Category Archives: Surveillance

Civil Rights Congress Current Events DHS Surveillance Uncategorized

What Is A Neocons?

Published by:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is pictured before President Bush addresses the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a think tank, regarding the line item veto Tuesday, June 27, 2006 in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is pictured before President Bush addresses the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a think tank, regarding the line item veto Tuesday, June 27, 2006 in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

What Is A Neocons?

By Chuck Baldwin
November 12, 2015

The word “neocon” has become a common term in our political lexicon. However, I don’t think most conservatives truly understand its definition.

First, people need to understand that many neocons call themselves “conservative” on domestic social issues. Not all neocons are truly conservative on these issues–some aren’t. But many neocons DO trumpet themselves as socially “conservative.” These folks like to identify themselves as “pro-life” or “pro-family” or “pro-defense” or “pro-limited government,” etc. But these titles are mostly meaningless.

At this point, it is imperative that we understand how politicians in Washington, D.C., operate. Here is a quick primer: Congressional leaders know which congressmen and senators are controllable–and most of them are. Only a handful of our federal congressmen and senators are “untouchable.” My guess is less than 100 out of the 535 House members and U.S. senators are truly NOT controlled–and that includes liberals and conservatives.

The vast majority of our congressmen and senators are either morally tainted, which make them prime targets for bribery and manipulation (can anyone say former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert?), or they are egotistical, ambition-driven narcissists who will do most anything to advance their careers (this is the largest group, in my opinion.)

Before ANY vote is cast in Congress, leaders take note of the political makeup of the districts and states that elected their representatives. Was he or she elected by a liberal or conservative district? What are the issues at home that the legislator campaigned on? All of this is readily known by congressional leaders.

Heads are counted before voting to test whether a given bill will comfortably pass or not. If there is a comfortable margin of support for a bill, members who come from a district with opposing views can vote according to the way that will keep the constituents back home happy. Only if a bill’s passage is so close that it requires members to vote against the will of their constituents will they be asked to do so. And the ones who are controlled WILL vote with their congressional leadership–regardless of how much it riles up the constituents back home. Of course, leadership has professionals that will coach the legislator on how to explain the bad vote to the people back home. And, since most votes are not that close, these tactics are not always required and the legislator’s voting record can appear “very good” to the folks back home. That’s how you come up with these congressional scorecards. When legislators vote against their constituents on a bill, you can mark it down: congressional leaders required the cooperation of the legislator or senator–and the legislator caved to the pressure. That’s how you know that the congressman or senator is controlled.

Again, there is only a small handful of congressmen and senators who are untouchable and will vote their convictions–and the convictions of the people they represent. (Controlled congressmen and senators don’t really have convictions to begin with.) Congressional leaders refer to these legislators as “rebels.” And they are punished by not being appointed to plush committee assignments or by being overlooked for leadership positions. Plus, leadership will often target these rebel legislators for defeat in future primary elections in an attempt to replace him or her with a “team player” (meaning controlled toady for leadership).

Second, please understand that the fundamental goal of those elitists who control the neocons is GLOBALISM. For the most part, these people care absolutely nothing about domestic social issues. It doesn’t matter to them one whit whether a congressman is pro-life or pro-choice; whether he or she is “pro-family” or pro-gay marriage; whether he or she is identified as a conservative or a liberal. These issues don’t even enter the mind of a globalist. They have but one goal: GLOBALISM. Accordingly, everything they promote promotes globalism. EVERYTHING! Never forget that!

Therefore, “conservative” scorecards are little indication as to whether a congressman or senator is a neocon. A congressman or senator can easily have a “B” or “80%” or better conservative rating, and still be a totally-controlled neocon. Most of the issues on these “conservative” or “Christian” or “Family Values” scorecards do not even grade congressman on most neocon issues, so a high score on these rating systems means little. This helps explain why so many Christian voters have little discernment in the voting booth. Their entire reason for voting is skewed. Plus, don’t forget that many of the so-called Christian leaders who put together these scorecards are themselves controlled neocons.

So, just what is a neocon? Remember, the goal of globalists is GLOBALISM. Therefore, here are the issues that promote globalism. Here are the issues that form a common denominator among neocons. When you observe your professing “conservative” congressman or senator supporting these issues, you can KNOW that they are, in reality, globalist-controlled NEOCONS.

*Pro-International “Free Trade” Deals

From NAFTA to TPP, these so-called “free trade” deals are nothing more than international loopholes that discriminate against the manufacturing jobs and labor class of individual countries and favor the billionaire class that conducts business internationally.

America has lost (and continues to lose) millions of manufacturing jobs–and now even high tech jobs–due to these international “free trade” deals. There is nothing “free” about these “free trade” deals. Quotas are often established for American exports but not for foreign imports. Taxes, duties, tariffs, etc., almost always favor foreign imports and punish U.S. exports. As a result, U.S. businesses are forced to take their companies overseas to compete. Entire factories close down resulting in millions of displaced U.S. workers. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Following the implementation of NAFTA by Congress in 1994, our trade surpluses with partners Mexico and Canada quickly became trade deficits, soaring to nearly $200 billion. Over one million U.S. jobs were lost and illegal immigration doubled almost immediately. Beyond that, U.S. workers that were somehow able to maintain their jobs watched their wages shrink. That’s right, SHRINK.

In Mexico, NAFTA has wreaked indescribable havoc. Already depressed wages plummeted. The availability of goods did NOT increase; it substantially DECREASED. While, guess what? Prices INCREASED. It was the passage of NAFTA that started this entire morass the U.S. currently finds itself mired in regarding illegal immigration.

And now neocon Republicans have just collaborated with President Barack Obama to pass another giant “free trade” bill, called TPP (nicknamed Obamatrade). Many people have rightly called TPP “NAFTA on steroids.” Indeed it is. And, yes, Ben Carson enthusiastically endorses Obamatrade. Ted Cruz also voted for it.

Not only are neocons Boehner/Ryan/McConnell enthusiastically passing TPP, they are happily giving “fast track” authority to Obama. This allows Obama (or any President) to negotiate and sign a trade agreement without congressional approval–including language that may completely alter established U.S. laws. Subsequent trade legislation proposed to Congress by the President would not be subject to committee markups and Congress would have only 90 days to approve it–and floor amendments would not be allowed.

See the report:

NAFTA At 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality

Support for these international “Free Trade” deals is a dead giveaway that a congressman or senator is indeed a neocon.

*Pro-Illegal Immigration

The great goal of globalists is to blur or even eliminate national borders. National borders, and the laws that protect them, are VERY burdensome to multinational traders. National borders restrict globalists in their pursuit of international wealth. They envision a global economy with a global government in place to protect that global economy. Individual nationhood is an obstacle to that goal.

The EU is the quintessential prototype of the globalists’ dream of global government. Until individual states within the United States stopped it (temporarily, no doubt), neocon Republican President G.W. Bush collaborated with Canada’s Paul Martin and Mexico’s Vicente Fox to establish an EU-type regional government in North America. It was called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” or SPP. It was also called the “North American Community” and “North American Union.”

The goal of these so-called “partnerships” is to erase national borders and establish regional government over participating nations that exercise authority over the flow of goods and services between countries. As an example, the current TPP passed by the Republican House and Senate and signed by Obama has copious rules that further circumvent America’s current immigration laws. Plus, the invasion of illegal aliens from the Middle East into European countries is facilitated by the enactment of lax immigration policies established by the EU.

The SPP was the brainchild of what must be regarded as the top neocon think tank of all: the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). And, yes, one of the movers and shakers for this proposed EU-style regional government in North America was CFR member Heidi Cruz, wife of Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

Thankfully, public pressure from the State legislatures in Texas and Oklahoma derailed SPP. (This is another example of how states can–and should–use their constitutional authority of interposition to thwart the overreach of federal and even international government.)

Another way illegal immigration helps globalists remove national boundaries is it serves to remove a country’s (any country’s) national culture and identity, thereby transforming it into a “sanctuary nation.” In the U.S., this includes removing our Christian heritage.

*Pro-war

NOTHING rings the cash register for globalists like war. War helps to replace recalcitrant national leaders who refuse to give international financiers carte blanche in their countries. War helps to redraw national boundaries that favor the global economy. War brings HUGE profit windfalls to the military-industrial complex that is mostly in bed with high-paying globalists. War causes citizens in free countries to accept more governmental authority (which ALWAYS includes an international component) over their affairs that would never be the case in peacetime. War is also the perfect solution to resolve the economic problems of a sinking financial system.

In this regard, religious bigotry and intolerance makes it EASY for globalists to manipulate the passions of people in favor of war. Pitting Christians against Muslims and Muslims against Christians–and putting Israel in the middle–is the current tactic favored by globalists. And, Boy! Is it ever successful! Muslim terrorists, the Israeli army, and the U.S. military are pawns in the hands of the globalist elite (yes, globalist facilitators can be found in London, Ankara, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Washington, D.C.) who are using the neocons in Washington, D.C., to manipulate war in the Middle East to further their greater goal of creating war between the United States and Russia.

Another World War would be a HUGE benefit to globalists. “Who would win a war between Russia and the United States?” you ask. GLOBALISTS, that’s who. And it seems clear to me that that is exactly what the neocons in D.C. are striving for.

President George W. Bush was the first U.S. President to be totally and thoroughly dominated by neocons. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had been planned in neocon war rooms for years, just waiting for the right provocation. And the continuing U.S. wars in the Middle East are every bit neocon inventions. Yes, folks, Barack Obama himself is but a puppet of the neocons. In truth, neocons are now thoroughly ensconced in our Justice Department, State Department, DOD, CIA, etc.

And at this early juncture, the only two 2016 presidential candidates who MIGHT NOT be puppets of the neocon war machine are Rand Paul and Donald Trump–and at this point, I’m not certain about Trump. But it is more than interesting that it is Paul and Trump that the GOP establishment seems determined to destroy. As one GOP adviser said recently, the Republican Party must “put a bullet in Trump.” Now you know why.

*Pro-Police State

Freedom is anathema to globalists; an armed citizenry is anathema to globalists. In order for globalism to succeed, people must be restrained. They must be surveilled. They must be regulated. They must be controlled.

The so-called War on Terror (and the federal War on Drugs before that) is the biggest ruse ever invented to put a Police State in place. False flag terror attacks, a plethora of seemingly “random” mass shootings, and a perpetual media barrage against the right of citizens to defend themselves are all tactics of globalists to reduce liberty–and increase government dependence–in a nation.

Neocons are the ones who are the loudest cheerleaders for war in the Middle East, increased surveillance of the American citizenry, the militarization of our local and State police agencies, and antagonistic policies against Russia.

Look at the congressional votes for The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, NDAA (especially sections 1021 and 1022), NSA spying, etc. Look at the voting records regarding bills or amendments that would stop the federal government from supplying military armament to our local and State police agencies. You will find that the vast majority of our current presidential candidates, and perhaps even YOUR congressman and senators, voted to facilitate the burgeoning Police State in our country. Folks, these are neocons.

*Pro-Deficit Spending

Neocons support deficit spending. In this, they are far worse than overt liberals. For example, liberals in the Democrat Party want to tax-and-spend, while neocons in the Republican Party want to borrow-and-spend. Between the two, deficit spending is worse because it gives the federal government (and the globalists who influence and leech off them) unlimited spending–and thus unlimited profits. Beyond that, the inevitable result of unrestrained spending is WAR: globalists’ biggest cash cow of all. They win coming and going.

Notice how neocons John Boehner and Paul Ryan (with support from the vast majority of congressmen from both sides of the aisle) so quickly and easily raised the federal debt ceiling again–and for, not one, but TWO YEARS. This, in essence, gives Barack Obama his ninth year in office. Why would they do this? They are neocons, that’s why.

So, folks, forget party labels. Forget the left-right, liberal-conservative paradigm. These are the issues that neocons in Congress are using to drive national politics today–and these are the issues that are killing independence and freedom in the United States.

Folks, keep this list and use it to gauge your congressman and senators, as well as our presidential candidates. No matter what they call themselves, if they support these issues, they are NEOCONS.

P.S. I invite readers to order James Jaeger’s brand new film, “Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law.” Distinguished patriot luminaries such as Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Edwin Vieira, Jr., and several others are featured in this film. I am honored to also be featured.

I invite readers to go to my website and order the DVD of this brand new film. And please tell your friends. Order “Midnight Ride” here:

Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law

4th Amendment Civil Rights Current Events Surveillance Uncategorized

The Latest Snowden Leak

Published by:

Consider the latest leak sourced to Edward Snowden frlead_largeom the perspective of his detractors. The National Security Agency’s defenders would have us believe that Snowden is a thief and a criminal at best, and perhaps a traitorous Russian spy. In their telling, the NSA carries out its mission lawfully, honorably, and without unduly compromising the privacy of innocents. For that reason, they regard Snowden’s actions as a wrongheaded slur campaign premised on lies and exaggerations.

But their narrative now contradicts itself. The Washington Post’s latest article drawing on Snowden’s leaked cache of documents includes files “described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained” that “tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes. The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted are catalogued and recorded nevertheless.”

The article goes on to describe how exactly the privacy of these innocents was violated. The NSA collected “medical records sent from one family member to another, résumés from job hunters and academic transcripts of schoolchildren. In one photo, a young girl in religious dress beams at a camera outside a mosque. Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers. In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam …”

Have you ever emailed a photograph of your child in the bathtub, or yourself flexing for the camera or modeling lingerie? If so, it could be your photo in the Washington Post newsroom right now, where it may or may not be secure going forward. In one case, a woman whose private communications were collected by the NSA found herself contacted by a reporter who’d read her correspondence.

Snowden defenders see these leaked files as necessary to proving that the NSA does, in fact, massively violate the private lives of American citizens by collecting and storing content—not “just” metadata—when they communicate digitally. They’ll point out that Snowden turned these files over to journalists who promised to protect the privacy of affected individuals and followed through on that oath.

What about Snowden critics who defend the NSA? Ben Wittes questions the morality of the disclosure:

Snowden here did not leak programmatic information about government activity. He leaked many tens of thousands of personal communications of a type that, in government hands, are rightly subject to strict controls. They are subject to strict controls precisely so that the woman in lingerie, the kid beaming before a mosque, the men showing off their physiques, and the woman whose love letters have to be collected because her boyfriend is off looking to join the Taliban don’t have to pay an unnecessarily high privacy price. Yes, the Post has kept personal identifying details from the public, and that is laudable. But Snowden did not keep personal identifying details from the Post. He basically outed thousands of people—innocent and not—and left them to the tender mercies of journalists. This is itself a huge civil liberties violation.

The critique is plausible—but think of what it means.

I never thought I’d see this day: The founder of Lawfare has finally declared that a national-security-state employee perpetrated a huge civil-liberties violation! Remember this if he ever again claims that NSA critics can’t point to a single serious abuse at the agency. Wittes himself now says there’s been a serious abuse.

The same logic applies to Keith Alexander, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, Stewart Baker, Edward Lucas, John Schindler, and every other anti-Snowden NSA defender. So long as they insist that Snowden is a narcissistic criminal and possible traitor, they have no choice but to admit that the NSA collected and stored intimate photos, emails, and chats belonging to totally innocent Americans and safeguarded them so poorly that a ne’er-do-well could copy them onto thumb drives.

They have no choice but to admit that the NSA was so bad at judging who could be trusted with this sensitive data that a possible traitor could take it all to China and Russia. Yet these same people continue to insist that the NSA is deserving of our trust, that Americans should keep permitting it to collect and store massive amounts of sensitive data on innocents, and that adequate safeguards are in place to protect that data. To examine the entirety of their position is to see that it is farcical.

Here’s the reality.

The NSA collects and stores the full content of extremely sensitive photographs, emails, chat transcripts, and other documents belong to Americans, itself a violation of the Constitution—but even if you disagree that it’s illegal, there’s no disputing the fact that the NSA has been proven incapable of safeguarding that data. There is not the chance the data could leak at sometime in the future. It has already been taken and given to reporters. The necessary reform is clear. Unable to safeguard this sensitive data, the NSA shouldn’t be allowed to collect and store it.

Conor Friedersdorf

4th Amendment Civil Rights Congress Current Events Nullification Surveillance Uncategorized

Politicians are Lying to You on NSA Spying!

Published by:

nsa-action-1In their continuous efforts to create the impression that the government is doing something to keep Americans safe, politicians in Washington have misled and lied to the public. They have violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. They have created a false sense of security. And they have dispatched and re-dispatched 60,000 federal agents to intercept the telephone calls, text messages and emails of all Americans all the time.

In the process, while publicly claiming they only acquire identifying metadata — the time, date, location, duration, telephone numbers and email addresses of communications — they have in fact surreptitiously gained access to the content of these communications.

On June 1, one of the three claimed legal authorities for all this, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, expired, as Congress was unable to agree on either its reinstitution or the enactment of a substitute. At the time that Section 215 was about to expire, President Obama, Attorney General Lynch and FBI Director Comey warned that the NSA’s computers would go dark and the American public would be at the mercy of our enemies. Their warnings were nonsense.

The NSA is a military entity that utilizes the services of military computer experts and agents, employs civilians, and hires companies that provide thousands of outside contractors. After nearly 14 years of spying on us — all authorized by a secret court whose judges cannot keep records of what they have ordered or discuss openly what they know — the NSA now has computers and computer personnel physically located in the main switching offices of all telecom and Internet service providers in the United States. It has 24/7 access to the content of everyone’s telephone calls, emails and text messages.

The data amassed thereby is so vast that the government cannot sift through it quickly or effectively enough to stop such notorious events as the Boston Marathon bombings, the Ft. Hood massacre and the attempted massacre last month outside of Dallas. The Justice Department acknowledged this last month when it revealed that all this spying has not succeeded in stopping any terrorist plots and has not aided any federal prosecutions of terrorism.

Then why do it? Because the feds want to calm American nerves by giving the impression that they are doing something — even though we know that they know that what they are doing fails to keep us safe.

They are giving us a false impression. But they owe us the truth, not falsehoods designed to make themselves look like they are doing what they claim. Their spying has failed to enhance our safety.

It also has failed to protect our freedoms. The Constitution requires probable cause as a precondition for all search warrants. That is a level of evidence about the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized sufficient to induce a judge to conclude that a crime probably has been committed. Without this probable cause requirement, nothing would stop the government from searching and seizing whatever it wants. Yet that is where we are today. The NSA’s unconstitutional standard of “government need” reinstitutes the general warrants — search where you wish and seize what you find — which the Fourth Amendment was written to prohibit.

Both the Patriot Act and the Freedom Act, the substitute law enacted by Congress, do away with the probable cause requirement. Both of those laws permit the FISA court to issue general warrants based on the government’s needs, rather than probable cause. It is the government-need standard, which is no standard at all, that has resulted in spying on all persons all the time.

When Section 215 of the Patriot Act expired, the NSA’s legal (yet unconstitutional) authority to spy did not. The propaganda that its computers were shut down is false. Section 702 of the FISA law and President Bush’s October 2001 executive order were and are still valid, and both have been interpreted to unleash the NSA.

Section 702 permits warrantless surveillance of Americans who speak with foreigners, and the NSA has gotten FISA warrants to intercept the calls of the folks to whom those Americans speak, to the sixth degree. That alone encompasses all persons in the United States. Bush’s executive order was given to all military intelligence agencies — of which the NSA is but one. It instructed the military to intercept the calls and emails of whatever Americans it needs to listen in upon to enhance safety. That executive order still stands. This is why the hand wringing and false claims that the NSA computers went dark is untruthful. The computers violate our privacy and assault our liberty and fail to enhance our safety, but they are not dark.

Last week, one of the pro-spying politicians was clever, even cute, when he issued the one-liner: “You can’t enjoy civil liberties from a coffin.” His statement was a craven articulation of failure. The government’s job is to keep us free and safe. If it keeps us safe but not free, it has failed to do its job. Today it does neither. I suggest to him Patrick Henry on this: “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Which one-liner better embodies American values, history and traditions?

COPYRIGHT 2015 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

http://www.judgenap.com/