Both of these schools are Elite training grounds for future keepers of the New World Order faith — research it.
Cruz was quickly accelerated through the “business as usual” status quo Republican political system, including becoming foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush’s campaign in 2000 and then rising through the NeoCon political food chain, finally becoming the first Hispanic Senator from Texas.
There are a number of issues with Cruz as a candidate for President, but the biggest stopper is – Cruz is not eligible to be President. He is NOT a Natural Born Citizen by any stretch of the definition.
13 years have come to pass since the 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center towers. Americans have been left with an ‘official report’ and unanswered questions. Post 9/11legislation has had enormous consequences for this country.
One of the biggest post 9/11 deceptions awaiting Americans following the tragedy of the attacks on the World Trade Centers was the PATRIOT ACT (an act of Congress) signed into law in 2001 by President George W. Bush. The act expands and gave to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal agencies the power to search business and homes and to obtain any records without any knowledge or consent. Recently, the act has come under fire when Edward Snowden, former CIA employee and NSA contractor, exposed secret documents of how the NSA collects telephone records of virtually all Americans under the power of the Patriot Act.
( Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux) – The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.
The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place “entire categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.
Over the years, the Obama and Bush Administrations have fiercely resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the databases—though the guidelines are officially labeled as unclassified. In May, Attorney General Eric Holder even invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent watchlisting guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list. In an affidavit, Holder called them a “clear roadmap” to the government’s terrorist-tracking apparatus, adding: “The Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed … could cause significant harm to national security.”
In 2012 Tim Healy, the former director of the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, described to CBS News how watchlists are used by police officers. “So if you are speeding, you get pulled over, they’ll query that name,” he said. “And if they are encountering a known or suspected terrorist, it will pop up and say call the Terrorist Screening Center…. So now the officer on the street knows he may be dealing with a known or suspected terrorist.” Of course, the problem is that the “known or suspected terrorist” might just be an ordinary citizen who should not be treated as a menace to public safety.
Until 2001, the government did not prioritize building a watchlist system. On 9/11, the government’s list of people barred from flying included just 16 names. Today, the no fly list has swelled to tens of thousands of “known or suspected terrorists” (the guidelines refer to them as KSTs). The selectee list subjects people to extra scrutiny and questioning at airports and border crossings. The government has created several other databases, too. The largest is the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), which gathers terrorism information from sensitive military and intelligence sources around the world. Because it contains classified information that cannot be widely distributed, there is yet another list, the Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, which has been stripped of TIDE’s classified data so that it can be shared. When government officials refer to “the watchlist,” they are typically referring to the TSDB. (TIDE is the responsibility of the National Counterterrorism Center; the TSDB is managed by the Terrorist Screening Center at the FBI.)
In a statement, a spokesman for the National Counterterrorism Center told The Intercept that “the watchlisting system is an important part of our layered defense to protect the United States against future terrorist attacks” and that “watchlisting continues to mature to meet an evolving, diffuse threat.” He added that U.S. citizens are afforded extra protections to guard against improper listing, and that no one can be placed on a list solely for activities protected by the First Amendment. A representative of the Terrorist Screening Center did not respond to a request for comment.
The system has been criticized for years. In 2004, Sen. Ted Kennedy complained that he was barred from boarding flights on five separate occasions because his name resembled the alias of a suspected terrorist. Two years later, CBS News obtained a copy of the no fly list and reported that it included Bolivian president Evo Morales and Lebanese parliament head Nabih Berri. One of the watchlists snared Mikey Hicks, a Cub Scout who got his first of many airport pat-downs at age two. In 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general issued a scathing report identifying “significant weaknesses” in the system. And in 2009, after a Nigerian terrorist was able to board a passenger flight to Detroit and nearly detonated a bomb sewn into his underwear despite his name having been placed on the TIDE list, President Obama admitted that there had been a “systemic failure.”
Obama hoped that his response to the “underwear bomber” would be a turning point. In 2010, he gave increased powers and responsibilities to the agencies that nominate individuals to the lists, placing pressure on them to add names. His administration also issued a set of new guidelines for the watchlists. Problems persisted, however. In 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report that bluntly noted there was no agency responsible for figuring out “whether watchlist-related screening or vetting is achieving intended results.” The guidelines were revised and expanded in 2013—and a source within the intelligence community subsequently provided a copy to The Intercept.
“Concrete facts are not necessary”
The five chapters and 11 appendices of the “Watchlisting Guidance” are filled with acronyms, legal citations, and numbered paragraphs; it reads like an arcane textbook with a vocabulary all its own. Different types of data on suspected terrorists are referred to as “derogatory information,” “substantive derogatory information,” “extreme derogatory information” and “particularized derogatory information.” The names of suspected terrorists are passed along a bureaucratic ecosystem of “originators,” “nominators,” “aggregators,” “screeners,” and “encountering agencies.” And “upgrade,” usually a happy word for travellers, is repurposed to mean that an individual has been placed on a more restrictive list.
The heart of the document revolves around the rules for placing individuals on a watchlist. “All executive departments and agencies,” the document says, are responsible for collecting and sharing information on terrorist suspects with the National Counterterrorism Center. It sets a low standard—”reasonable suspicion“—for placing names on the watchlists, and offers a multitude of vague, confusing, or contradictory instructions for gauging it. In the chapter on “Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria”—even the title is hard to digest—the key sentence on reasonable suspicion offers little clarity:
“To meet the REASONABLE SUSPICION standard, the NOMINATOR, based on the totality of the circumstances, must rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrants a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.”
The rulebook makes no effort to define an essential phrase in the passage—”articulable intelligence or information.” After stressing that hunches are not reasonable suspicion and that “there must be an objective factual basis” for labeling someone a terrorist, it goes on to state that no actual facts are required:
“In determining whether a REASONABLE SUSPICION exists, due weight should be given to the specific reasonable inferences that a NOMINATOR is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his/her experience and not on unfounded suspicions or hunches. Although irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary, to be reasonable, suspicion should be as clear and as fully developed as circumstances permit.”
While the guidelines nominally prohibit nominations based on unreliable information, they explicitly regard “uncorroborated” Facebook or Twitter posts as sufficient grounds for putting an individual on one of the watchlists. “Single source information,” the guidelines state, “including but not limited to ‘walk-in,’ ‘write-in,’ or postings on social media sites, however, should not automatically be discounted … the NOMINATING AGENCY should evaluate the credibility of the source, as well as the nature and specificity of the information, and nominate even if that source is uncorroborated.”
There are a number of loopholes for putting people onto the watchlists even if reasonable suspicion cannot be met.
One is clearly defined: The immediate family of suspected terrorists—their spouses, children, parents, or siblings—may be watchlisted without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity. But another loophole is quite broad—”associates” who have a defined relationship with a suspected terrorist, but whose involvement in terrorist activity is not known. A third loophole is broader still—individuals with “a possible nexus” to terrorism, but for whom there is not enough “derogatory information” to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.
Americans and foreigners can be nominated for the watchlists if they are associated with a terrorist group, even if that group has not been designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. They can also be treated as “representatives” of a terrorist group even if they have “neither membership in nor association with the organization.” The guidelines do helpfully note that certain associations, such as providing janitorial services or delivering packages, are not grounds for being watchlisted.
The nomination system appears to lack meaningful checks and balances. Although government officials have repeatedly said there is a rigorous process for making sure no one is unfairly placed in the databases, the guidelines acknowledge that all nominations of “known terrorists” are considered justified unless the National Counterterrorism Center has evidence to the contrary. In a recent court filing, the government disclosed that there were 468,749 KST nominations in 2013, of which only 4,915 were rejected–a rate of about one percent. The rulebook appears to invert the legal principle of due process, defining nominations as “presumptively valid.”
The most important article you will read about GridEx II. How far will they go with national preparedness to predict the next catastrophe scenario… for our safety?
“I always enjoyed going into the holodeck” – Jonathan Frakes
By STEPHANIE SLEDGE | 11Nov2013
By now, it is assumed that most Americans know there is a security exercise to be performed on the power grid and will take place this week called GridEx II / GridSecCon. This exercise involves the cooperation of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Simulations of physical and cyber attacks on the power grid could occur during this exercise.
Read the rest: http://www.thegovernmentrag.com/GridExII%202013.html#.UoC40SqeuVX
(PressTV) -By encouraging mass dependency on the welfare state, the Obama administration is ensuring that nationwide rioting due to a large-scale collapse of the food stamp program will “justify” an explosive expansion of the police state.
The administration’s goal to dramatically increase food stamp enrollment, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), follows a strategy called pressure from above and below, in which the government deliberately creates problems in order to offer “solutions” which only expand government powers at the expense of individual rights.
The government’s “solution” to nationwide rioting due to a crash in the food stamp system will no doubt involve a federalized police state takeover, perhaps even martial law, with Department of Homeland Security tanks and VIPR squads roaming America’s streets to supposedly “restore order” out of the chaos while ignoring the Bill of Rights with impunity.
Regional “mini-riots” have already occurred during an electronics benefit transfer (EBT) system glitch last Saturday.
Now that over 47.7 million Americans, nearly 1/6th of the US population, are dependent on food assistance and that the United States Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, ordered states to withhold electronic transfers of benefits for the month of November until further notice, the rise of the police state under the guise of riot response may very well come into fruition.
“The hidden objective will be to expand the power of the bureaucracy and to move the country closer to the ultimate goal of total government,” wrote G. Edward Griffin in a related essay.
The government’s deliberate push for welfare dependency is obvious considering that the USDA spent vast amounts of taxpayer money to encourage illegal immigrants to apply for food stamps through television and print ads.
On July 19, 2012, the Daily Caller reported that the USDA began working with the Mexican government to “increase participation in SNAP.”
Knowing that there was more to the story, Judicial Watch made a Freedom of Information Act request the next day asking for “any and all records and communications” relating to the USDA/Mexico food stamp partnership.
Nine months later, Judicial Watch received welfare promotional documents including a Spanish-language flyer targeted to illegal immigrants, telling them that they do not need to “divulge information” regarding their “immigration status” in order to receive welfare benefits for their children.
The USDA was running Spanish-language television ads promoting the food stamp program to illegal immigrants as early as 2006, during the Bush administration.
Once Obama took over, however, welfare enrollment exploded.
“Since President Obama came into office, SNAP participation has increased at 10 times the rate of job creation,” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said. “This explosive growth in both the SNAP enrollment and federal cost of the program is alarming.”
This skyrocketing increase in government dependency is no accident.
By pushing for massive enrollment into SNAP, the Obama administration is making a sizable number of people dependent on welfare to the point where they will riot if they are denied access to food stamps, which the government controls at whim.
The government can therefore trigger violent food stamp riots, either intentionally or through incompetence, and DHS can exploit the ensuing chaos to expand its power while unleashing its stockpile of armored tanks and two billion rounds of ammunition onto We the People.
Under a two-prong attack of pressure from above and pressure from below, the American people will be in serious danger of losing their lives, their rights and what remains of the republic.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle — Sun Tzu, The Art of War
(JACK MULLEN) – America is facing two wars, both instigated by a foreign nation with foreign interests; wars to be fought here on American soil with Tyranny and Liberty in the balance.
At this very moment Americans are secretly being herded, manipulated, divided and gulled into a civil war; A weakening, disarming, demoralizing, devastating, but still dispensable civil war. Then, without relief, the second, and most brutal, war will begin; a war to determine the future of the world for generations to come.
The Civil War will be a false flag event, staged to disarm Americans followed by an attack of multi-national troops – destroying the final resistance and instituting a new system of government; a world government with the former America as a territory.
To understand how this is possible it necessary to open your mind and look around.