Page 11 of 37 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 733

Thread: Will America Break Up?

  1. #201
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,173
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Texans petition White House for permission to secede from US

    Hundreds of thousands of southerners have demanded that Texas and seven other states be allowed to secede from the US following President Barack Obama's re-election.


    Texas was an independent Republic in the 1800s and has long been wary of Washington Photo: Jae C. Hong/AP

    By Raf Sanchez, Washington

    5:59PM GMT 15 Nov 2012

    Petitions on the White House website have reached the 25,000 signature threshold needed to force the Obama administration to issue a formal response.

    Texas, which was briefly its own nation in the mid-1800s and remains deeply wary of rule from Washington, has over 100,000 signatures calling for it to break away.

    Petitioners asked for the chance to "re-secure their rights and liberties" which "are no longer being reflected by the federal government".

    Related Articles




    Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, was forced to deny that he supported the independence movement, saying he believed "in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it".

    Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina and South Carolina have also reached the threshold, while petitions calling freedom for the other 43 states are still gaining signatures.

    Although there is no real chance of secession, the petitions are a sign of the entrenched opposition to Mr Obama.
    Unionists mounted a counter-offensive on the White House website, asking the President to "deport everyone that signed a petition to withdraw their state from the United States Of America".



    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  2. #202
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Ummm that article was wrong the minute it was posted....

    Here's the actual count as of this morning: 111,165
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  3. #203
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,173
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Ruck View Post
    It's the Californicators Rick.

    They fucked up and bankrupted their state and like locusts they're moving onto a new host.

    http://www.forbes.com/special-report...migration.html
    The Left should be forced to lie in the beds they make instead of taking down the Republic one state at a time.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  4. #204
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,173
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Flashbacks:
    Quote Originally Posted by vector7 View Post
    American Republic replaced by “Council of Governors”?

    By Judi McLeod Tuesday, January 12, 2010



    Quietly—even stealthily—in the opening days of the New Year, President Barack Obama has set up a “Council of Governors”.

    Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people’s nor the congress’s blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal.

    “Is this a first step towards Martial Law, or a tie to the InterPol, RAND National Police Force stuff we’ve been hearing about,” asked a Texas patriot who tipped off Canada Free Press (CFP) after finding news of the new Council of Governors on Twitter. “Is this a sort of Homeland Security Politburo?

    “I do know it’s another sleuth order executed without any announcement, OR EXPLANATION to the People.”

    Patriots know by now that the promised Obama “transparency” is a fog.

    Checking the Net on the Council of Governors, CFP found other than a few blogs only UPI.com had the story as of this morning:

    “President Barack Obama Monday established a panel of state governors to collaborate with Washington on a variety of potential emergencies, the White House said.” (UPI.com, Jan. 11, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.).

    “Obama signed an executive order establishing a panel to be known as the Council of Governors, which will be made up of 10 state governors, to be selected by the president to serve two-year terms.

    Members will review matters involving the National Guard; homeland defense; civil support; and synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States, the White House said in a statement.

    “The statement said the White House would seek input from governors and governors’ association (sic) in deciding which governors to appoint to the council, which will have no more than five governors from the same party.

    “The secretaries of defense and homeland security will also sit on the council, as will presidential assistants for homeland security and counter-terrorism, intergovernmental affairs, the U.S. Northern Command commander, the commander of the East Coast Guard, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau.

    “The panel was set up under a provision of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, the White House said.”

    There was no timestamp on the latest Emergency Order from Whitehouse.gov, which readers can see below.

    The Obama administration seems to be conducting the business of America under cover of the dark.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER
    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Council of Governors.

    (a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.

    (b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.

    Sec. 2. Functions.
    The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander,United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.Such views, information, or advice shall concern:

    (a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;

    (b) homeland defense;

    (c) civil support;

    (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and

    (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

    Sec. 3. Administration.

    (a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an Executive Director to coordinate the work of the Council.

    (b) Members shall serve without compensation for their work on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law.

    (c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs of the Council, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide the Council with administrative support,assignment or detail of personnel, and information as may be necessary for the performance of the Council’s functions.

    (d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the Council. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively of Members of the Council and any designated employees of a Member with authority to act on the Member’s behalf, as appropriate to aid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order.

    (e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistent with the terms of this order to refine further its purpose,scope, and objectives and to allocate duties, as appropriate,among members.

    Sec. 4. Definitions.
    As used in this order:
    (a) the term “State” has the meaning provided in paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and

    (b) the term “Governor” has the meaning provided in paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).

    Sec. 5. General Provisions.

    (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    - (1) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or

    - (2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    BARACK OBAMA
    THE WHITE HOUSE,January 11, 2010.


    OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

    New council to advise on 'military activities' in U.S.
    Executive order creates team of governors to address 'Homeland Defense'
    Posted: January 12, 2010
    10:29 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    ゥ 2010 WorldNetDaily

    President Obama by executive order has established a new "Council of Governors" designated to advise on the "synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States."

    The recent order, posted on the White House website, was accompanied by the explanation that the group is to work "to protect our nation against all types of hazards." It comes just weeks after the president issue a similarly obscure order vastly expanding INTERPOL's privileges in the U.S.

    The White House said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review "such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

    However, there was no definition of what would be included in the group's authority. Can the council recommend "military activities" and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? The White House did not respond to WND questions on the issue.

    The previous order regarding INTERPOL caused concern for some in the U.S. because it exempts the international police force from such oversight as the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S.

    At the ThreatsWatch.org website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton said the order will lead to further erosions of American sovereignty.

    "In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves," they wrote.

    "When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guant疣amo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement," they said.

    "For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with 'inviolable archives' from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds," they said.

    The new governors panel, which the White House said was called for in the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, will include 10 governors picked by the president as well as the Coast Guard commandant and other officials from the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.

    The White House announcement said the council "will provide an invaluable senior administration forum for exchanging views with state and local officials on strengthening our national resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our nation today and in the future."

    Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm poked fun at the announcement, writing Obama "has determined that, a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically."

    Obama also, Malcolm said, "chooses to ignore the existence of the National Governors Assn., the Republican Governors Assn., the Democratic Governors Assn. and the secure telephones within arms-reach of virtually everywhere said president chooses to sit and/or recline."

    Ultimately, he said, Obama has decided, "One more meaningless advisory body probably couldn't hurt anything, and might actually look good."

    At Canada Free Press, commentary writer Judi McLeod said, "Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people's nor the congress's blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal."

    Blogger Nicholas Contompasis suggested it was the "first step towards martial law in America" because it sets up the "use of federal troops and the combination of state and federal agencies under the Defense Department."

    Participants on his forum page said the order appears to be in defiance of posse comitatus, which restricts U.S. military action within the United States. One contributor noted the order talks about "hazards" but then addresses only military hazards.

    "The very notion of the executive branch (good intentions or not) issuing executive orders/presidential directives that apply to anything or anyone not specifically within the executive branch is tyrannical," the forum participant said.


    Coming At Us From Every Direction

    January 14, 2010

    One hell of a week. The Zero thinks he has delivered a knock-out punch with 3 below-the-belt right hooks in just a matter of days (well, the last one is still in wind-up mode):

    1) The Executive Order regarding the Council of Governors, as the First Step Toward Martial Law. [/COLOR][COLOR=White]Anyone have a guess as to which 10 governors are ready to play ball? Will TX be surprised if Perry is one of them? That could cause some unrest REAL fast!

    2) The Rand Corp study where they answer the US Army’s question of whether we need a ‘National Stabilization Police Force’ with a resounding, “YES!” Michigan is already seeing some of this with their “Hometown Police Forces.”

    3) While not yet ‘delivered’ we can see them winding up for the blow, but probably too late to duck: The creation of, “A North American Security Perimeter is on the Horizon.” So, what, our Border Patrol guys on the Mexican border will be stationed where?!!! Its highly likely they will swap our Border Patrol with Canadian and Mexican so they are NOT patrolling their formerly sovereign territory. Will they rise up before then? Very doubtful. They are totally CLUELESS as to what is coming down.

    A North American Security Perimeter On The Horizon
    , By Dana Gabriel, OnlineJournal.com guest writer, Jan 11, 2010

    NAFTA has extended from economic integration into a political and regional security pact which has been achieved through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, Plan Mexico, as well as other initiatives.

    Various pieces of legislation and reports, along with influential individuals have called for closer trilateral cooperation regarding common rules for immigration and security enforcement around the perimeter of the continent. A major part of the U.S. security agenda already includes the defense of North America, but a full blown security zone would bring Canada and Mexico further under U.S. control. A Fortress North America poses a serious threat to our sovereignty and would mean the loss of more civil liberties.

    Plans for a North America security perimeter might have seemed like a pipe dream just a short time ago, but it could become a reality sooner than one thinks. Some believe that a perimeter approach to security would be a more effective way of providing safety while ensuring the free flow of trade and investment. For those pushing for deep continental integration, this move is seen as the next logical step. A recent article from the Toronto Star, Canada warms to idea of a tougher ‘perimeter’, suggests that Canadians might now be ready to debate the concept of perimeter security. David Biette who specializes in U.S.-Canada relations and is a member of the Woodrow Wilson Center stated that a, “Perimeter is no longer a dirty word.

    It’s beginning to come up again, at least in academic circles.” He went on to say, “Canada held back when it first came up and I can certainly understand why. There was still such bad feeling left over on free trade and what that might mean for Canadian sovereignty that perimeter security was just not palatable to Canadians.” Biette also added, “You ask yourself, ‘What would a mutually improved relationship look like?’ and really, there is nothing else. Perimeter is the one big thing – the last truly huge step on the horizon.” A North American security perimeter would be one of the final steps needed in the creation of a North American Union.

    Some of the recommendations from the 2005 report, Building a North American Community co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, included a unified border, a North American border pass, a single economic space, as well as a common security perimeter by 2010. Many of the task force recommendations in areas of trade, transportation, energy, immigration and security became part of the SPP agenda. Despite the demise of the SPP, many of its key objectives continue to move forward under the North American Leaders Summit, as well as through other initiatives. In February of 2009, it was reported that former Canadian international trade and foreign affairs minister, David Emerson, “called on the government to aggressively seek stronger Canada-U.S. ties, up to and including a customs union. He said at minimum, Canada should advocate a North American security perimeter arrangement, a labour mobility agreement that modernizes NAFTA provisions, and greater integration on regulatory matters.” U.S. officials remain concerned on how risk assessments of people entering Canada are conducted as well as the differences in its immigration and visa policies. A common perimeter approach to border management and security would require harmonization of Canadian-U.S. immigration and customs standards.

    It was clear before Obama became president that he wished to relax immigration restrictions with Mexico and supported some sort of amnesty program. In mid-December of last year, H.R. 4321 the Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009 was introduced in the House of Representatives. The Obama administration has been criticized for its lack of immigration enforcement. Many have warned that the new legislation would not only grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, but also increase legal immigration and create more loopholes in the system. In Sec. 143.

    Reports on Improving the Exchange of Information on North American Security, there is wording which could further promote deep continental integration. This includes yearly status reports, “in developing and implementing an immigration security strategy for North America that works toward the development of a common security perimeter.” Previous failed security and immigration bills also contained similar language referring to a shared security perimeter around the continent.

    The Merida Initiative, also known as Plan Mexico is an extension of NAFTA and has its roots in the SPP. It is based on America’s failed war on drugs, which has been costly and ineffective. The Merida Initiative relies primarily on military and law enforcement solutions and is advancing police state measures. In a recent interview, Laura Carlsen director of the Americas Policy Program in Mexico City described how Plan Mexico, “was designed in Washington as a way to ‘push out the borders’ of the US security perimeter, that is, that Mexico would take on US security priorities including policing its southern border and allowing US companies and agents into Mexico’s intelligence and security operations.” She also commented that, “The Obama administration has supported the plan and even requested, and received from Congress, additional funds beyond what the Bush administration requested.” The Plan Mexico strategy is working towards the development of a common security perimeter and is further encouraging the militarization of Mexico. Continued drug violence in the country could be used as a pretext to set up a North American security perimeter.

    The recent foiled terrorist attack on Christmas day is accelerating the implementation of a high-tech control grid which could restrict, track and trace our movements. With the war on terrorism back in the forefront, the continued merging of North America might include Canada and Mexico playing a bigger role in regards to perimeter security. Canadian officials have announced that within the next several months, body scanners will be installed in 11 airports across the country. Some proponents of a continental security zone believe that it is the best way to secure North America, but at the same time falsely claim that this could be done with respect to each nation’s sovereignty. We are well on the way towards a North American security perimeter where trade and investment will be able to roam freely, while we are all forced to endure new security practices dominated by U.S. interests.

    Free People
    – Well, it is easy now to see where this all is going in just the last few days. We have long been following joint meetings, drills and trainings between US, Canadian and Mexican forces. This would be the final step to ‘enforcement’ of a new Union of North America. With the Council of Governors, the power is drained away from the individual states and usurped into a new framework that will dictate policy, security, finances/monetary and judicial processes to effectively hijack our country out from under us.

    This is it. The carjacker/hijacker has gone from helping us with our flat tire to pulling a gun on us and forcing us back into the car while he drives us with us inside, held at gunpoint.

    Good thing he doesn’t know we have a gun stashed in the glovebox and when his arm gets tired, we will seize the advantage. It might be a hell of a struggle, but it will feel far better than sitting there at his mercy! May God have mercy on his soul for WE ARE NOT AFRAID!!!!!!mercy! May God have mercy on his soul for WE ARE NOT AFRAID!!!!!!

    But one question remains: When will they substitute the Amero for the Dollar? Probably AFTER China gets our corrupt bankers to ‘refund the dollar.’ See HERE And I suppose we will see the NAFTA Superhighway kick into high gear VERY SOON with total freedom from Constitutional constraint. There will be NOTHING traveling from East to West in this country without the new apparatchik knowing about it. We will be cut in two. And if that doesn’t work, there are stories of a 8.0 earthquake in the heartland to further impede our efforts.

    OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
    States' rights rebellion over National Guard

    Lawmakers fight to keep governors, not president, in control of troops
    Posted: January 26, 2010
    9:17 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    ゥ 2010 WorldNetDaily

    Responding to an executive order by President Obama, a new push is under way for states to adopt laws limiting the use of their National Guard units unless there is an invasion, insurrection or other limited circumstance.

    As WND reported, Obama's order establishes a new "Council of Governors" designated to advise on the "synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States."

    The recent order, posted on the White House website, was accompanied by the explanation that the group is to work "to protect our nation against all types of hazards." It comes just weeks after the president issued a similarly obscure order vastly expanding INTERPOL's privileges in the U.S.

    The White House said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review "such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

    However, there was no definition of the group's authority. Can the council recommend "military activities" and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? The White House did not respond to WND questions on the issue.

    Now the Tenth Amendment Center is recommending a model legislation that states can use to limit the activities of their own National Guard members.

    The model legislation states: "The governor shall withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of the National Guard to federal control in the absence of: a) A military invasion of the United States, or b) An insurrection, or c) A calling forth of the guard by the federal government in a manner provided for by Congress to execute the laws of the union, provided that said laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States, or d) A formal declaration of war from Congress."

    The organization said the requests to state legislatures already have begun with a letter on the issue dispatched by Walt Garlington, founder of the Louisiana State Sovereignty Committee, to state Rep. Brett F. Geymann.

    "I ask you to once again take up the cause of states' rights and protect Louisiana from this latest unconstitutional action coming from Washington, D.C.," the letter said. "Please introduce a bill reasserting the governor's power over Louisiana's National Guard to counteract the EO issued by Pres. Obama."

    The model legislation proposed by the Tenth Amendment Center says the law is, "For the purpose of requiring the governor to withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of this state's National Guard to federal control in the absence of an explicit authorization adopted by the federal government in pursuance of the powers delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution."

    It cites U.S. Constitution provisions that Congress has the power to provide for "calling forth the militia" to "execute the laws of the union," or to suppress insurrections or repel invasions.

    The proposal cites Daniel Webster's statement in 1814 to Congress, "It will be the solemn duty of the state governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the state governments exist."

    The White House said the new panel was called for in the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act and will include 10 governors picked by the president as well as the Coast Guard commandant and other officials from the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.

    The White House announcement said the council "will provide an invaluable senior administration forum for exchanging views with state and local officials on strengthening our national resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our nation today and in the future."

    Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm poked fun at the announcement, writing Obama "has determined that, a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically."

    Obama also, Malcolm said, "chooses to ignore the existence of the National Governors Assn., the Republican Governors Assn., the Democratic Governors Assn. and the secure telephones within arms-reach of virtually everywhere said president chooses to sit and/or recline."

    Ultimately, he said, Obama has decided, "One more meaningless advisory body probably couldn't hurt anything, and might actually look good."

    At Canada Free Press, commentary writer Judi McLeod said, "Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people's nor the Congress's blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal."

    Blogger Nicholas Contompasis suggested it was the "first step towards martial law in America" because it sets up the "use of federal troops and the combination of state and federal agencies under the Defense Department."

    Participants on his forum page said the order appears to be in defiance of posse comitatus, which restricts U.S. military action within the United States. One contributor noted the order talks about "hazards" but then addresses only military hazards.

    "The very notion of the executive branch (good intentions or not) issuing executive orders/presidential directives that apply to anything or anyone not specifically within the executive branch is tyrannical," the forum participant said.

    Obama latest pick: Gov. who linked Christians to violence

    Missouri report tied 'domestic terrorists' with opposition to abortion, immigration



    President Obama has picked to advise him on military actions inside the U.S. the Missouri governor whose state "Information Analysis Center" last year linked conservative organizations to domestic terrorism and said law enforcement officers should watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers from Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin.

    Missouri Gov. Jeremiah Nixon, a Democrat, is being joined on the Obama's special advisory panel by the governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, and Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's replacement when she moved to Washington.

    They are among Obama's nominations for the 10 positions on Obama's new "Council of Governors" that he will use for advice on "military activities in the United States."

    The original announcement said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review "such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

    However, there was no definition of the group's authority. Can the council recommend "military activities" and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? The White House did not respond to WND questions on the issue.

    A new announcement from the White House lists Nixon as one of the nominees.

    "He is responsible for operating Missouri's innovative fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center," the announcement confirmed.

    It was in 2009 when the MIAC issued a report that not only linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism and warned law enforcement to watch for vehicles with bumper stickers promoting Paul and Baldwin, it also warned police to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

    Ultimately, Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol said the release of the report caused him to review the procedures through which the report was released.

    "My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement," he said at the time. "Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety."

    He said the report warning about those who hold Christian views was "created by a MIAC employee, reviewed by the MIAC director, and sent immediately to law enforcement agencies across Missouri. The militia report was never reviewed by me or by the Director of Public Safety, John Britt, at any point prior to its issuance. Had that report been reviewed by either my office or by leaders of the Department of Public Safety, it would never have been released to law enforcement agencies."

    Keathley said the report simply "does not meet" the needed standard for "intelligence." So he ordered its distribution to be halted.

    But that warning had prompted Americans for Legal Immigration to issue a "national advisory" against relying on any such reports.

    The Missouri document, it said, "attempted to politicize police and cast suspicion on millions of Americans. The 'Missouri Documents,' as they came to be called, listed over 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials, and infrastructure targets.

    "Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The 'Missouri Documents' also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!" ALIPAC wrote.

    "When many of us read these Missouri Documents we felt that the false connections, pseudo research, and political attacks found in these documents could have been penned by the SPLC and ADL," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "We were shocked to see credible law enforcement agencies disseminating the same kind of over the top political propaganda distributed by these groups."

    The Missouri situation was just the tip of the iceberg, however. WND reported only weeks later when a Department of Homeland Security report warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singled out returning war veterans as particular threats.

    The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, 2009, stated that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

    However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, went on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

    The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defined right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

    Most notable was the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

    "Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it said. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

    Now Gov. Nixon will advise Obama on those military and National Guard actions inside the U.S.

    "I am pleased that these governors of exceptional experience have agreed to join the Council of Governors," Obama said in the newest White House announcement.
    "This bipartisan team strengthens the partnership between our state governments and the federal government when it comes to ensuring our national preparedness and homeland defense."

    "I look forward to working with them in the years ahead," Obama said of the council, which was created Jan. 11 by his executive order.

    Will President Obama Surrender the United States Constitution to United Nations Governance?

    Posted on July 11, 2012 by Leauxryda
    By: Leauxryda



    "Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence,”…..“It is ambitious, but it is achievable.” UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon

    In a mere couple of weeks, (July 27th as being reported), the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama will under all expectations sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which many believe will be the end of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, as we know it.

    This is not new. The UNATT has been in the works for years and on October 14, 2009 in a statement presented by Hillary Clinton and the State Department that it would overturn the position of former President George W. Bush, which opposed a UN Arms Trade Treaty, on the insistence that national controls were better.

    Much can be found on the UNATT (except on main stream media sources) and while the specifics of the treaty are still in formulation and terms have yet to be made public, a majority of the content already exists. Likely to pass the UN and legitimate concerns that our Senate, under the pledged push of the Senate by Hillary Clinton, would ratify, it is likely to force the United States to:

    1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

    2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

    3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

    4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

    5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

    This plan is the real deal!!! Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has caution gun owners to take this very seriously and stated that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

    It’s not enough that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has owned this push for international gun control for years; President Obama has a dismal record on gun rights. His appointment of form Seattle Mayor, Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N. and Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Traver is a staunch advocate in termination of civilian ownership of “assault rifles”).

    As Illinois state senator, Obama aggressively advocated the expansion of gun control laws, including voted against legislation giving gun owner’s affirmative defense when firearms would be used in the defense of themselves and their family against home invaders and burglars. It also bears mentioning Obama served on a 10-member board of directors of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago, 1998-2001. The Joyce Foundation during that time contributed $18,326,180 in grants to anti-2nd Amendment organizations. And let’s not forget the appointment of Obama’s anti-gun nominee SCOTUS Sonia Sotomayor…yes, the Senate confirmation put her there, but it was definitely under the pressure of Obama.

    So don’t believe for one moment that because Obama says very little about our 2nd Amendment rights and gun ownership, he’s an advocate on our behalf. He isn’t, and it is easy to conclude that gun control efforts by this administration via the UNATT are ripe for this anti-Constitutional government to take advantage of its citizen’s rights based on international laws and treaties.

    Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) said in a recent speech for the Heritage Foundation in June of this year, “I believe there is a threat to include civilian firearms within its scope….. And the arms trade treaty, if that’s true, could restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in the United States.” Sen. Moran and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) are leading the effort in the Senate to ensure the treaty doesn’t infringe on an American’s 2nd Amendment rights.

    Both have spearheaded letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, signed by 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats in opposition restrictions on civilian firearm ownership. Noted during his speech to the Heritage, Moran acknowledged the treaty would be acceptable if it: explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting, and other lawful activities related to the private ownership of firearms and related materials; explicitly excludes small arms, light weapons and related materials that are legal for private ownership; doesn’t contain any open-ended obligations that could imply any need to impose domestic controls on any of these items; and explicitly states that any assertion of the right of sovereign states to individual or collective self-defense does not prejudice the inherent right of personal self-defense.

    As reported in The Hill, 130 lawmakers sent the President a letter expressing their opposition to a pending arms trade treaty should it impede gun rights and U.S. sovereignty in any way. “The UN’s actions to date indicate that the ATT [United Nations Arms Trade Treaty] is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights,” reads the letter, which was spearheaded by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.). “The U.S. must establish firm red lines for the ATT and state unequivocally that it will oppose the ATT if it infringes on our rights or threatens our ability to defend our interests.”

    But let’s talk about these “firm red lines”…..

    According to the U.S. State Department, the “firm red lines” that cannot be crossed are:

    The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.




    1. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
    2. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
    3. The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
    4. The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
    5. There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
    6. There will be no lowering of current international standards.
    7. Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
    8. The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
    9. There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.



    Sounds good doesn’t it? On the surface, this shows teeth and a willingness of our country’s government to maintain its sovereignty. But let’s get real here. These are statements made by the Obama administration. And since when should we trust anything coming from these guys? The promise of the most transparent administration in the history of our country? Yea, right!

    Keep in mind though, that despite lines drawn, the U.S. is part of a 193 member state committee and is a principle organ of the UNSC. And recently the governments of the UK, France, Germany and Sweden all released a joint position this week which states, “We believe that an arms trade treaty should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies.” Remember, participating nations have veto power, and these red lines submitted by the United States could be scrapped from consideration on its behalf by a multitude of what would be considered, allied nations.

    There is a multitude of sources one can read and learn what’s ahead in the coming weeks. What IS the main focus for We as Americans is the realization that our 2nd Amendment rights are close to becoming altered on behalf of an international law, over our own Constitution! Sure, there are members of the House and Senate who believe our Constitution must be upheld over international law. BUT, there are others who believe different, DESPITE their sworn oath. But are we to take that chance and sort-of “pass the treaty, so we can see what’s in it first”? Keep in mind readers, the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution), establishes laws made pursuant to the US Constitution, (“shall be the supreme law of the land”), and allows treaties enacted by Congress to supersede the Bill of Rights. Most people are unaware of this, and it is the key to its success or failure. And all this while, your tax dollars were used to lobby against our Constitutional rights via the United Nations.

    Thomas Jefferson eloquently stated in his “Commonplace Book,” from 1774-1776, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

    I beg you to act on this as this is THE one freedom that should it fall, the 1st Amendment (which is already heavily under attack), will follow immediately afterwards. Tweet this, text this, email this, Facebook this, comment on this through blogs and news sites…….whatever it takes, get the word out NOW…..time is seriously short America! A great tool, compliments of the NRA to contact your Senators can be found here:

    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/.

    You may also contact your Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121.
    Sources:
    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...committee.aspx
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...rs-up-in-arms/
    http://theintelhub.com/2012/07/08/u-...-be-protected/
    http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-sec...v-lunch-alert/
    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...-underway.aspx
    http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/
    (and numerous others……)

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  5. #205
    Super Moderator and PHILanthropist Extraordinaire Phil Fiord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,496
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    I had a thought this evening. Some may be too young to recall this well or at all though.

    Anyone recall the '90's commercials for Matthew Lesco books on how to money from the government?

    From 1998:



    And so far as I can tell he is still touting these books but now with a different spin. How to get help in a bad economy from the government. All the ways to milk everyone's money. I strongly feel his 90's to now take take take mentality is part of why we are so screwed up. Seems to me we could eliminate all that waste. One thing I do appreciate about his research is it is very well done and shows just how one can exploit the system. This makes it easier to plug the holes. Yes, these programs likely had good intention, but too many are not using the programs as intended. If not eliminated at the very least make the burden of proof higher for programs and for EBT, put back the requirement to look for work. Same for EDD. Unemployment insurance no longer requires one to look for a job for real, just fill out a form saying you did. No one would lie on that would they?

    SO here is Lesko about a year ago in an interview. A sack of shit in my eyes.

    Last edited by Phil Fiord; November 17th, 2012 at 00:21. Reason: fixed a missing this and that.

  6. #206
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,173
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Fitting this lib-tard is on 'Russia Today'.

    He said "A lot of people think I'm an idiot" @7:30 mark...yeah, one of the 'USEFUL IDIOTS'!

    This guy is part of the Cloward and Piven infestation out to destroy America, a Russian strategy planned years ago to take down the West.


    Nikita Khruschev while visiting the United States in 1956 said to Vice President Nixon that his grandchildren would live under communism.

    Two months later while Nikita Khrushchev visited the United States he told U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson:

    Quote:
    “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands .”

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  7. #207
    Super Moderator and PHILanthropist Extraordinaire Phil Fiord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,496
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Vector, That is a very good and accurate quote for the times. If you could source it, I would appreciate it a bunch. I wish to pass this along and have it sourced for those who need it.

  8. #208
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,464
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    I do remember that guy and thinking the same thing as you Phil

  9. #209
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,173
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Fiord View Post
    Vector, That is a very good and accurate quote for the times. If you could source it, I would appreciate it a bunch. I wish to pass this along and have it sourced for those who need it.
    Ezra Taft Benson-Warning



    This is a excerpt from a talk given at BYU in 1966 entitled "Our Immediate Responsibility" by former U.S Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson for eight years under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    Benson believed that a communist/socialist conspiracy was working within our country to subtly drive us, like cattle, into communism...



    Who said 'The US will fall without a shot being fired'?

    This quote is taken from a speech Nikita Khrushchev made before the U.N. in the early years of the Cold War. "America will fall without a shot being fired. It will fall from within."

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  10. #210
    Super Moderator and PHILanthropist Extraordinaire Phil Fiord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,496
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Thank you for that Vector. Truly.

  11. #211
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Ummm guys...

    Did you all know that on the 15th..... the fuck head in charge did something else secretly?

    http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...ess/711179977/

    Article posted: 11/17/2012 7:00 AM
    Obama signs secret directive to fight cyberattacks


    President Barack Obama has signed a secret directive that effectively enables the military to act more aggressively to thwart cyberattacks on the nation's web of government and private computer networks.

    ASSOCIATED PRESS




    By Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post




    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has signed a secret directive that effectively enables the military to act more aggressively to thwart cyberattacks on the nation’s web of government and private computer networks.


    Presidential Policy Directive 20 establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace, according to several U.S. officials who have seen the classified document and are not authorized to speak on the record. The president signed it in mid-October.


    The new directive is the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an “offensive” and a “defensive” action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism, where an attack can be launched in milliseconds by unknown assailants utilizing a circuitous route. For the first time, the directive explicitly makes a distinction between network defense and cyber operations to guide officials charged with making often rapid decisions when confronted with threats.


    The policy also lays out a process to vet any operations outside government and defense networks and ensure that U.S. citizens’ and foreign allies’ data and privacy are protected and international laws of war are followed.


    “What it does, really for the first time, is it explicitly talks about how we will use cyber operations,” a senior administration official said. “Network defense is what you’re doing inside your own networks. . . . Cyber operations is stuff outside that space, and recognizing that you could be doing that for what might be called defensive purposes.”


    The new policy, which updates a 2004 presidential directive, is part of a wider push by the Obama administration to confront the growing cyberthreat, which officials warn may overtake terrorism as the most significant threat to the country.


    “It should enable people to arrive at more effective decisions,” said a second senior administration official. “In that sense, it’s an enormous step forward.”


    Legislation to protect private networks from attack by setting security standards and promoting voluntary information sharing is pending on the Hill, and the White House is also is drafting an executive order along those lines.


    James Lewis, a cyber expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, welcomed the new directive as bolstering the government’s capability to defend against “destructive scenarios,” such as those that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently outlined in a speech on cybersecurity.


    “It’s clear we’re not going to be a bystander anymore to cyber attacks,” said Lewis.


    The Pentagon now is expected to finalize new rules of engagement that would guide commanders when and how the military can go outside government networks to prevent a cyberattack that could cause significant destruction or casualties.


    The presidential directive attempts to settle years of debate among government agencies about who is authorized to take what sorts of actions in cyberspace and with what level of permission.


    An example of a defensive cyber operation that once would have been considered an offensive act, for instance, might include stopping a computer attack by severing the link between an overseas server and a targeted domestic computer.


    “That was seen as something that was aggressive,” said one defense official, “particularly by some at the State Department” who often are wary of actions that might infringe on other countries’ sovereignty and undermine U.S. advocacy of Internet freedom. Intelligence agencies are wary of operations that may inhibit intelligence collection. The Pentagon, meanwhile, has defined cyberspace as another military domain -- joining air, land, sea and space -- and wants flexibility to operate in that realm.


    But cyber operations, the officials stressed, are not an isolated tool. Rather, they are an integral part of the coordinated national security effort that includes diplomatic, economic and traditional military measures.


    Offensive cyber actions, outside of war zones, would still require a higher level of scrutiny from relevant agencies and generally White House permission.


    The effort to grapple with these questions dates back to the 1990s but has intensified as cyber tools and weapons become ever more sophisticated.


    One of those tools was Stuxnet, a computer virus jointly developed by the United States and Israel that damaged nearly 1,000 centrifuges at an Iranian nuclear plant in 2010. If an adversary should turn a similar virus against U.S. computer systems, whether public or private, the government needs to be ready to preempt or respond, officials have said.


    Since the creation of the military’s Cyber Command in 2010, its head, Gen. Keith Alexander, has forcefully argued that his hundreds of cyberwarriors at Fort Meade, Md., should be given greater latitude to stop or prevent attacks. One such cyber-ops tactic could be tricking malware by sending it “sleep” commands.


    Alexander has put a particularly high priority on defending the nation’s private sector computer systems that control critical functions such as making trains run, electricity flow and water pure.


    But repeated efforts by officials to ensure Cyber Command has that flexibility have met with resistance -- sometimes from within the Pentagon itself -- over concerns that enabling the military to move too freely outside its own networks could pose unacceptable risks. A major concern has always been concern that an action may have a harmful unintended consequence, such as shutting down a hospital generator.


    Officials say they expect the directive will spur more nuanced debate over how to respond to cyber incidents. That might include a cyberattack that wipes data from tens of thousands of computers in a major industrial company, disrupting business operations, but doesn’t blow up a plant or kill people.


    The new policy makes clear that the government will turn first to law enforcement or traditional network defense techniques before asking military cyber units for help or pursuing other alternatives, senior administration officials said.


    “We always want to be taking the least action necessary to mitigate the threat,” said one of the senior administration officials. “We don’t want to have more consequences than we intend.”
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  12. #212
    Super Moderator and PHILanthropist Extraordinaire Phil Fiord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,496
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    IN that picture above it appears Obama is flipping a Pringles chip. That man is such a bad joke.

  13. #213
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,464
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Ruck View Post
    It's the Californicators Rick.

    They fucked up and bankrupted their state and like locusts they're moving onto a new host.

    http://www.forbes.com/special-report...migration.html
    See, told you...

    Californians Flee For Better-Run States, Study Finds

    September 24, 2012

    Californians are fleeing in droves to live in better-managed states, according to a conservative research group.

    The long-running exodus from the cash-strapped Golden State is an old story, but a new study by The Manhattan Institute finds that the biggest beneficiaries of the population drain are Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho (), Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Lower cost of living, less government debt and a more business-friendly culture are the main drivers, according to the study.

    "States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates," the study concluded. "The data suggest that many cost drivers —taxes, regulations, the high price of housing and commercial real estate, costly electricity, union power, and high labor costs — are prompting businesses to locate outside California, thus helping to drive the exodus."

    Census data shows that more Americans have left California since 2005 than have come to live in it. The finding is a sharp contrast to earlier decades -- 4.2 million Americans moved to California from other states between 1960 and 1990.

    The report found that since 1990, the state has lost nearly 3.4 million residents through migration to other states, like Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. The average number of residents leaving the state each year over the last decade is 225,000, the report found.

    There are many reasons for the exodus, including economic hardship and population density, according to the study, titled "The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look."

    Many people are driven out of the state in search of work in states with lower unemployment rates, like Texas. The data also found high housing prices and high business taxes in the state to be factors.

    But Dowell Myers, a pubic policy professor at the University of Southern California, calls this "a very confused report." He said the authors overlook the root of the 1980s boom in the defense industry buildup and how that factored into the decline in the 1990s.

    "They paint a negative picture of California growth, when all it has done is settle to the national average," Myers said. "And they totally miss that California natives are less like to leave than almost any others." Most of the people leaving are people originally from somewhere else, he said.

    The U.S. Census reported last year that residents of California are fleeing the state at a faster rate than people leaving any other state. The most common state-to-state move in 2010 was California to Texas, according to the Census.

    A study earlier this year by the University of Southern California found that California's population growth has slowed to about 1 percent annually, mainly due to fewer immigrants and an increasing number of Californians heading to other states.

    Demographer Joel Kotkin told The Wall Street Journal that a major problem is that parts of the state are out of reach for the middle class.

    "Basically, if you don’t own a piece of Facebook or Google and you haven’t robbed a bank and don't have rich parents, then your chances of being able to buy a house or raise a family in the Bay Area or in most of coastal California is pretty weak," Kotkin told the paper, adding that in his estimation, the state is run for the benefit of the very rich, the very poor, and public employees.

    The Manhattan Institute says it based its findings on recent data from the U.S. Census, the IRS, California’s Department of Finance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

  14. #214
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Unfortunately, I can't stop them at the border yet.

    My army isn't big enough yet. Give me another week.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  15. #215
    Super Moderator and PHILanthropist Extraordinaire Phil Fiord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,496
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    At least the article points out it is people seeking favorable business climate, so they are producers not leaches.

    A few years ago I left California for Virginia, but not for the reasons cited.

  16. #216
    Active non-poster MagnetMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Norwalk, Ohio
    Posts
    182
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Donaldson View Post
    No, I don't think ANY rural areas went to Obama. I'm sure, someplace there is a county red-blue map. I don't trust Google on that....
    This is the map you were looking for.
    Name:  8182119174_d6d28e01cf_c.jpg
Views: 98
Size:  377.8 KB
    Click link for largeer sizes
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/idvsolu...n/photostream/

  17. #217
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    No, there was a different map last election that went through each county. A whole county is one color, not by district or precinct.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  18. #218
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,464
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    That is an interesting map nonetheless!

  19. #219
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,173
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Was it this?


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  20. #220
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    That is it.

    Wow... would you LOOK at ALL that RED. Amazing ain't it?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •