I am serious. Not conspirator theory here.

http://www.angelfire.com/az3/love_will_rule_soon/Nazi_Sodium_Fluoride_Mind_Control.htm

So is make the arguement that keeping these criminals in place when possible and controling their damage is best.
If Obama can get enough laws and bills past to protect the Americans people in the future we may still have the chance to reclaim our country. But if he offends them to any great extent we have already been told that the Presidents Helicopter is old right. I am sure Obama did not miss this warning either.
The trick often when you have power is to use the power and the powerful in the system to do as much good as possible before they rein in your power. The banks can give up and close shutting down anything Obama wants to do. Several other things can come crashing in all of these controlled by people in the Tri-Larial Connission and David Rockerfeller who has already told many people the crash is comming to prepare for an economic collaspe that will transform the USA and all Americans into a Facist State. Indentured Servants will be seen on the street on the USA in the near future.
The Public Option for Health Care is at least a defensive move like the Eroupeans who have dealt with Central Banker 300 years longer than us we could at least learn from them.
No one mentions the CIA's support of the Muslium Brotherhood and the Billions of dollars given them over the years. Until the CIA read documents there revealed their true goal was to make the whole world muslium and to move people into other countrys and support them having large family. Paying for education of members who would move to forgien countries and raise children.
I read where the CIA directors voiced "DEAR GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE" and they began to pull back from the support of the Brotherhood.
I must assume the Rev. Wright who was told many many things while caring for President Johnson has shared those with Obama so our President is some what prepared to deal with these would be world rulers. One thing you should do is get you a Floride filter. Remember when the General in charge of the Airlift to Germany ask why so much Floride was being shipped to Germany he was told they had to take away the German Prisoners will to resist. This effect of Floride is well documented in the NAZI papers and test on humans.
But don't count Obama out for the man has accomplished a lot given the power of those agaisnt him. I mean just getting past the corrupt voting counts was a large victory.
Let don't ask him to do more than those in power will let him.
The North American Trading Block will be! There is no way to stop it they own the USA now, the Central Bankers with the $271 Trillion Dollars in bad paper. Each sell of the paper goes to a Central Bank.
The USA is only holding on by a thread if you have not noticed.

It stands to rreason that the Plutocratic Banksters that really run things in this country would seek to control the media through plans such as Operation Mockingbird. Thomas Jefferson hated the medai and was extremely wary of the Bankers taking control of the monetary system as they plainly have.

When you have a handful of men controlling the printing presses, both mediawise and currencywise, you get what we have today.

How do we take this country back?

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

If that be the real overarching agenda, why are people wasting time following in that trap?

Why not go straight for the jugular – the masterminds who have the 'errand boys' do all the killing and torturing and fronting for them, the 'brotherhood of death'?

Thanks.

Valid points, and that was my point: with a proper system of checks, balances, and only in very specific points (not the entire case)I can see how it can be used. But you are right, since there are no checks/balances currently the entire so-called privilege should be abolished.

By the way:great Jefferson quote!

It gives the government the power to cover up anything it wishes – all that has to be done is for the head of an agency to declare that it is justified – no checks, no balances, because no one gets to see and challenge its validity.

The government can omit facts, lie, do anything it wishes. The courts, who are supposed to be a check, defer to the executive branch – the Congress doesn't want to touch it. If you doubt any of this, just take a close look at what happened in Mrs. Edmonds case – its a perfect example of the gross misuse of this "privilege" that is occuring.

Anon the Neocon, you state "It is difficult to argue about the SSP, because any expert will confirm its necessity. It is indispensable to statecraft." Just why is it indispensable, and who are these "experts"?

Mrs. Edmonds, this is one issue on which I disagree with you. You stated in your reply to Anon the Neocon "I understand your argument, but using it when 'absolutely necessary' as it was intended". I don't believe there is a place in a democracy for a power this absolute – no matter what its "intention" might have been, it is inevitable that it will be misused – with dangerous consequences. So NO, there is no place for it, and the fight with Congress should be to totally eliminate it.

"The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they
shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of
the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he
shall have entered." –Thomas Jefferson

Anon/Neocon has insight and I would not fault juxtaposing AIPAC and Moving On – it's a good compare and contrast.

What I suggest is no answer, but a proto-explanation. My start in this direction was hitting this online:

http://sovereignty.net/p/gov/stevenyates-1.html

Also, google = matrix red pill blue pill

Basically, most with family, mindset, mortgage, student debt, whatever – just take the blue pill.

Of those taking the red pill, the majority end up in suits and sunglasses – in government, industry, finance, the UN staff – perhaps MSM – you and other whistleblowers end up like Neo and Morpheus.

As indicated, no answer but a proto-explanation.

Just think, born two generations earlier, a different turn or two, a different street, and you might have ended up translator for Gen. Bolling – perhaps not, gender roles then being as they were. But that was not a blue pill job.

Our Congressional Intelligence Oversight and Judicial Committees are supposed to perform this function but are routinely managed and stonewalled…. not to mention the influence of moneyed interests on them.

Oversight is broken and the mice have grown into large rats that have free reign to play.

see http://cotocrew.wordpress.com

(COTO = Coalition of the Obvious. We're the crew of 30 who recently got banned from a left gatekeeper site. Too much government criticism, I guess.)

A few years ago there was tech press coverage of Intel possibly putting an embedded electronic serial number into each processor. Everyone's computer would be mappable person-to-machine. Privacy concerns were voiced. It apparently died.

Suppose Intel is told, do it as a federal government mandate under the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce – and, Intel, it's a state secret you are doing it.

Next — You have DSL or a cable modem, the first handling digital and voice via separate frequency allocations; the latter handling multiple distribution channels as well as the digital communication.

Suppose that other "unassigned" frequencies are used for actual or potential [only via a court order] monitoring. Antivirus or spyware software monitors the regular stream of digital traffic, not other wavelengths.

Suppose that back channel communication in hardware, never mind software backdoors, is mandated as a capability [again not to be used absent a court order] but the mandate, again, is a state secret. Then, what good is encryption if there's a backdoor where every act of encryption and decryption can be seen? It gives a false sense of security or it gives security against low-tech common criminals, that at least.

You have wi-fi and WiMax. The former is lower power, needing more densely packed hubs, and is the technology advancing. If greater hub density helps locate message/communication originating location more precisely, it would behoove those wanting that capability to promote it over other hub arrangements.

You carry your cell phone around. In hopping a call from one cell to another as you drive, what's happening? Each cell phone has an account activation number programmed in before it can be used. Tracking is not difficult, nor interception of communication.

You see those little lens setups in the cell phone – and the resolution it gives is informative.

What's your privacy in that total digital connected world?

Your library, under court order has to disclose your borrowing habits. But does that mean a second channel via the hardware and software the library uses is unavailable?

When you go in public, you do not have the same "expectation of privacy" you have at home, do you?

Here is an interesting link:

http://www.frvt.org/FERET/default.htm

Why was this done publicly? One guess is that the research base needed to solve the face recognition problem meant that disclosure and recruitment was necessary. Which solution was most capable? I certainly do not know. There is open literature comparing different approaches but who's to say the better stuff is held away from the open literature, as a state secret?

And, with surveillance cameras more and more ubiquitous, there is effort at gait and pose recognition as well as face recognition. Figure it out.

Then, RFID chips and the future they offer us – privacy-wise – is another consideration.

A new world and a new order await our children, both as to what the government does [your focus] and what it knows [this note].

And they do overlap, don't they?

Individuals seem to have two things going for them – like fooling, they cannot watch all of the people all of the time. Second, there has to be selectivity where the bulk of things seen and analyzed are not acted upon, so as to not cause waves – to not rock too many boats too often.

Back to your opening point – if you are publicizing boat rocking, make it Aziz or Ahmed and not John or Dave that you publicize. If you give it any thought there's cause for men to want to be veiled in public too, but then try to avoid any uncommon gait or mannerisms while at it.

Surely every criminal should be subject to technological policing advances, since we do not like crime. Yet if every spook has a portfolio what might some in that community be tempted to turn their technology to?

@Mrs. Edmonds

I think the topic is a bit specialist. It reminds me what happens when you take combatants in the Israeli/Arab conflict and ask them to comment on water issues. All the passion disappears.

It is difficult to argue about the SSP, because any expert will confirm its necessity. It is indispensable to statecraft. If there is an error in its application, this is not something the public can clarify. Like with say medical malpractice in specific details.

For 99.9% not being aware of the public/government networks – what audience are we talking? The Voter? Or the department?

Since the twenties, we regularly use "public" organizations to communicate and feel for positions that departments may have. Take just the Iraq war – who organized the Iraq exile community? Who did the State Department ask to do it?

This is open source. So the answer is out there.

This is an established practice.

It is perfectly legal, and if you just browse through Waxman's old case-timeline for the Oversight committee – you will find other examples.

I, for one, am surprised that Valerie and Joe Wilson or Melanie Sloan haven't contacted you in regard to their civil suit against Cheney. Considering your revelations on the compromise of Brewster/Jennings and the possible relationship of that data to Ms. Wilson's own compromise some two years later.

From where I sit, it looks like people in the Bush admin compromised B/J to the targets of Plame's investigation as an analyst for the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division and Cheney had to know it. That's why they weren't worried about her or her network. I'd like to know what Cheney knew about your information and when he knew it. I wonder how the government would respond to a subpoena for a deposition from you if the Wilsons filed one.

Another take is that your posting was a lot to take in… give it time.

Imhotep: Yes; sad, indeed. We need to increase our number…How many, do you think, got to read this piece? So very few.

Bill Bergman: He gave me a signed copy. He worked very hard on Richard Barlow case. The case deserves it.

I see very little discussion here, on this thread. I wonder why? Is it the extremely important topic, SSP? Is it the complexity of the cases? Please add your voice.

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/fisint.html

There are millions of every day people who are distracted by Brittany Spears,by patriotic fervor, by baseball, by soccer, and by words of lofty rhetoric with a shallow follow through.

It's depressing…. but we must suck it up and simply do what we can as Sibel has done with this blog.
Marta Andreasen IS an inspiration in speaking truth to power with perseverance and an apparent victory.

Rockefeller said he was grateful to the press – at one of the Bilderberg meetings – for keeping their mouths shut as to the NWO agenda.

In our Lyme arena, we now have Willy Burgdorfer speaking between the lines about the US Bioweapons program at Rocky Mountain Labs, and how he was recruited for this work from Switzerland – he is an expert on Relapsing Fever – and how the NIH sent a goon out to make sure he did not reveal any sensitive information (Bioweaponeering: Aerosolize the bug, in this case, the L forms or the spheroplast form of the spirochete is inhalable)
http://www.actionlyme.org/index.htm

Now the crooks are backed up against a wall.

We're waiting for their next set of antics which will be sure to crack us up, since Willy really slammed em and he is clearly an international figure.

Kathleen

I agree with you that it would be nice if the American people were more interested in foreign policy issues. But I'm not so optimistic it would be as effective as you think. But aside from that what do you think is the cause of the general lack of knowledge among many Americans of foreign countries in general let alone foreign policy? Isn't the lack of coverage in the media (especially the television news) partly to blame? Before the wars coverage of anything overseas was much more rare than it is now. And now it's still mostly about the war if it's anything at all, and even that coverage isn't very good.

Foreing policy in America is the privilige of five "special interests":
DOS, USIC, DOD, DOC, and the executive.

Each one of these exists within non-governmental (public-private) networks, which they use as a policy resource.

Let's call this entire line-up the "foreign policy community" (FPC)

On SSP Congress is captive to the FPC.

If Americans were more involved in foreing policy, they would naturally weaken the FPC's input into it.

Greater involvement would incraese preasure on congressmen, to act according to voter preference.

Greater involvement of voters, presumes greater engagement in foreign policy issues. This in turn presumes increased consumption of foreing policy coverage, discussion in everyday life, and experience in associations and/or going abroad.

We'd still have to account for some secrecy in the workings of the government, but this secrecy would enjoy greater oversight, because of public pressure. The assumption is that participation incraeses education, improving congressmen responsiveness, and increasing utility in the final product.

I would suggest that both AIPAC, and MoveOn – FPC members with incredibly large and dedicated memberships, are the way forward.

I am not saying, however, that present application of SSP is wrong. As noble as Mrs. Edmonds sentiments about our aid to Mr. Khan are – it is inconceivable that we would ever permit ourselves to own up to them. I don't think this needs explaining.

Ian: Sad but true.

Anon: You should ask Mr. Greenwald directly. He's done some good work, but this is very puzzling and 'troubling.'

Metemneurosis: As far as I know he 'used to be' a constitutional attorney. Again, he was nowhere to be seen on SSP until very recently. I too wonder why he only selects
'terror cases' and intentionally omits other major cases of SSP in the last 8 years. E-mail and ask him. He has a blog, it's a good idea to have people visit his site/blog under Salon and ask him directly. I for one want to know the answer.

Last Anon: Before you write him off give him a chance to respond. As I said in my piece I suspect it's not cynical but ignorance and naivety & maybe to a certain degree partisanship.

Let me introduce you to Marta Andreasen