quoted Alexander's plea agreement, in which he admitted that he approved fraudulent invoices "for school supplies that were never delivered to Spain Elementary."

"This is verbatim from your (plea) agreement," Roberts said. "This court and government doesn't have to make up anything. You signed it."

Roberts also rebuffed Alexander’s claim that he was hoodwinked by Shy.

"You are not blameless. You had everything in your hands," Roberts said. "Mr. Shy did not make you commit a crime."

Roberts also handed down a one-year sentence to former principal Gerlma Johnson, who came to court dressed in all black and sobbed after learning her punishment for accepting $22,884 in kickbacks from Shy.
Johnson, 60, the former principal at Charles Drew Academy and Earhart Elementary-Middle School, pleaded guilty to bribery in May and said she spent her kickbacks in two ways: buying jewelry, perfume and clothing for herself and helping her school.

In addition to the year behind bars, Roberts ordered Johnson to pay $22,884 in restitution to DPS.

“You essentially robbed Peter to pay Peter. It was their money,” Roberts said, referring to the students who were cheated out of school supplies.

The 5 Most Outrageous Things Hillary Clinton Said in Her FBI Interview

September 2, 2016

CNBC - Hillary Clinton was already having a bad week as polls show Donald Trump closing the gap between them and, in a few polls, even pulling ahead. It got worse Friday after the FBI released Clinton's answers to investigators' questions over her use of a private email server, revealing some pretty damaging responses from the former Secretary of State.

Here are five of the most outrageous statements Clinton made in that three-and-a-half hour FBI interview:

1. She cited her 2012 concussion as the reason that she cannot remember details of briefings during her "transition out of office."

2. She said she never even thought whether emails she exchanged on a future U.S. drone attack should be classified.

3. She said she thought the "C" before a paragraph indicated alphabetical order. The C actually stands for "classified."

4. She said no one ever raised concerns to her about her use of a private email server.

5. She said she could not recall any training on how to handle classified information.

What's more, Clinton aides told the FBI that the Secretary of State frequently replaced her Blackberry phone and the whereabouts of her old device would become "unknown." The FBI report suggests there were at least 13 different devices used.

You're going to hear on the mainstream media all weekend a lot of supposedly objective pundits insist the above revelations offer no "smoking gun." And that may be true from a legal standpoint, but we're in the middle of an election and these statements are poison for Clinton and cannon fodder for Donald Trump.

She conducted official State Department business while suffering from a concussion that may have impaired her memory? The report suggested she was only working for a few hours a day at the point based on doctor's orders but if it was that bad that she couldn't remember important briefings, she should have been on medical leave.

No. 2 stretches the limits of credulity. We're supposed to believe Clinton never even considered a discussion about a future drone attack should be kept secret? Saying "I never thought," basically sounds like a dodge on a charge of possible pre-meditation.

As for the claim that no one ever talked to her about any concerns about the private server, that's dangerous territory. Because it's probably not going to be hard to find someone at the State Department, or formerly at the State Department, to contradict this claim. In fact, there are many statements just now released from this FBI interview that are likely going to be refuted and in short order.

The "I could not recall" response to the question about prior training is a classic defendant's dodge. It works great because even if Clinton did get training, it can be argued that it doesn't matter because she doesn't remember it. But while it's a good legal dodge, it's potentially lethal in the midst of an election where you're trying to look like a competent and alert leader.

FBI Director James Comey may have decided not to indict Clinton, but the public revelation of this transcript today does a lot of damage. While you can expect most of the mainstream media pundits to pour cold water on the severity of the facts contained in them, the transcripts put the email scandal right back into the center of the news cycle. The last time that happened, Clinton's poll numbers wilted badly and it took a series of Trump missteps to reverse the decline.

She was already slipping in the polls — this could turn out to be very damaging for her and very good for Trump.