Internal briefings read like a strategy for going to war
by STEVE WATSON APRIL 17, 2015
Documents obtained by CNN reveal that the Missouri National Guard referred to Americans in Ferguson as ‘enemy forces’ and adversaries’ in briefings as they prepared to quell protests.
The internal briefing documents, secured under a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that the National Guard, called in to Ferguson under already tense circumstances, used heavily militarized language to describe protesters, many of whom were merely lawfully executing their First Amendment rights.
The documents highlight that the guard was worried “adversaries” would use phone apps and police scanners to find out about and compromise operational security. Guard higher ups also expressed concern that protesters may use “militants tactics”.
“Counterintelligence operations are directed at supporting an information campaign. Their audience does not require the information to be accurate and is easily swayed,” one document reads.
Commanders were briefed to use intelligence capabilities to “deny adversaries the ability to identify Missouri National Guard vulnerabilities upon which threat forces may exploit, causing embarrassment, or harm.”
While referring to use of social media and public information by protesters, the documents state “Adversaries are most likely to possess human intelligence (HUMINT), open source intelligence (OSINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), technical intelligence (TECHINT), and counterintelligence capabilities,”
In another document, those on the ground in Ferguson were divided into “Friendly Forces,” such as police and community leaders, with the rest being labeled”Enemy Forces.”
“General Protesters” were also described as ‘hate groups’ and lumped in with known members of the KKK, the RgB Black Rebels and the New Black Panther Party.
“Rioters likely have constructed home-made protection like goggles, gas masks, and plywood shields. Further, select individuals may have bullet proof vests and may carry firearms.” the documents warn.
The documents are seen as highly disturbing by critics, who have noted that they read like a strategy for going to war against the American people.
“It’s disturbing when you have what amounts to American soldiers viewing American citizens somehow as the enemy,” said Antonio French, an alderman in St. Louis.
Indeed, the documents show that even some within the National Guard hierarchy took exception to the terms.
Col. David Boyle, Army chief of staff at the Missouri National Guard sent an email two days after deployment expressing concern to superiors that the wording could be “construed as potentially inflammatory.”
Within the same week, further notification was passed to commanding officers instructing that “all reference of ‘enemy’ were changed to state ‘criminal elements’.”
Others within the National Guard, however, were defensive of the terms used to describe protesters.
National Guard Capt. John Quinn maintained that the language is standard, telling CNN the Ferguson mission briefings were “a generic military planning format utilized in a wide range of military missions, so the term ‘enemy forces’ would be better understood as ‘potential threats.’”
Quinn claims that the Guard would also use the same wording to describe other ‘potential threats’, including “inclement weather, heat, failing levees, etc.”
Quinn did not explain how inclement weather would employ “militants tactics” or be capable of “counterintelligence capabilities.”
Second Amendment provides the “ultimate check against government tyranny”
By TRUEBLUENZ | APRIL 17, 2015
“The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny, for the protection of liberty,” Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz wrote in an email Thursday, with the subject line “2nd Amendment against tyranny.”
Cruz’s argument that the Second Amendment provides the “ultimate check against government tyranny” is a bit too extreme for potential 2016 rival and fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-South Carolina).
Graham backed off when reporters asked if he agreed that the 2nd amendment guaranteed the right to revolt against a tyrannical govt.”I’m not looking for an insurrection. I’m looking to defeat Hillary,” he said. “We’re not going to out-gun her.”
“I think the Second Amendment allows people to protect their homes and their property and be secure in their persons,” the senator said. “I think in a democracy the best check on government is voter participation. I think the First Amendment probably protects us more there.”
It protects progressive RINOs like Lindsay Graham, but try saying something outside the progressive controlled paradigm in media and academia and see how far it gets you. Graham is a left wing weasel who should have gone joined the Democrats three decades ago.
We’re going to see just how far free speech gets you today once Cruz looks like he’s mounting some sort of threat to runs by establishment picks Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.
Public school officials in South Bend, Ind. are segregating elementary schools students by race and ferrying black students — and only black students — on visits to local colleges.
The students facing racial segregation in America in the year 2015 are third graders at seven elementary schools, reports local ABC affiliate WBND.
School district officials say they do not intend for the taxpayer-funded reenactment of Jim Crow-era race segregation to be discriminatory. Instead, they say, the intent is to inform black students about college because low numbers of black students attend college.
“I want these third graders to have the opportunity to think of themselves as college students,” G. David Moss, director of African-American student and parent services, told WBND.
“We take them to a college campus, have them meet African-American students, modeling the idea that as a black person, college is a great place,” Moss explained.
“It was not meant to be exclusionary,” Moss said. “It was only meant to support and give these kids what they need to think positively about themselves and about their future.”
Opinion among parents in South Bend is split about their children being treated differently because of skin color.
Some parents don’t want their children to suffer racial discrimination.
“I feel like all kids should be going,” parent Deirdra Mullings told the ABC affiliate.
Mullings has a son who will go on one of the field trips.
“It creates a double standard,” agreed parent Kelley Garing. “I just think it breeds intolerance and creates misunderstandings.”
Other parents are not bothered.
“I don’t think it’s a race issue, I think they’re giving black children a chance,” parent Erika Herron told WBND.
“It’s letting them know that there’s something else out here besides being out here in these streets,” she added.
The first field trip to Ivy Tech Community College was scheduled for Thursday.
There is another field trip to Bethel College on Monday, April 20.
It is not clear if the third-grade students will be taking a trip to the University of Notre Dame.
Instances in taxpayer-funded public schools which involve purposeful segregation of black students — directed by adult employees — are becoming increasingly common.
In February, for example, the only black teacher at Benicia Middle School in Benicia, Calif. organized a special, unsanctioned, blacks-only assembly during school hours at which she screened a YouTube clip about the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and distributed a survey concerning racial issues. School officials found out only when black parents complained that their children had been segregated. (RELATED: Middle School Teacher Organizes Segregated, BLACKS-ONLY Assembly)
Also in February, Oak Park and River Forest High School in the suburbs of Chicago hosted a “Black Lives Matter” event exclusively for black students. The principal, Nathaniel Rouse, defended his decision to exclude white students by saying that school officials were not “trying to be exclusive” by excluding students based on skin color.
By now you have been informed about the numerous Walmart closing across the country. All sorts of speculations have risen including theories that they have been turned into FEMA camps, that they are closing due to Jade Helm, and many other reasons that can be found on the internet.
But what is really going on at these Walmart stores? Does anyone have inside information? We’ll if truth be told we won’t know for certain until the time comes, but in the meantime Pete Santilli has stumbled across some pretty impressive information that just might close the gap.
Here is the Youtube Commentary on the video:
Pete Santilli & Dani Mcpherson cover the news regarding the mysterious and sudden closure of 5 major Walmart Super Centers. In addition to the numerous reports in the mainstream and independent media, Pete adds some additional interesting information regarding WalMart’s relationship with the Department of Homeland Security dating back to Hurricane Katrina.
In this video Pete displays a picture of WalMart’s “EOC” (Emergency Operations Center), and comments about the EOC looking more like an NSA command center.
Pete’s family member (brother) worked directly for Walmart Corporate headquarters in Bentonville Arkansas, and informed Pete about WalMart’s relationship with the DHS. During Hurricane Katrina, the DHS coordinated heavily with Walmart since they have the resources to distribute disaster relief supplies. Since then, Walmart has also worked directly with the DHS by installing pinhole facial recognition cameras in their stores, scanning customers, and uploading/sharing the data with the Federal government.
Leaders of two key congressional panels have agreed on a deal that would “fast-track” the Obama administration’s ability to draft a pair of controversial international trade bills and move them through Congress.
If passed, the agreement, known as the “trade promotion authority” bill (TPA), would permit President Barack Obama to expedite the process of authorizing trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – currently being drafted by the US and 11 other Pacific nations – and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union.
Under the rules of the TPA, Congress would be able to vote on whether or not to approve either of the deals, but they would not be allowed to offer any amendments that could potentially alter the substance of the agreements.
Additionally, the TPA would set guidelines for US negotiators currently hammering out details with their international counterparts. For example, it requires that American negotiators work out an understanding on human rights with trade partners, the New York Times reported, which has never been required for international deals before.
It would also require that any final trade agreement be made public about two months before the president signs it into law and up to four months before it comes up for a vote in Congress.
Of the two deals, the TPP has garnered the most press due to the White House’s stated “pivot” to Asia, which involves rebalancing American focus to East and South Asia. However, most of the pact’s details remain secret – itself a cause for concern among skeptics. Supporters of the TPP argue that it will open up markets and opportunities for American goods as well as boost America’s profile in Asia, where a rising China poses multiple challenges.
President Obama said he was “pleased” with the deal in a statement. He acknowledged that past trade deals “haven’t always lived up to their promise,” but pledged to sign a deal that would benefit ordinary Americans. He also said deals like the TPP are important avenues through which America could maintain its influence on the global economy.
“The bill put forward today would help us write those rules in a way that avoids the mistakes from our past, seizes opportunities for our future, and stays true to our values,” Obama said. “It would level the playing field, give our workers a fair shot, and for the first time, include strong fully enforceable protections for workers’ rights, the environment, and a free and open internet.”
Opponents, however, are worried about a plethora of issues, including the possibility that the TPP would cost Americans jobs and only benefit corporations as well as the already wealthy. There are also concerns that the agreement won’t do enough to establish labor and human rights in countries like Vietnam, that it would make the internet less free around the world, and that environmental protections won’t be strong enough.
On top of these fears, some lawmakers, such as Sen. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), question the extent to which new markets will actually embrace the US. Japan, for example, has resisted eliminating tariffs on American agricultural products and opening its market to the automotive industry, although there have been reports that Tokyo will reduce tariffs on a few hundred products.
Levin called the TPA “a major step back,” while Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), widely expected to take the reins of the Democratic Party in the Senate once Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) leaves office, criticized the quick process by which the terms of the TPA were struck.
“This process is not good,” he told the Huffington Post. “We are supposed to vote on TPA, tie our hands and not vote on amendments, before we’ve seen what the [Trans-Pacific Partnership] is. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Labor unions, environmental and internet advocacy groups have loudly protested the TPP, but Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) a key lawmaker needed to ensure passage of any expedited deal, tried to assuage fears by saying the bill allows Congress to revoke fast-track authority if the White House fails to meet the criteria it sets out. However, it’s unlikely that such provisions will mollify opponents.
It’s also unlikely that Obama will secure approval from the majority of his party even if and when the TPP is finalized, as many Democrats have come out against it. Republicans have generally voted in favor of such deals, though – and they control both chambers of Congress – so expectations are that a deal could pass in a rare show of bipartisan cooperation.
The TPP is being negotiated among the US, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.