Who Is Behind Quashing the Birth Certificate Issue?
ByJoan Swirsky Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Back in October of 2008, when the subject of Obama's Constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States was just a blip on the radar screen of public awareness, I wrote an article about how easy it was to find my then -92-year-old mother’s birth certificate.
Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs , CT , along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn’t speak English. Despairing that she would never be “qualified” to receive the care [in a nursing home} that she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913. When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was “asking something impossible.” I gave her my mother’s first name and her father’s last name. Within four minutes, she said, “Here it is!” When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: “That’s nothing…we’re routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!” Total time it took me to find my mother’s 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes!
Obama was born not in 1913, like my mother, but in 1961—or perhaps in 1957, according to his MySpace page, which would make him 52, born supposedly in Hawaii before it became a state in 1959. So it was quite curious that not one cyber-sleuth could find an authentic, verifiable copy of his original vault copy birth certificate. I’m not talking about the faux version Obama posted on his website, which was deemed the real thing by FactCheck.org, a “truth”-detecting site that is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that hired Obama and his terrorist pal William Ayers and gave them millions of dollars for a research project in Chicago. In other words, the least credible source!
Even more significant is that no one in the media thought Obama’s missing birth certificate worth even casual mention. Their thinking seemed to be: If we’re not going to check on his eligibility to be president, then why question why the other crucial documents were—and continue to be—sealed? For instance: his baptism certificate; elementary, high school, college and graduate school transcripts; visa(s); selective service record; alleged multiple Social Security numbers; Illinois attorney’s license; Illinois State Senate records; law practice client list; Univ. of Chicago scholarly articles; financial records while a community organizer in Chicago; and medical records. I’m also curious about why Michelle Obama’s law license was suspended in 1993 by the Illinois Supreme Court, but then again she wasn’t running for president.
Instead, the media were frantically busy trying to divert public attention away from those pesky things known as credentials with gossip-driven tabloid reportage of Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in order to avoid the bigger-than-Watergate potential scandal of whether or not Obama was eligible—according to the U.S. Constitution—to become President of the United States!
NOW WE KNOW WHY
In an explosive interview by Dr. Laurie Roth on her syndicated West Coast radio show on August 7th, Douglas Hagmann—a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press—the reason for the media blackout about the birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations but also from Federal Communication Commission officials!
According to Hagmann and McLeod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously, after Obama was elected but before he was inaugurated:
A major TV talk-show host reported that he was ordered not to raise the birth certificate issue or risk losing his job.
FCC officials threatened to yank broadcasting licenses, break up conglomerates, and make the enactment of the Fairness Doctrine “look mild” in comparison to other consequences.
In at least one corporate TV headquarters, memos were circulated to all on-air employees not to mention the birth certificate issue, as well as other specific subjects like Obama’s Illinois lawyer’s license, his college records, etc., under both implied and explicit threats.
During the interview, Hagmann and McLeod—who never mentioned a particular network by name—alluded to e-mails and other evidence in their possession, copies of which, they said, were secreted in several locations. But they did tantalize listeners with descriptions of meeting with “sources” outside of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, a high-placed contact looking nervously over his shoulder, references to directives and warnings given by “those at the top,” and the undisguised threat of one executive to his underlings: “This is serious, and so will the consequences be if anyone chooses not to be a team player with this.”
This comes as no surprise to Fox watchers who have noticed that the Stalinist-style censorship of the Obama regime is already here. This couldn’t possibly be because of the healthy shares of stock the Saudis bought in Fox, could it? If so, why would the Saudis care so much about quashing potentially damning revelations about Obama? Have they also bought shares in Obama?
Come to think of it, who exactly paid the tuition for Obama’s stint at Harvard Law School ? What role did Obama’s long-time friend, Khalid al-Mansour, a key advisor to a Saudi billionaire, play? Writer Kenneth Tim merman describes al-Mansour as “well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel.” This is not to omit that al-Mansour was originally contacted to intervene with Harvard on Obama’s behalf by Percy Sutton, former Manhattan Borough President and the lawyer of Malcolm X. Ah…the tangled web of it all!
Then there is the question of what role was played by Saudi Prince Alwaleed, the nephew of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? You remember Prince Alwaleed, who offered then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani $10 million after September 11 if he would only blame America for the terrorist attacks of which 15 of 19 perpetrators were Saudi Arabian—a “gift” the mayor promptly and with appropriate contempt rejected!
In short, what influence have the Saudis exerted on Fox to muzzle the issue of Obama’s birth certificate? I don’t ask this about the network TV channels or cable channels like CNN and MSNBC, which are still issuing daily hagiographies of Obama.
TIP OF THE ICEBERG
Just who has been sending “the message”? And how did it permeate not only the media, but also the once-respected U.S. Congress and the courts of our land, including the once-incorruptible Supreme Court? And what menacing forces made the once-courageous conservative media abandon their mission to expose rank corruption and collusion?
Two words: Money Talks!
If you’re a media mogul and you get word from the FCC that your license will be pulled immediately and irrevocably if you mention only three words—Obama’s birth certificate—poof! You send that word to your employees and tell them that their mega-salaries—in fact, their employment—are on the line.
If you’re a conservative talk-show host and you get your boss’s directive not to dare to mention only three words—Obama’s birth certificate—poof! Lips sealed; curiosity zero!
If the money thing doesn’t work, there’s always the threat thing, i.e., “going public” about tax records, health status, or family secrets. Or be audited by the IRS. Or be investigated by any number of regulatory agencies.
And if the money thing and the threat thing don’t work, how about being reminded of all those “accidents” and “unfortunate incidents”—broken kneecaps, missing children, “falls” from buildings, punctured tires—that resulted not in joblessness or embarrassment but in death?
We know that’s how the Mafia works. It’s also how political machines work. It’s also how community organizers work. Wasn’t it Obama himself who in 2008 said ’‘If They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun’‘ and in 2009 advised his followers to “Get in Their Faces!”?
So determined are Obama’s handlers to keep the facts of his parentage and place of birth out of the public domain that, as writer Chelsea Schilling has scrupulously documented, ¬†“the Federal Election Commission shows Obama’s campaign has made regular payments to Perkins Coie since Jan. 1, 2007—the month he formed a presidential exploratory committee and only weeks before he formally announced his candidacy for president—[and up to the present]—has paid Perkins Coie, a single law firm, $2.3 million…to crush eligibility lawsuits.”
But paying lawyers to quash the dozens of lawsuits that have challenged Obama’s eligibility still doesn’t answer the question of who exactly is behind the blanket blackout of the media, Congress and courts when it comes to Obama’s origins, parentage, credentials, indeed identity.
We certainly can’t attribute this massive power play to Obama himself. After all, while “owning” the Congress and the media, he is failing miserably to gain support for his two signature pieces of legislation, cap & tax and healthcare “reform.” No one that ineffectual—or, as Jonah Goldberg says, “astoundingly incompetent”—could possibly mute the media, castrate the Congress, and cow the courts.
And we can’t attribute the blackout to Obama’s union and community organizing buddies. While the former are quite expert at threatening members to fall in line…or else, and the latter have mastered standing outside polling places with glowering facial expressions and menacing Billy clubs, neither has the heft to have compelled the media to roll over, the Congress to say they “know nothing,” or the courts to load one side of the scales of justice with rocks and the other side with feathers.
A COUP D' ETAT?
Scholars and historians have documented exhaustively the Left’s obsession with (1) the acquisition of power, and (2) transforming America from a free-market, Constitution-respecting, freedom-loving, God-embracing society into a Socialist-cum-Communist “share the wealth” collective that echoes the beliefs and “values” of their heroes Marx and Engels.
But it takes money to bring about the kind of poverty both Socialism and Communism deliver to their masses. The kind of money only a few at the top enjoy while they’d like the rest of us to wait on food lines and appear before death panels of impersonal state functionaries who decide if we’re worthy of antibiotics or surgery and, if not, convenient “go-to-sleep” pills.
The kind of money that “talks”—that can buy people off, finance revolutions, launder money, pay to rig voting machines, manipulate allies into positions of power (czars, anyone?), conveniently crash markets (as George Soros did in England in 1992, Asia in 1997, and, I believe, the U.S. in September 200, make people disappear, make birth certificates and other vital records disappear and then make sure that an entire media, Congress and court system is terrified of “going there.”
We all know of the many multimillionaires and billionaires—including Soros, the Saudi royal family, et al—who contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign and continue to fund his leftist agenda, all of them with an ideological, religious, or personal stake in his remaining in power. And all of them part of a larger, more ubiquitous conspiracy—yes, conspiracy!—to conceal Obama’s origins and true parentage.
Among them, as JB Williams has documented, are “international socialists working through CPUSA - SPUSA and DSAUSA, funded by literally hundreds of leftist front-groups operating as special interest 527 organizations. Here’s a short list of the BIGGEST leftist front groups: America Coming Together - Joint Victory Campaign 2004 - Media Fund - Service Employees International Union - American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees - MoveOn.org - New Democrat Network - Sierra Club - EMILY’s List - AFL-CIO - League of Conservation Voters.”
Further, Williams asks: “Who spends an obscene $1-billion dollars to win a lousy $400,000-per-year job, and why?”
Richard Poe, award-winning journalist and New York Times-bestselling author, has written extensively on Soros and makes a good case that the Hungarian-born Jew and self-admitted Nazi collaborator is the primary brains and money behind Obama—and, I believe, his healthcare travesty. When President Bush was in office, Poe wrote that Soros talked openly of a “regime change” in the United States.
"What about our country offends Soros so deeply,” Poe asked, “that he would tell the BBC—during a time of war—that he means to use all of his power to `puncture the bubble of American supremacy’? Poe explained that Soros’s Open Society Foundation, founded in 1984, “has spent millions promoting a radical agenda that includes abortion, feminism, gun control, abolition of capital punishment, voting rights for felons, drug legalization, euthanasia and gay marriage rights…the Soros cult preaches secularism, the godless faith of a world without nations, families, loyalty or tradition, a world in which the very words `mother,’ `father,’ `husband,’ `wife,’ `son’ and `daughter’ will be bleached of meaning forever.”
Soros,Poe continued, “is one of the world’s leading promoters of euthanasia, or `mercy killing.’ Not only does he advocate `physician-assisted suicide’ for patients who choose death voluntarily, he also lobbies for the right of family members or court-appointed guardians to authorize the killing of patients whose wishes are not known.” Sounds a lot like the Death Panels Sarah Palin warned about, doesn’t it? Soros also founded the Project on Death in America [which] promotes suicide and euthanasia and urges doctors to warehouse terminally ill patients in hospices and give them `palliative’ care ...rather than wasting time, energy and money actually trying to cure them.”
Of course, all of these beliefs are eerily echoed in Obama’s healthcare legislation, almost as if Soros had dictated the terms. Maybe he did! Maybe that was the price he exacted for financing a large part of Obama’s presidential campaign and facilitating the cover-up of Obama’s birth certificate and other documents. And maybe that’s why Obama is still paying Soros back by recently announcing that he will invest $2 billion (or more) in drilling for oil off the shores of Brazil, where none other than George Soros owns $5.8 million of the Brazilian oil company’s U.S.-traded preferred shares of stock!
THE USUAL SUSPECTS
While Soros may top the list of conspirators who have been trying to topple big bad capitalist America for decades, others figure prominently as well, including but not limited to: Noam Chomsky, Louis Farrakhan,,Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, Cornel West, Ted Turner, former National Security Advisor to Pres. Jimmy Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Rockefeller family, The Carnegie family, and, I might add, Fidel Castro and the cozy cabal of America-loathing Marxist revolutionaries he met with at the Theresa Hotel in Harlem.
Then there are: The Congressional Progressive Caucus(their members here) aka the Democratic Socialists of America, formed by partners from the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA (Founder: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VA); The Congressional Black Caucus (their members here), originally established and controlled by the Communist Party USA (Founder: Cong. John Conyers (D-VT), and now controlled by ACORN and The Democratic Socialists of America; The ACLU, founded in 1917 by Communist Roger Baldwin; The Southern Poverty Law Center—a mini ACLU; The FORD Foundation; The Annenberg Foundation; The NAACP; The Council on Foreign Relations; The Trilateral Commission; numerous labor unions, and of course the mega-rich sheiks of Araby.
While all of the above and many others have worked assiduously to dismantle America, there are probably only a relative handful of aiders and abettors who ushered the modern-day Trojan Horse Barack Obama into America’s body politic and were sophisticated and connected and rich and arch enough to have facilitated his path to the U.S. Senate, sealed all of his records both home and abroad, assembled the massive¬†organization for his run for the presidency, and delivered in only seven months the most radical leftwing—actually more Communist than Socialist—agenda in the history of the United States.
WHO'S NOT CAVING ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUE?
McLeod and Hagmann have come very close to explaining a major piece of the conspiracy puzzle, specifically how some in the media were either bribed or threatened into silence vis-√†-vis Obama’s birth certificate. But the American people have a peculiar resistance to and revulsion for these thuggish tactics. In fact, the birth certificate issue has gained momentum. Why is it not going away but instead gathering steam?
1. The huge amount of money Obama has spent on this cover-up is, to most Americans, fishy.
2. Obama’s serial apologies for America as he travels the world have offended Americans and convinced them that no genuine American could or would ever behave in such a way.
3. Last month, when Army Reserve Major Stefan Frederick Cook sued Obama claiming he was not legally qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief and therefore was unqualified to give him orders to deploy to Afghanistan, the government rescinded his orders, thereby negating the “standing” Cook no doubt would have had to sue. District Judge Richard Lazzara of Tampa denied Cook’s motions as “frivolous and wholly without merit” and then—guess what?—sealed the records! This should have disqualified the judge. In fact, it raised the eyebrows of millions of Americans.
4. To the public, rescinding Cook’s orders was a de facto admission that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen, and it gives rise to the possibility that untold numbers of military enlistees, in the U.S. and around the world, will follow suit. According to one source, as many as 100 lawyers are preparing to file such litigation and even class-action suits are being considered.
As Obama’s poll numbers continue to plunge, more and more people are waking up to his unique lack of qualifications and inability to lead the greatest nation in the world. As Kyle-Ann Shiver has written, “It’s as though [in 2008] 59 million Americans joined hands and shouted at the top of their little lungs, `Yes, We Can March off This Cliff.’”
Writer James Lewis asks: “How do we fight Obama and his psychopathic lust for power?”...and answers: “You fight evil by exposing it.””
Indeed, the American electorate has never been so energized, with millions upon millions of ordinary citizens—many of them seniors with vested interests in avoiding Obama’s death panels—attending Tea Parties, Town Hall meetings, and writing and calling their representatives in massive numbers. In addition, people are now speaking openly about the man without a birth certificate. Who is this guy? What is he hiding? Why are media people studiously avoiding this issue? And why are those who “dare” raise it—like Lou Dobbs at CNN—being targeted by far-left groups, many of them funded by George Soros?
Yet in spite of their efforts to conceal the truth about Obama’s birth place and parentage, increasing numbers of articles, radio hosts and their callers and regular Americans have lost their amazingly forbearing patience and are now asking and will continue to ask until the question is answered:
WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
More On Internment Camps
More On Internment Camps
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20090828.html
by Chuck Baldwin
August 28, 2009
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column questioning why it was necessary for our federal government to be constructing internment camps all over America. See the original column at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20090811.html
I felt it was time for someone such as me to publicly broach the subject. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. Even more interesting is the fact that the web link to the National Guard Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" that I included in my column was removed shortly after the column was published. Was this a coincidence?
Of course, the U.S. Army still has their web site soliciting recruitment for "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" online. See it at
http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292
Readers might also want to familiarize themselves with this story out of Fort Leavenworth:
http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/art...news/news1.txt
Predictably, I heard from a sizeable number of readers who expressed concern about my "credibility." Some were more direct: descriptions such as "conspiracy nut," "lunatic," "fringe," etc., popped up quite often. Several readers dismissed the entire proposition on the basis that, apparently, the link I provided to a photo of one such camp that was reported in the Idaho Observer as a FEMA camp was actually constructed in another country. Which, if true, changes nothing, of course. Others pointed to a very shallow "exposé" published in Popular Mechanics that attempted (lamely) to debunk the whole notion of internment camps. (This was the same source Glenn Beck used to dismiss the idea.) See the report at
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/4312850.html
Criticism and name-calling aside, after reading the responses from hundreds of readers (and examining the evidence they submitted), I am more convinced than ever that our federal government is, indeed, constructing large numbers of internment camps. And as one might expect, I heard from a large number of military and law enforcement personnel, which made the evidence even more compelling.
One statement from a retired Air Force colonel (who is still active in military associations and stays well-informed on military issues) was especially telling. He said, "The Indiana plant is an AMTRAK repair area--there are probably similar reasons for other facilities. [Which is, no doubt, true.] I was a primary member of 'Continuity of Operations' planning in my second tour in the Pentagon in the 1960s--such planning has continued apace! This country was--and to a large extent still is--totally unprepared for the after effects of nuclear exchange. The millions of casualties of humans and animals--notwithstanding the almost total loss of communications and government infrastructure like police, fire, emergency response, etc. THERE ARE AND SHOULD BE PLANS TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW to keep order, to provide assistance for food, shelter, medical, etc. FEMA was designed to do this work to fill the terrible losses in continuity of operations, which would keep this country viable. Katrina is a tiny example of how an emergency can destroy an entire geographical area--and Katrina is just a minor example of where we would be as a result of a nuclear exchange. As with all things military you plan for the worst and hope for the best.
"We remain vulnerable to massive catastrophes in this country--natural or man-caused. We need to be prepared and FEMA with all its faults--BACKED BY THE MILITARY--is charged with this job." (Emphasis added.)
(To learn more about "Continuity of Operations," to which the good colonel referred, start with these web sites: http://www.nextgov.com/the_basics/tb_20080623_2687.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continu...perations_Plan
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm )
Notice that the retired colonel did not challenge the existence of internment camps, but rather linked them, and military-backed FEMA, with martial law--and he saw nothing wrong with that. (Please note: the colonel brought up martial law; I did not. Plus, the colonel was not adversarial with me, but on the contrary, expressed familiarity and favor toward me.) Several military men who wrote me shared the colonel's sentiment. Some of them expressed concern about the impact these plans will have on freedom and constitutional government, while others seemed completely unconcerned regarding any potential encroachment that plans of military action against American citizens might have upon the Bill of Rights. What is enlightening, however, is the fact that, regardless of the personal position taken, none of the military personnel who wrote me discounted the existence of internment camps.
Since the colonel brought up martial law, U.S. Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) recently indicated that he believed the U.S. government was intending to do just that. See his comments at
http://tinyurl.com/pandemic-martial-law
And last year, the San Francisco Chronicle published a major story regarding the potential for the federal government to suspend the Constitution and institute martial law. See the story at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
In addition, is it a coincidence that a bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 645) called the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish "not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations"? See the report at
http://tinyurl.com/cong-to-auth-fema-camps
Is all of this information simply to be discarded as hysteria?
On the other hand, several readers chided me for being "late" to discuss the subject. And to be sure, some of these folks have done quite a bit of personal research and have amassed a large amount of data on the subject.
For example, readers supplied me with a plethora of material to substantiate the existence of large numbers of internment camps throughout the United States. I invite readers to peruse some of the information provided below and draw their own conclusions:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-b...8/08/11/p27662
http://www.bing.com/search?q=fema+camps
http://tinyurl.com/locate-fema-camps1 (This site requires JavaScript to be enabled.)
Of course, the above is merely a sample of the scores of resources that were forwarded to me by readers. I encourage people to do their own research.
Even Mr. Skeptoid himself, Brian Dunning, grudgingly acknowledges the probability of the existence of internment camps on U.S. soil. As with the retired Air Force colonel referred to above, Dunning senses nothing sinister about the existence of the camps, and he doesn't address the numbers part of the story, but he does admit the plausibility of their existence.
Dunning wrote, "When I first heard the FEMA Prison Camp conspiracy story, it seemed ridiculous and paranoid at face value. But when I finally dug in to research it, I started by searching for the origins of the rumors, and found to my surprise that nearly all of the legal foundation and precedent for such a plan does in fact exist."
(See Dunning's blog at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4145 )
As I was mulling over all this information, I remembered reading an interview that radio talk show host Geoff Metcalf had with author Ted Flynn regarding Flynn's (then) new book, "Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World." According to Metcalf, "Flynn's book provides a strong historical basis to show that there is a global elite working to end the sovereignty of nations and to place every person on earth under the authority of the United Nations." This interview was conducted back in 2001, by the way.
In the interview, Metcalf asked Flynn, "Please explain what FEMA is. What is their authority and what is their job?"
Flynn replied, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency is probably going to be the enforcement arm of the New-World Order. Very few people could tell you that it is actually a cabinet position. By and large, a great percentage of their budget is 'black ops.' It's really not on the books. You only hear of them a little bit when there are disasters. But there is a great agenda to gather information for the government in stealth."
Metcalf then said, "I found it significant when Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview a few years ago, he said, 'the truth is yes--you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here . . . whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism . . . evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps.' They DO exist."
Flynn replied, "They do."
(See the interview at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=8853 )
Again, that our federal government has built large numbers of internment camps seems undeniable. What has not been determined is the purpose for which these facilities have been constructed. No one wants to believe that our government is planning evil designs upon us. Then again, neither did German Jews want to believe that their government was up to no good.
America's founders believed that a central government could not be trusted, which is why they tried to fence it in with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither should citizens today trust the federal government. As President George Washington put it, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Therefore, keep a wary eye out for anything that the federal government could use to encroach upon our liberties and freedoms--even reports of internment camps. If the reports are bogus, you've lost nothing; but if they are real, you could end up losing your liberty.
__________________
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20090828.html
by Chuck Baldwin
August 28, 2009
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column questioning why it was necessary for our federal government to be constructing internment camps all over America. See the original column at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20090811.html
I felt it was time for someone such as me to publicly broach the subject. Needless to say, the response was overwhelming. Even more interesting is the fact that the web link to the National Guard Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" that I included in my column was removed shortly after the column was published. Was this a coincidence?
Of course, the U.S. Army still has their web site soliciting recruitment for "Internment/Resettlement Specialist" online. See it at
http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=292
Readers might also want to familiarize themselves with this story out of Fort Leavenworth:
http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/art...news/news1.txt
Predictably, I heard from a sizeable number of readers who expressed concern about my "credibility." Some were more direct: descriptions such as "conspiracy nut," "lunatic," "fringe," etc., popped up quite often. Several readers dismissed the entire proposition on the basis that, apparently, the link I provided to a photo of one such camp that was reported in the Idaho Observer as a FEMA camp was actually constructed in another country. Which, if true, changes nothing, of course. Others pointed to a very shallow "exposé" published in Popular Mechanics that attempted (lamely) to debunk the whole notion of internment camps. (This was the same source Glenn Beck used to dismiss the idea.) See the report at
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/4312850.html
Criticism and name-calling aside, after reading the responses from hundreds of readers (and examining the evidence they submitted), I am more convinced than ever that our federal government is, indeed, constructing large numbers of internment camps. And as one might expect, I heard from a large number of military and law enforcement personnel, which made the evidence even more compelling.
One statement from a retired Air Force colonel (who is still active in military associations and stays well-informed on military issues) was especially telling. He said, "The Indiana plant is an AMTRAK repair area--there are probably similar reasons for other facilities. [Which is, no doubt, true.] I was a primary member of 'Continuity of Operations' planning in my second tour in the Pentagon in the 1960s--such planning has continued apace! This country was--and to a large extent still is--totally unprepared for the after effects of nuclear exchange. The millions of casualties of humans and animals--notwithstanding the almost total loss of communications and government infrastructure like police, fire, emergency response, etc. THERE ARE AND SHOULD BE PLANS TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW to keep order, to provide assistance for food, shelter, medical, etc. FEMA was designed to do this work to fill the terrible losses in continuity of operations, which would keep this country viable. Katrina is a tiny example of how an emergency can destroy an entire geographical area--and Katrina is just a minor example of where we would be as a result of a nuclear exchange. As with all things military you plan for the worst and hope for the best.
"We remain vulnerable to massive catastrophes in this country--natural or man-caused. We need to be prepared and FEMA with all its faults--BACKED BY THE MILITARY--is charged with this job." (Emphasis added.)
(To learn more about "Continuity of Operations," to which the good colonel referred, start with these web sites: http://www.nextgov.com/the_basics/tb_20080623_2687.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continu...perations_Plan
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm )
Notice that the retired colonel did not challenge the existence of internment camps, but rather linked them, and military-backed FEMA, with martial law--and he saw nothing wrong with that. (Please note: the colonel brought up martial law; I did not. Plus, the colonel was not adversarial with me, but on the contrary, expressed familiarity and favor toward me.) Several military men who wrote me shared the colonel's sentiment. Some of them expressed concern about the impact these plans will have on freedom and constitutional government, while others seemed completely unconcerned regarding any potential encroachment that plans of military action against American citizens might have upon the Bill of Rights. What is enlightening, however, is the fact that, regardless of the personal position taken, none of the military personnel who wrote me discounted the existence of internment camps.
Since the colonel brought up martial law, U.S. Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) recently indicated that he believed the U.S. government was intending to do just that. See his comments at
http://tinyurl.com/pandemic-martial-law
And last year, the San Francisco Chronicle published a major story regarding the potential for the federal government to suspend the Constitution and institute martial law. See the story at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
In addition, is it a coincidence that a bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 645) called the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish "not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations"? See the report at
http://tinyurl.com/cong-to-auth-fema-camps
Is all of this information simply to be discarded as hysteria?
On the other hand, several readers chided me for being "late" to discuss the subject. And to be sure, some of these folks have done quite a bit of personal research and have amassed a large amount of data on the subject.
For example, readers supplied me with a plethora of material to substantiate the existence of large numbers of internment camps throughout the United States. I invite readers to peruse some of the information provided below and draw their own conclusions:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-b...8/08/11/p27662
http://www.bing.com/search?q=fema+camps
http://tinyurl.com/locate-fema-camps1 (This site requires JavaScript to be enabled.)
Of course, the above is merely a sample of the scores of resources that were forwarded to me by readers. I encourage people to do their own research.
Even Mr. Skeptoid himself, Brian Dunning, grudgingly acknowledges the probability of the existence of internment camps on U.S. soil. As with the retired Air Force colonel referred to above, Dunning senses nothing sinister about the existence of the camps, and he doesn't address the numbers part of the story, but he does admit the plausibility of their existence.
Dunning wrote, "When I first heard the FEMA Prison Camp conspiracy story, it seemed ridiculous and paranoid at face value. But when I finally dug in to research it, I started by searching for the origins of the rumors, and found to my surprise that nearly all of the legal foundation and precedent for such a plan does in fact exist."
(See Dunning's blog at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4145 )
As I was mulling over all this information, I remembered reading an interview that radio talk show host Geoff Metcalf had with author Ted Flynn regarding Flynn's (then) new book, "Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World." According to Metcalf, "Flynn's book provides a strong historical basis to show that there is a global elite working to end the sovereignty of nations and to place every person on earth under the authority of the United Nations." This interview was conducted back in 2001, by the way.
In the interview, Metcalf asked Flynn, "Please explain what FEMA is. What is their authority and what is their job?"
Flynn replied, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency is probably going to be the enforcement arm of the New-World Order. Very few people could tell you that it is actually a cabinet position. By and large, a great percentage of their budget is 'black ops.' It's really not on the books. You only hear of them a little bit when there are disasters. But there is a great agenda to gather information for the government in stealth."
Metcalf then said, "I found it significant when Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, clarified the question of the existence of civilian detention camps. In an interview a few years ago, he said, 'the truth is yes--you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here . . . whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism . . . evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps.' They DO exist."
Flynn replied, "They do."
(See the interview at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=8853 )
Again, that our federal government has built large numbers of internment camps seems undeniable. What has not been determined is the purpose for which these facilities have been constructed. No one wants to believe that our government is planning evil designs upon us. Then again, neither did German Jews want to believe that their government was up to no good.
America's founders believed that a central government could not be trusted, which is why they tried to fence it in with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Neither should citizens today trust the federal government. As President George Washington put it, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Therefore, keep a wary eye out for anything that the federal government could use to encroach upon our liberties and freedoms--even reports of internment camps. If the reports are bogus, you've lost nothing; but if they are real, you could end up losing your liberty.
__________________
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Sequence By JR Nyquist
The Sequence
by J. R. Nyquist
Weekly Column Published: 08.28.2009
Print
The Sequence
T he military power with the best tanks, aircraft and ships doesn't always win a battle. Wars may be decided by many factors, including non-military factors. For example, a military confrontation may be decided beforehand when a society gradually turns to recreational drug use; or when the work ethic collapses; or a significant segment of the society unwittingly adopts the enemy's ideology; or the political elite of the country shows itself to be corrupt and contemptuous of the public.
The United States has been a great and stable power for many decades. One should never, on that account, assume the invincibility of the U.S. The American superpower has been strategically mismanaged for half a century. During the Cold War the U.S. suffered outright defeats in Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia. With the end of the Cold War came major Communist advances in South Africa (1994), Congo (1997), Angola (2002), Venezuela (1999), Brazil (2002), Bolivia (2006), and Nicaragua (2006).
What is not understood, is that the Communist movement in general, being a fifth column instrument of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, became even more effective after the fall of the Soviet Union. As it happens, people react to words like "Communism" in a negative way. Therefore, from the point of view of strategy, it is better to dispense with the word "Communist" and use another word.
The battle for what used to be called "Communism" is today a battle for so-called "social justice." The advocates in this battle are "caring individuals," who claim to represent the poor and the working class. Theirs is an ongoing struggle, and is fought on many fronts, especially inside the United States. The reason for accelerating their campaign within America is important to understand: The United States is the only military power, and the only economic power, strong enough to block the advance of Moscow and Beijing. During the Cold War, the Americans blocked these countries from advancing in many areas, including Africa, Southeast Asia, Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Germany, and Central America. Even the Communist victories in Southeast Asia and Africa were hardfought, and largely won through psychological warfare and propaganda. On the battlefield, America remained dominant.
Given the obstacle presented, how could the Communist Bloc overcome America's military power?
Very simply, when one side in a global contest appears to give up, the psychological impact is enormous. Organize the collapse of Communism from the Kremlin itself and nobody in the West will question it. If the Communists are giving up power, it is all good. But look at Russia and Eastern Europe today. By giving up untenable positions in Germany and the Baltic States, the remainder is yet dominated by agent networks and mafias aligned with Moscow. In Ukraine, for example, there is a pro-NATO president whose power has been undermined by a prime minister who works for Moscow. In Georgia, the Russian troops press in while operations continue to unseat the pro-American president. In Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania old Communist structures dominate business and government. Despite their entry into NATO, some of these countries may be described as nests of spies and infiltrators whose mission has been to sabotage NATO from within. This is not simply conjecture, but the conclusion drawn by the best-informed political activists and researchers in Eastern Europe.
The supposed Cold War victory of the West opened Europe to infection by Moscow's clandestine armies. Already the Left formed a fifth column in Western Europe. But these political forces were to be augmented by economic interpenetration, energy dependence, and more.
Because of its advanced weaponry, the United States cannot be easily defeated in a war. But wars are won or lost before they reach the point of outright military clashes. The order of battle in the next world war is not merely a list of divisions or nuclear rocket regiments. This order of battle chiefly consists in assets that include banks, major corporations, non-government organizations (NGOs), environmentalists, peace activists, drug cartels, organized crime syndicates, and the left wing of the Democratic Party, which the Communists targeted for infiltration more than 30 years ago.
In advance of any military campaign relying on tank divisions and nuclear rocket regiments, it is necessary to soften the United States through a series of clandestine and subversive moves: first, there was the use of narcotics trafficking as a weapon, which began in 1960. Prior to that, there was the infiltration of organized crime, the penetration of U.S. banks, and the introduction of the Peaceful Coexistence Struggle by Nikita Khrushchev. For those interested in the details of this, please refer to a book titled Red Cocaine, by Joseph D. Douglass. (It is based on the testimony of one of the highest-level Communsit defectors of all time, Jan Sejna.)
The campaign involves the use of economic weapons, as well as educational weapons. Every civilization nourishes within itself various cults opposed to its values. That is basically what "Communism" represents. The specifics of ideology are unimportant, for what is represented is essentially anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, anti-Western civilization. It can change its name, it rhetoric, its tactics, but the movement in opposition to civilization remains essentially the same in its determination to destroy what presently exists. Taking this into account, take a good look around and re-examine the former Cold War battlefield. Note the changes around the globe, and the changes in Washington.
What do you think has been happening over the last 20 years?
Robert Chandler has written a book titled Shadow World: Resurgent Russia, the Global New Left, and Radical Islam. What is valuable in Chandler's work relates to his firsthand interactions with Leftist organizers in the United States. According to Chandler, there is a vast network in America that aims to bring down the capitalist system, destroy the U.S. Constitution, and break up the federal system by getting control of the government.
"The driving forces in this top network," wrote Chandler, "are the 'thought leaders' and other individuals in non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndacalists." He noted that "leadingmembers are the Washington, D.C.-based revolutionary centers -- the institute for Policy Studies ... as well as the coopted mainstream media and politicians making up the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the 'Shadow Party' hiding inside the Democratic Party...."
According to Chandler, "The radical Left" is engaging in a new form of political warfare in which the Left targeted "open spaces" in the American social structure; namely, schools and universities, government, churches and community organizations. The idea was, wrote Chandler, "to transform society and replace traditional American values and institutions with neo-Marxist values." At a Marxist conference that Chandler attended, one of the agenda items was openly listed as, "The Strange Pleasures of Destruction in Capitalist America." He relates that most of the participants "were university professors." In the course of this conference, purely by accident, he ran into Zapatista Subcommandante Marcos in an underground parking garage. According to Chandler, "Orthodox communsits warned conference participants about the dangers of wandering away from the basics of Marx and Lenin...." He further explained that everyone present at the conference agreed it was necessary to "destroy the state as a part of the coming socialist revolution. There simply was no other way to achieve socialist governance in the United States than to crush the existing capitalist system."
Now the sequence should be clear. If the United States is bankrupt, politically divided and internally sabotaged by the radicals of the Left who have everywhere infiltrated the system, will there be a logistical support network for maintaining our tanks, bombers and ICBMS?
What seems fantastic on first-hearing is actually everyday life for those who are paying attention. Look at the world around you. There are those who have been enriching themselves as they sabotage the economy and poison the culture. They pretend to care about the poor and downtrodden. But they live in mansions, collect enormous sums from government and business, advancing the foreign policy goals of enemy dictators. The organized Left is a business with access to billions of dollars. Its tendency is to serve as a fifth column.
Now imagine the collapse of the dollar. Imagine the collapse of the U.S. federal system, the Constitution, and America's domestic tranquility. How will the country defend itself from Russian missiles when our missiles no longer work because they have fallen into disrepair after an economic collapse? Here is asymetrical warfare at its best. Here is the beginning of what I call "the sequence."
Copyright © 2009 Jeffrey R. Nyquist
Global Analysis Archive
by J. R. Nyquist
Weekly Column Published: 08.28.2009
The Sequence
T he military power with the best tanks, aircraft and ships doesn't always win a battle. Wars may be decided by many factors, including non-military factors. For example, a military confrontation may be decided beforehand when a society gradually turns to recreational drug use; or when the work ethic collapses; or a significant segment of the society unwittingly adopts the enemy's ideology; or the political elite of the country shows itself to be corrupt and contemptuous of the public.
The United States has been a great and stable power for many decades. One should never, on that account, assume the invincibility of the U.S. The American superpower has been strategically mismanaged for half a century. During the Cold War the U.S. suffered outright defeats in Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia. With the end of the Cold War came major Communist advances in South Africa (1994), Congo (1997), Angola (2002), Venezuela (1999), Brazil (2002), Bolivia (2006), and Nicaragua (2006).
What is not understood, is that the Communist movement in general, being a fifth column instrument of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, became even more effective after the fall of the Soviet Union. As it happens, people react to words like "Communism" in a negative way. Therefore, from the point of view of strategy, it is better to dispense with the word "Communist" and use another word.
The battle for what used to be called "Communism" is today a battle for so-called "social justice." The advocates in this battle are "caring individuals," who claim to represent the poor and the working class. Theirs is an ongoing struggle, and is fought on many fronts, especially inside the United States. The reason for accelerating their campaign within America is important to understand: The United States is the only military power, and the only economic power, strong enough to block the advance of Moscow and Beijing. During the Cold War, the Americans blocked these countries from advancing in many areas, including Africa, Southeast Asia, Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Germany, and Central America. Even the Communist victories in Southeast Asia and Africa were hardfought, and largely won through psychological warfare and propaganda. On the battlefield, America remained dominant.
Given the obstacle presented, how could the Communist Bloc overcome America's military power?
Very simply, when one side in a global contest appears to give up, the psychological impact is enormous. Organize the collapse of Communism from the Kremlin itself and nobody in the West will question it. If the Communists are giving up power, it is all good. But look at Russia and Eastern Europe today. By giving up untenable positions in Germany and the Baltic States, the remainder is yet dominated by agent networks and mafias aligned with Moscow. In Ukraine, for example, there is a pro-NATO president whose power has been undermined by a prime minister who works for Moscow. In Georgia, the Russian troops press in while operations continue to unseat the pro-American president. In Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania old Communist structures dominate business and government. Despite their entry into NATO, some of these countries may be described as nests of spies and infiltrators whose mission has been to sabotage NATO from within. This is not simply conjecture, but the conclusion drawn by the best-informed political activists and researchers in Eastern Europe.
The supposed Cold War victory of the West opened Europe to infection by Moscow's clandestine armies. Already the Left formed a fifth column in Western Europe. But these political forces were to be augmented by economic interpenetration, energy dependence, and more.
Because of its advanced weaponry, the United States cannot be easily defeated in a war. But wars are won or lost before they reach the point of outright military clashes. The order of battle in the next world war is not merely a list of divisions or nuclear rocket regiments. This order of battle chiefly consists in assets that include banks, major corporations, non-government organizations (NGOs), environmentalists, peace activists, drug cartels, organized crime syndicates, and the left wing of the Democratic Party, which the Communists targeted for infiltration more than 30 years ago.
In advance of any military campaign relying on tank divisions and nuclear rocket regiments, it is necessary to soften the United States through a series of clandestine and subversive moves: first, there was the use of narcotics trafficking as a weapon, which began in 1960. Prior to that, there was the infiltration of organized crime, the penetration of U.S. banks, and the introduction of the Peaceful Coexistence Struggle by Nikita Khrushchev. For those interested in the details of this, please refer to a book titled Red Cocaine, by Joseph D. Douglass. (It is based on the testimony of one of the highest-level Communsit defectors of all time, Jan Sejna.)
The campaign involves the use of economic weapons, as well as educational weapons. Every civilization nourishes within itself various cults opposed to its values. That is basically what "Communism" represents. The specifics of ideology are unimportant, for what is represented is essentially anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, anti-Western civilization. It can change its name, it rhetoric, its tactics, but the movement in opposition to civilization remains essentially the same in its determination to destroy what presently exists. Taking this into account, take a good look around and re-examine the former Cold War battlefield. Note the changes around the globe, and the changes in Washington.
What do you think has been happening over the last 20 years?
Robert Chandler has written a book titled Shadow World: Resurgent Russia, the Global New Left, and Radical Islam. What is valuable in Chandler's work relates to his firsthand interactions with Leftist organizers in the United States. According to Chandler, there is a vast network in America that aims to bring down the capitalist system, destroy the U.S. Constitution, and break up the federal system by getting control of the government.
"The driving forces in this top network," wrote Chandler, "are the 'thought leaders' and other individuals in non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndacalists." He noted that "leadingmembers are the Washington, D.C.-based revolutionary centers -- the institute for Policy Studies ... as well as the coopted mainstream media and politicians making up the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the 'Shadow Party' hiding inside the Democratic Party...."
According to Chandler, "The radical Left" is engaging in a new form of political warfare in which the Left targeted "open spaces" in the American social structure; namely, schools and universities, government, churches and community organizations. The idea was, wrote Chandler, "to transform society and replace traditional American values and institutions with neo-Marxist values." At a Marxist conference that Chandler attended, one of the agenda items was openly listed as, "The Strange Pleasures of Destruction in Capitalist America." He relates that most of the participants "were university professors." In the course of this conference, purely by accident, he ran into Zapatista Subcommandante Marcos in an underground parking garage. According to Chandler, "Orthodox communsits warned conference participants about the dangers of wandering away from the basics of Marx and Lenin...." He further explained that everyone present at the conference agreed it was necessary to "destroy the state as a part of the coming socialist revolution. There simply was no other way to achieve socialist governance in the United States than to crush the existing capitalist system."
Now the sequence should be clear. If the United States is bankrupt, politically divided and internally sabotaged by the radicals of the Left who have everywhere infiltrated the system, will there be a logistical support network for maintaining our tanks, bombers and ICBMS?
What seems fantastic on first-hearing is actually everyday life for those who are paying attention. Look at the world around you. There are those who have been enriching themselves as they sabotage the economy and poison the culture. They pretend to care about the poor and downtrodden. But they live in mansions, collect enormous sums from government and business, advancing the foreign policy goals of enemy dictators. The organized Left is a business with access to billions of dollars. Its tendency is to serve as a fifth column.
Now imagine the collapse of the dollar. Imagine the collapse of the U.S. federal system, the Constitution, and America's domestic tranquility. How will the country defend itself from Russian missiles when our missiles no longer work because they have fallen into disrepair after an economic collapse? Here is asymetrical warfare at its best. Here is the beginning of what I call "the sequence."
Copyright © 2009 Jeffrey R. Nyquist
Global Analysis Archive
Bill would give president emergcontrol of Internetency
August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
Bill would give president emergcontrol of Internetency
by Declan McCullagh Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Bill would give president emergcontrol of Internetency
by Declan McCullagh Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
