PressWatch: Scan this
PressWatch GCD 2010
Department of Homeland Security is not only prepared to enforce the enhanced security procedures at airports, but is involved in gathering intelligence about those who don't
DHS & TSA: Making a list, checking it twice
By Doug Hagmann Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Following the publication of my article titled “Gate Rape of America,” I was contacted by a source within the DHS who is troubled by the terminology and content of an internal memo reportedly issued yesterday at the hand of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Indeed, both the terminology and content contained in the document are troubling. The dissemination of the document itself is restricted by virtue of its classification, which prohibits any manner of public release. While the document cannot be posted or published, the more salient points are revealed here.
The memo, which actually takes the form of an administrative directive, appears to be the product of undated but recent high level meetings between Napolitano, John Pistole, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),and one or more of Obama’s national security advisors. This document officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as “domestic extremists.”
The introductory paragraph of the multi-page document states that it is issued “in response to the growing public backlash against enhanced TSA security screening procedures and the agents conducting the screening process.” Implicit within the same section is that the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports, and the measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President. In other words, Obama not only endorses the enhanced security screening, but the measures outlined in this directive to be taken in response to public objections.
The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.
For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.
For “any person, group or domestic alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel “disruptions” at U.S. airports (as defined above) in response to the enhanced security procedures, the [applicable DHS administrative branch] is instructed to identify and collect information about the persons or entities, and submit such information in the manner outlined [within this directive].
It would appear that the Department of Homeland Security is not only prepared to enforce the enhanced security procedures at airports, but is involved in gathering intelligence about those who don’t. They’re making a list and most certainly will be checking it twice. Meanwhile, legitimate threats to our air travel security (and they DO exist) seem to be taking a back seat to the larger threat of the multitude of non-criminal American citizens who object to having their Constitutional rights violated.
As I have written before, it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control.
Statement Released by Spokesman of the DPRK (NorthKorean) Foreign Ministry
As already reported by the Supreme Command of the KPA, the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK on Nov. 23 took a decisive self-defensive measure to cope with the enemy's reckless military provocation of firing shells inside the territorial waters of the DPRK side around Yonphyong Island in the West Sea of Korea.
The army of the DPRK warned several times that if even a single shell of the enemy is fired inside the territorial waters of the DPRK, North Korea will take a prompt retaliatory strike. South Korea had planned to stage from a live artillery drill on Yonphyong Islet, while conducting their infamous war maneuvers for a war of aggression against the DPRK, codenamed Hoguk.
At 8:00 a.m. on Nov. 23, the very day the incident occurred, the head of the delegation of the North Korean side to the inter-Korean military talks, sent a telephone message to the head of the delegation of the South Korean side, once again strongly urging it to cancel the plan for staging the artillery drill in the waters around the island, the sensitive waters.
This notwithstanding, the enemy committed such an extremely reckless military provocation as firing dozens of shells from the islet inside the territorial waters of the DPRK side from around 13:00.
The enemy fired shells from the islet which is so close to the territory of the DPRK that it is within each other's unaided view, despite the fact that there are so many mountains and rivers, sea waters and islets in south Korea. This saber-rattling cannot be construed otherwise than a politically motivated provocation.
The enemy is claiming that they fired shells southward from the islet in a bid not to get on the nerves of the DPRK, but Yonphyong Islet is located deep inside the territorial waters of North Korea, away from the maritime military demarcation line. If live shells are fired from the islet, they are bound to drop inside the territorial waters of the DPRK side, no matter in which direction they are fired, because of such geographical features.
The ulterior aim sought by the enemy is to create the impression that the DPRK side recognized the waters off the islet as South Korean "territorial waters", in case that there was no physical counter-action on the part of North Korea.
Herein lies the crafty and vicious nature of the enemy's provocation.
The army of the DPRK took self-defensive measure, making a prompt powerful strike at the artillery positions from which the enemy fired the shells, as we do not make empty talk.
This incident is one more dangerous development which took place because of the illegal "northern limit line" unilaterally fixed by Clark, UN forces commander, as he pleased on Aug. 30, 1953, after the conclusion of the Korean Armistice Agreement.
The U.S., its followers and some bosses of international bodies should drop such bad habits, as thoughtlessly accusing somebody before learning about the truth about the incident.
If they shield south Korea, the criminal, without principle, just for being their ally, this is little short of feeding oil to the fire.
The DPRK that sets store by the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula is now exercising superhuman self-control but the artillery pieces of the army of the DPRK, the defender of justice, remain ready to fire.
Caracas, November 24 (RHC) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez led the signing in Parliament of a petition against a new U.S. threat against Venezuela and member countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, ALBA.
In an address broadcast on national radio and television, Chavez stressed that the document, known as the Anti-Imperialist Manifesto in Defense of Homeland, rejected a right-wing forum hosted last week in the U.S. Congress by Republican lawmakers, who described Venezuela as a threat to the interests of the White House.
The Venezuelan president said that the new piece of legislation calls on the people to defend the country, adding that the U.S. Congress should investigate allegations of torture and crimes committed by their own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as revealed by the website Wikileaks.
In other news from Venezuela, President Chavez has proposed the passing of a new law to prosecute financing by U.S. bodies to political parties and NGOs based in the South American country.
The Venezuelan leader’s move responds to the recent exposure of opposition plans to destabilize his government and assassinate him.
Chavez said fugitive media mogul Guillermo Zuloaga was partly responsible for the plot to kill him, and that Zuloaga’s television station, Globovision, could face government intervention as a result.
Guillermo Zuloaga, president and majority shareholder of opposition television channel Globovision, fled to the United States last June after Venezuela’s Attorney General filed an arrest warrant against him. He is wanted in Venezuela on charges of money laundering and the illegal speculation of consumer goods.
New York, November 24 (RHC)-- New U.S. government data show corporations made record profits in the third quarter, earning at an annual rate of more than $1.6 trillion. That’s the highest figure since the government began keeping track 60 years ago.
Overall corporate earnings are up 28 percent from the same time last year. Companies, however, have not been using the record profits to hire more workers.
The Federal Reserve is predicting that the nation’s official unemployment rate will remain over nine percent for at least another year.
In other news, The Wall Street Journal reports the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan has subpoenaed several major investment firms as part of a widespread insider-trading investigation.
Firms subpoenaed include hedge-fund giants SAC Capital Advisors and Citadel, the big mutual-fund company Janus Capital Group, and Wellington Management, one of the nation’s biggest institutional-investment firms.
The United States is concerned about the impending release of classified documents by the online whistleblower group WikiLeaks, which may contain diplomatic cables with sensitive information that could harm relations with some countries or put US diplomats at risk.
WikiLeaks has touted the release - which may come this weekend - in its Twitter feed, describing it as "seven times the size of the Iraq War Logs," and saying "the Pentagon is hyperventilating again over fears of being held to account".
In anticipation of the posting of the leaked diplomatic cables, the administration of Barack Obama, the US president, has begun notifying foreign governments to inform them of what may be coming - although WikiLeaks has not been specific about the timing of the release.
"These revelations are harmful to the United States and our interests," PJ Crowley, the US state department spokesman, said on Wednesday. "They are going to create tension in relationships between our diplomats and our friends around the world."
Crowley said the release of confidential communications about foreign governments probably will erode trust in the United States as a diplomatic partner and could cause embarrassment if the files should include derogatory or critical comments about friendly foreign leaders.
USM Whale Researchers Find Little Oil in Gulf of Mexico, Maine Public Radio, November 23, 2010:
“We’re more concerned about the dispersant and the dispersant mixed with oil–the dispersed oil, if you will–than we are about the crude oil itself.”
Tests conducted in recent months by[University of Southern Maine Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health director John] Wise’s lab, using human cell lines, show that dispersants cause cell death and DNA damage, which has been linked to cancer and reproductive problems.
Professor believes most spilled oil settled on ocean floor, News Herald, November 23, 2010:
The oil is still there, sitting at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and causing damage to the environment, a Florida State University professor who studies greenhouse gases, oceans and energy said Tuesday.
Professor Jeff Chanton… said he thinks most of that Deepwater Horizon oil — as much as 70 percent to 79 percent of it —sank to the ocean floor, where it remains, sucking up oxygen and inhibiting life.
He and his colleagues are working to determine how that layer of sludge might affect the Gulf and how long it might take for the ecosystem to recover.
Howard Zinn, People’s History of the United States. 1636, Connecticut: So, the war with the Pequots began. Massacres took place on both sides. The English developed a tactic of warfare used earlier by Cortés and later, in the twentieth century, even more systematically: deliberate attacks on noncombatants for the purpose of terrorizing the enemy. That is ethnohistorian Francis Jennings's interpretation of Captain John Mason's attack on a Pequot village on the Mystic River near Long Island Sound: "Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors, which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy's will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective."
So the English set fire to the wigwams of the village. By their own account: "The Captain also said, We must Burn Them; and immediately stepping into the Wigwam . . . brought out a Fire Brand, and putting it into the Matts with which they were covered, set the Wigwams on Fire." William Bradford, in his History of the Plymouth Plantation written at the time, describes John Mason's raid on the Pequot village:
Those that scraped the fire were slaine with the sword; some hewed to peeces, others rune throw with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatchte, and very few escapted. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fyer, and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stincke and sente there of, but the victory seemed a sweete sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to inclose their enemise in their hands, and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enimie.
As Dr. Cotton Mather, Puritan theologian, put it: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."
William B. Newell, a Penobscot Indian and former chairman of the Anthropology department at the University of Connecticut, says that the first official Thanksgiving Day celebrated the massacre of 700 Indian men, women and children during one of their religious ceremonies. "Thanksgiving Day" was first proclaimed by the Governor of the then Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637 to commemorate the massacre of 700 men, women and children who were celebrating their annual Green Corn Dance...Thanksgiving Day to them, "in their own house", Newell stated.
- small snip -
-----The very next day the governor declared a Thanksgiving Day.....For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won."