Monday, March 25, 2013

Fast & Furious

Despite the fact that the “Fast and Furious” gun-smuggling scandal broke prior to 2012, the sheer magnitude of the scandal assured it would spill over and likely far beyond by the end of the year.

Sure enough, more innocent people became victims of guns that were handed to Mexican drug cartels by the ATF in 2012 and despite what looks to be obvious misrepresentations of the circumstances by mid to high level officials under oath, very few have truly yet to be held accountable for their involvement in an operation that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent citizens on either side of the Mexican-American border.

“Fast and Furious” refers to the Arizona Field Office of the
United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) series of "gunwalking" sting operations between 2006 and 2011. These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States. "Gun walking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders."

 The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels. The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers. During Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest "gunwalking" probe, the ATF monitored the sale of about 2,000 firearms, of which only 710 were recovered as of February 2012. A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.

 Guns tracked by the ATF have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the Mexico–United States border, and the scene of the death of at least one U.S. federal agent, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The "gunwalking" operations became public in the aftermath of Terry's murder. Dissenting ATF agents came forward to Congress in response.  According to Humberto Benítez Treviño, former Mexican Attorney General and chair of the justice committee in the Chamber of Deputies, related firearms have been found at numerous crime scenes in Mexico where at least 150 Mexican civilians were maimed and killed. As investigations have continued, the operations have become increasingly controversial in both countries, and diplomatic relations have been damaged as a result.

 As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in criminal contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012. Earlier that month, President Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency over the same documents.

"One 20-year veteran of ATF’s Tucson office told us that before Operation Wide Receiver, all of ATF’s trafficking cases were very similar in their simplicity: ATF would get a tip from an FFL [Federal Firearms License] about a buyer who wanted a large number of firearms and information about when the transaction was scheduled to take place, and would set up surveillance and arrest the buyer when he headed southbound or at the border. Sometimes the initial buyer would cooperate with ATF, and agents would arrest the actual buyer when he showed up to take possession of the guns. If the guns went to a stash house, agents would speak with subjects at the stash house or conduct a search of the stash house. This agent told us that ATF interdicted guns as a matter of course and had been “content to make the little cases,” but that Wide Receiver represented a “different direction” from ATF’s typical practice." --Report by the Office of the Inspector General on the Review of ATF's Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters September 2012

As if that weren’t enough to get the blood boiling, the Obama administration pulled the same executive privilege style political chicanery as did the final Bush administration, whenever it came time to unearth documents that likely led to knowledge that the highest levels in government were likely either aware of or were directly involved in the operation and/or responsible for its existence to begin with.

Although the media refuses to call it anything other than a “botched” operation, as if it was originally a well-intended attempt at rooting out drug smugglers, the fact that the cartel that received the guns was magically taking out rival cartels with those guns that weren’t laundering their drug money through Wall Street banks in the US, automatically brings the realization that it wasn’t actually a “botched” operation after all strait into the realm of sheer likelihood.

When will we take a stand against the government money-for-bodybags programs?

Sunday, March 17, 2013

The Military's Dirty Work - Outsourced

Paramilitary Cover Ups Escalate

    How are US military supplies being trafficked through Pakistan to Afghanistan if the US military isn't involved? Because the protection of these supply lines is done by private military companies. Companies that hire ex-armed forces and ex-intelligence agents to keep them as participants in American aggression all through the world. But these men and women are not uniformed. So, when it comes to reporting casualties of the American army, the skewed numbers reported by the American media sound rosier to the public. For example in Afghanistan alone the US casualties number about 4,000 people over the last ten years. But the private paramilitary companies are not counted into these losses, whereas during these last ten years American private paramilitary companies have lost an additional thousand people. The numbers have been massaged by a thousand lives lost.

    Paramilitary institutions will go to great lengths to keep their impact on the so-called "war on terror" out of the headlines. Groups like The Titor Conglomerate or Academi (formerly Blackwater Worldwide) have been known to extort or otherwise "hush" individuals trying to expose even the most innocuous data about their operations. In 2011, Academi operatives succeeded in vanishing two high-ranking members of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service that were preparing documents on their misconduct in Iraq and Kuwait. Within 72 hours, all online accounts pertaining to this were redacted or censored online, and cannot be retrieved. Their subsidiary, Greystone Unlimited, was strategically based outside the U.S. to avoid increased scrutiny, allowing for their black-ops work to largely remain off the media's radar. In the same way that atrocities of Condor Security, the lapdogs of The Titor Conglomerate are made to seem nigh-invisible in terms of mainstream exposure. Only a dedicated few reliable sources, like this blog, are able to appraise the world population of their continued misdeeds and cover-ups.

    The CIA in its turn is doing the same kind of thing. For example, you remember Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The prisoners of Abu Ghraib were kept by private paramilitary forces and that's why there was a tremendous excess in the violation of human rights. Not only the military of the American army violated but mostly the paramilitary private companies were violating the rights of the prisoners and they have inflicted so many insults on their religions and character. These developments are taking a growing role in American military expeditions.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Cali Prop 37

   California voters had to battle dirty corporate tricks in attempt to make GMO labeling mandatory in their state. Sadly, this important effort was shot down on Election Day in November due to the nearly $46 million spent by companies like Monsanto, PepsiCo, Bayer, Nestle, DuPont and ConAgra Foods to oppose the bill. Supporters say that any hope in this incredible move for a democratic debate was drowned in a sea of money spent on a massive advertising campaign aimed to brainwash the public to vote against the measure. 

   Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which now represent 85% of corn and 91% of soybeans grown in the U.S., are abundantly found in many processed foods. Many don’t know it because it is not required to appear on the label. Animal studies shows that GMOs cause massive tumors and sterility within three generations. Mandatory labeling of GM foods must be acquired for public choice and safety. The BioTech industry is presented with the same problem as the Tobacco industry, which is artistically employing the carefully balanced set of dirty tactics necessary to push deadly products while limiting bad publicity and maximizing returns.

   In California, the “No on Prop 37” campaign enjoyed the support of many professors from the University of California at Davis that coincidentally receives millions of dollars from the bio-tech industry, primarily “for research.” The campaign also employed the help of MB Public Affairs, Inc. to help create the false image that corporate influence against the measure was really grassroots efforts, just as they did for former client Phillip Morris. It should be no surprise that these giants of biotechnology will stop at nothing to ensure their GM crops are here to stay. In the diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks it was revealed that U.S. diplomats were conspiring with companies like Monsanto to covertly undermine any efforts opposing GM crops by nations of the European Union. This is why many supporters believe in the very real possibility of vote fraud, particularly because of the premature media reports that the measure was defeated 53.1% to 46.9%, with at least 3.3 million votes still left to count.

   While this battle may have been lost the war most definitely continues. It is highly unlikely that the people of California actually believe that knowing the content of their food is unimportant. It is far more likely and obvious that corporations pay millions to promote the lie, but as more people realize that transparency is the only way to keep deadly poisons out of our food, air, and water, their ability to rig the system will become more and more difficult.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Unmanned Drones: Our Lives at Risk

Tuesday, February 12th, 2013, Big Bear Lake, California. The charred remains of suspected cop murderer and ex-Los Angeles police officer Christopher Jordan Dorner lie on the floor of a burning cabin. How did the fire start? Police say it was an accident involving a flash-bang setting the place ablaze. Perhaps it wasn't the flash-bang, but the result of the first drone attack on U.S. soil? Drones had been launched to search the area for Dorner. Without due process, Dorner was executed and burned by the newest threat to the American people: The Unmanned Drone.

An unmanned aerial vehicle, commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot on board. Its flight is controlled either autonomously by computers in the vehicle, or under the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle. Drones were simple remotely piloted aircraft, but autonomous control is increasingly being employed. They are deployed predominantly for military applications, preferred for missions that are too "dull, dirty, or dangerous" for manned aircraft.

You may ask, 'What's wrong with Drones? Couldn't they prevent the next Sept. 11?' Perhaps, but at what cost?

Between 2006 and 2009, drone-launched missiles killed 750-1,000 people in Pakistan. Of those, about 20 people were said to be leaders of al-Qaeda, Taliban, and associated groups. Overall, 66% to 68% of the people killed were militants, 31% to 33% were civilians. U.S. officials disputed the percentage for civilians. Why the discrepancy? The Obama administration refuses to release the documents detailing Drone usage. However, the administration has made one thing clear, Drones would be only used if the target was "an imminent threat" to the U.S. That means people can be killed off and ON U.S. soil, without due process using these Drones. You, me, anyone can be killed if we are deemed 'an imminent threat.' It's time to be afraid.

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the targeting of Drones. The following are some scary facts:
  • April 2002: Four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight were injured by a U.S. Drone when it dropped a bomb on them during a night training. 
  • March 2009: The Guardian reported Israeli Drones killed 48 Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, including two small children in a field and a group of women and girls in an otherwise empty street. 
  • June: Human Rights Watch investigated six attacks which was reported to have resulted in civilian casualties, and alleged that Israeli forces either failed to take all feasible precautions to verify that the targets were combatants, or failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians. 
  • July 2009: Brookings Institution reported that United States-led drone attacks in Pakistan, ten civilians died for every militant killed. 
  • July 2009: S. Azmat Hassan, a former ambassador of Pakistan, said that 35 or 40 Drone attacks only killed 8 or 9 top al-Qaeda operatives. 
  • October 2009: The CIA claimed to have killed more than half of the 20 most wanted al-Qaeda terrorist suspects in targeted killings using drones. 
  • January 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009: Pakistani authorities released statistics indicating U.S. drone strikes have killed over 700 innocent civilians. 
  • January 2010: 123 innocent civilians killed in Pakistan. 
  • May 2010: counter-terrorism officials said that drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas had killed more than 500 militants since 2008, and no more than 30 (5%) nearby civilians. A Pakistani intelligence officer gave a higher estimate of civilian casualties, saying 20% of total deaths were civilians or non-combatants. 
  • February 24, 2010: New America Foundation says the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports that 114 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed between 830 to 1210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants. 
  • 2012: the USAF trained more drone pilots than ordinary jet fighter pilots for the first time. 
  • February 2013: U.S. senator Lindsey Graham stated that 4,756 people have been killed by U.S. Drones. 

Although it may never be known how many civilians have died as a result of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, there are estimates of hundreds or thousands of innocent bystanders who have perished in such attacks. The website PakistanBodyCount.Org (by Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani, a Fulbright Scholar at the Florida Institute of Technology) shows 1065 civilian deaths between June 2004 to January 30, 2010 and tallying 103 drone strikes carried out by the United States and over 1000 civilians have been injured. This evidence runs counter to the Obama administration's claim that "nearly for the past year there hasn't been a single collateral death" due to drone attacks.

After more than 30 drone strikes hit civilian homes in Afghanistan in 2012, President Hamid Karzai demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia that are not in war zones. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has criticized such use of drones, "We don't know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks...This would have been unthinkable in previous times."

While Congress rapidly moves ahead to authorize further use of domestic drones, many remain skeptical regarding concerns of rights violations and safety. The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on January 10, 2012 against the Federal Aviation Administration. As a result of the lawsuit, the FAA released for the first time a list of the names of all public and private entities that have applied for authorizations to fly drones domestically. Some of these government licenses belong to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a component of the Department of Homeland Security. Drones have been used by CBP to patrol of United States borders since 2005, and the Agency currently owns 10 drones.

In Florida v. Riley, the United States Supreme Court held that individuals on their own private property do not have right to privacy from police observation from public airspace.

On February 24, 2012, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, joined by over 100 organizations, experts, and members of the public, submitted a petition to the FAA requesting a public rule-making on the privacy impact of drone use in US airspace. In June 2012, Senator Rand Paul and Representative Austin Scott both introduced legislation that would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using a drone to conduct criminal surveillance. EPIC has stated that transparency and accountability must be built into the FAA's system of drone regulation in order to provide basic protections to the public.

Who will be the next victim of the Drones? When will we stand up against these attacks?

Sunday, March 3, 2013

The Government's Insects of War

The Truth: You may have been attacked by a six-legged soldier, but you’re fine.  Insects of War are out there and it is only a matter of time before they are armed and deployed. Insects used to attack the enemy is called Entomological warfare. The concept has existed for centuries and research and development have continued into the modern era.

In 1955, the military dropped 330,000 yellow fever mosquitoes from an aircraft over Georgia. The campaign was called Operation Big Buzz, and the mosquitoes buzzed their way to residential areas. In 1956, Operation Drop Kick dropped 600,000 more mosquitoes over an Air Force base in Florida.
In both cases, the mosquitoes did not carry any disease. They were test weapons, part of the military’s entomological warfare team, which studied the bugs' ability to disperse and attack. Results found that the six-legged soldiers successfully feasted on humans and guinea pigs placed near the drop area.
In 1954, Operation Big Itch dropped 300,000 rat fleas in the Western Utah Desert. The military wanted to test if fleas could effectively carry and transmit disease. During one test, a bug-bomb failed to drop, cracking open inside the plane. The fleas swarmed the cabin, biting everybody aboard.
At the time, the military planned to build an insect farm, a facility that could produce 100 million infected mosquitoes per month. Multiple Soviet cities were marked with buggy bull's eyes.

The U.S. engaged in at least two other EW testing programs, Operation Drop Kick and Operation May Day. A 1981 Army report outlined these tests as well as multiple cost-associated issues that occurred with EW. The report is partially declassified — some information is blacked out, including everything concerning "Drop Kick" — and included "cost per death" calculations. The cost per death, according to the report, for a vector-borne biological agent achieving a 50% mortality rate in an attack on a city was $0.29 in 1976 dollars. Such an attack was estimated to result in 625,000 deaths. How much is your life worth?

The United States has also applied entomological warfare research and tactics in non-combat situations. In 1990 the U.S. funded a $6.5 million program designed to research, breed and drop caterpillars. The caterpillars were to be dropped in Peru on coca fields as part of the American War on Drugs. As recently as 2002, U.S. entomological anti-drug efforts at Fort Detrick were focused on finding an insect vector for a virus that affects the opium.

The Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972 does not specifically mention insect vectors in its text. The language of the treaty, however, does cover vectors. Article I bans "Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict."  It would appear, due to the text of the BWC, that insect vectors as an aspect of entomological warfare are covered and outlawed by the Convention.  The issue is less clear when warfare with uninfected insects against crops is considered.

How long will it be before the Insects of War are turned on us? What will be the cost of death in 2013?

Friday, March 1, 2013

Jesus’ Marriage

   In Christianity, Jesus is held as the holiest human being, a direct descendant of God, born of a virgin through Immaculate Conception, and the savior of all mankind.  He is believed to have been crucified to allow people to reach heaven. He sacrificed his life to save our souls.  Christians will say he was resurrected as a sign of his undying spirit, the Holy Ghost.  But, what if it didn't end there? What if Jesus passed along his genes to offspring? What if he was married and had a family of his own? Evidence suggests Jesus’ had a wife and his descendants may be alive today.
Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

   Many people believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. There is considerable proof for this assumption. It is the belief of many that the marriage is being concealed so that the bloodline of Christ remains hidden and does not interfere with the goals of the Christian church.

   It is against Jewish law for an unmarried man to hold the title of Rabbi.  If Jesus wanted to preach to the people the way he is documented doing just that in the bible, he would have to abide by those rules.  The Coptic Church of Egypt, a Christian Church, claims to have documents from Jesus’ childhood in Egypt, including his marriage certificate to Mary. There is a significant wedding described in the New Testament. The wedding was probably the celebration of Jesus’ wedding. This accounts for Mary, mother of Jesus catering the wedding and worrying about the wine. Jewish tradition dictates that the parents of the groom were responsible for the wedding, not anyone else.

   The Knights Templar were said to have found the bloodline papers in the ruins of the Temple of Solomon, leading to their Friday the 13th assassination. Jewish records dating back 500 years still remain documenting the bloodlines of Jewish families, except that of Jesus.  All of the last names are erased from the Bible in the direct line of Jesus. Apostles and others listed throughout the Old and New Testament all have last names or associations, except Jesus and his direct family.

   The Church would like to conceal Jesus’ lineage so that Jesus can be held as a savior, a messiah.  That way, the church can be a source of power and wealth, rather than those related to Jesus.  It is a deep conspiracy that spans two thousand years.  Will we ever know the truth?