The current use of mental health PHARMA on lower-class young citizens as we saw in yesterday's articles has two goals. First, some of these PHARMA are relatively new and they are up to the same tricks of using the general population to monitor what can be done with them. Bill Gates and his global PHARMA corporations centers his patents around mental health drugs and the research of two decades in the brain and what can be used to change behavior. The second reason young citizens are used is the movement of that generation into what is this forced labor/free labor structure controlling any resistance with PHARMA.
As always I remind who will fall into the category of low-income when I remind that Obama and Congressional Wall Street global pols see Asian wage structures when they say they are rebuilding the middle-class----those wage structures are $3 an day for general labor and $10-20 a day for white collar professional labor. The only people having wealth will be that 2% to the 1% as exists overseas.
EVERYONE INTO THIS GULAG OF PRISON LABOR, REHABILITATION FORCED LABOR, RE-EDUCATION AS CONSTANT JOB TRAINING LIBERTARIAN MARXIST STRUCTURE.
'The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism'.
Let's take a look at the laws these several years that are moving the US towards this goal. CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----far-right 1% Wall Street global corporate pols. The national news and its mantra of constant threat of terrorist attacks are giving cover for what is the attack on our US Constitutional rights as citizens to due process in any arrest. The NDAA says the government can now arrest on suspicion of terrorism even American citizens without charge or trial. At the same time the definition of terrorism has broadened to include many ordinary things including protesting. Crimes that were indeed crimes like arson can now be handled under terrorism. In Baltimore the NDAA was behind all those citizens swept up during the protests not guilty of anything and held with no charge for days and then released.
THIS WAS OBAMA'S AND CONGRESSIONAL WALL STREET GLOBAL POLS PASSING OF THE PATRIOT ACT AND NDAA.
'I am writing a story that is against what the politicians in Washington have voted for. Can I be seen as aiding Al-Qaeda because I am attempting to change the views of the public to something that is against government; because there is a gun in my home and we have a well-supplied pantry'?
I don't think even Republican voters believe this PATRIOT'S posing in this law. We know it will march towards authoritarianism and it will be used indiscriminately leading to fear and subjecting those trapped in this NDAA to forced labor camps.
The National Defense Authorization Act: Our Disappearing Rights and Liberties
01/03/2012 11:21 am ET | Updated Mar 04, 2012
Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. It brought about changes in law enforcement that allowed agencies to search phones, financial records, etc.
One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.
On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. Congress passes this act every year to monitor the budget for the Department of Defense. However, this year the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.
Normally, this is just an act which details the monetary calls of the Department of Defense which is passed every year. However, the act passed for the 2012 fiscal year changes the bill and can be seen as an extension of the Patriot Act. Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial.
In a country famous for the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, this is an upsetting change that is being foisted upon the American people with many unaware of what it means.
The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.
So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made arguments for this provision, stating that the law would apply for US citizens’ turncoats who have aided Al-Qaeda or other associated organization. He gave a long-winded story of how a U.S. citizen might fly to Pakistan to receive terrorist training, then return home and shoot down fellow citizens a few miles from the airport.
It’s a disgusting show that Graham is pulling. He has made an example of how a single U.S. citizen might become a turncoat and because of that possible risk, the citizen’s right to a trial and jury has been abolished.
Supporter of the NDAA, Representative Tim Griffin stated in the Daily Caller:
Section 1022’s use of the word ‘requirement’ also has been misinterpreted as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. This provision must be read in the context of Section 1022’s purpose, which is reflected in its title and relates solely to ‘military custody of foreign al Qaida terrorists.’ The term “requirement” does not mean that detention of U.S. citizens is optional under this provision.
He merely states that the people have ‘misinterpreted’ the provisions within the bill.
This is a situation in which they are able to detain U.S. citizens, but they won’t because that’s wrong. I will repeat: “They are allowed through the NDAA to detain U.S. citizens, but they won’t because that’s wrong.”
Similar to Griffin’s response, President Obama has released a statement regarding the H.R. 1540
Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
President Obama says that his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens. Yet Obama also said that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Obama also said he would recall the troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Obama also said he would end the Bush tax cuts.
It doesn’t matter the reason these promises were not kept. What matters is that they weren’t. Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit.
These implications grow larger as we know there is no single accepted definition of terrorism present in the United States. The State Department defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
Under this definition, the entire United States can be seen as terrorists. The government had planned the operations in Iraq and has resulted in over 100,000 civilian deaths. It can also be said that the U.S. is changing views of terrorism throughout the world... influencing an audience. Terrorism cannot be specifically defined as attacks against the United States; therefore, the United States might have been terrorizing parts of the Middle East.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has stated that there are laws regarding terrorist suspects in America in place by the Department of Justice. Issues such as having an armed weapon or having a food supply lasting at least seven days can be grounds for terrorism.
I look to my well-supplied pantry filled with foods my loving mother had purchased from Costco. I’m not one to count it all, but I’d say it would last my entire family over a week.
My father legally owns a handgun. There’s something about protecting his family that is important to him, so he keeps a gun nearby.
I am writing a story that is against what the politicians in Washington have voted for. Can I be seen as aiding Al-Qaeda because I am attempting to change the views of the public to something that is against government; because there is a gun in my home and we have a well-supplied pantry?
Can I be seen as a terrorist under the definition of terrorism? Yes I can. Will I? I hope not.
This is a great article on what will become that flooding of prisons and forced labor camps with political prisoners. Those not familiar with Kafka's THE TRIAL should read it.
The Trial (original German title: Der Process, later Der Prozess, Der Proceß and Der Prozeß) is a novel written by Franz Kafka from 1914 to 1915 and published in 1925. One of his best-known works, it tells the story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader.
'Section 1021 of the Act, per prevailing critical interpretation, authorizes indefinite military detention of American citizens — a dubious American first. No Habeas Corpus. No right to challenge evidence.
Calling the situation “really quite wretched,” Fein said Obama had taken on “far more dictatorial powers than Richard Nixon.” By stripping citizens of Habeas Corpus rights as well as the ability challenge evidence, NDAA is “the ultimate corruption of due process,” said Fein. He pointed out that the country fought a war against England’s King George III precisely to free itself from such treachery. “Not quite the Nürnberg laws,” said Fein, referring to the Nazi anti-Semitic laws, “but moving there on the installment plan.”'
These are mechanisms to hold people to capture of fear of what they do---who they speak with----where they go because it may be construed as anti-government. Remember, our government today is not WE THE PEOPLE ---it is WE THE 1% RICH AND GLOBAL CORPORATIONS ---and this creates far-right authoritarian fascism.
The NDAA — we are all Josef K nowUS Politics
Peter Voskamp on March 2, 2012
- Ramsey Clark
Section 1021 of the Act, per prevailing critical interpretation, authorizes indefinite military detention of American citizens — a dubious American first. No Habeas Corpus. No right to challenge evidence.
These “unconstitutional kidnapping powers,” as Blake Filippi of a Rhode Island Liberty Coalition called them during a “transpartisan” forum held with journalists last week, have spurred a groundswell of local and state effort to roll back this most alarming of power grabs.
At least six municipalities nationwide have adopted resolutions against the Act, and legislation has been introduced in state assemblies across the country to nullify the Act. Virginia’s House of Delegates passed such a measure 96-4 in recent weeks.
The discussion, sponsored by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Demand Progress and Tenth Amendment Center, included speakers and officials from across the political spectrum.
“This is the worst thing I’ve seen in my lifetime,” said social critic and author Naomi Wolf. She described the arrival of NDAA as a kind of liberty-evaporating tipping point, similar to the Nazis suspending the rule of law in 1933.
“That’s the point of no return; nobody’s safe,” Wolf said. Just a few targeted arrests were “all it took to shut down civil society.” Wolf was baffled over why senators like California’s Dianne Feinstein supported the act, when it’s certain Feinstein’s constituents would be appalled. “Who benefits?” she asked.
Wolf was arrested in New York last fall at an Occupy Wall Street protest. She now says that with NDAA on the books she’s not sure it’s safe to stand up for 1st Amendment. “All bets are off,” Wolf said. “There’s no accountability.”
Bruce Fein, a conservative writer and former Justice Department official in the Reagan Administration, was even more strident in his denunciations.
He expressed outrage over the lack of outrage following a recent appearance by Pentagon Counsel Jeh Johnson at Yale Law School. Johnson defended the administration’s assassination of U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as its overall right to take out any American citizen it says is in league with al-Qaeda.
“Belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives,” Johnson reportedly said.
Calling the situation “really quite wretched,” Fein said Obama had taken on “far more dictatorial powers than Richard Nixon.” By stripping citizens of Habeas Corpus rights as well as the ability challenge evidence, NDAA is “the ultimate corruption of due process,” said Fein. He pointed out that the country fought a war against England’s King George III precisely to free itself from such treachery. “Not quite the Nürnberg laws,” said Fein, referring to the Nazi anti-Semitic laws, “but moving there on the installment plan.”
Absent a Washington effort to overturn the Act, state and local officials have stepped into the breach.
North Carolina State Senator Ellie Kinnaird (D) said, “This country is really threatened — [the government] now has the power to undo everything we have.”
Washington State Rep. Matt Shea (R), a military veteran and practicing constitutional lawyer, has co-sponsored a bill — HD 2759, the “Preservation of Liberty Act” — declaring the NDAA unconstitutional and forbidding the state’s National Guard to arrest American citizens.
“How come local and state representatives can see it?” Shea asked, but the national Congressional leaders can’t.
The House of Representatives passed the NDAA 283-136, while the Senate approved it by a vote of 93-7.
NDAA defenders say the Act merely affirms the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in the wake of 9-11, which already granted the president the right to order indefinite detention without trial. Also, say defenders, the extra-constitutional powers would go away once the “war” ends
However, Obama acknowledged reservations about Section 1021 when he quietly signed the NDAA into law on New Years Eve 2011. “The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama wrote.
It is worth quoting another part of the statement at length.
“The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not ‘limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.’ Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any ‘existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.’ My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”
Still, a pledge to not abuse power does not necessarily bring comfort, since future presidents would be able interpret the law as they wish.
If indefinite detention of U.S. citizens was not intended, then “why not write ‘prohibited’,” asked Peggy Littleton, a Republican County Commissioner for El Paso, Colo.
El Paso County passed a resolution against the NDAA on December 15, 2011, two weeks before Obama signed it into law. El Paso is home to myriad Air Force installations, and Littleton called the outrage at the power to indefinitely detain Americans “non-partisan.” Northhampton, Mass., City Councilor Bill Dwight (D) said, “we are witnessing the death by a thousand cuts to the Bill of Rights.” He said the public is being manipulated by fear, and that every politician’s first oath is to protect the U.S. Constitution, “which is clearly in jeopardy.” His town passed a non-binding resolution against the bill. It was the seventh city nationwide, and the first in Massachusetts, to do so.
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court granted Habeas Corpus to Guantanamo Bay inmates via the Boumediene v. Bush case. How does that decision square with NDAA?
Fein said the Boumediene decision was a kind of false dawn, easily circumvented by authorities by either moving an inmate, or by redacting charges to the point where the inmate still wouldn’t know what he was being held for
Fein called it “worse then Caligula,” whose edicts appeared in tiny letters so high upon a wall that citizens could never be certain where they stood vis-à-vis the law.
I spoke to the late Henry King Jr., a former Nuremberg prosecutor, in the immediate aftermath of the Boumediene v. Bush decision. He hailed it as “an affirmation of the principles” laid down at Nuremberg regarding the rule of law.
“We gave the Nuremberg defendants every right in the world,” said King. “We didn’t torture them” and provided a comparatively quick trial.
“We’re the beacon of light for human rights,” King insisted. “You’ve got to have a rule of law.”
King went on to say that his former boss in Nuremberg, lead prosecutor Robert Jackson, would be turning in his grave in response to the various “security” measures adopted in post-9/11 America.
“We ought to wipe out Guantanamo,” King said.
A few weeks ago I found myself standing next to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in the café car of a train.
Clark is another fierce champion of the rule of law, to the extent that he has risked the ruination of his reputation in order to defend it. He assisted with Saddam Hussein’s legal defense, and volunteered to provide legal help to both Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic.
I asked Clark what he thought about the NDAA.
The 84-year-old gazed out upon the passing coastline and ruminated. We then entered Baltimore and he pointed to a church. “That’s where they held Philip Berrigan’s funeral service,” Clark said quietly.
Clark had defended Phil Berrigan, a former Catholic priest, who along with his brother the Jesuit priest Dan Berrigan, put his faith to the test through the decades, going to jail for acts of civil disobedience against the Vietnam War.
“The NDAA?” Clark repeated. “An outrage.”
The thing about ONE WORLD GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE RULE is one can be pushed into this REHABILATION/RE-EDUCATION-FORCED LABOR status and be sent to any International Economic Zone anywhere in the world. The video below does a good job in making this clear---NDAA has global reach, structures for retention are already built, and this version of NDAA brings US citizens into this realm of indefinite detainment without charge. If we think about this----think about the growing imprisonment and categories being created under forced labor------you see the fear of abuse of these laws many US citizens have.
WE CAN REVERSE THIS EASY PEASY---JUST GET RID OF WALL STREET GLOBAL POLS. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE POWER OF NUMBERS TO DO THIS.
'Regardless of where on this planet you live, and no matter what your nationality, the fact that the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA are still on the books, should disturb you on a fundamental level. If not, give it three minutes.
The National Defense Authorization Act which was passed in 2012 and extended in 2013 and 2014, authorizes the U.S. military to arrest anyone, anywhere on the planet, to deny them access to a lawyer, and to detain them indefinitely without at trial. Furthermore the U.S. government claims the right to do all of this in secret.
The right to a fair trial, is gone, and without the right to a fair trial, you have no rights at all.
Of course some would argue that the NDAA only targets enemies of the United States, as if this somehow would make it ok, but that defense doesn't hold water. (And by the way the NDAA does apply to U.S. citizens.)
It doesn't matter who the law claims to target, and it doesn't matter under what conditions the politicians claim it can be used. If you don't have the right to a lawyer, and you don't get your day in court, and if the government isn't even obligated to disclose the fact that they dragged you from your house in the middle of the night, then who is going to make sure this isn't abused? The soldiers? The politicians? Come on.
The power to make someone disappear without a trial is the power to make up any excuse that's convenient. Evidence is only needed if you have to prove your case in court. That's why we have courts.
The protections codified in the constitution were put there for a reason, but at this point it looks very much as if America is going to learn that lesson the hard way.
Land of the free right?
You can put your hand over your heart and celebrate something that no longer exists, or you can be honest with yourself.
That might be a bit painful. No one wants to believe that their kids are going to live under a military dictatorship. No one wants to see this coming. So most people put their head in the sand.
Those who don't, always start with one question: What can we do?
The first thing you need to understand here is that our problem is psychological not material. You have the means to take your power. And you don't need a set of specific instructions. You don't need someone to hold your hand and explain your role. You don't need someone to give you permission. What you need, is to turn off your tv, turn off your radio, put down the ipad, and ask yourself if you're going to be able to look your grandchildren in the eyes and tell them honestly that you did everything in your power to turn this around.
Are you going to push this out of your mind because it's uncomfortable, or are you going convert that discomfort into a driving force?
I'll tell you this much: If that thought itches in the minds of enough people we'll figure out a way to scratch it, and If that driven feeling is fully established in your heart, you'll find a way to make it spread.
P.S. If you want a practical starting point to take action on the NDAA get in contact with the guys at People Against the NDAA. Dan Johnson (the founder) is one of those driven people who are making a difference'.
IF REPUBLICAN VOTERS WOULD STOP ALLOWING THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THE POWER OF POLITICS WE WOULD NOT CONSTANTLY END HAVING TO DEAL WITH THESE FASCISMS.
I wanted to include a right-wing view of NDAA as the above were left-leaning. The reason I like this one is he ties the idea of controlling food as leading to these camps. One thing I shout against in Baltimore is the growing FEED THE CITY-----in all US cities where they are deliberately creating massive unemployment and deepening poverty and then growing the funding from global hedge funds to feed US citizens as if they were in a refugee camp. People tied to FEED THE CITY are grassroots trying to help the poor but the structure is very, very, very, very bad and will indeed lead to citizens pushed into these forced labor camps. Ending FOOD STAMPS at the same time of bringing on a great recession/depression with this coming economic crash from bond market fraud----will super-size this FEED THE CITY structure.
Here we have the right-wing thinking the same as the left and try as they might to blame this on the Democratic Party because Obama is pushing this-----
ALL OF THIS IS FAR-RIGHT 1% WALL STREET LIBERTARIAN SOON TO BE MARXISM.
Enslavement Will Be the Prime Directive
The purpose of the coming martial law is twofold: (1) Eliminate all opposition to the authoritarian rule which has taken over our government; and, (2) Use forced labor (i.e. slavery) to martial the resources for the coming world war.
Controlling the Flow of Food Will Bring Most to the Camps
'Instead, the American people are the new targets for these novel starvation policies. Americans will be the new third world and your food will be withheld in order to enforce compliance with the planned slave labor in support of the WW III production needs'.
Slave Labor Camps Are Awaiting
March 13, 2014
The Common Sense Show
Following the coming false flag, how will the powers that be get the country to fall into line and willingly participate in their demise as we race towards World War III. It is important to note that the people must be brought to their knees by denying food and through unconstitutional incarcerations as provided for under the NDAA and EO 13603.
The powers that be have no choice, as most Americans will not willingly go along with what is coming. In the previous parts of this series, the forces of WW III have aligned and are positioning for WW III. Your incarceration and subsequent use of your slave labor, under a declaration of martial law, is next.
Martial Law Has Been In Effect Since January 31, 2011
The day that Congress passed the NDAA and Obama signed it into law,on January 11, 2011, this illegitimate government declared war on the American people. If you have been living in a fog, the NDAA allows the government to secretly arrest and even murder you. You don’t believe it, click here, right now. No, do not read the next sentence until you have clicked and read this link, or this link. Do I now have you attention?
The Insider’s Insider Tells Us What Is Coming
Brzezinski ?Easier to kill a million …”
Zbigniew Brzezinski is an insider’s insider. He and David Rockefeller co-founded the Trilateral Commission. He served as Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser. He may as well have been called Mr. President during the Carter years because he ran the US economy into the ground while undermining American sovereignty during the Carter administration. Many suspect that he also controls Obama. He was, after all, Obama’s Russian Studies professor at Columbia back in the 1980′s. We know that he handpicked Jimmy Carter to become the President and many suspect he had a large hand in grooming Obama for the same job. Brzezinski’s close affiliation with Rockefeller makes him a person of interest when it comes to the subjugation, of not only this country, but of the entire planet. Brzezinski is obviously the globalist’s man on the ground and serves the role as puppet master.
Brzezinski expressed even more of a sense of globalist dread and panic during a 2010 Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal in which he stated that “the major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people,” he said.
There can be no other reasonable interpretation, that this is a direct threat against all who oppose being enslaved and eventually exterminated.
Enslavement Will Be the Prime Directive
The purpose of the coming martial law is twofold: (1) Eliminate all opposition to the authoritarian rule which has taken over our government; and, (2) Use forced labor (i.e. slavery) to martial the resources for the coming world war.
Recently, a document entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF) came to light. The document was originally to be kept secret, but everyone in the military command structure, as we know, is not on board with the encroaching tyranny sweeping across this country. The document is a recipe book on how to organize and maintain a FEMA camp. I would suggest that all Americans turn off the TV for an evening and read the document which spells out what life will be like for millions of Americans. The language makes it crystal clear that one of the primary purposes of these numerous camps will be slave labor. The stunning descriptions of these plans can be read here. What happens to the elderly, the handicapped and the infirm? History clearly demonstrates that when slave laborers no longer serve their intended purpose to the state, they are exterminated. Is this what these well publicized FEMA coffins are for?
How Will You End Up In the Camps
There can be no question that Executive Order (EO) 13603 will create artificial famine scenarios which will bring millions to the camps in search of food and protection from rampaging hordes in search of food.
You would be well advised to read EO 13603 from cover to cover if you want to know what is coming. Researchers used to be able to click on a link which took one to Whitehouse.gov and the provisions of EO 13603 were clearly elucidated. However, the federal government has made obtaining the same information a little more difficult. Today, if you want to read about the provisions of EO 13603, you must first click on the Federal Register and then scroll down and locate EO 13603 and then click on that particular hypertext link which takes you to a PDF. Relevant parts will be listed in the Appendix of this article.
Controlling the Flow of Food Will Bring Most to the Camps
Stopping the transport of food to your local supermarket has already been accounted for in EO 13603. Please examine the following provision of EO 13603 in Part VII, Section 801 which allows the President, in a time of self-declared emergency, to seize control of ALL transportation by stopping the transport of food to any and all selected areas.
All of the following references to EO 13603 are verbatim copy and paste of the referenced PDF file entitled, Executive Order 13603.
PART VIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:
(a) ‘‘Civil transportation’’ includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities. ‘‘Civil transportation’’ also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. ‘‘Civil transportation’’ shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry and pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.
Most Americans eat a 1400 mile salad. We are totally dependent upon the shipment of food to eat. When the transportation of food is controlled, so is the distribution of food. Subsequently, Obama has given himself the authority to control all transportation in an emergency and he now has the authority to create food shortages in America because he is the sole judge of what constitutes an emergency.
Third world population control, using food as one of the primary weapons, has long been a matter of official covert US national policy and a portion of President Obama’s Executive Order (EO 13603) is a continuation of that policy. Only now, the intended targets are not the Lesser Developed Countries. Instead, the American people are the new targets for these novel starvation policies. Americans will be the new third world and your food will be withheld in order to enforce compliance with the planned slave labor in support of the WW III production needs.
According to EO 13603, the President, or the head of any federal agency that he shall designate, can conscript “persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation,” in both “peacetime and times of national emergency.” I can hear the Obama supporters now as they will write to me and say, “Obama would never do that, you are drinking from the Kool-Aid”. Well, here it is, you can read it for yourself.
Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.
This means that Obama, and his fellow communists, can seize any resource, property, or person at any time for any reason, including being able to force that person to perform assigned labor without being paid.
There is only ONE word for forced, “uncompensated employment”. That word is slavery. Congratulations President Obama, you have effectively repealed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
Section 601 of the act specifies, in part, how far the government can go in terms of making you their slave.
Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:
(1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;
(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;
(3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;
(4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and
(ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs.
This is an enslavement document. If you are not convinced, please allow me to encourage you to read this again. If the above section was merely going to be a military draft, then the Secretary of Labor would not have to be involved. However, as you will note the “Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall: …assist in the development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;… formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs…”. Refer back to section 502 of sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c); these are the people that the Secretary of the Labor will conscript in order “to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations”.
This, my fellow Americans, is a civilian conscription and this is why the Secretary of Labor is in charge instead of the head of the Selective Service! Under these provisions, the government believes that they can send you anywhere, to work on anything of their choosing.
For more in-depth coverage, I have included a sample of government documents which more than validates the claims made in this article. If you have any doubts as to the veracity of these claims, I would suggest setting aside some time this weekend to read about your future. Given the scope of these programs which are backed by massive legislation, I think it is likely that we could see as many as 50, 75 or even 100 million Americans in a camp of some sort in forced servitude to the coming war efforts.
Food will not be on the only means that people are drawn into the camps. There are many secondary programs which have already been beta tested by this administration. That and also how you might best resist and survive will be the topic of the next part in this series.
Manning and Snowden were the most well-known political prisons until we watched more and more follow. Authoritarian far-right 1% Wall Street Libertarianism does not like the idea that they are accountable to laws as are everyone in RULE OF LAW DEMOCRATIC NATIONS LIKE THE US. When fascism sets in we see them above the law and now it becomes criminal to whistle-blow criminality in government and corporations. Both Manning and Snowden felt forced to release information because they were watching this totalitarianism grow and grow and as people not void OF MORALS, ETHICS, RULE OF LAW far-right 1% Wall STreet Libertarians---they did what all honest people do---they hold power accountable.
Many good people have been victimized by the failures of Obama's Whistle-Blower protection and Obama set the stage for anyone trying to HOLD POWER ACCOUNTABLE to feel the repercussions---whether it is loss of job for reporting fraud and corruption---whether as with Manning and Snowden who were witnessing what they knew to be illegal actions by government and corporate officials so systemic they felt a duty towards all citizens to blow the whistle. More and more we are told----DO NOT BE THAT WHISTLEBLOWER IF IT IS DIRECTED AT THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS. This article does a great job in showing when the entire government is outsourced to global corporations EVERYTHING BECOMES CLASSIFIED---
'He classified 77 million more documents in his first year, making it even more likely that people could leak or disclose classified information. And I think the real issue here is a failure to distinguish between classified information that has not been properly classified, that is being used to hide illegality, mistakes or embarrassment by the administration, versus leaks that are really whistleblower disclosures of fraud, waste and abuse and illegality, which are protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act'.
Obama Has Sentenced Whistleblowers to 10x the Jail Time of All Prior U.S. Presidents Combined
By Rachel Blevins -
Oct 15, 2014
Vindication for Edward Snowden From a New Player in NSA Whistleblowing Saga
Jenna McLaughlinDan Froomkin
May 23 2016, 1:31 p.m.
Image: The GuardianThe Guardian published a stunning new chapter in the saga of NSA whistleblowers on Sunday, revealing a new key player: John Crane, a former assistant inspector general at the Pentagon who was responsible for protecting whistleblowers, then forced to become one himself when the process failed.
An article by Mark Hertsgaard, adapted from his new book, Bravehearts: Whistle Blowing in the Age of Snowden, describes how former NSA official Thomas Drake went through proper channels in his attempt to expose civil-liberties violations at the NSA — and was punished for it. The article vindicates open-government activists who have long argued that whistleblower protections aren’t sufficient in the national security realm.
It vindicates NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden who, well aware of what happened to Drake, gave up his attempts to go through traditional whistleblower channels – and instead handed over his trove of classified documents directly to journalists.
And it adds to the vindication for Drake, who was already a hero in the whistleblower’s pantheon for having endured a four-year persecution by the Justice Department that a judge called “unconscionable.”
The case against Drake, who was initially charged with 10 felony counts of espionage, famously disintegrated before trial – but not before he was professionally and financially ruined. And now it turns out that going through official channels may have actually set off the chain of events that led to his prosecution.
Drake initially took his concerns about wasteful, illegal, and unconstitutional actions by the NSA to high-ranking NSA officials, then to appropriate staff and members of Congress. When that didn’t work, he signed onto a whistleblower complaint to the Pentagon inspector general made by some recently retired NSA staffers. But because he was still working at the NSA, he asked the office to keep his participation anonymous.
Now, Hertsgaard writes that Crane alleges that his former colleagues in the inspector general’s office “revealed Drake’s identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge.”
Crane’s growing concerns about his office’s conduct pushed him to his breaking point, according to Hertsgaard. But his supervisors ignored his concerns, gave him the silent treatment, and finally forced him to resign in January 2013.
Due to Crane’s continued efforts, however, the Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the Department of Defense for its treatment of whistleblowers, and Hertsgaard tells The Intercept that a public report on the results of the investigation is expected next year.
Crane brings unprecedented evidence from inside the system that ostensibly protects whistleblowers that the system isn’t working. And defenders of the system can’t accuse him of having an outside agenda. Crane has never taken a position for or against the NSA’s programs, or made contact with Drake during the investigation.
“Crane kind of made it a point not to know him,” Hertsgaard told The Intercept on Monday. “He didn’t want it to become something personal.”
For him, it was about whistleblowing, Hertsgaard explained, and the principle that “anonymity must be absolutely sacred.”
Snowden told The Guardian that Drake’s persecution was very much on his mind when he decided to go outside normal channels. And he told The Guardian that colleagues and supervisors warned him about raising his concerns, telling him, “You’re playing with fire.”
In his Guardian interview, Snowden called for changes.
“We need iron-clad, enforceable protections for whistleblowers, and we need a public record of success stories,” he said. “Protect the people who go to members of Congress with oversight roles, and if their efforts lead to a positive change in policy – recognize them for their efforts. There are no incentives for people to stand up against an agency on the wrong side of the law today, and that’s got to change.”
U.S. officials, including President Barack Obama and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, have insisted that Snowden should and could have gone through channels – and would have been heard.
“When people look at Edward Snowden, he’s the most famous,” Hertsgaard told The Intercept. “What they don’t realize is just how exceptional he is. He actually got his message out and he lived to tell the tale. … That is highly unusual. In most cases, whistleblowers pay with their lives to save ours.”
Hertsgaard writes in his book about many other whistleblowers whose stories are slightly less dramatic, but no less important. “I’m hoping campaign reporters will press Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on this,” he said.