THE FUTURE OF "CHIPPING"

One Generation Is All They Need
Kevin Haggerty

By the time my four-year-old son is swathed in the soft flesh of old age, he will likely find it unremarkable that he and almost everyone he knows will be permanently implanted with a microchip. Automatically tracking his location in real time, it will connect him with databases monitoring and recording his smallest behavioural traits.

Most people anticipate such a prospect with a sense of horrified disbelief, dismissing it as a science-fiction fantasy. The technology, however, already exists. For years humane societies have implanted all the pets that leave their premises with a small identifying microchip. As well, millions of consumer goods are now traced with tiny radio frequency identification chips that allow satellites to reveal their exact location.

A select group of people are already "chipped" with devices that automatically open doors, turn on lights, and perform other low-level miracles. Prominent among such individuals is researcher Kevin Warwick of Reading University in England; Warwick is a leading proponent of the almost limitless potential uses for such chips.

Other users include the patrons of the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona, many of whom have paid about $150 (U.S.) for the privilege of being implanted with an identifying chip that allows them to bypass lengthy club queues and purchase drinks by being scanned. These individuals are the advance guard of an effort to expand the technology as widely as possible.From this point forward, microchips will become progressively smaller, less invasive, and easier to deploy. Thus, any realistic barrier to the wholesale "chipping" of Western citizens is not technological but cultural. It relies upon the visceral reaction against the prospect of being personally marked as one component in a massive human inventory.

Today we might strongly hold such beliefs, but sensibilities can, and probably will, change. How this remarkable attitudinal transformation is likely to occur is clear to anyone who has paid attention to privacy issues over the past quarter-century. There will be no 3 a.m. knock on the door by storm troopers come to force implants into our bodies. The process will be more subtle and cumulative, couched in the unassailable language of progress and social betterment, and mimicking many of the processes that have contributed to the expansion of closed-circuit television cameras and the corporate market in personal data.

A series of tried and tested strategies will be marshalled to familiarize citizens with the technology. These will be coupled with efforts to pressure tainted social groups and entice the remainder of the population into being chipped.

This, then, is how the next generation will come to be microchipped.

It starts in distant countries. Having tested the technology on guinea pigs, both human and animal, the first widespread use of human implanting will occur in nations at the periphery of the Western world. Such developments are important in their own right, but their international significance pertains to how they familiarize a global audience with the technology and habituate them to the idea that chipping represents a potential future.

An increasing array of hypothetical chipping scenarios will also be depicted in entertainment media, furthering the familiarization process.

In the West, chips will first be implanted in members of stigmatized groups. Pedophiles are the leading candidate for this distinction, although it could start with terrorists, drug dealers, or whatever happens to be that year's most vilified criminals. Short-lived promises will be made that the technology will only be used on the "worst of the worst." In fact, the wholesale chipping of incarcerated individuals will quickly ensue, encompassing people on probation and on parole.

Even accused individuals will be tagged, a measure justified on the grounds that it would stop them from fleeing justice. Many prisoners will welcome this development, since only chipped inmates will be eligible for parole, weekend release, or community sentences. From the prison system will emerge an evocative vocabulary distinguishing chippers from non-chippers.

Although the chips will be justified as a way to reduce fraud and other crimes, criminals will almost immediately develop techniques to simulate other people's chip codes and manipulate their data.

The comparatively small size of the incarcerated population, however, means that prisons would be simply a brief stopover on a longer voyage. Commercial success is contingent on making serious inroads into tagging the larger population of law-abiding citizens. Other stigmatized groups will therefore be targeted. This will undoubtedly entail monitoring welfare recipients, a move justified to reduce fraud, enhance efficiency, and ensure that the poor do not receive "undeserved" benefits.

Once e-commerce is sufficiently advanced, welfare recipients will receive their benefits as electronic vouchers stored on their microchips, a policy that will be tinged with a sense of righteousness, as it will help ensure that clients can only purchase government-approved goods from select merchants, reducing the always disconcerting prospect that poor people might use their limited funds to purchase alcohol or tobacco.

Civil libertarians will try to foster a debate on these developments. Their attempts to prohibit chipping will be handicapped by the inherent difficulty in animating public sympathy for criminals and welfare recipients — groups that many citizens are only too happy to see subjected to tighter regulation. Indeed, the lesser public concern for such groups is an inherent part of the unarticulated rationale for why coerced chipping will be disproportionately directed at the stigmatized.

The official privacy arm of the government will now take up the issue. Mandated to determine the legality of such initiatives, privacy commissioners and Senate Committees will produce a forest of reports presented at an archipelago of international conferences. Hampered by lengthy research and publication timelines, their findings will be delivered long after the widespread adoption of chipping is effectively a fait accompli. The research conclusions on the effectiveness of such technologies will be mixed and open to interpretation.

Officials will vociferously reassure the chipping industry that they do not oppose chipping itself, which has fast become a growing commercial sector. Instead, they are simply seeking to ensure that the technology is used fairly and that data on the chips is not misused. New policies will be drafted.

Employers will start to expect implants as a condition of getting a job. The U.S. military will lead the way, requiring chips for all soldiers as a means to enhance battlefield command and control — and to identify human remains. From cooks to commandos, every one of the more than one million U.S. military personnel will see microchips replace their dog tags.

Following quickly behind will be the massive security sector. Security guards, police officers, and correctional workers will all be expected to have a chip. Individuals with sensitive jobs will find themselves in the same position.

The first signs of this stage are already apparent. In 2004, the Mexican attorney general's office started implanting employees to restrict access to secure areas. The category of "sensitive occupation" will be expansive to the point that anyone with a job that requires keys, a password, security clearance, or identification badge will have those replaced by a chip.

Judges hearing cases on the constitutionality of these measures will conclude that chipping policies are within legal limits. The thin veneer of "voluntariness" coating many of these programs will allow the judiciary to maintain that individuals are not being coerced into using the technology.]

In situations where the chips are clearly forced on people, the judgments will deem them to be undeniable infringements of the right to privacy. However, they will then invoke the nebulous and historically shifting standard of "reasonableness" to pronounce coerced chipping a reasonable infringement on privacy rights in a context of demands for governmental efficiency and the pressing need to enhance security in light of the still ongoing wars on terror, drugs, and crime.

At this juncture, an unfortunately common tragedy of modern life will occur: A small child, likely a photogenic toddler, will be murdered or horrifically abused. It will happen in one of the media capitals of the Western world, thereby ensuring non-stop breathless coverage. Chip manufactures will recognize this as the opportunity they have been anticipating for years. With their technology now largely bug-free, familiar to most citizens and comparatively inexpensive, manufacturers will partner with the police to launch a high-profile campaign encouraging parents to implant their children "to ensure your own peace of mind".

Special deals will be offered. Implants will be free, providing the family registers for monitoring services. Loving but unnerved parents will be reassured by the ability to integrate tagging with other functions on their PDA so they can see their child any time from any place.

Paralleling these developments will be initiatives that employ the logic of convenience to entice the increasingly small group of holdouts to embrace the now common practice of being tagged. At first, such convenience tagging will be reserved for the highest echelon of Western society, allowing the elite to move unencumbered through the physical and informational corridors of power. Such practices will spread more widely as the benefits of being chipped become more prosaic. Chipped individuals will, for example, move more rapidly through customs.

Indeed, it will ultimately become a condition of using mass-transit systems that officials be allowed to monitor your chip. Companies will offer discounts to individuals who pay by using funds stored on their embedded chip, on the small-print condition that the merchant can access large swaths of their personal data. These "discounts" are effectively punitive pricing schemes, charging unchipped individuals more as a way to encourage them to submit to monitoring. Corporations will seek out the personal data in hopes of producing ever more fine-grained customer profiles for marketing purposes, and to sell to other institutions.

By this point all major organizations will be looking for opportunities to capitalize on the possibilities inherent in an almost universally chipped population. The uses of chips proliferate, as do the types of discounts. Each new generation of household technology becomes configured to operate by interacting with a person's chip.

Finding a computer or appliance that will run though old-fashioned "hands-on"' interactions becomes progressively more difficult and costly. Patients in hospitals and community care will be routinely chipped, allowing medical staff — or, more accurately, remote computers — to monitor their biological systems in real time.

Eager to reduce the health costs associated with a largely docile citizenry, authorities will provide tax incentives to individuals who exercise regularly. Personal chips will be remotely monitored to ensure that their heart rate is consistent with an exercise regime.

By now, the actual process of "chipping" for many individuals will simply involve activating certain functions of their existing chip. Any prospect of removing the chip will become increasingly untenable, as having a chip will be a precondition for engaging in the main dynamics of modern life, such as shopping, voting, and driving.

The remaining holdouts will grow increasingly weary of Luddite jokes and subtle accusations that they have something to hide. Exasperated at repeatedly watching neighbours bypass them in "chipped" lines while they remain subject to the delays, inconveniences, and costs reserved for the unchipped, they too will choose the path of least resistance and get an implant.

In one generation, then, the cultural distaste many might see as an innate reaction to the prospect of having our bodies marked like those of an inmate in a concentration camp will likely fade.

In the coming years some of the most powerful institutional actors in society will start to align themselves to entice, coerce, and occasionally compel the next generation to get an implant.

Now, therefore, is the time to contemplate the unprecedented dangers of this scenario. The most serious of these concern how even comparatively stable modern societies will, in times of fear, embrace treacherous promises. How would the prejudices of a Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, or of southern Klansmen — all of whom were deeply integrated into the American political establishment — have manifest themselves in such a world? What might Hitler, Mao or Milosevic have accomplished if their citizens were chipped, coded, and remotely monitored?

Choirs of testimonials will soon start to sing the virtues of implants. Calm reassurances will be forthcoming about democratic traditions, the rule of law, and privacy rights. History, unfortunately, shows that things can go disastrously wrong, and that this happens with disconcerting regularity. Little in the way of international agreements, legality, or democratic sensibilities has proved capable of thwarting single-minded ruthlessness.

"It can't happen here" has become the whispered swan song of the disappeared. Best to contemplate these dystopian potentials before we proffer the tender forearms of our sons and daughters. While we cannot anticipate all of the positive advantages that might be derived from this technology, the negative prospects are almost too terrifying to contemplate.

THE GRAND CHESS BOARD PART 1

The Deep Politics of God (Part One): The CNP, Dominionism, and the Ted Haggard Scandal
By Phillip Collins and Paul Collins
RaidersNewsNetwork.com

Currently, the majority of people in America associate the name of Ted Haggard with sexual scandals within the U.S. Evangelical movement. On November 2, 2006, Haggard was accused of engaging in a homosexual tryst (Harris, no pagination). This accusation was made by Michael Jones; a former gay escort/body builder who claims Haggard paid him for sex and drugs (no pagination). Jones went on Peter Boyles radio show on KHOW volunteering to take a polygraph test (Gorski and McPhee, no pagination). The test was administered by John Kresnik, who characterized Jones’ answers about sex as "deceptive" (no pagination). However, Jones said that he probably would not take another polygraph test (no pagination). This raises substantial doubts about the voracity of Jones’ claims, especially in light of Kresnik’s willingness to disregard the initial results because of Jones’ prior stress, lack of sleep, and an inability to eat (no pagination). Thus, at least some of the allegations against Haggard may prove to be false. Yet, that being said, it has been firmly established that Haggard bought methamphetamines (Harris, no pagination). Methamphetamines are supposed to enhance the sexual experience for homosexuals. Haggard also admitted to receiving a massage from Jones, which, of course, raises suspicions (no pagination).In the end, America has been presented with an evangelical leader who has been involved in drug use and sexual immorality. The latest installment in a long series of depraved fiascos was engineered, in part, by Michael Jones. Essentially, Jones is a homosexual who wants to frustrate the efforts of traditionalists and conservatives who are trying to prevent homosexuality from being normalized. To achieve such an end, Jones probably exaggerated and embellished his story. Before anyone takes Jones’ story at face value, it should be remembered that he is a drug-dealing prostitute. Given that shady background, one does not have to be an evangelical Christian to suspect Jones of perpetrating some deception. The Haggard story is very tragic because there are no "good guys." Instead, there are merely varying degrees of evil. A beleaguered America, tired of all the scandals and demoralization, is presented with the familiar portrait of a preacher who has fallen to immorality and hypocrisy. Yet, the only revelations that have been made available thus far are being provided by a moral reprobate whose only interest in exposing Haggard is the subversion of the traditionalist campaign to maintain sexual sanity.However, beyond the lurid haze of a story that makes the 1977 Thornbirds novel seem tame, there is an important component being missed here. An investigation into Ted Haggard’s background reveals a much deeper story. This investigation begins with a glance back to June of 2006 when Israel was fighting with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Ted Haggard, who was head of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) at the time, announced that the NAE would not be supporting Israel in its conflict with Hezbollah (Berkowitz, no pagination). Haggard had been approached by Israeli officials who wanted Haggard to issue a public statement of support for Israel. Haggard refused (no pagination). Why would Haggard refuse to support opposition to Hezbollah, a known terrorist organization?The answer may lie in the fact that Haggard is tied to the pro-Muslim and possible Muslim convert Grover Norquist. Norquist is a Bush/GOP operative who connects the government to the very terrorist network America is supposed to be fighting. The Nation magazine referred to Norquist as "‘Field Marshal of the Bush Plan" (Gitell, no pagination). However, Norquist cannot be described as just another benign Bush cheerleader. Grover Norquist is best described as the liaison between the Administration and Islamists. Seth Gitell elaborates:The Protestant Norquist is a founding director of the Islamic Institute, a socially conservative Muslim think tank that eschews international issues in favor of domestic issues such as tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. In addition, Norquist’s lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt Strategies LLC, was officially registered as a lobbyist for the Islamic Institute as well as for Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and former executive director of the American Muslim Council. Public records show that Alamoudi has done more than $20,000 worth of business with Norquist’s firm, on issues relating to Malaysia. (No pagination)If Norquist’s Islamic associations were moderate, then all suspicions concerning his activities could be dismissed. However, Norquist’s Islamic links appear to have a dark side. Consider the aforementioned Abdurahman Alamoudi. Alamoudi has been involved in activities that could be characterized as extremist. Seth Gitell informs us that Alamoudi:attended an anti-Israel protest outside the White House on October 28, 2000. Alamoudi revved up the crowd, saying: "I have been labeled by the media in New York as being a supporter of Hamas. Anybody supporters of Hamas here? "The crowd cheered." Hear that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas ... I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah." (Both groups are on the State Department’s official list of terrorist organizations.) (No pagination)Another individual tied to the Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council is Sami Al-Arian, a Kuwaiti born Palestinian associate professor at the University of South Florida. In House of Bush, House of Saud, Craig Unger describes Al-Arian’s 1998 guest appearance at the American Muslim Council:In 1998, he appeared as a guest speaker before the American Muslim Council. According to conservative author Kenneth Timmerman, Al-Arian referred to Jews as ‘monkeys and pigs’ and added, ‘Jihad is our path. Victory to Islam. Death to Israel. Revolution! Revolution! Until victory! Rolling, rolling to Jerusalem!’ That speech was part of a dossier compiled on al-Arian by federal agents who have had him under surveillance for many years because of suspected ties to terrorist organizations. (207)On March 12, 2000, Al-Arian was among a group of Muslim leaders who had the opportunity to meet with George and Laura Bush at a local mosque in Tampa Florida (206). Doubtless, such a meeting would not have been possible without the influence of Grover Norquist.There is even evidence that seems to suggest that Norquist is now a convert to Islam. Daniel Pipes provides evidence that this is the case:Paul Sperry, author of the new book, Infiltration, in an interview calls Grover Norquist "an agent of influence for Islamists in Washington." When asked by FrontPageMag.com why a Republican anti-tax lobbyist should so passionately promote Islamist causes, Sperry implied that Norquist has converted to Islam: "He's marrying a Muslim, and when I asked Norquist if he himself has converted to Islam, he brushed the question off as too ‘personal.'" As Lawrence Auster comments on this exchange, "Clearly, if Norquist hadn't converted to Islam, or weren't in the process of doing so, he would simply have answered no." (No pagination)Norquist’s marriage to a Muslim woman further supports the contention that the GOP/Bush operative is no longer a Protestant. Pipes elaborates:Indeed, Norquist married Samah Alrayyes, a Palestinian Muslim, on April 2, 2005, and Islamic law limits a Muslim woman to marrying a man who is Muslim. This is not an abstract dictum but a very serious imperative, with many "honor" killings having resulted from a woman ignoring her family's wishes.Alrayyes (now known as Samah Norquist) has radical Islamic credentials of her own; she served as communications director at the Islamic Free Market Institute, the Islamist organization Norquist helped found. Now, she is employed as a public affairs officer at the U.S. Agency for International Development – and so it appears that yet another Islamist finds employment in a branch of the U.S. government. (No pagination)Pipes is known for subscribing to some very bizarre and paranoid anti-Arab conspiracy theories. Nonetheless, his contention concerning Norquist is confirmed by other sources that have looked into Norquist’s activities.Both Haggard and Norquist connect through their shared membership in the highly secretive Council for National Policy (CNP) ("Council for National Policy," no pagination). Haggard was a member of the CNP until the sex scandal. The CNP is the nexus for several odd confluences. It exhibits many of the features of the traditional globalist machinations that comprise the neoliberal wing of the ruling elite. Yet, many of its members are ostensibly opposed to several neoliberal initiatives and agendas. Succinctly encapsulating this intersection of strange confluences, ABC’s Marc J. Ambinder characterizes the CNP as "the conservative version of the Council on Foreign Relations" (Ambinder, no pagination). Thus, one is confronted by a decidedly "right-wing" brand of elitism. Of course, within the dialectical climate that is the product of the elite’s continuous Hegelian activism, appellations like "right-wing" and "left-wing" become virtually meaningless. The CNP seems to the result of cross-pollination between neoconservatives, the Iran-Contra fraternity, and Nazis. It is within this shady organization that individuals like Haggard and Norquist meet.Can one say with any degree of certainty that Haggard’s failure to support Israel and oppose Hezbollah was a result of Norquist’s influence? In all honesty, one must label such contention a theory. That being said, it is still important to look into the secret society that both Norquist and Haggard hold in common, the Council for National Policy. The CNP appears to be a creation of factions of the power elite designed to mobilize well-meaning Christians to unwittingly support elite initiatives. The CNP could also be considered a project in religious engineering that empties Christianity of its metaphysical substance and reconceptualizes many of its principles and concepts according to the socially and politically expedient designs of the elite. These contentions are supported by the fact that many CNP members are also members of other organizations and/or criminal enterprises that are tied directly to the power elite. Therefore, the best way to learn about the CNP’s pedigree is to examine the background of its members. Here are the credentials of some of the CNP’s more infamous members.Howard Ahmanson, Jr.Ahmanson is an heir to Home Savings bank fortune ("Howard Ahmanson, Jr.," no pagination). A multi-millionaire, Ahmanson has used a portion of his tremendous fortune to fund elite conduits. His Ahmanson Foundation funded the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (no pagination). As was previously stated, the CNP aspires to be the so-called "conservative version" of the CFR. The CFR is one of the principal arbiters of American foreign policy and a premiere purveyor of globalism. The organization is devoted to the realization of Cecil Rhodes’ vision for a one-world socialist totalitarian system dominated by an Anglophile elite. John Ruskin, a professor at Oxford University, was the chief inspiration for Rhodes’ imperialistic vision. However, Cecil Rhodes not the only adherent of Ruskin’s imperialistic message. Evidently, others had taken to heart the Anglophilic gospel of Ruskin and, eventually, became associated with Rhodes. Together, this network would establish a secret society devoted to the cause of British expansionism. Carroll Quigley explains:Among Ruskin’s most devoted disciples at Oxford were a group of intimate friends including Arnold Toynbee, Alfred (later Lord) Milner, Arthur Glazebrook, George (later Sir George) Parkin, Philip Lyttelton Gell, and Henry (later Sir Henry) Birchenough. These were so moved by Ruskin that they devoted the rest of their lives to carrying out his ideas. A similar group of Cambridge men including Reginald Baliol Brett (Lord Esher), Sir John B. Seeley, Albert (Lord) Grey, and Edmund Garrett were also aroused by Ruskin’s message and devoted their lives to the extension of the British Empire and uplift of England’s urban masses as two parts of one project which they called "extension of the English-speaking idea."They were remarkably successful in these aims because of England’s most sensational journalist William Stead (1849 - 1912), an ardent social reformer and imperialist, brought them into association with Rhodes. This association was formally established on February 5, 1891, when Rhodes and Stead organized a secret society of which Rhodes had been dreaming for sixteen years. In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader; Stead, Brett (Lord Esher), and Milner were to form an executive committee; Arthur (lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a "Circle of Initiates;" while there was to be an outer circle known as the "Association of Helpers" (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization). Brett was invited to join this organization the same day and Milner a couple of weeks later, on his return from Egypt. Both accepted with enthusiasm. Thus the central part of the secret society was established by March 1891. It continued to function as a formal group, although the outer circle was, apparently, not organized until 1909-1913. This group was able to get access to Rhodes’ money after his death in 1902 and also to funds of loyal Rhodes supporters like Alfred Beit (1853-1906) and Sir Abe Bailey (1864-1940). With this backing they sought to extend and execute the ideals that Rhodes had obtained from Ruskin and Stead. Milner was the chief Rhodes Trustee and Parkin was Organizing Secretary of the Rhodes Trust after 1902, while Gell and Birchenough, as well as others with similar ideas, became officials of the British South Africa Company. They were joined in their efforts by other Ruskinite friends of Stead’s like Lord Grey, Lord Esher, and Flora Shaw (later Lady Lugard). In 1890, by a stratagem too elaborate to describe here, Miss Shaw became Head of the Colonial Department of the Times while still remaining on the payroll of Stead’s Pall Mall Gazette. In this past she played a major role in the next ten years in carrying into execution the imperial schemes of Cecil Rhodes, to whom Stead had introduced her in 1889. (131-32)After Rhodes’ death, his enormous fortune would be used to establish the Rhodes Scholarship Fund, a program devoted to promoting the Ruskinite variety of globalism within academia. Rene Wormser examines the prolific diffusion of Rhodes Scholars and their occupancy of politically and socially significant positions:Of a total of 1,372 American Rhodes scholars up to 1953, 431 held or hold positions in teaching and educational administration (among them, 31 college presidents); 113 held government positions; 70 held positions in press and radio; and 14 were executives in other foundations. (201)With Rhodes’ passing, the responsibility for the perpetuation of the imperialistic crusade became the burden of chief Rhodes Trustee Alfred Milner. Milner was the governor-general and high commissioner of South Africa between 1897 and 1905 (132). During this period, Milner assembled recruits from Toynbee Hall and Oxford that would "win influential posts in government and international finance and become the dominant influence in British imperial and foreign affairs up to 1939" (132). Known as "Milner’s Kindergarten," this network established semisecret organizations called Round Table Groups (132). The Round Table Groups sprouted up in America and in Britain’s chief dependencies (132). These semisecret groups would produce:the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor Family (owners of The Times). Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations) in the period of 1919-1927. (132-33)Since its inception in 1921, the CFR has acquired an impressive body of members and sizable quantities of political capital. The Council has been peopled by prominent power brokers like Dick Cheney, George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Kah 31). Other Establishment luminaries that have been CFR members include Walter Lippmann, Cyrus Vance, Adlai Stevenson, Robert O. Anderson, Theodore M. Hesburgh, Brent Scrowcroft, Lane Kirkland, and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (31). Financing for the Council’s founding came from the very same individuals responsible for the formation of the Federal Reserve: Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff, Otto Kahn, Bernard Baruch, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller (31). Of course, several Federal Reserve chairmen would share membership in the CFR, including Paul Warburg, Paul Volker, and Alan Greenspan (31). Thus, one could convincingly argue that American monetary policy is largely influenced by Council initiatives and agendas.The oligarchical Rockefeller dynasty has enjoyed prolonged representation within the CFR. David Rockefeller, grandson of John D. Rockefeller, was a Council director for thirty-six years and a chairman of the board for fifteen years (Kah 31). John D. Rockefeller IV, David Rockefeller Jr., and Rodman C. Rockefeller have also inhabited the Council roster (31). The Council itself has received continued financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation (Wormser 209). Interestingly enough, the director of the Rockefeller Foundation during the 50s was also a Rhodes Scholar (Wormser 201).Populated and supported by individuals with overtly elitist ambitions, the Council on Foreign Relations hardly represents the interests of the American public. Instead, it represents the interests of the ruling class. Concerning this organizational conduit for elitist initiatives, congressman John R. Rarick has issued the following admonition:The Council on Foreign Relations—dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication media—should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system.Yet, the Nation’s "right-to-know-machinery"—the news media usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members, and their activities. And I find that few university students and graduates have even heard of the Council on Foreign Relations.The CFR is "the establishment." Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship. (Qutd. in Roberts 203)In short, the CFR is an elitist machination for the consolidation of political power. That the CNP wishes to emulate such an organization should prompt considerable suspicion. Howard Ahmanson, Jr.’s shared membership in the CNP and CFR suggests that there might be ideological commonalities between the two. Given his Establishment pedigree, Ahmanson, Jr. is more than qualified to help the CNP more closely approximate the CFR model.In the second installment of this series, we shall examine CNP members John Ashcroft and Gary Bauer. We shall also examine the dubious organizational ties held by these CNP members.

Sources Cited
All sources will be presented in the twelfth and final installment of this series.

REPORTING A COLAPSE BEFORE A COLAPSE?!

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

COMMUNIST STATES OF AMERICA

THE NORTH AMERICAN 'SOVIET' UNION

By Charlotte Iserbyt
February 27, 2007

There is one common thread running through all articles and speeches by elected officials, well-known writers, and commentators in opposition to the merging of the United States into a political and economic regional arrangement known as the North American Union. To my knowledge, not one of them has chosen to use the “C” word (communism) when warning Americans of the dangers of this unconstitutional merger about to be foisted upon us without proper hearings in Congress. Excellent speeches and articles are being given and written warning us of all sorts of bad things related to this merger, including the fact that we will lose our sovereignty, but we are not being told that all these bad things are necessary for the full implementation of The North American Soviet Union (communistic/regional system). Isn’t the “C” word the one and only word which might shock Americans out of their state of conditioned apathy, thereby bringing about citizen activism which might result in killing this “regional” monster?
Morris Zeitlin, a communist writer for the Communist Party’s Daily World said in an article entitled “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark,” November 8, 1975: “We (USA) have no regional government and no comprehensive regional planning to speak of. Regional government and planning remain concepts our urban scholars and planners have long advocated in vain…In socialist countries, metropolitan regions enjoy metropolitan regional government and comprehensive planning. The economic and functional efficiencies and the social benefits that comprehensive national, regional and city planning make possible in socialist society explain the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic social progress…”
Of interest regarding Zeitlin’s comment about “the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic social progress…” is the following admission made by former President Gorbachev at the 2005 National School Board Association conference that “half the world’s population and two-thirds of Russia’s lives in poverty.”
The United States Government, at all levels, has since 1975 accepted wholeheartedly Zeitlin’s advice, to the extent that our country is, believe it or not, almost 100 percent socialist in its political, economic, social and environmental (sustainable development) policies. For documentation please read “Walks Like a Duck, Talks Like a Duck.”
The regionalization (consolidation) of the world is quite similar to the three-stage plan outlined by Stalin at the 1936 Communist International. At that meeting, the official program proclaimed:
“Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations.” (Ed note: The third stage is taking place right now as we in the United States of America become part of a federal union, the North American Union, which will in the near future become part of a world union of socialist nations.)
Former President of the Soviet Union Gorbachev on March 23, 2000, in London, referred to the European Union (EU) as "the New European Soviet.” If he refers to the EU in that way, it only stands to reason that he would refer to the North American Union (NAU) as the “New American Soviet,” since the NAU is modeled on the EU. Gorbachev also said in his speech to the Soviet Central Committee on November 2, 1987, published by Novosti Press Agency Publishing House:
“We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”
How is it possible that if American citizens or United States officials involved in putting us under the North American Union were aware of Gorbachev’s statements, they would not be very concerned regarding our nation becoming part of a communist world? Have we forgotten the many hundreds of millions of innocent people tortured, starved, murdered and incarcerated by communist regimes around the world? Authorities say “over 20 million people suffered in purges under Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin -- and that more than 10 million died before Stalin's death in 1953. Some put the number even higher.” [Read]
Do we really believe the communists have changed or gone away?
United States government officials, elected and unelected, with enormous financial assistance from the tax-exempt foundations, have for many years been working to implement unconstitutional regional planning at the local, state, national and international level, all of this required for full implementation of a One World Socialist Government. For the 3000-page transcript of 1953 Congressional (Reece and Cox Committee) Hearings to Investigate the Tax-Exempt Foundations and for superb research on the history of regional government, go to americandeception.com and type the following into its search engine: Reece Committee, Don Bell Reports, Maureen Heaton, and Mantooth Report.
One very important government official in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, Under Secretary of State George W. Ball, spelled out very clearly what the Insiders were planning for our nation in The New York Times, 1/24/88: “…If we could internationalize by using the United Nations in conjunction with the Soviet Union, because we now no longer have to fear in most cases a Soviet veto, then we could begin to transform the shape of the world and might get the UN back doing something useful. …Sooner or later we’re going to have to face restructuring our institutions so that they’re not confined merely to the nation states. Start first on a regional, and ultimately you can move to a world, basis.” (emphasis added).
Has our education system so successfully conditioned and dumbed down Americans that they no longer are able to apply logic to the above quotes? Are they no longer capable of transferring that knowledge, processing it into new knowledge and conclusions which might help them understand and oppose the present destruction of our Constitutional Republic?
Since all regional groupings being set up around the world are based on the communistic Free Trade “redistribute the wealth” philosophy, why is it that the adjective “Communist” is never used when discussing GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA and the NAU? Those patriotic writers could at least describe those agreements as “Communism LITE”, couldn’t they?
For those Americans who recall the days of elected officials, not unelected, appointed task forces and “councils” (soviets, according to most dictionaries), running our towns, schools, counties, states, nation and world, recognizing this change in our form of government should not be too difficult.
However, for those younger Americans denied an education in American history and government due to the activities of the tax-exempt foundations, especially the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations, the loss of elected officials through regionalism does not seem to bother them. Go to americandeception.com and type into search engine “Kenny Hignite” and you will see a most astonishing six-page 1954 “Test on the United States Constitution” on which Hignite received a grade of 99 – “Excellent!” There is absolutely no way that Kenny Hignite, now 66 years old, having received such an excellent education on the U.S. Constitution in a public school in Central California in 1954, would not be questioning the present deliberate destruction of our representative form of government through the implementation of communistic regional government!
Those Americans under fifty years old, and too often those over 50 years old (!), will ask you “What’s wrong with members of the community or faceless state bureaucrats being appointed to assist our elected officials in their work which has become increasingly complicated?” The simple answer is “If you don’t approve of what those unelected officials are doing, you can’t get rid of them at the polls.”
Uneducated Americans will also ask you:
“What’s wrong with consolidation of school districts, services, the merging of individual school and town budgets to “save taxpayers money?” (Ed note: In Maine our Senate Education Committee is about to approve Governor Baldacci’s proposal to slash school districts by proposing 26 regional school units statewide with 26 superintendents, compared to the existing 152 superintendents and 290 school units!);
“What’s wrong with merging 16 towns under one county council as was recently proposed in Cumberland County, Maine, thereby eliminating representative government?”;
“What’s wrong with getting rid of local school boards and having our schools run by city Mayors, or contracting education out to private organizations connected with the corporations?”;
“What possible objection could you have to public school morals and values education even if those programs are forbidden to teach ‘absolute’ morals and values based on the Ten Commandments?”;
“What’s wrong with publicly-funded charter schools which have no elected school boards?”;
“What’s wrong with Cuban-style school-to-work job training replacing a K-12 liberal arts curriculum? Even if my child can’t read, I sure want him/her to be able to get a job.”;
“What’s wrong with public/private partnerships?”
“What’s wrong with the federal government mandating mental health screening for my child?”;
“What’s wrong with members of the community assisting the local police in monitoring citizen activities and/or the police handing out awards to citizens who do good deeds, as is the case with the Community-Oriented Policing System (COPS) in Maine?”;
“What’s wrong with putting the UN’s lifelong learning agenda, all community services (birth through death), under the umbrella of the school district? (Go to americandeception.com and type “Feld” into search engine for a remarkable research paper on the history of Community Education)
“What’s wrong with a National I.D. card reportedly designed by two Russian ex-KGB Chiefs?”;
“What’s wrong with students being required to perform community service in order to graduate?”;
“What’s wrong with federal funding of religious organizations (faith-based initiative)?”;
“What’s wrong with federally-funded school choice proposals?”;
“What’s wrong with dropping borders between states?” as is in the offing.
And, the subject of this article: “What’s wrong with regional government?” And many more “What’s Wrong With?” questions from good Americans who have, over many years, through no fault of their own, been deliberately dumbed down and didn’t receive the public education which required the likes of Kenny Hignite to know their Constitution and form of government.
How many Americans realize that almost all the programs mentioned in the above “What’s Wrong With” section have already been implemented in our schools, communities, and states and that they are based on communist/socialist collectivist philosophy? The planners are waiting only for the full implementation of the North American Union (final nail in coffin) which will allow them to write and approve, as was done in Europe, the North American Union’s Constitution (Communist Manifesto) which will include all the above “What’s Wrong With?” programs. That will be the infamous day when the U.S. Constitution is formally relegated to history’s trash bin. And, as with the EU Constitution, or the Communist Manifesto, the practice of Christianity will be outlawed… a thing of the past. All religions will be considered equal and inevitably superior to Christianity. Go to americandeception.com and type into search engine “Religion and Governance” an important position paper by Harlan Cleveland, notorious supporter of global government, long-time member of the internationalist Aspen Institute, and first U.S. Ambassador to the Common Market (1960), and Marc Luycx, a Belgian change agent bureaucrat. This paper was prepared by the Foreward Study Group of the European Commission and was undoubtedly used by those drafting the EU Constitution. It will give you a picture of the non-role of Christianity in world region constitutions.
Our elected officials in Congress, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, should not be immune to multi-million dollar lawsuits for injuries sustained by the citizens of this country. Is not the loss of our freedoms due to elected officials’ malpractice (lying to us in regard to putting us under the communistic regional North American Union and not holding hearings on the subject) even more important than the death of one patient due to a doctor’s malpractice, the scalding of a woman who spilled her “too-hot” coffee at a McDonald’s takeout, or the death from cancer of a woman who smoked too many cigarettes? How can we ignore the fact that 651,008 Americans have died in battle to protect and defend the constitutional freedoms which will vanish under this new international regional arrangement? Is there really no penalty to be exacted of these highly-paid Congressional traitors other than voting them out of office, which it seems is impossible to do due to both political parties having the same agenda, controlled media, manipulated political conventions, and election fraud?
Americans have been conditioned to NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, since the days of McCarthyism and the phony fall of communism, mention the “C” word. The word must, as George Orwell might have said, be removed from the dictionaries of all languages, especially English. Otherwise, we might wise up and tackle this treason with all our might and brains since we surely don't want our children and grandchildren living under any “ism” form of government, much less “communism”. The Insiders know that “communism” is the one and only word that must be banished from use. They are not concerned over excellent anti-North American Union rantings and ravings as long as the “C” word is NOT used.
The Insiders, most if not all of whom are corporate communists, have no fear of the coming totalitarian system since they have been assured they will be sitting in the catbird seat, having eliminated all economic competition and self-government (elected officials), and will have the world as their playground. The majority of the world’s population, the Insiders’ “human resources”, will be their highly trained and conditioned serfs, lifelong.
One might ask, how can this be? It is a well-known and documented fact that Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution and the corporate communists and our government have been supporting the communist regime in Russia since 1917. Extensive exchange agreements covering political, municipal, cultural, economic, legal, law enforcement, education, science, sports, medicine, etc. have been signed since 1958 between the USSR and the USA, including of special importance the 1985 education agreements signed by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev which merged our two education systems and caused to be implemented the Soviet polytechnical work force/job quota system and the Pavlovian outcomes-based method of conditioning/training. Go to americandeception.com for full text of “Agreement between U.S.A. and USSR.”

Regionalism is communism no matter how you slice it. The sooner Americans get that unpleasant fact permanently entered into their brains, and process that information into appropriate action, the sooner we will be able to escape what Orwell described so well in his novel 1984:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the human face--forever...and remember, that is forever."

Forward this article to your friends and to your elected officials at the local, state, and national level. Of equal importance restore the "C" word to your vocabulary and use it often.

© 2007 Charlotte T. Iserbyt - All Rights Reserved

9/11 AND THE MISSING MONEY

Sy Hersh on covert operations and funds not appropriated, mentioning 911 the same sentence
9/11 Blogger February 26, 2007
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/25/seymour-hersh-negroponte-iran-c...
***
I know that Sy Hersh is not a 911truther, as he eventually means really the phony Al Qaida, but an interesting catch at least.
Just remember, these stories related to 911 and missing money:
***
National Commission on terrorists attacks upon the United StatesAppendix A, page 144 . Origin of the Funds
To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks … Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.
***
Missing Trillions
Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference
On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
***
The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. 3 4 Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor." 5
***
In a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" published by The American Enterprise's "Project for a New American Century", System Planning Corporation (SPC) International executive, Dov Zakheim, called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" being necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East that would politically and culturally reshape the region. A respected and established voice in the intelligence community, his views were eagerly accepted, and Dov went from his position at Systems Planning Corporation to become the Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001.
Perhaps not so coincidentally, it was an SPC subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the investigation after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 [see their report, as a PDF file, here].
SPC, according to their official website, specializes in many areas of defense technology production and manufacture, including a system developed by their Radar Physics Group called the Flight Termination System, or FTS. This is a system used to destroy target drones (craft that would be fired on by test aircraft or weaponry) in the event of malfunction or "misses". This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control of several 'drones' from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles. This technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets
http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_following_zakheim.pdf

www.infowars.com

CONSOLIDATING POWER

A Study in North American Union
by Kelly Taylor
March 5, 2007

Just when you thought you had a grip on the NAU (North American Union) and its scope, more disturbing news arrives indicating that this horrendous project isn't half-baked, but ready to be forked.
Kelly Taylor is an Austin-based writer and filmmaker, and the producer of a politically based TV talk show.

The NAU first began gaining the attention of average American citizens in 2005, with the signing of the treacherous Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the release of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report Building a North American Community (BNAC). The recentness of these eye-opening actions led many to believe that the NAU would be a long time in coming, but information continues to surface regarding the plethora of clever devices employed to sell the NAU to Americans and speed its arrival.

For those readers who are still completely in the dark about the NAU, it is, simply put, the transformation of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) into a full-blown economic and political merger of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The advocates of the NAU are using an accelerated model of the deceptive process used to merge the countries of Europe into the European Union.

What better way to speed the NAU's coming than to avoid having to do a "sell" job altogether and simply train a new generation of Americans as ready believers? That's exactly what the NAU proponents are up to. In 1998, seven years before the SPP or BNAC appeared, four "North American" business schools (in Halifax, Montreal, Monterrey, and New York City) teamed up to create the PanAmerican Partnership, a business-training program sponsoring training and research emphasizing North American economic integration, and dedicated to building "the next generation of North American managers." The PanAm Partnership is the first NAFTA-focused business-training program — nearly 350 MBA students from the four partner schools have participated in the MBA plan. Each partner school has a PanAm track in its MBA program for students wishing to build careers in the new "North American" business environment.

Arizona State University (ASU) has taken this new paradigm a step further. Its North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) has introduced a benchmark website, first designed in 2000, allowing "North Americanists" a resource for the growing body of research about economic integration in the NAFTA Triad. It was needed because advancement of economic integration was increasing "despite the lack of press and public attention," and a web presence would allow those in Triad countries to "link up." ASU's website claims the regional integration process deepens even without the kind of public attention enjoyed in Europe. (We think the lack of public and press attention was deliberate, allowing integration to occur under the radar of Americans who would object to the "sovereignty sellout" their leaders are perpetrating.)

It's interesting, in the least, to learn that ASU and NACTS have partnered with the North American Supercorridor Coalition (NASCO), the Kansas City Affairs and Trade Office (site of the NAFTA Supercorridor inland port), and the Americas Society-Council of the Americas. Surprise. NASCO's website states it is developing a corridor-wide educational consortium and inviting universities to join its efforts to improve trade and transportation along the corridor. This consortium will bring together those institutions playing a role in training the next generation to solve international transportation problems and maximize opportunities for tri-national information sharing. Would it surprise anyone to learn that the Americas Society-Council of the Americas is dedicated to market integration in the Americas, and was founded by David Rockefeller? Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 autobiography, Memoirs, that he is proud to be an internationalist working against the best interests of the United States, and conspiring to build a one world government — with himself, no doubt, at the helm.

To be precise, he stated (on page 405, Chapter 27, entitled, "Proud Internationalist"):

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

Mr. Rockefeller was for 15 years (1970-85) the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, the principal organization pushing the NAU. The earlier mentioned document Building a North American Community was written by CFR task-force director Robert Pastor and is the uncontested blueprint for merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico into one political entity called North America. This recommendation appears on page 29: "to develop a network of centers for North American studies.... We recommend that the three governments open a competition and provide grants to universities in each of the three countries to promote courses, education and research on North America."

Predictably, Pastor is the director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, which is dedicated to the idea of moving forward with the trilateral agenda of regional integration. It seems that promotion is already in place and the BNAC document is simply justifying what has already been done.

If today's students on the PanAm track at a growing number of universities are indoctrinated into the glories of "North Americanism," the idea of an independent and sovereign America will be as distant an idea to them as even the word "America" will become. Orwell's character, Winston Smith, lamented that not even knowing the word "freedom" eliminated even the concept of it from the minds of his fellow citizens. That most certainly will be the fate of our children and theirs if this NAU train is not stopped.

Readers of The New American need to recognize that the attention given by the magazine to the NAU is nothing short of a May Day call for opposition to the biggest threat ever, or, as expressed in popular vernacular, we're toast.

www.thenewamerican.com

MARTIAL LAW LEGISLATION

What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law?

Jane Smiley
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

An editorial in the New York Times yesterday pointed out, for those of us who didn't realize it, that the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US. Senators Leahy and Bond have introduced a bill to repeal these changes, and it is important that

voters keep track of this bill and hold their Congresspeople to account on it. Along with several other measures the Bush adminstration has proposed, the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy. Any senator who does not vote in favor of the Leahy/Bond repeal of these provisions should promptly be recalled by his or her constituents.

That said, and without underestimating the seriousness of these provisions, I have to point out that with this as with other legal maneuvers like the Military Commissions Act, I have to wonder who Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. think they are governing. Were they planning to spring these things on us? One day, we were supposed to wake up, and martial law would be declared, and we were supposed to actually pay attention to it? Where are they keeping the troops who were going to patrol our neighborhoods? Who was it who was going to disarm the population? Who was their base going to be, when they sought public support for martial law? Who was going to round us up and where were they going to put us?

It is in these sorts of things that the byzantine thinking and strange psychological make-up of the Bushies comes out. Let's say that Bush imagines (with Gonzalez and Cheney) the enhanced joys of bringing the war home. No longer is his command "over there"--it is now "over here". He can go out onto the White House lawn and issue edicts, and then perhaps he can be driven around Washington, or over into Virginia, and watch civilians obey his orders in a way that the Iraqis seem unwilling to do. I am assuming that the purpose of such an exercise would be to renew and intensify the now-diminishing frisson Bush gets from feeling himself the boss of all he surveys. But we all know it would not work. Very few people believe Bush or take his needs and desires seriously any more. Bush, or his keepers, know this, too, or they would not have introduced these provisions secretly. There was a time, when the nation was in a panic, when he could purloin things openly, and no one dared defy him. That was the appropriate occasion for these martial law changes. Now, or even last fall, was not that time. The Republicans must have suspected that to make such provisions known would have meant jeopardizing an iffy mid-term election even more than it already was, so they hid them. But the fact that they hid them makes them a hundred times more suspect--are the Bushies planning a coup after all?

And if they are planning a coup, what's the goal? Who is going to fall in line? Arnold Schwarzenegger, my very own governor? Chet Culver? Kathleen Sebelius? Eliot Spitzer? Since the US is a corporatocracy, would we then all be forced to work for $2.00 per hour? Give up all workplace benefits? Attend the religious services of our choice on Sunday? Devote even more of our tax dollars to the war machine and the oil machine? Haven't they taken everything already? Try as I might, I cannot imagine martial law in the US, except as something the population would agree to under threat from...from whom? Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but the last time martial law was declared was during the Civil War, and Americans, though the threats to the Union were profound and omnipresent, didn't like it then. I can't even imagine what would happen now.

Our armed forces can't subdue Iraq. I can't imagine that Bush thinks they could subdue New England or the West Coast, much less the whole US. To imagine himself commanding such a thing seems like magical thinking at its most obvious. So, what would you did if Bush declared martial law, laugh?

YET THE TOWERS FELL

What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

9/11 Blogger
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11

An analysis of contradictions in statements by Building Designer Leslie Robertson

By Arabesque[1]

Before 9/11

“A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”[2]

(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):

“However, O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[3]

1993

“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”[4]

“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5]

2001

“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[6]

[Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[7]

[Frank A. Demartini:] “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8]

Sept 3-7, 2001—just before 9/11

“The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.”[9]

After 9/11

“The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. ‘We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,’ said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. ‘We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.’”[10]

“The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”[11]

“[The] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 2005 state that it has been ‘unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.’”[12]

“In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”[13]

“[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report… The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it… Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. Molten—Molten means flowing—I’ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was.” Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson [MP3] by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006

Analysis:

Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.

· Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph. Interestingly he made this claim only a few days before 9/11.[14] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that “A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.[15] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Is it possible that Robertson was asked to leak this “deliberately misleading information” just before 9/11? However, this is just speculation. Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[16]

· Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire”. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[17] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?

· NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no “evidence to indicate consideration of… thousands of gallons of jet fuel”. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling’s statement: “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire… The building structure would still be there.”[18]

· In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had “never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.” This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: “Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.”[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]

· Robertson is also incorrect when he says that “if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[21] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it “irrelevant to [their] investigation.”[22] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.

Is Robertson being pressured to lie and make false statements? Was he asked to leak a false statement just before 9/11 about the speed of the planes having an impact on their destruction? Are these contradictions by accident or mistake?

A news report stated that he wanted to give his opinion to the FBI before making his comments public. This in itself is not overly suspicious—but his contradictions are. No clear answers to these and similar questions can be obtained through speculation alone—Leslie Robertson must account for these himself. If another 9/11 investigation is obtained, it is clear that Leslie Robertson will have to answer these and other relevant questions.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.911blogger.com/blog/877

[2] Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)

[3] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]

[4] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[5] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]

[6] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001]

[7] [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]

[8] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/
141104designedtotake.htm

[9] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366]

[10] “Believed to Be Safe, the Towers Proved Vulnerable to Jet Fuel Fire”

By JAMES GLANZ

http://www.punjabilok.com/america_under_attack/
believed_tobe_safe.htm

[11] [US Congress, 3/6/2002; Associated Press, 3/7/2002]

[12] [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13]

[13] [Robertson, 3/2002]

[14] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001] These articles the day after 9/11 make clear the fact that this statement was made before 9/11: “Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany”.

[15] Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)]

[16] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]

[17] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[18] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

[19] [SEAU News, 10/2001] This fact was observed by David Ray Griffin and Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline.

[20] http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

[21] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.” 1

“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:

“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:

Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

[22] See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13

ERASING BORDERS

Oregon Senate Introduces Anti-NAU Resolution

JBS | February 20, 2007

Opposition to the North American Union continues to grow in state legislatures. Oregon is the newest state to introduce legislation that would urge the United States Congress to withdraw from the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the further development of the North American Union. The resolution, Senate Joint Memorial 5, was introduced by Senator Gary George and is cosponsored by 2 other state Senators and 4 Representatives. In part, the resolution reads:

Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the Seventy-fourth Legislative Assembly, respectfully request that the Congress of the United States withdraw the United States from further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and other activities that advance, authorize, fund or promote the creation of a North American Union.

Here is a summary of anti-NAU legislation that has been introduced in either the U.S. Congress, or in state legislatures:

House Concurrent Resolution 40 – introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Virgil Goode of Virginia
Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002 – introduced by Senator Johnson of Arizona
Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 – introduced by Senator Barnitz of Missouri
House Concurrent Resolution 3185 – introduced by Rep. Davenport of South Carolina
House Joint Resolution 7 – introduced by Rep. Sandstrom and Senator Fife of Utah
Senate Joint Resolution 442 – introduced by Senators Lucas and Hawkins of Virginia
Senate Joint Memorial 8004 – introduced by Senators Stevens, Swecker and Benton of Washington

Aside from state legislatures, the NAU threat has been picked up by CNN's Lou Dobbs, Rep. Ron Paul, author Jerome Corsi, conservative talk show host Chuck Baldwin, The New American magazine, and many more who have been able to bypass the mainstream media via the internet and other alternate media venues.

Readers of this newsfeed are encouraged to visit the John Birch Society's issues page for the North American Union to learn more about this threat and how it can be stopped through the efforts of a well-informed citizenry.

http://infowars.com

FIRST THE CHILDREN, THEN THE WORLD

An Orwellian solution to kids skipping school

Atlanta Journal-Constitutuion | February 19, 2007
COURTLAND MILLOY

Let's say your teenager is a habitual truant and there is nothing you can do about it. A Washington area politician thinks he might have the solution: Fit the child with a Global Positioning System chip, then have police track him down.

"It allows them to get caught easier," said Maryland Delegate Doyle Niemann (D-Prince George's), who recently co-sponsored legislation in the House that would use electronic surveillance as part of a broader truancy reduction plan. "It's going to be done unobtrusively. The chips are tiny and can be put into a hospital ID band or a necklace."

Excuse me. But that is obscene. Electronic monitoring is used by criminal court judges to keep track of felons. Researchers use them to track the movements of wild animals. Let parents use such devices if they must. But that's no way for government to treat a child.

Niemann's legislation mirrors a bill sponsored by state Sen. Gwendolyn Britt (D-Prince George's). Both would provide truants and their parents with better access to social services, such as mental health evaluations and help with schoolwork. Electronic monitoring would be a last resort. Still, the prospect of tagging children and using them in some "catch and release" hunt by police casts a pall over everything that's good about the plan.

All of this is because about 6,800 students in suburban Prince George's County (out of a total 134,000) missed 20 to 35 days of school in 2005, and an additional 5,800 missed 36 days or more. A problem? Yes. Bad enough to use an Orwellian quick fix? No way. Besides, is there no end to this fiddling with mere symptoms?

Stephanie Joseph, a member of the board of ACLU of Maryland who testified against the bill at a recent Senate committee hearing, correctly observed that "it really doesn't address truancy and its root causes." Even as Niemann and other lawmakers seek to rustle up students and herd them back to school, school officials are kicking them out by the score. More than 4,300 county students were suspended at least twice during the 2005-06 school year; 480 of them, five or more times. You can imagine what all of that confusion might look like on a GPS monitor: satellite images of dots streaming in one school door and back out through another.

Perhaps most distressing is the number of students who stay in school only until age 16, when they can legally drop out. Enrollment figures show that, during any given year, roughly 14,000 students are in ninth grade. By 12th grade, the number drops to 8,000.

"We need to take a look at the whole system," Niemann said. "We want to know why students drop out and if we are preparing them for the world they live in. But there is a limit to what you can do."

Odd how billions and billions of dollars keep going to a war that almost nobody wants but there's never enough to fund the educational programs that nearly everybody says are needed. Aimed solely at students in Prince George's — the only predominantly black county in the Washington area — the truancy effort is called a "pilot program," a first-of-its-kind experiment. It would cost $400,000 to keep track of about 660 students a year.

Surely that money could be better spent. Take one example: In nearby Montgomery County, kindergarten teacher Kathleen Cohan noticed that 5-year-old children of affluent parents were entering her school knowing about 13,000 English words, while children from poor and immigrant families knew as few as 500. So she and other teachers came up with a plan to close the gap. And it worked. Between 2002 and 2005, the percentage of low-income kindergartners reaching first grade soared from 44 percent in 2002 to 70 percent in 2005.

Now that's a pilot program. Invest in something like that and you might find more students becoming eager to attend school.

Niemann notes that the law requires students to attend school — period. "Where do you lodge responsibility for school attendance: with the parent and child, or society?" he asked. "If you say that the school system has to do blank this and blank that before holding parents and students accountable, that's a dead end. That's just making excuses for unacceptable behavior."

But maintaining a school system that is among the worst in the state ought to be unacceptable, too. Maybe county officials should be monitored to see why they aren't showing up for work.

• Courtland Milloy is a Washington Post columnist. His column appears occasionally.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS; A FARCE

Neo-Fascism Exposed: Part II--Political Correctness
by Jace Walden
JasonPye.com

"If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed."--Benjamin Franklin


This article is the second installment in the series of articles aimed at exposing the Neo-Fascist movement and discrediting all of its manifestations. One of the most prevalent manifestations of neo-fascism is political correctness. Political Correctness (or PC) is a linguistic concept aimed at removing words or terms that can be perceived as offensive to certain individuals or groups. On the surface, many concepts of political correctness seem civil and are completely acceptable. An example of this is the censorship of racial and ethnic slurs on television. If this was the full extent political correctness, there wouldn't be a problem. However, like most good-intentioned movements, the movement has strayed from its original principles. In the case of the PC movements, it has morphed into an all-out assault on the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and it has been a driving factor factor in the "dumbing-down" and weakening of American society as a whole.
The modern manifestations of political correctness are easily identifiable in everyday life. From the affirmative action movement, to androgynization; and from the "everyone's a winner" mentality to political censorship, it's hard to go through a whole day without either thinking/feeling/or acting politically correct. From a constitutional standpoint (and I'll admit that I'm not an expert of the constitution) the whole premise behind political correctness is flawed. According the the First Amendment, we all have a right to free speech, and inherent in that right is the freedom of expression. But there is no constitutional clause, amendment, or phrase which states that a person has the right to not be offended. So how can an American society possibly attempt to prohibit expression or language for any reason? After hundreds of years of case law, several statutes have been passed to protect against offense in the name of civility and order. Such laws include: Laws against indecent exposure, laws against public intoxication, and laws against disorderly conduct.
These laws, however, have one thing in common with each other that they do not share with the ideas of political correctness. Of the above mentioned laws, all are meant to restrict a certain behavior which is not in itself a right. For instance, a man does not have the right to expose himself to me. A man also does not have a right to go cause disrest in public because he is belligerently drunk. And finally, a man or group does not have the right to disrupt the public or private well-being, simply for the sake of disrupting it. I.E. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have no right to disorderly conduct at a funeral. Political Correctness goes one step further than any civility law. It attempts to restrict a right. Most often, it is the right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression. But as you will see later in the article, it doesn't stop there. The following are examples of political correctness at its lowest:Example 1: Muhammad is PISSED!For the first example, I'll stick with one of the more traditional practices of fascism in political correctness--censorship of non-behavior oriented expression. Earlier this year, a Danish newspaper came under a virtual PC assault due to its printing of a series of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Besides the reaction from Muslims, who were extremely upset, the newspaper came under fire from SEVERAL non-Muslim groups/individuals who were concerned that the editor/cartoonist weren't "sensitive" enough. Even in America, many on the left were condemning the paper for what they considered to be a thoughtless, cruel, and inconsiderate action.
The Cartoons themselves, as all political cartoons are, were a series of clever, single-framed illustrations which questioned calling Islam "the Religion of Peace". One depicted the prophet with a Crescent shaped halo over his head, however at the angle he was standing, the halo looked like a set of horns. Now, I can see Muslims being offended by this drawing. After all, the Christian religion has been openly mocked for decades, and Christians (like myself) have been rightly offended. But to start all-out protests and riots which included arson, assault, looting, and other forms of violent crime...doesn't that sort of prove the point of the cartoons?
The worst part about the whole incident was how much it scared the American mainstream media. Most media outlets flat-out refused to show the drawings on air in fear of offending Muslims. In essence, they decided that being "PC" was more important than delivering an accurate news report. Even Comedy Central (one network that has never been scared of offending anyone) bowed to the demands of the PC police when it refused to allow South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker to include a two-second depiction of Muhammad in an episode of South Park, although the network had no problem with the depiction of Jesus defecating on the American flag...
Keep one thing in mind. These cartoonists didn't gather up a group of Muslims and persecute or torture them for their beliefs. They didn't urinate on a Koran. And they did nothing to convert Muslims from their religion. All they did was draw a cartoon. Nothing more. All they expected was to get a few cheers and a few jeers. Instead, they stirred up a hot-bed of PC Fascism, headed by Islamic Fundamentalists and carried out by cowering news agencies who didn't think the public was good enough to hear the full story.
Example 2: You Made the Grade, You have the SAT, Too bad You're White!In 1999, two applicants to the University of Michigan filed civil suits against the University on the grounds that the University had used race as a consideration for admittance. At first sight, this should raise eyebrows seeing as how the 14th Amendment provides for equal protection under the laws. It basically prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, sex, etc. So how could the University of Michigan get away with admitting less qualified students simply because they were of a different race? The answer is another example of out-of-control political correctness.
You see, the University had what is known as a "quota" policy. Which was a policy that forced the admissions department to set aside a percentage of its acceptances for certain minority groups. The concept of the policy was to promote diversity among the student body. Not a bad idea, right? Not until 1999. In that year, among several thousand applicants, two white male students applied for admission. I won't lie and say that the two boys were rocket scientists. However, they did exceed the set standards for university admission. To their surprise, rather than a letter of acceptance, both received a letter of denial. As any qualified student would be, both were upset and questioned the University's decision. After several months, they found out that several students who had been accepted, had earned lower GPAs and lower SAT scores than the two boys had. After further investigation, the boys learned that the less-qualified students were all members of racial minorities. They also discovered that the University had a policy of meeting quotas for the different races.
After filing suit against the school for racial discrimination, the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. In a controversial 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS upheld the University's discriminatory policy--basically legalizing racial discrimination and overturning the Fourteenth Amendment. This is PC at its worst. Admitting college students on the basis of race undermines the American education system. From kindergarten to 12th grade kids are taught that if they work hard in school, they will earn a spot in college. I don't know about you, but I never once heard, "Jace, if you work hard in school you will earn a spot into college only if you belong to a certain race." But in essence, that's what SCOTUS has allowed.
This abuse of PC totally contradicts with the idea of equal opportunity. At one time, equal opportunity was supposed to mean just that, equal opportunity. Everyone is born with the chance, but there is no guarantee what the outcome will be. Thanks to the PC police, the concept of equal opportunity has evolved into something extremely troubling--equal results. They have slandered the meaning of the word to say that equal percentages of every race, sex, socio-economic background, MUST achieve equal results in every field of endeavor. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not a racist or sexist. I doesn't bother me if a person from a minority does better than me at something. I don't see people as minorities or majorities, I see them as people. But saying that all members of race X must be exactly the same as all members of race Y is nothing more than socialism. It completely rules out the possibility of effort and hard work.
For instance, there's a position open in a company. I apply and a black man applies. According to company policy, they have to hire 25 white people and 25 black people. Well, let's say that they're one white person short. Now, what if that black man was infinitely more qualified than me. He had the experience, he knows the system, and he has a good resume. But me, I'm just white. Is it right to hire me over him just to meet a quota? Not in a million years. I would expect him to be hired before me on the basis of his merit, not his skin color.
Affirmative action is a betrayal of the concept of merit. It is a betrayal of what Martin Luther King, Jr. said when he gave his famous speech: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." It is an over-emphasis of political correctness, and an embrace of inequality.
Example 3--Everyone is a Winner, Except for everyone who LOST!This isn't going to be one specific example. Instead, I will briefly discuss several examples of how unbridled political correctness is weakening and dumbing-down our society. The first example is found in the school. It's when teachers give credit to a student's incorrect answer as long as the student can explain how he came to the completely wrong conclusion. I might say 2 + 2 equals five. But as long as I can explain why I think 2 + 2 equals five, then I would receive full credit. This is stupid. It's like being a stock broker, telling a client that in one year his investment would be worth 5 million dollars, when really he will go broke, and trying to say, "but sir, let me tell you how I got to 5 million and you can pay me full price." In life, you can't go back and try to explain. You're probably going to get killed, fired, or chewed-out. Learn to deal with it early.
My favorite example comes from the book "Muzzled" by Michael Smerconish. He tells us about youth baseball organizations that give out "participation" trophies. As in, you lost every game this season, but here's a trophy for participating. Please, I know they're just little kids, but C'mon! In the real world, you don't get credit just for showing up. If I came to work and did nothing all day, my boss wouldn't just give me a check for showing up. Just like showing up to church doesn't necessarily make you closer to God--it's what you do while you're there. The whole "everyone is a winner" mentality is having a detrimental effect on the competitive spirit of America. From my family making fun of me because I get competitive when we play poker, to anyone who takes a game seriously being labeled "too aggressive". It's a shame, and it's a mockery of the spirit of our founding fathers. Everyone is not a winner. Competition is a fact of life. Once again, learn to deal with it early.
I'm not an advocate for anarchy. I think people should show a little bit of class, rather than just offending everyone at random. But sometimes, being offended can be beneficial. It makes the students work harder to solve problems the right way, it promotes competition, and it strengthens political debate. Lou Dobbs says it best, "Too often, political correctness is all about controlling language. We must tell it like it is." When the PC police come knocking at your door, just shut them out--if they're offended, believe me, they'll get over it. After all, isn't honesty the best policy?

Just some food for thought.

BIG BROTHER DETECTS PRE-CRIME?

Big Brother Brain Scanners To Detect Pre-Crime
Watching, Listening, Shouting, Firing X-Rays and scanning your brain for thought crime

Steve Watson
www.infowars.net
Friday, February 9, 2007

You think this headline is alarmist? Fine, don't read anymore of this article, click here for the same story from today's front page of the London Guardian which debates whether a 'Minority Report' era, where judgments are handed down before the law is broken on the strength of an incriminating brain scan, is ethical or not.
The technology is no longer science fiction. A team of neuroscientists has developed technology that allows them to look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act.
During tests, researchers were able to successfully predict the intentions of multiple subjects with 70% accuracy by scanning their brains using a technique called functional magnetic imaging resonance.
The study revealed signatures of activity in a small part of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that changed when a person took a choice to do something before carrying out the action.
The researchers are already devising ways of deducing what patterns are associated with different thoughts.
According to the Guardian report, Professor Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist and director of the Medical Research Council, said: "We shouldn't go overboard about the power of these techniques at the moment, but what you can be absolutely sure of is that these will continue to roll out and we will have more and more ability to probe people's intentions, minds, background thoughts, hopes and emotions.
So what happens when this becomes the next generation of CCTV? And more to the point, what happens if it stays at only 70% accuracy? Or worse still, what if certain emotions, such as depression or anger, lead a person to be categorized as a risk?
And what will be the punishment for pre-crime? With moves to "chemically castrate" sex offenders by eliminating their sexual desires, seriously being considered now, how far fetched is it to imagine a future thought criminal's brain being "corrected" by eliminating the relevant desires or emotions picked up by a brain scan?
Is this the kind of society we want to live in? Clearly not. Why is there even a debate about that?
"We see the danger that this might become compulsory one day, but we have to be aware that if we prohibit it, we are also denying people who aren't going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence." Professor Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany told the Guardian.
This is total Orwellian doublethink on the grandest of scales. The Professor is essentially saying this should not be ruled out as a crime fighting tool because people should be given the chance to prove they are not criminals.
People already have the chance to prove they are not criminals by not committing any crimes! Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
But once again those detached from any kind of moral reality will say "If you've got nothing to hide then what is the problem with having your brain scanned for pre-crime? If it keeps us all safe from terrorists I'm all for it".
The British government has previously debated introducing pre-crime laws in the name of fighting terrorism. The idea was that suspects would be put on trial using MI5 or MI6 intelligence of an expected terror attack. This would be enough to convict if found to be true "on the balance of probabilities", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".
So get it straight, you are helping the terrorists by resisting having your brain scanned. Plus, if you have anti-big brother government feelings you may be with the terrorists.
Last month we brought you a report on leaked government policy review documents that debated implanting anyone considered mentally unstable with a microchip. Will this new brain scanning technology be used in this field also, perhaps to check for suicidal thoughts?
Already, under the new mental health act, you can be sectioned for mild depression. Take the recent case of Anna McHugh, who visited her GP after a failed intensive cycle of IVF treatment. She admitted that she was a little depressed and needed some help.
Four hours later she found herself admitted to St Pancras Hospital. Then, having admitted to the attending doctor that she had contemplated suicide, she was sectioned under Section 5.2 of the Mental Health Act and detained in a lock-down ward. When her husband tried to rescue her, she was held in a headlock while a doctor discussed her case with him.
It is not beyond reason to expect this technology to be implemented without debate. Can anyone remember a real meaningful debate occurring concerning surveillance cameras before they went up everywhere in London?
Last month we also reported on documents leaked from the Home Office in London revealing that the government is looking into using X-ray technology cameras by concealing them in lamp posts to "trap terror suspects".
The cameras, currently used in security check points at airports, can see through clothes and produce a naked image of anyone within their range.
Within that report I asked "How many more big brother functions can be gotten out of a camera?" Now, just over a week later we have an answer - brain scanners, is it a step too far to imagine them in the lamp posts with the shouting CCTV and the X-ray machines?
This shows what our governments think of us now. Everyone is a suspect.
Imagine the scenario, lamp post is triggered by technology to spot you walking strangely, begins recording your conversation, scans your face to match your details in the national database, X-rays you to check for weapons, shouts "stand still citizen" and scans your brain to check whether you intend to commit a crime, sees you're a bit depressed, sections you under mental health act, cops pick you up, hand you in to doctors who lock you up and microchip you.

Let's have a moral debate about that scenario. No, lets not.