Monthly Archives: August 2013

Nationwide Active Shooter Drills

Posted on by
Reply

Via: GlobalResearch.org:

The FBI has teamed up with an existing active-shooter training program —Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) — begun in Texas after the 1999 Columbine High School shootings and funded in part by the US Department of Justice. The FBI sent roughly 100 tactical instructors to ALERRT training and then placed them throughout the US to oversee mock terror exercises with local law enforcement agencies.

…Since these exercises are designed to be as realistic as possible, students, school personnel and the broader public may be unsuspectingly caught up in the contrived terror, unable distinguish whether the “actors” alongside the accompanying gunfire and explosions are real or fake. This important facet is left up to the relevant agencies to explain to the press.

Further, such events are purportedly carried out to ensure civilians’ “safety” while sharpening police officers’ skills in “real life” environments. Yet local communities and the families of frightened children might wonder why military training-style maneuvers have to be carried out with their loved ones as props, especially in light of the fact that the entire program is based on an event the public still has only limited information about.

Read the full story at :http://www.globalresearch.ca/nationwide-post-sandy-hook-terror-drills/5346612

Such “mock terror excercises” carried out in the name of “safety” and “preparedness” also serve as conditioning for increased militarization of society and is terrorism in the literal sense of the word (the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims). It wouldn’t be surprising if kids victimized in the drills suffer some form of combat shock, but that’s not a problem for authorities and pharmaceutical companies who’ll gladly hook them on SSRI drugs.

Perhaps if government was less power hungry and violent it wouldn’t have to waste valuable resources on wars, weapons, SWAT teams, prisons, active shooter drills, etc. Antoinette Tuff recently demonstrated how potentially dangerous situations can be effectively diffused non-violently. If corporations were less driven by the bottom line there would be more ethical considerations regarding the physical, mental and economic health of all citizens. This is relevant to food, mass media, education, and medicine (especially in light of correlations between SRRI use and violent behavior). With a more ethical banking system that didn’t profit from bubbles, crashes and bailouts, there would be more opportunities for fulfilling work, affordable housing and better social services which could also prevent people from cracking.

Not surprisingly, those who profit most from the current system would rather keep the status quo despite increasing problems while providing authoritarian solutions that benefit them even more.

NSA Paid Big Data Millions to Spy on Us

Video

Reply

No wonder they’re after the whistleblowers. Each new leak further proves government/corporate criminality and lies with documented evidence. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to imagine NSA agents working for tech companies, just like how the CIA infiltrated news media in the Operation Mockingbird campaign.

Via The Guardian:

The disclosure that taxpayers’ money was used to cover the companies’ compliance costs raises new questions over the relationship between Silicon Valley and the NSA. Since the existence of the program was first revealed by the Guardian and the Washington Post on June 6, the companies have repeatedly denied all knowledge of it and insisted they only hand over user data in response to specific legal requests from the authorities.

Read the full story here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-costs-tech-companies-paid

To be fair Obama, like all modern presidents, are just the salespeople for institutions committing such crimes against American citizens and the world.

Hastings Suspected Car Tampering

Posted on by
Reply

“Just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”

-Kurt Cobain (paraphrasing  Joseph Heller)

Via: La Weekly:

He came to believe his Mercedes was being tampered with. “Nothing I could say could console him,” Thigpen says.

One night in June, he came to Thigpen’s apartment after midnight and urgently asked to borrow her Volvo. He said he was afraid to drive his own car. She declined, telling him her car was having mechanical problems.

“He was scared, and he wanted to leave town,” she says.

The next day, around 11:15 a.m., she got a call from her landlord, who told her Hastings had died early that morning. His car had crashed into a palm tree at 75 mph and exploded in a ball of fire.

Read the full story here: http://www.laweekly.com/2013-08-22/news/michael-hastings-crash/

War on Terror in Perspective

Video

Reply

A couple weeks ago Obama was interviewed on “The Tonight Show”. In response to a question from Leno about whether it’s safe for Americans to travel abroad in light of a heightened terror alert, he replied “The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident, unfortunately”. While he probably meant it’s unfortunate that the rate of car accident fatalities is so high, it could also be his conscience (if he has one) admitting the actual threat posed by terrorism is so far less than car crashes and other causes of death, it is indeed weak justification for vastly disproportionate government spending. Regardless of interpretation, he was actually telling the truth.

According to Reason.com, in the period after 9/11 from 2001 to September 2011, only 30 Americans were killed in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Data from the 2013 edition of the AFL-CIO’s “Death on the Job” report, shows 70,664 workplace fatalities in the U.S. from 2001 to 2011. According to a Wiki page on U.S. motor vehicle deaths, from 2002 to 2011, 392,760 Americans were killed in car crashes. So in a similar time-frame the number of Americans killed in terrorist attacks were about .04% of the number of Americans killed in work related incidents in the U.S. and .008% of Americans killed in car crashes. Americans are 2,355 times more likely to die on the job and 13,092 times more likely to die on the road than from a terrorist attack.

Of the U.S. government’s $3.5 trillion total expenditure budget for fiscal year 2012,1.4 trillion was defense-related. So military spending is at least 40% of the U.S. budget (a conservative estimate not including black budget projects) for a terror threat that is miniscule compared to actual dangers that kill far more Americans.

Of course one is unlikely to learn this from corporate-stream news because the focus and priorities of corporate media and government spending tell us whose interests they promote and protect. By keeping citizens in a state of ignorance and fear, countless taxpayer dollars can more easily be diverted from essential public services and infrastructure in the name of “homeland security” and “defense” but with a tacit effect of consolidating power and weakening opposition. Rather than make us safer and more secure, U.S. government response to terrorism has had the opposite effect. Now more than ever we must overcome fear and raise awareness of the agenda at the root of the world’s worst problems through self education, questioning corporate media, organizing, strategic actions (or inactions), etc. We also need to start expanding alternatives to the current system (ie. worker owned cooperatives, small local farms and permaculture). The dominant top-heavy political and economic institutions will inevitably have to collapse or transform not only because they may be irreparably corrupt, but are socially and environmentally unsustainable.

Wrong is Right

Posted on by
Reply

I found a VHS tape of an odd and prescient 1982 Sean Connery film called Wrong is Right at a yard sale shortly after 9/11 and was planning a review drawing parallels between it and different aspects of the war on terror. However, I just discovered E.R. Torres wrote a post similar to what I had in mind last year at his interesting Random Thoughts blog. excerpt:

So, one wonders, might there be another director out there who, upon looking at the events surrounding 9/11 and the second Iraqi war, might not also look at the myriad tragedies involved, from the thousands upon thousands dead, the loss of national treasure, the inept leadership, the media manipulation, and the very questionable motivations for engaging in the conflict in the first place…and decide that this too might be good material in the creation of a black comedy? Thing is, someone already did, and they did it a whopping 20 years before the events of 9/11 and the subsequent Iraqi War. I’m talking about 1982′s Wrong Is Right. As directed by Richard Brooks, the movie features Sean Connery in the role of Patrick Hale, an intrepid, world famous reporter who, in the process of criss-crossing the globe, comes to realize he’s landed himself smack dab in the middle of machinations involving the CIA, an Arabian leader whose land is filled with oil, a weapons dealer, a terrorist intent on getting his hands on two mysterious suitcases, and a U.S. presidential election. The various parties involved actively try to manipulate the story Hale perceives and tells, and ultimately what may appear “true” becomes a matter of convenience. To go into too much debate about the story’s plot would be a disservice. Having said that, this now 30 year old film is incredibly prescient. With some minor modifications, this could easily be a black comedy “take” on the buildup to the Iraqi War. The most eerie element of the whole thing is that the movie’s climax takes place on the roof of the World Trade Center.

You can watch the complete film here.

It’s the Law

Posted on by
Reply

privacyNOT

Interesting commentary by James E. Miller, editor-in-chief of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada. It connects recent current events in a logical narrative and offers a plausable explanation for the apparant wind-down of the war on (some) drugs.

excerpt:

With today’s nation-state, the monopoly on law enforcement has eroded the traditional notion of justice. Certainly various levels of government still prosecute those who commit malum in se wrongs. But the granting of sole discretion over societal function to the state has brought about a litany of prohibitions on otherwise harmless actions. The most widespread and destructive example of this gross perversion of law has been the American drug war. In major metropolitan areas, large numbers of users of substances designated harmful to public tranquility are fined, detained, and imprisoned. The very act of ingesting mentally-altering narcotics constitutes no harm absent the self-imposed kind. The outlawing of drug use superimposes control of the individual, and makes him beholden to the political class. As Will Grigg posits, the malum prohibitum on narcotics is a subset of human slavery as the premise denies complete self-ownership.

In an act of supposed moral revelation, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced the federal government would begin relaxing indictments of low-level, nonviolent possessors of drugs. In a speech before the sleazebag of litigating opportunists known as the American Bar Association, the nation’s top mob enforcer declared “too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no good law enforcement reason.” The mandatory minimum sentencing laws passed by Congress will simply go ignored.

The gullible reader might assume the odious basis for the war on drugs may finally be visible to the heavily armed buffoons who raid private homes and the sloth-resembling chief law enforcer, but that would be a naive supposition. The wind down has little to do with morality and everything to do with cost. Imprisoning thousands of junkies takes a great deal of resources. With a corpulent debt financing military adventurism and welfare pocket-padding, Holder and the rest of the federal government racket are feeling the squeeze.

The very same penalty relaxation occurred at the height of the Great Depression. While Franklin Roosevelt busied himself with turning American business into a quasi-fascist state, he was intelligent enough to recognize the civil demolition wrought by alcohol prohibition. As the black market for booze paved the way for organized crime during the roaring 1920s, the stock market crash left state and local governments hamstrung by a lack of tax revenue. If action was not taken, thousands of wealth-sucking bureaucrats would be thrown to the streets. So the Democratic Party endorsed making America wet again, while nominating the craze-minded Roosevelt in 1932. After the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, excise taxes were levied on wine and spirits. As economists Mark Thornton and Chetley Weise document, the resulting tax receipts staved off what would have been shriveling bankruptcy.

Rarely does the state cede authority when it comes to corralling the citizenry. The only barrier that stands between government domineering is always the cost of its behemoth, sluggish operation. The relaxation of penalties for drug ingestion is demonstrative of this rule. At the same time, it is a mockery of the concept of reasoned law. If using narcotics were truly an affront to the natural order, there would be no leniency. The immoral act would be opposed root and branch, similar to rape or murder. Current legal prohibitions on various forms of opiates are not grounded in justice but are merely a form of societal control. In the classic bootleggers and baptists sense, these restrictions enrich those who profit from sale, distribution, and incarceration while satisfying the warped psyche of taskmaster puritans.
To read the complete essay, visit the Ludwig von Mises link or the repost at Zerohedge.com.