Friday, August 29, 2014

Feds warn of “imminent” terror threat on U.S. border

Sources say ISIS operatives will use vehicle born improvised explosive devices in attacks
by Kurt Nimmo | | August 29, 2014

The government watchdog group Judicial Watch cites sources in the government warning that ISIS will attack the United States along the Mexican border.

According to high level sources, ISIS terrorist are operating in Ciudad Juarez on the border across from the city of El Paso, Texas.
The sources state ISIS operatives will use vehicle born improvised explosive devices in the attacks. Homeland Security, Justice and Defense Department agents have been placed on high alert “and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat,” Judicial Watch reports.
The attack is “coming very soon” the high-level source warned. It is speculated an attack will happen on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. “An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information,” reports Judicial Watch. Last week a former CIA covert operations officer, Mike Baker, said on the Laura Ingraham Show he believes there is “a lot of communication” between ISIS and Mexican drug cartels. “We’ve had good intel over the years about al Qaeda, about their efforts to coordinate with, as an example, Mexican cartels… in an effort to try to exploit our southern border,” he said. He added that ISIS is well aware of the lack of security on the border and may take advantage of it.Prior to Baker’s remarks, Rep. Ted Poe, a Texas Republican, said ISIS and Mexico’s notorious drug cartels communicate with each other. "The drug cartels use the same operational plan as terrorist groups do… They kill their opponents, they behead their opponents, they brag about it and they have operational control of many portions of the southern border of the United States. They’re vicious as some of these other terrorist organizations,” Poe told Newsmax TV.

Kissinger Admits Plan for New World Order

Former Secretary of State releases globalist plan for world government
Kissinger Admits Plan for New World Order
Image Credits: World Economic Forum
by Henry Kissinger | The Wall Street Journal | August 29, 2014

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan’s young democracy is on the verge of paralysis.
To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.
The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.
This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world’s territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.
Read more
In the past, Kissinger and other globalists have explained various aspects of the New World Order:

Alex Jones breaks down the existence of the New World Order which Kissinger is now advocating:


Saturday, August 23, 2014

Ferguson Wakes Up To The New World Order

Residents discuss Federal Reserve, First Amendment
by | August 23, 2014

Infowars reporter Kit Daniels uses a moment of calm to talk with Ferguson, Mo., residents and Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol about the state of the world, the Federal Reserve and attacks on the First Amendment.


Friday, August 22, 2014

Marine Issues Threat to ISIS: ‘Do you really think you stand a chance on US soil?’

”You attack us and there will be no mercy"
Marine Issues Threat to ISIS: 'Do you really think you stand a chance on US soil?'
by | August 22, 2014

Emboldened by the alleged murder of American journalist James Foley, threats by the terror group ISIS against the United States have reached fever pitch.
But the ramped-up rhetoric isn’t affecting one former US marine, who is reminding the Islamic extremists that America is filled with 21.2 million “pissed off veterans who have been dealing with years of abuse from government stabbing them in the backs.”
The Facebook post, penned by Iraq war veteran Nick Powers, has gone viral under the hashtag #AmessageFromtheUStoISIS, along with a photo of marines posing around a sign that reads, “72 virgin dating service apply here.”
To all you ignorant Islamic extremist f***s. As I sit here watching you execute women, children and men in the Middle East I chuckle. Why do I chuckle you may ask? Well let me explain something to you idiots who think you are so tough. You are scaring a population that doesn’t know how to fight, you’re bullying the weak. What did Saddam’s troops do when we came to town? Surrendered, twice… All your threats of coming to America and raising your flag over the White House amuse me more than you could ever understand. In 2012 there were 21.2 million veterans in the United States. Do you understand what that means? That means there are millions of pissed off veterans who have been dealing with years of abuse from their government stabbing them in the backs and having to watch friends die because you Islamic idiots can’t seem to act like human beings and stop terrorism and violence. It’s one thing to take over an Islamic state, pretty sure we plowed through Fallujah in 4 days, do you really think you stand a chance on US soil? Do you really think it would be smart to poke that bear? Remember we are armed in the US and I can promise you that the Geneva Conventions will not apply to you. You attack us and there is no mercy. The ball is in your court Islam, we are more than ready to send you to your “prophet” Mohamed….
UPDATE: To all who read this and assume this is against all Muslims, I am sorry you are too blind to read, this isn’t against Muslims in general. If you feel otherwise I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself one question, am I an extremist? You say Islam is the religion of peace, since when does terrorizing the innocent (beheading women and children, wtf?) mean peace? This is directed at all extremist, if this offends/makes you angry or think I am racist you are are probably an extremist…
UPDATE: Powers later appeared on Fox News to elaborate on his statements, where he claimed the only way to stop ISIS was for the U.S. to put “boots on the ground.”
“You can bomb whatever you want, but without boots on the ground, you’re never going to fully accomplish any kind of mission militarily,” Knox said.
Not so fast.
As Paul Joseph Watson noted in his report from yesterday, there are numerous reasons we should view the purported beheading video with suspicion, not the least of which is the fact that it has been mysteriously “scrubbed” from Youtube, when multiple other gruesome terrorist beheading videos still exist and can be readily accessed.

H/T: Independent Journal Review, American Live Wire, BizPac Review

Not Restricted by Borders: Obama Admin. Announces Plan to Attack ISIS in Syria

Obama and Pentagon agree on military action
by Kurt Nimmo | | August 22, 2014

The Obama administration announced Friday it plans to conduct military operations inside Syria.
Benjamin Rhodes mentions alleged ISIS video as he announces possible military action inside Syria. The video does not show the beheading of James Foley.
Benjamin J. Rhodes, a top Obama national security adviser, said the United States will “do what is necessary” in Syria following the unverified murder of freelance photojournalist James Foley.
“If you come against Americans, we are going to come after you,” Rhodes said from Martha’s Vineyard where Obama is on vacation.
Rhodes did not outline a specific plan. “We’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary in dealing with that threat,” Rhodes said. “We’re not going to be restricted by borders.”“I think the American people understand that this president is very deliberate about military action,” Rhodes added. “The American people also understand that there are some threats that have to be dealt with.”“We will take direct action against terrorists that threaten the United States.”It is unclear if the unverified murder of James Foley and the administration’s characterization of it as a terror attack against the United States will drum up the consensus required to wage a protracted war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Following weeks of coverage on the brutal terror group, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 54 percent supported strikes hitting ISIS in Iraq, while 39 percent oppose them. In September, a poll conducted by Gallup revealed the American people were largely opposed to military action in Syria. An earlier poll conducted in March of 2013 showed nearly 70% of surveyed Americans opposed a military effort to “end the conflict” if “all economic and diplomatic efforts fail to end the civil war in Syria.”An effort by the Obama administration to gain consensus following an allegation that Syria had used chemical weapons failed.It was later discovered that the al-Assad government had not used chemical weapons. The use of the weapons was later attributed to the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist mercenary group fighting against the Syrian government.On Thursday the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin E. Dempsey, said the only option in response to ISIS would be to conduct military operations in Syria.“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” Dempsey said. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Rick Perry: Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS in Iraq

"We need to have all of our options open"
Rick Perry: Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS in Iraq
by | August 21, 2014
Texan Governor Rick Perry told a standing-room only crowd at the Heritage Foundation the United States should send ground troops to Iraq as part of the response to ISIS.
“We need to have all of our options open,” Perry said. “They are not going to stop in that region of the world — they need to be eliminated, they need to be eliminated now.”
According to the presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, the air strikes ordered by Obama without congressional approval are insufficient.
“All of your options have to be open from the standpoint of dealing with this terror and this force in that country,” he said. “I think signaling to your enemy what you are not going to put on the table is very, very bad — both strategical and tactical errors by this administration. We need to have all of our options open,” Perry said.
“For many Americans, of course, just about the last thing we want to think about is more conflict in Iraq and what that might involve, but we better get on top of this crisis by every means necessary, because events are moving fast and the price is only going to go up from here,” Perry continued. “We have come to one of those moments when American action will be decisive and inaction will be consequential.”

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Video: Witnesses Unwittingly Gave Untainted Account of Michael Brown Incident

Truth about Michael Brown incident revealed in candid conversation?
by | August 20, 2014
An eyewitness overheard in a video shot in the moments immediately following the controversial police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, appears to claim that the unarmed teen bum-rushed the officer, a detail which would possibly justify the officer’s use of lethal force.

The man can be heard in the background of a video giving an unfiltered account of the incident to another person, as Brown’s body lays in the street. Again, the notable conversation takes place in the background.
As it is difficult to make out, various Internet sleuths have collaborated to create transcripts of what the man is saying. Here’s one version:

1 How’d he get from there to there?#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck{crosstalk}#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him{crosstalk}#2 Then the next thing I know he coming back toward him cus – the police had his gun drawn already on him –#1. Oh, the police got his gun#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
The video of the conversation is important because it captures the man speaking in an unguarded manner, with the events still fresh in his mind, and no political or racial agenda to influence his perspective.The man’s account is probably the closest to the truth we will ever get because he was not prompted to give an interview, but instead spoke candidly among neighbors, thus giving a clearer picture of how the shooting went down.If the man is referring to Brown rushing toward the officer, it would corroborate the story as told by an alleged friend of Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson’s, who claimed Brown reacted aggressively when approached by the officer.The original video upload of the footage was allegedly scrubbed from Youtube, “probably at the behest of the surrounding black community who are under pressure to maintain a very specific narrative,” speculates The Conservative Treehouse.Since the video surfaced, it has been reported that at least 12 other eyewitnesses corroborate Officer Wilson’s version of events.A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey also revealed only 23 percent of blacks believe Wilson should be “found guilty of murder,” even though the events are unclear, with a larger portion, 26 percent, believing Wilson acted in self defense. 51 percent are still undecided.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Chinese State Media Lectures U.S. on Human Rights After Ferguson Riots

Even apologists for Communist Party are shocked at scenes out of Missouri
Chinese State Media Lectures U.S. on Human Rights After Ferguson Riots
by Paul Joseph Watson | August 19, 2014

The police response to riots and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri has even shocked apologists for the Chinese government, with state media lecturing the United States about its penchant for pointing the finger at others for human rights abuses while ignoring its own advice at home.
In an editorial for Xinhua, a news outlet described as “a ministry-level department subordinate to the State Council” whose president is “a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China,” the U.S. is chastised for its hypocrisy.
The Ferguson incident once again demonstrates that even if in a country that has for years tried to play the role of an international human rights judge and defender, there is still much room for improvement at home.
In its annual human rights report issued in February, the United States assaulted almost 200 countries across the world for their so-called poor human rights records.
However, the U.S. human rights flaws extend far beyond racial issues. As revealed by famous whistleblower Edward Snowden, the U.S. government has hacked into emails and mobile phones of ordinary Americans as well as leaders of other countries, including traditional U.S. allies.
What’s more, Uncle Sam has witnessed numerous shooting sprees on its own land and launched incessant drone attacks on foreign soil, resulting in heavy civilian casualties.
Each country has its own national conditions that might lead to different social problems. Obviously, what the United States needs to do is to concentrate on solving its own problems rather than always pointing fingers at others.
There are clearly two primary issues to arise out of a Communist Party mouthpiece lecturing the United States on human rights in America.
The first is the obvious rampant hypocrisy being exhibited by apologists for a regime that habitually crushes anti-government demonstrations with ruthless precision within the historical context of the Tiananmen Square massacre, during which hundreds if not thousands of student protesters were slaughtered on the streets of Beijing.
The second point of note is the illustrative nature of how much of a police state America is becoming that even the Communist Chinese are shocked at the scenes coming out of Ferguson, Missouri and the escalation in military-style tactics to suppress dissent.
“Whether or not the U.S. ever deserved the moral high ground it possessed just after World War II, this position has been clearly lost in the eyes of the world, and increasingly domestically as well. Politicians can continue to repeat catch phrases from the 1950′s all they want. It’s not going to make a shred of difference,” writes Mike Krieger.
China was joined by Egypt, not exactly a bastion of freedom itself, in condemning authorities in America for the way they have handled disorder in Ferguson, with the government there calling on police to show more restraint.
Earlier this year, Egyptian authorities sentenced 529 supporters of Mohamed Morsi to death for the crime of killing one police officer.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Police Tell Detroiters to Buy Guns

City police chief has encouraged residents to arm themselves as stark racial disparities in ‘shoot first’ laws become clear
Police Tell Detroiters to Buy Guns
by Rose Hackman | The Guardian | August 17, 2014

Detroit police chief James Craig – nicknamed “Hollywood” for his years spent in the LAPD and his seeming love of being in front of the camera – has repeatedly called on “good” and “law-abiding” Detroiters to arm themselves against criminals in the city.
His words have not fallen on deaf ears.
Patricia Champion, a 63-year-old lifelong Detroiter, a grandmother and retired educator, decided to get her concealed pistol license — a CPL — two years ago after her son said he was increasingly worried for her safety. Champion, a resident of northwest Detroit, mostly keeps her gun, a 9mm Glock 19 that set her back $600, in her house.
“That’s why I got it: because I’m going to be in the house. Now, if somebody chooses to come in and I didn’t invite you, between the Glock and the dog, you’re gone. If one doesn’t get you, the other one will.”
Read more

Infowars Reporters Tear Gassed After Leaving Police-Run Press Zone

Reporters outside of press pen targeted by police snipers
by Mikael Thalen | | August 17, 2014

Infowars reporters were hit with tear gas by Ferguson police Sunday after defying the designated press zone to document protesters breaking curfew.

As the midnight deadline approached, media outlets on scene were corralled into a small parking lot several blocks from protesters and threatened with arrest if they left the area.
Hearing chanting demonstrators in the distance, Infowars reporters broke out the back end of the media pen and made their way down the street.

“The police were trying to limit what we could see and gave disinformation to the media who stayed,” Infowars reporter Joe Biggs said. “We wanted to show what was happening on both sides so we snuck down the back of several buildings and filmed the standoff.”Shortly after reaching the protesters, riot police in armored military vehicles began raining down tear gas on all who defied the state-imposed curfew.Meanwhile, journalists in the cordoned off press pen, beholden to police talking points, repeated false claims about the use of tear gas. CNN, who temporarily reported on the use of tear gas, suddenly changed their story after police claimed no tear gas was used.
@Rambobiggs / Twitter
Incredibly, Infowars reporters Joe Biggs and Jakari Jackson found themselves in the sights of a sniper as they attempted to document the deteriorating situation.“We tried to head back in the direction of our car when they started targeting us with sniper rifles,” Biggs said. “I had a dot on my chest so I threw my hands up and screamed ‘media!’”Loud bangs in the distance were quickly confirmed to be live gun shots according to Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson, who said one protester was shot after a police vehicle was fired upon. Protesters on scene refuted the claim, saying an officer wildly opened fire at demonstrators.Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon remained silent as the scene fell into chaos despite promising not to use military vehicles and tear gas the day before.“We won’t enforce it with trucks, we wont enforce it with tear gas,” Johnson said. “We will communicate, ‘It’s time to go home.’”Sunday marks yet another day that innocent protesters and reporters were targeted by police action.Previously, Infowars reporter Joe Biggs was struck with a rubber bullet as Jakari Jackson and Josh Owens fled tear gas canisters shot directly at them.As footage surfaced showing police dismantling an Al-Jazeera America news crew’s video equipment after hitting them with tear gas, police boldly claimed they had “assisted” the reporters.Exclusive Infowars video from the scene as well as an interview with the targeted news crew only served to erode the police’s poor attempt to cover up the egregious First Amendment violation.Despite the escalating crackdown, protesters remain vigilant in their resolve to protect their community from looters and overbearing police.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Sheriff’s Department: Ferguson SWAT Teams Aided Journalists

Police to media: Don't run, we are your friends
Sheriff's Department: Ferguson SWAT Teams Aided Journalists
by | August 14, 2014
Riot police in Ferguson, Mo., did not attack journalists, nor confiscate camera equipment last night, as reported, but rather they “assisted” reporters and made efforts to move “media personnel to a safer area,” according to a statement put out by the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Dept.
On Thursday, images and video of police firing rubber bullets, tear gas canisters and flash bang grenades at protesters and journalists prompted outcries that Ferguson SWAT teams were engaged in suppression of the First Amendment.

But despite footage and multiple eyewitness accounts detailing how cops pointed weapons at and literally shot journalists, tore down news crews’ camera equipment and arrested reporters in nearby restaurants, police insist they were merely helping the media “with their consent,” and that reporters “thanked their officers.”
“In fact, last night the SWAT Team officers were assisting the media in moving their camera equipment and media personnel to a safer area with their consent so that they could continue to cover the event,” a press release from the sheriff’s department states, according to multiple sources.
Furthermore, the sheriff’s department insisted that Al Jazeera journalists, filmed fleeing from their expensive camera equipment, were actually escorted into an armored vehicle, and that photos actually showed riot police helping them by dismantling their equipment.The statement ludicrously went on to claim that the sheriff’s department “supports the freedom of the press,” and that it did not in any way attempt “to prevent media coverage.”Here’s more of the statement from Fox2Now:
On Wednesday, August 13th, video footage was taken of St. Charles County SWAT officers handling media camera equipment. The position of the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department is that the media has the right to cover these events and supports the freedom of the press, and the SWAT Team has not been any part of attempting to prevent media coverage.
The department’s attempts to smooth over the situation is humorous given the abundance of evidence showing police did in fact attack journalists. Infowars reporters Josh Owens, Jakari Jackson and Joe Biggs can all attest that police did not have anyone’s First Amendment in mind and were definitely not there to “assist” them, as the statement claims.The blatant disconnect between the department’s statement and what actually took place is reminiscent of scenes out of Tim Burton’s film Mars Attacks!, in which Martians chased and slaughtered civilians, all while professing “We come in peace,” and “Don’t run, we are your friends.”

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Police Union Commissar: If You Resist, You Should Expect to Die

Submit with proper docility to the commands issued by the slave patrol
Police Union Commissar: If You Resist, You Should Expect to Die
Image Credits: Pixabay
by William Norman Grigg | | August 10, 2014
“We’ve heard a lot in the last number of weeks about what police officers can’t do, and what police officers shouldn’t do,” groused Patrick Lynch, designated spokesliar for the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, New York’s largest police union. “No one’s telling us what we are able to do, and what we should do, when we’re faced with a situation where the person being placed under arrest says, `I’m not going. I’m not being placed under arrest.’”

“What is it we should do?” continued Lynch, his voice colored by theatrical incredulity. “Walk away?”
If the would-be arrestee isn’t involved in an actual crime — that is, an act of aggression against another person — the only morally suitable answer is: Yes. The cop should shut up, go away, and refrain from molesting one of his betters. The experience might encourage him to find honest work.
“We don’t have that option,” Lynch insisted. “Nor would the public that called and complained about these crimes want us to. If they called, it’s important to them.”In this fashion Lynch attempted to shift the blame for the killing of Eric Garner on merchants in the Staten Island neighborhood where the harmless man was killed through an act of criminal homicide by NYPD officers enforcing a demented “zero tolerance” policy regarding the sale of untaxed cigarettes. Lynch, who has spent his entire adult life as a member of the coercive caste, tried to depict Garner — a micro-entrepreneur — as a menace to the public, and a threat to commerce. Lynch appears to believe that the spectacle of police killing a harmless and unarmed man is less damaging to the local economy than allowing that man to sell loose cigarettes to willing customers.Lynch resurrected the unproven claim that plainclothes officers had seen Garner commit an act of unsanctioned petty commerce, and that he resisted their efforts to abduct him on behalf of the state’s tax-consuming class. He carefully avoided mention of the fact that Garner, according to eyewitnesses, had broken up a fight while the officers, ever vigilant for economic “crimes,” refused to intervene.“There is an attitude on our streets today that it is acceptable to resist arrest,” lamented Lynch. “That attitude is a direct result of a lack of respect for law enforcement.”While it is the moral duty of every decent person to cultivate disrespect for law enforcement, that attitude is not to blame (if that’s the appropriate word) for the growing resistance to officially sanctioned abduction. That inclination is a direct reaction to the impudence, arrogance, and aggressiveness of police officers, their palpable contempt for the public they supposedly serve, their sense of tribal solidarity with officers who commit crimes against innocent people, and the institutional immunity they enjoy.“The charge of resisting arrest is a very serious and dangerous one,” insisted Lynch. “The charge exists to encourage those being arrested to comply with the lawful orders of police officers so that those officers do not have to use necessary force to make that arrest.”In other words: If you submit with proper docility to the commands issued by the slave patrol, they won’t have to beat or kill you.Like most exponents of that view, Lynch assumes that any gust of verbal halitosis that escapes the wet hole at the bottom of a police officer’s face is a “lawful order.” For this reason he insists that resisting arrest “is a serious crime, and must be treated that way by all.”In fact, resisting unlawful arrest — while considered an actual crime, and prosecuted as such — is an ancient, venerable, and indispensable right of free people. Under the still-valid Supreme Court precedent John Black Elk v. U.S. (1900), a citizen has a legally recognized right to use lethal force to prevent the consummation of an unlawful arrest.Perhaps, somewhere in the reptilian recesses of what passes for Lynch’s mind, there is an awareness of that fact, and a rapidly coalescing fear of the prospect that the public will come to understand it, as well. This may be why he admonished PBA members to use “all the resources of the NYPD” when they are dealing with a member of the productive class who isn’t willing to endure the indignity and injury of a state-licensed abduction. In other words: Use any means necessary — including lethal force — to insure that resistance is futile.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Bombs Iraq To Save His A$$

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Washington Threatens The World

But no other civilized country has opened its borders as widely as America
Mainstream Media: Americans Against Wide Open Borders Are "Anti-Immigration"
Image Credits: Public domain
by Kit Daniels | | August 8, 2014

A television news station in Texas labeled Americans who support secure borders as “anti-immigration,” even though no other civilized country in the world has opened its borders as widely as America in the past few months.
After interviewing members of the Border Convoy, a group of Americans driving from the West Coast to Texas to educate the public about America’s collapsing borders, KVEO-TV in Brownsville, Texas, reported the group was “anti-immigration,” a label the group’s organizer, Eric Odom, rejects.
“Not once did we say we were opposed to immigration or did we call ourselves anti-immigration,” he said. “As we’ve stated with pretty much every media outlet that we talk to, we are here to demand a deterrent for bad people or diseased people coming into our country.”
“We have no idea who they are or where they’re coming from and there’s a legal immigration process that helps us determine those things and that’s what we support, we just oppose open borders and call for secure borders.”
The report by KVEO-TV, on the other hand, does not make a distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration but simply labels illegal aliens as “migrants seeking refugee status.”This is a standard propaganda technique used to condition the public into accepting lawlessness by appealing to their emotions.“I’ve seen children five-years-old clutching their teddy bears, children I’ve heard of wetting their pants standing in front of [an immigration court] judge,” activist Sonia Nazario claimed on NPR in a rant designed to win public support for amnesty.If you rightfully question this narrative, especially considering the thousands of gang members now flooding into America, amnesty advocates will likely label you as “anti-immigration” and someone who lacks compassion, even though supporting legal immigration through proper channels is obviously not anti-immigration.Furthermore, no other civilized country is opening its borders like America.A nation without borders is not really a nation and unbridled immigration only leads to the country’s deterioration and eventual collapse, so it should be no surprise that the United Nations, which has long worked against America’s national sovereignty, is joining amnesty supporters in encouraging illegal immigration.U.N. officials are already present at various immigration detention facilities throughout the country and the globalist organization is placing pressure on American politicians to broadly designate illegal aliens, including MS-13 members from Central America, as “refugees.”“I objected to admitting MS-13 gangsters into the U.S. and I was told that we have our orders to treat them like anyone else,” a Border Patrol agent told radio host Dave Hodges.It is true that Latin America is plagued with extreme violence and poverty, but that’s been going on for well over 10 years and the current, unprecedented influx of illegals from not just Latin America but around the world has only occurred in the past few months.The reason for that is simple: illegal aliens know that the White House, which has the U.N.’s best interests in mind, is now providing de facto amnesty and unfortunately, many mainstream media outlets are similarly supportive of insecure borders.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Cold War II: Russian Nuclear Bombers Conduct 16 Incursions Of U.S. Air Defense Zones

Defense officials say Putin is testing U.S. command and control systems
Cold War II: Russian Nuclear Bombers Conduct 16 Incursions Of U.S. Air Defense Zones
by Steve Watson | | August 7, 2014

Russian strategic nuclear bombers have flown into northwestern U.S. air defense identification zones at least sixteen times over the past ten days, according to Pentagon officials.
The incursions by Tu-95 Russian Bear H bombers are unprecedented, Defense experts say, leading some to believe that Russia is testing U.S. air defenses.
As reported by Bill Gertz of The Washington Free Beacon, The flights, which have also included a Russian intelligence-gathering jet flying near Alaska, were detected by the U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and have prompted the scrambling of U.S. jet fighters in several cases.
“Over the past week, NORAD has visually identified Russian aircraft operating in and around the U.S. air defense identification zones,” said Maj. Beth Smith, spokeswoman for NORAD.
Maj. Smith notes that while the incursions, close to the Aleutian Islands, represent “a spike in activity”, they are nothing to worry about, and are part of training missions and exercises.
Other Defense officials, however, are not so sure. Without naming his sources, Gertz notes that the officials believe the bombers may be intentionally seeking to trigger U.S. air defenses, as Soviet fighters did during the Cold War in preparation for a nuclear conflict.
“These are not just training missions,” one official said, adding the the Russians appear to be “trying to test our air defense reactions, or our command and control systems.”
Amid a large strategic build up of nuclear forces, Russia has, in recent weeks, flown bombers closer to the U.S. than ever before since the fall of the Soviet Empire. On June 9th, U.S. F-15s and F-22s intercepted Russian bombers just 50 miles off the California coastline.
Meanwhile, NATO is again warning that Russia has amassed troops on its border and may soon invade Ukraine. It is claimed that Russia has 20,000 troops on the border and has added 8,000 this week. Ukrainian officials, who have been known to exaggerate the Russian threat, say the number is close to 45,000 troops with 100 fighter jets, helicopters and bombers, further heightening tensions in the region.

NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu has warned Russia will use “the pretext of a humanitarian or peace-keeping mission as an excuse to send troops into Eastern Ukraine.”
Contrary to the assertion of President Obama, U.S. sanctions on Russia appear to be having little effect other than to provoke saber rattling retaliations and a Russian ban on food imports from the US and Europe, as well as a threatened commercial flight ban.

Russia also announced that whistleblower Edward Snowden would be granted a three-year residence permit, another poke in the eye to the U.S. government.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Cop: ‘If Obama Doesn’t Follow the Constitution, We Don’t Have To’

"I don't give a damn"
by Paul Joseph Watson | August 6, 2014

A shocking video shows a New Jersey cop responding to a complaint about corruption by asserting that law enforcement officers no longer need to follow the Constitution because it has already been decimated by President Obama.

Seeking to file a complaint about the Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter, Steve Wronko visited the Helmetta Police Department to air his grievances about the shelter falling prey to nepotism and corruption as a result of Helmetta Mayor Nancy Martin appointing her son Brandon Metz to head up the facility.
“I’ve made objections about what’s going on at the shelter over there,” Wronko tells the police officer, adding, “My first and fourth amendment rights were violated, my civil rights were violated.”
“Obama just decimated the freakin’ Constitution, so I don’t give a damn. If he doesn’t follow the Constitution, we don’t have to,” responds the cop, brazenly violating the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.
The comment is self-evidently shocking, but it also provides an insight as to how corruption from the very top reaches all the way down to the bottom, providing law enforcement with a twisted form of justification for their unconstitutional activities.
At the end of the video, other police officers arrive to kick Wronko out of the building, with the cop who doesn’t give a “damn” about constitutional rights stating, “Either you get out or you’re gonna get locked up.”
“Maybe this instance, captured on film for the whole world to see, will serve as a wake up call to those who may still be asleep,” writes Matt Agorist. “Please share this so that it can help others to see the leviathan for what it is, a gang of thieves writ large.”
The only question that remains is if police officers feel they no longer need to follow the Constitution, should Americans be expected to obey the law?

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Obama Brings Ebola Into America After Signing Executive Order to Detain Sick Americans

Officials are importing Ebola into the U.S. which doctors have failed to contain in Africa
Obama Brings Ebola Into America After Signing Executive Order to Detain Sick Americans
Image Credits: Sebástian Freire / Flickr (Medical workers)
by Kit Daniels | | August 2, 2014

Despite the fact that doctors in Africa cannot keep Ebola from spreading, United States officials brought an affected patient into the country only days after President Obama signed an executive order mandating the detention of Americans who show signs of “respiratory illness.”

The first known Ebola patient on U.S. soil, Dr. Kent Brantly, was flown into Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, today after contracting the disease in Liberia during the latest outbreak in West Africa which has claimed the lives of over 700.
“Video from Emory showed someone wearing a white, full-body protective suit helping a similarly clad person emerge from the ambulance and walk into the hospital early Saturday afternoon,” CNN reported.
This has stoked concerns among the American public that Ebola could now spread inside the U.S., especially since the virus has been difficult to contain in Africa.
“It sounds like the perfect script for a horror movie: A virus with no vaccine and no cure kills hundreds of people; despite containment efforts, it keeps spreading, but it’s actually all too real in West Africa, where doctors have said Ebola is now ‘out of control,’” wrote Sheila M. Eldred for Discovery News.
Hospitals in America may not fare any better considering that antibiotic-resistant “nightmare bacteria” spread from one medical facility in 2001 to 46 states by 2013.
“Allegedly the Ebola carriers will be quarantined in special rooms, but we already know that American hospitals cannot even contain staph infections,” columnist Paul Craig Roberts wrote. “What happens to the utensils, plates, cups, and glasses with which the ebola infected persons eat and drink and who gets to clean the bed pans?”
“One slip-up by one person, one tear in a rubber glove, and the virus is loose.”
This really highlights the reckless nature of the global elite and government officials for importing a virus into the country which has no specific treatment and a mortality rate of up to 90%.
Similarly, state-funded universities and other facilities across the U.S. are maintaining weaponized viruses for so-called “bio-defense” under the Project Bioshield Act passed by Congress in 2004, but because these facilities are only moderately secure for the most part, there is a real risk that a deadly virus could escape into the public and affect millions of Americans in an outbreak on the same level as the pandemics which killed 80% of Native American populations by the 19th century.
The National Research Council found that one of these laboratories in Kansas, for example, has a 70% chance that a virus will spread from its lab in the next 50 years, even though the facility is designated as “maximum security.”
And it should also be pointed out that this is just one lab out of many in the nation, a good percentage of which have even less security.
There is no doubt that an accidental or an orchestrated release of a virus from one of these labs could result in the deaths of millions as well as a draconian government response to the outbreak, including martial law, through both the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act drafted in 2001 and President Obama’s latest executive order which mandates the apprehension and detention of Americans who merely show signs of “respiratory illness.”
Simply put, instead of preventing Ebola and other viruses from spreading within the U.S., Obama is readying his administration for a power grab if a major pandemic breaks out throughout the country.