Document The Truth archive
Author : monicakx78
A recent Department of Defense instruction alters the US code applying to the military’s involvement in domestic law enforcement by allowing US troops to quell “civil disturbances” domestically without any Presidential authorization, greasing the skids for a de facto military coup in America along with the wholesale abolition of Posse Comitatus.
The instruction (embedded at the end of this article), which was originally released in February yet has only come to light this week, outlines DoD policy regarding, “DoD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances within the United States.”
On page 16 of the document (PDF), we find the following amendment (emphasis mine);
(3) When permitted under emergency authority in accordance with Reference (c), Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances because:
(a) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or,
(b) When duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions. Federal action, including the use of Federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect Federal property or functions.
On page 17 of the document, a number of different scenarios are listed under which the military is forbidden involvement, although the broader power of quelling domestic disturbances without presidential or congressional authorization is claimed.
In essence, this policy change seeks to supersede Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law which forbids the military from being involved in domestic law enforcement “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.”
Members of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus are the latest to join the many people raising concerns about Google Glass in a letter to Google CEO and co-founder Larry Page in which they request answers to eight pointed questions.
Since the technology was introduced, Google Glass has been incredibly controversial, even leading former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to speak out against the technology.
Many venues have preemptively banned Glass including a Seattle bar, casinos and strip clubs in Las Vegas and the entire state of West Virginia is trying to ban wearing Glass while driving, according to the Independent.
“Respect our customers privacy as we’d expect them to respect yours,” stated Seattle’s Five Point Café, becoming the first to ban Glass, according to Reuters. Some movie theaters may also join the trend.
Yet Google figures have been quick to dismiss any and all concerns.
“Criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society to it,” Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said during a talk at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in April.
Never mind the fact that Glass can easily be hacked and turned into a pervasive surveillance device. That’s just being afraid of change.
One of the questions posed by members of Congress in their letter concerned facial recognition capabilities.
Google claims that no facial recognition technology is built into the device and there are no plans to implement it “unless we have strong privacy protections in place.”
However, most readers are likely aware of the fact that the technology could indeed be rolled out silently or indeed built into the device without Google admitting it.
Vermont seemed more likely than ever to become the first US state to mandate the labeling of genetically modified food (GMO) after a bill passed the state house, though legislators worry about a lawsuit threat from biotech giant Monsanto.
Similar bills seeking to provide consumers with labels at the grocery store that highlight what products contain GMOs have recently failed. In California, a ballot initiative which bypassed Congress after receiving 850,000 signatures was defeated in 2012 after a large consortium of biotech companies including Monsanto spent some $50 million on an ad blitz against the legislation.
As RT reported in late April, a new federal bill which would mandate the labeling of GMOs, the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, was introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR). Though few expect such laws to pass on a national level, the bill was notable for its inclusion of a wider base of bipartisan support, with nine Senate co-sponsors and 22 cosponsors in the House.
Though sixty-four other countries, including EU members, China, Russia, Brazil, India and Japan already have existing regulations in place to label GMOs for consumers the issue is a highly contentious one in the US, both at the federal and state level.
According to Senator Boxer, more than 90 per cent of Americans support the labeling of genetically engineered products. Though the Food and Drug Administration requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives and processes it does not consider GMOs to be “materially” different as they cannot be tasted, smelled or identified by consumers by other means.
Recently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has come under attack for malicious treatment of certain U.S. citizens and groups by singling them out based upon their personal political preferences. At this time, it is still unclear where the direct orders came from to initiate such heinous activities, but what is crystal clear is that this type of activity is not new for the IRS.
The IRS has mastered the art of breaking their own laws, one case in particular; using banks to launder and then steal disabled veterans’ disability checks.
The Veterans Disability Act of 2010 is a Federal law which exempts VA disability from withholding of any sort. Actually, existing code USC, Title 38, §5301 already protected VA disability from withholding, but this provision was re-iterated and included in the newer legislation of 2010, because too many civil court judges were legislating from the bench and including veterans’ disability monies as earned income and granting it to ex-spouses (men and women) in divorce proceedings, at times, leaving disabled veterans without any safety net for self-care.
However, the IRS is still figuring out ways to get to a veteran’s disability money. How do I know? Recently, it happened to me.
A couple of months ago, when I logged into my online bank account to make sure that my VA disability check had been deposited (I am a 60% disabled veteran of the Iraq War) I saw red and a negative balance, beside which read the word “hold.”
I called my bank and was informed that the IRS had sent a letter demanding that the bank take all of the available funds out of my account on the first day of the month and then wire them to them. The bank gave me a telephone number at which to call the IRS. After being placed on hold for a very long time- long as in a biblical age- I finally spoke with an agent.
Long story short; they claim I made $157,000 in 2010 and that I owe them tons of money, and that until I pay it, a lien will remain on my personal bank account.
Exercises play a vital role in national preparedness by enabling whole community stakeholders to test and validate plans and capabilities, and identify both capability gaps and areas for improvement. A well-designed exercise provides a low-risk environment to test capabilities, familiarize personnel with roles and responsibilities, and foster meaningful interaction and communication across organizations. The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) provides a set of guiding principles for exercise programs, as well as a common approach to planning and conducting individual exercises. This methodology applies to exercises in support of all national preparedness mission areas and ensures a consistent and interoperable approach to exercise design and development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning.
The Training and Exercise Planning Workshop (TEPW)
Role of Exercises:
Exercises play a vital role in national preparedness by enabling whole community stakeholders to test and validate plans and capabilities, and identify both capability gaps and areas for improvement. A well- designed exercise provides a low-risk environment to test capabilities, familiarize personnel with roles and responsibilities, and foster meaningful interaction and communication across organizations. Exercises bring together and strengthen the whole community in its efforts to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards. Overall, exercises are cost-effective and useful tools that help the nation practice and refine our collective capacity to achieve the core capabilities in the National Preparedness Goal.
When identifying stakeholders, exercise program managers should consider individuals from
organizations throughout the whole community, including but not limited to:
• Elected and appointed officials responsible for providing direction and guidance for exercise program priorities and those responsible for providing resources to support exercises;
• Representatives from relevant disciplines that would be part of the exercises or any real-world events, including appropriate regional or local Federal department/agency representatives;
• Individuals with administrative responsibility relevant to exercise conduct; and
• Representatives from volunteer, nongovernmental, nonprofit, or social support organizations, including advocates for children, seniors, individuals with disabilities, those with access and functional needs, racially and ethnically diverse communities, people with limited English proficiency, and animals. Once a comprehensive set of stakeholders has been identified, exercise program managers can include them in the exercise program by having them regularly participate in TEPWs.
The HSEEP 2013 Document:
This document serves as a description of HSEEP doctrine. It includes an overview of HSEEP fundamentals that describes core HSEEP principles and overall methodology. This overview is followed by several chapters that provide exercise practitioners with more detailed guidance on putting the program’s principles and methodology into practice.
It’s 1.7 miles long. Its surface is covered in a sticky black substance similar to the gunk at the bottom of a barbecue. If it impacted Earth it would probably result in global extinction. Good thing it is just making a flyby.
Asteroid 1998 QE2 will make its closest pass to Earth on May 31 at 1:59 p.m. PDT.
Scientists are not sure where this unusually large space rock, which was discovered 15 years ago, originated from. But the mysterious sooty substance on its surface could indicate it may be the result of a comet that flew too close to the sun, said Amy Mainzer, who tracks near-Earth objects at Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. It might also have leaked out of the asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, she said.
We will know more after the asteroid zips closer to Earth and scientists using the Deep Space Network antenna in Goldstone, Calif., and the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico can get a better look at it. Astronomers at both observatories plan to track it closely from May 30 to June 9, according to a JPL release.
At its closest approach the asteroid will still be 3.6 million miles from our planet (about 15 times the distance between the Earth and the moon), but it will be close enough for these powerful radar antennas to see features as small as 12 feet across.
In a surprising move, Texas House and Senate budget negotiators have agreed to wipe out funding for the Department of Public Safety’s fusion center, part of a nationwide intelligence gathering initiative that has generated controversy in Washington.
If the House and Senate affirm the change, it could make Texas the first state to pull the rug from under one of the statewide fusion operations that began under a Department of Homeland Security offensive that has been criticized for wasting taxpayers’ money.
“It’s shocking to me,” said Ron Brooks, a former director of the San Francisco fusion center who is now with a Washington D.C., consulting and lobbying group specializing in criminal intelligence issues. Despite their terrorism-focused origins, Brooks said the more than 70 fusion centers across the country have evolved into “all-crime centers” to coordinate information sharing among local, state and federal agencies. Such information sharing provides “smart policing” of everything from street gangs to homicide investigations, Brooks said.
He said he knows of no other state that has eliminated funds for a statewide center.
DPS requested close to $16 million over the next biennium to continue operating the Texas Fusion Center, where about 100 employees now work in offices located at the DPS headquarters. The House had eliminated money for the center in its version of the appropriations bill, and the conference committee that is hashing out the 2014-15 state budget concurred in that decision Monday.
A factor in that decision, according to budget documents crafted by the House, was an October 2012 report by a U.S. Senate investigative subcommittee that lambasted the fusion centers for “irrelevant, useless or inappropriate” intelligence gathering and wasteful spending on private contractors, while doing little to keep the country safer. Both the statewide fusion center and the one operated by the Austin Police Department opened toward the end of 2010, too late to be included in the Senate report.
Most people have heard of tree-sitting—a tactic environmentalists use to prevent old-growth trees from being cut down and whole forests decimated. In its heyday, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, members of groups like Earth First! climbed 100-foot-tall Redwoods and stayed there to save them. Beginning in 1997, one woman in Humboldt, California, named her tree Luna and stayed in it for two years, until enough money could be raised to prevent it from being axed. In 1998, in a Northern California old-growth forest, another treesitter named David Gypsy Chain was “accidentally” killed when loggers felled a tree that came crashing into the protester. He died instantly of massive head trauma.
This style of protest was also hugely successful—that is, until a series of arrests in 2005 against radical environmentalists who were labeled “terrorists.” It scared the shit out of the environmental-activist community, and folks started drifting away.
Now, there’s a vibrant national protest movement reviving those “direct action” tactics of civil disobedience again, and adding a new political savvy to the mix. They, too, have been incredibly effective. In Oregon, in the summer of 2011, one blockade took 50 cops, a backhoe, and a 125-foot-crane to remove treesitters. A few days later, activists locked themselves together in an Oregon Department of Forestry office. The group responsible, the Cascadia Forest Defenders, say they won’t stop until the Elliott State Forest is protected from clearcutting.
As a result—surprise, surprise—politicians are trying to create new laws that make tree-sits and other direct-action techniques illegal. The bills even single out the Elliott State Forest campaign by name and allow corporations to sue protesters for costing them money.
On April 29, two bills passed the Oregon House that would hit tree sitters and non-violent protesters with felonies and mandatory minimum sentences.
“There’s been a 30-year reign of terror by these people having no respect for the rights of others,” says Rep. Wayne Krieger, a Republican. Krieger says “environmental terrorists” have been “chaining themselves to trees, locking themselves to equipment, and laying down in the road.”
Do you take a daily multivitamin? What if that multivitamin you take was actually poison and you didn’t know it?
Many people these days seem to understand that we are missing nutritional factors from the food we eat because the quality of food has gone down tremendously over the last 50-100 years.
From people not consuming as many vegetables and fruits as they used too and an even larger part of the population consuming non-organic food, our bodies aren’t getting what they need to prevent disease. If the body doesn’t get very basic nutritional needs, it begins to break down and not function properly. This can eventually lead to sickness, illness, and disease. This is where a good quality whole food multivitamin can provide the missing nutritional factors that we all need.
Are all multivitamins alike? Do you take Centrum, GNC’s Megaman, or another store-bought brand name multivitamin? I remember long ago looking on the back of my Centrum bottle and seeing thousands of percents of vitamins and thinking that surely this multivitamin would do the trick and provide me with what I need. I was dead wrong.
The bad news is that Centrum and many others multivitamins can actually be very harmful and do the opposite of what they market being able to do. While Flintstones or gummy vitamins are colorful, they may be actually contributing to sickness in your children. In fact, many chewables for children contain aspartame in order to make it sweet. Aspartame is a very well-known brain toxin, killing brain cells. The work of Dr. Russell Blaylock on excitotoxins can provide more wonderful information about aspartame.
Whole Food Vs. Synthetic Supplements
More is not always better. Just because a bottle may list thousands of percent of something doesn’t make it better. In nature, things are never found like this. A synthetic vitamin is a fractionated, chemically made substance. If we were created for things like this, they could make all of our food in a pharmaceutical laboratory. This, of course, is absurd. It is the co-factors in addition to all of the main nutrients, which science has still yet to discover that provides life to the body. Chemicals and synthetics don’t sustain life, they only serve to break it down and destroy life. Only food, in its natural whole form supports and sustains life. If synthetic vitamins don’t actually come from food, where do they come from??
Infowars.com | Organizer of July 4th armed D.C. march hauled away in white Suburban.