Deconstructing the sovereign United States


The Proud Political Junkies Gazette

This is national security?

Marti Oakley(c)copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved

“While we allowed ourselves to be pre-occupied and entertained, while we became lazy and apathetic and allowed ourselves to be drawn into fictional political divides, our own government divided our country up, sold us off and are on the verge of the final coup’ which will render us without land, freedom, wealth or country; or at the very least a country to call our own. ”

National security; this term has come to mean the terrorizing of legal US citizens by our own government. Any one or all of several spy agencies supposedly existing to protect us from terrorists, have made it evident that, “we the people” are the focus of their efforts.  When speaking of national security I believe it is imperative to understand what that term in reality means:

National security is the protection of the corporate federal government, and by extension multi-national corporations that benefit from their unfettered access to the government, from the people of the (50) sovereign but united states.  We the people are viewed as the greatest threat to a malevolent government and its partnering corporations and the expansion of what is becoming a full blown police state.  The security the government desires is not from foreign terrorists, but rather, from us.

By now, any hopes any of us had that Obama was going to turn the tide, make things better for the country, or, that he would reverse the egregious laws passed by the neo-cons and executive orders issued by Bush the Dolt, have dissipated.  Not only has Obama not undone the damage, he has carried it forward and continues the programs and plans unlawfully put in place by the previous administration and started a few of his own.  We are in the end phase of a twenty year cycle of systematic deconstruction of the united States.

Laying the groundwork for programs to come was of course, the Bush 1 Executive Order of 1992, #12803.  This executive order put the infrastructure of the states up for sale to anyone and everyone and began the wholesale selling off of our lands and structures to non-US interests.

While we are threatened continually with another possible 9/11 attack if we don’t accept the assaults on our liberty perpetrated by our own government under the pretense of national security, our southern border remains unsecured allowing millions to enter the country at will.  At the same time and since 1990 with the creation of free trade zones, what can only be estimated at hundreds of thousands if not millions, of  foreign nationals are transplanted into the US under the EB-5 visa program.

Quietly, out of sight of most of the public, the deconstruction of the sovereign United States is underway.  Already at work was the Security & Prosperity Partnership begun by Bush which creates the North American Union and obliterates our borders with Canada and Mexico for the free movement of goods and people (referred to as “human capital”) to benefit corporate business.  It is this agreement that stands in the way of our southern border being secured.  The S&PP is still rolling on out of the public’s eye as working groups continue planning the evisceration of the US for corporate interests

Prior to the creation of S&PP was the “Enterprise for the America’s” established in 1990 by George HW Bush which created the now prolific and pervasive  “Free Trade Zones” (FTZ’s) that exist right here in virtually every state of the US.  While these zones must obey local and state laws special permission must obtained and a request for entry into the FTZ has to be initiated in the event of any investigation. These can of course be denied by questioning jurisdictional authority as the FTZ has essentially been redefined and protected as foreign sovereign territory.

To accommodate these zones, trans-model transportation centers are being constructed at airports across the country.  Billed as transportation hubs to centralize services, these airports also include taxi, bus, train and trucking and warehousing and manufacturing centers.  They also include something most people are not at all aware of; free trade zones where the unemployed from other countries are ferried into the US under EB-5 visas.  Once here under the visa, the investor and his mobile work force can move unhindered into any other free trade zone in the US.

Free trade zones and the EB-5 Immigrant Investor (from the .gov site)

“Visa Description

The fifth employment based visa preference category, created by Congress in 1990, is available to immigrants seeking to enter the United States in order to invest in a new commercial enterprise that will benefit the US economy and create at least 10 full-time jobs.  There are two ways to invest which you may use within the EB-5 category and they are:  creating a new commercial enterprise or investing in a troubled business.”

Purpose of International Free Trade Zones (as explained by Economy Watch.

The main idea behind creation of free trade zones is to facilitate cross-border trade by removing obstacles imposed by customs regulations.

Note: Translated this means that all the egregious rules, regulations, laws, statutes having passed or been implemented through the unlawful “rulemaking” by corporate federal agencies, and corrupt congresses do not apply to these zones.  The obstacles referred to are environmental concerns, labor standards, business taxes, wage taxes and inspection of goods to determine their safety. You know….all those pesky things that a responsible business owner adheres to.

Free trade zones ensure faster turnaround of planes and ships by lowering custom related formalities. FTZs prove to be beneficial both for the importers and exporters, as these zones are designed to reduce labor cost and tax related expenditures.

Note:  This means products from countries such as, but not limited to, China, notorious for its contaminated food products, can now be dumped into the US without going through the customs process. This also means that China can manufacture and produce here and ship its crap to other countries without paying duties, customs, fair wages, withholding taxes or any inspection of its notoriously shoddy and dangerous products. This is a free pass zone. Few regulations, lowered standards, no customs inspections, tax “incentives”, and they can fly in their own workforce to work for slave labor wages. They only have to hire 10 American workers while importing thousands of impoverished Chinese (or workers from any other country)  into the country sidestepping more stringent immigration laws and provisions for citizenship.

Free trade zones help the traders to utilize the available business opportunities in the best possible way. FTZs promote export-oriented industries. These zones also help to increase foreign exchange earnings. Employment opportunities created by free trade zones help to reduce unemployment problems in the less developed economies. (emphasis mine)

Note:  The “less developed economies” and the reduction of unemployment in those economies is accomplished by importing their unemployed here.  These FTZ’s do not pay income, FICA, unemployment or any other tax.   The employment opportunities mentioned do NOT have to be American workers.  The foreign investor is required to hire only 10 American workers to meet guidelines. The remainder can be Chinese workers for instance, flown in to the FTZ’s and housed there until they are moved quietly out into the surrounding communities and protected and given US citizenship through the use of the EB-5 visa.

None of the usual customs inspections, duties or fees will apply to the manufactured products leaving the FTZ unless those products are coming into the US markets. Products coming out of the free trade zones (sovereign foreign territory) and going out of the US to foreign markets are exempted from taxation, customs and inspections.

So what are the US areas targeted for these “no accountability” zones called FTZ’s?

Turns out they are rural areas for the most part.  At least now we know what they intend to do with all the agricultural land they are stealing.  Or they will be focused on areas struck particularly hard with economic down turns and unemployment which encompasses virtually every part of the country.


Since 1990 as a result of Executive order #12803 selling off our infrastructure, and the Enterprise for the America’s establishing the free trade zones, then the subsequent free trade agreements passed in the interim which are not lawful US treaties and, the creation of the Security & Prosperity partnership enacted by Bush 2, we have been sold off, parceled out and deprived of the ownership and control of what was once our country.

This is globalism. This is the global economic model that has destroyed one country after another driving the populations into poverty while a select few at the top robbed the wealth and by extension, the viability of nations.

While we allowed ourselves to be pre-occupied and entertained, while we became lazy and apathetic and allowed ourselves to be drawn into fictional political divides, our own government divided our country up, sold us off and are on the verge of the final coup’ which will render us without land, freedom, wealth or country; or at the very least a country to call our own.





by Declan McCullagh

01 24 11

A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a “national cyberemergency,” and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.

Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.


“We’re not trying to mandate any requirements for the entire Internet, the entire Internet backbone,” said Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the committee.

Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those “crucial components that form our nation’s critical infrastructure.”

Portions of the Lieberman-Collins bill, which was not uniformly well-received when it became public in June 2010, became even more restrictive when a Senate committee approved a modified version on December 15. The full Senate did not act on the measure.

The revised version includes new language saying that the federal government’s designation of vital Internet or other computer systems “shall not be subject to judicial review.” Another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include “provider of information technology,” and a third authorized the submission of “classified” reports on security vulnerabilities.

The idea of creating what some critics have called an Internet “kill switch” that the president could flip in an emergency is not exactly new.

A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August 2009 authorized the White House to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to “order the disconnection” of certain networks or Web sites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals.

Lieberman, who recently announced he would not seek re-election in 2012, said last year that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. “For all of its ‘user-friendly’ allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” he said.

Civil libertarians and some industry representatives have repeatedly raised concerns about the various proposals to give the executive branch such broad emergency power. On the other hand, as Lieberman and Collins have highlighted before, some companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, and EMC Corporation, have said positive things about the initial version of the bill.

But last month’s rewrite that bans courts from reviewing executive branch decrees has given companies new reason to worry. “Judicial review is our main concern,” said Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo as members. “A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance.”

In some cases, DelBianco said, a company may have a “good-faith disagreement” with the government’s ruling and would want to seek court review. “The country we’re seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court,” he said. “Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure.”

Other industry representatives say it’s not clear that lawyers and policy analysts who will inhabit Homeland Security’s 4.5 million square-foot headquarters in the southeast corner of the District of Columbia have the expertise to improve the security of servers and networks operated by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and Google. American companies already spend billions of dollars on computer security a year.

“Declaration of a national cyber emergency”
The revised Lieberman-Collins bill, dubbed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, works this way: Homeland Security will “establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute covered critical infrastructure” and that will be subject to emergency decrees. (The term “kill switch” does not appear in the legislation.)

Under the revised legislation, the definition of critical infrastructure has been tightened. DHS is only supposed to place a computer system (including a server, Web site, router, and so on) on the list if it meets three requirements. First, the disruption of the system could cause “severe economic consequences” or worse. Second, that the system “is a component of the national information infrastructure.” Third, that the “national information infrastructure is essential to the reliable operation of the system.”

At last week’s event, Milhorn, the Senate aide, used the example of computers at a nuclear power plant or the Hoover Dam but acknowledged that “the legislation does not foreclose additional requirements, or additional additions to the list.”

A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.

President Obama would then have the power to “issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency.” What that entails is a little unclear, including whether DHS could pry user information out of Internet companies that it would not normally be entitled to obtain without a court order. One section says they can disclose certain types of noncommunications data if “specifically authorized by law,” but a presidential decree may suffice.

“No amount of tightening of what constitutes ‘critical infrastructure’ will prevent abuse without meaningful judicial review,” says Berin Szoka, an analyst at the free-market TechFreedom think tank and editor of The Next Digital Decade book. “Blocking judicial review of this key question essentially says that the rule of law goes out the window if and when a major crisis occurs.”

For their part, Lieberman and Collins say the president already has “nearly unchecked authority” to control Internet companies. A 1934 law (PDF) creating the Federal Communications Commission says that in wartime, or if a “state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency” exists, the president may “authorize the use or control of any…station or device.”

In congressional testimony (PDF) last year, DHS Deputy Undersecretary Philip Reitinger stopped short of endorsing the Lieberman-Collins bill. The 1934 law already addresses “presidential emergency authorities, and Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act,” he said, “as opposed to developing overlapping legislation.”

Read more:


Declan McCullagh

Full ProfileE-mail Declan McCullagh

Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People’s Money column for CBS News’ Web site.
Read more:


Recent posts from Privacy Inc.

DOJ pressed for details on Internet tracking plan

Justice Department seeks mandatory data retention

GOP pushing for ISPs to record user data

Internet ‘kill switch’ bill will return

Republican politico’s do-not-regulate Net manifesto

European politicos protest DOJ WikiLeaks-Twitter probe

WikiLeaks volunteer hires lawyers in Twitter fight

DOJ sends order to Twitter for Wikileaks-related account info
Read more:


GOP to look at gun law effectiveness and Obama will tackle gun control later


By Mike Lilli

By Bob Cusack

GOP to look at federal gun laws

By Mike Lillis – 01/26/11 12:34 PM ET

Staffers from the House Judiciary Committee will meet with Obama administration officials Thursday to examine the effectiveness of federal laws designed to keep guns from the hands of the mentally ill, according to a Republican aide with the panel.

The closed-door gathering will focus on whether a federal system of background checks is working to block gun sales to the mentally ill and others barred from owning firearms, the aide said Tuesday. Staffers from both parties will attend, as well as officials from the FBI and possibly from the Justice Department, the aide added.

The meeting, three weeks after a shooting rampage in Arizona that killed a federal judge and left a congresswoman seriously wounded, suggests there could be bipartisan support for tightening laws to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental problems. The Judiciary Committee’s chairman is Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Staff at Thursday’s meeting will consider whether the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is effective. The system is an FBI-run database created by the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act — a law named after former President Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady, who was seriously injured during the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan.

Under current law, licensed gun dealers are required to screen potential buyers through NICS to ensure they don’t fit one of the categories barring them from purchasing firearms, including felons, illegal immigrants, spousal abusers and the mentally ill. The system is largely voluntary, however, as states are encouraged — but not required — to report information to NICS.

The holes in the screening system became evident in 2007, when Seung-Hui Cho, a 23-year-old Virginia Tech student, killed 32 students and teachers in one of the deadliest shooting rampages in the nation’s history. Although a judge had declared Cho mentally ill two years earlier, the state did not report its evaluation to NICS, allowing Cho to pass a background check by a licensed dealer.

Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, Congress unanimously passed a law designed to bolster the NICS system by providing states with financial incentives to report records of mental illness (and other red-flag cases) to the FBI. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act was supported by the NRA and signed by then-President George W. Bush in early 2008, but reporting by states remains voluntary.

Different state privacy laws, budget restraints and political considerations have hampered the effectiveness of the enhanced reporting. Indeed, through August of last year, 10 states had not reported any cases of mental illness to NICS, while 28 states had submitted fewer than 100 records, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an advocacy group.

By contrast, Virginia had reported more than 139,000 records — the highest per capita rate in the country.

The suspect in the Arizona shooting, Jared Lee Loughner, had been expelled from community college for disturbing behavior and denied entrance to the military for a history of drug abuse, according to numerous reports. Yet he was able to buy a firearm and high-capacity ammunition magazines from local, licensed dealers.

On Monday, Mayors Against Illegal Guns — a group headed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino — introduced a proposal to require states to report mental health records, drug-abuse histories, domestic violence cases and other red flags to NICS. The proposal would also require unlicensed gun dealers to perform NICS background checks — a step not mandated under current law.

“While I support the Second Amendment rights of responsible, law-abiding Americans, I also support tough, common-sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of felons, drug abusers, the mentally ill and other dangerous people,” Grant Woods, former Republican attorney general of Arizona, said in endorsing the Bloomberg proposal.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a staunch Second Amendment defender, has also indicated recently that there might be room for Congress to bolster efforts to keep guns away from the mentally ill.

“He is open to revisiting the [2007] law,” Coburn spokesman John Hart said last week. “His goal is to make sure we have a way to ensure that people who are truly mentally ill and are a threat to themselves or others are not allowed to buy a firearm.”

NICS funding is also an issue Judiciary will examine Thursday. Although the post-Virginia Tech law authorized $188 million for NICS in fiscal year 2009, and another $375 million in fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated only $10 million and $20 million, respectively — or 5.3 percent of each year’s authorization.

Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association (NRA) said this week that the group lobbies each year for more NICS funding — to no avail.

“The NICS system is only as good as the information that’s shared with it,” Parsons said Monday in a phone interview. Parsons declined to comment on specific reforms, citing an absence of specific language.

With Republicans controlling the House, even the most vocal gun control advocates have been pessimistic about the chances of any gun reforms moving in the 112th Congress — even after the near-assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), deflected questions to the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the gun-reform issue.

President Obama invoked Giffords’s spirit during Tuesday’s State of the Union address but made no mention of gun reform — a silence that irritated gun-control advocates on and off Capitol Hill

“I’m disappointed, but not surprised,” Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a long-time gun-reform proponent, said after the speech.

David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said Tuesday that the disappointment is premature.

“[Obama’s] going to address this,” Plouffe told NBC’s Brian Williams. “It’s a very important issue and I know there’s going to be a lot of debate on the Hill.”

White House official: Obama will tackle ‘very important issue’ of gun control

By Bob Cusack – 01/25/11 11:12 PM ET

A White House senior adviser said Tuesday night that President Obama is “going to address [gun control].”

In an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, David Plouffe responded to criticism that the president did not mention gun control in his State of the Union address. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill and gun-control advocates have called for new legislation in the wake of the deadly shooting that killed six and injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) earlier this month.

Plouffe said Obama’s speech on Tuesday was focused on the economy. He added that the president has been clear on his views on gun control, citing Obama’s position of reinstating the expired assault weapons ban.

“He’s going to address this,” Plouffe said. “It’s a very important issue and I know there’s going to be a lot of debate on the Hill.”

It’s not clear what legislation Obama will urge Congress to pass. Despite his support for reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, he has not made the issue a priority and has been lambasted by gun-control groups during the first two years of his presidency.

Williams said he was told by a senior administration official that Obama will take on gun control at a different venue and later date.



U S China Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security


U S China Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security


U. S. Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security Administration

Press Release

January 19, 2011

U.S., China Sign Agreement to Establish Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the signing of a government-to-government agreement with the People’s Republic of China to establish a Center of Excellence in China to promote effective nuclear security and safeguards. U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA) Chairman Chen Qiufa signed the memorandum of understanding, which was announced during the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to Washington.

This agreement paves the way for DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of Defense to work with CAEA representatives in China to develop a center that will provide a central site for training in all aspects of nuclear security. The Center will serve as a forum for exchanging technical information, sharing best practices, developing training courses, and promoting technical collaborations that will enhance nuclear security in China and throughout Asia. It will also help meet the training needs for China’s expanding nuclear sector and promote nuclear security best practices throughout the region.

“This agreement reflects the commitment of the two governments to strengthen their cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear security, and in combating nuclear terrorism and represents a major step forward in implementing the global nuclear security outlined by our two Presidents at the Nuclear Security Summit last April,” said Secretary Chu. “We look forward to working with our partners in China to build this Center of Excellence, which will allow us to work together to improve nuclear security in China and throughout the region.”

During the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April 2010, Chinese President Hu agreed to establish a “Center of Excellence” on nuclear security. The agreement announced today lays the foundation for establishing the center, which will enable the training of nuclear site personnel on measurements and accounting of nuclear material and on the design and installation of nuclear material security systems. It will also have the capability to train protective force personnel using scenario-driven response exercises and give hands-on training on international nuclear safeguards requirements and inspection techniques.

In addition to providing equipment to enhance nuclear security training, NNSA will work through its Material Protection, Control and Accounting Program to assist in developing training programs and facilitating the exchanges of best practices.

NNSA’s Material Protection, Control and Accounting Program works collaboratively with key partner countries to improve the security of nuclear weapons and materials at their source through material protection, control and accounting (MPC&A) upgrades at nuclear sites; exchange nuclear security best practices; and establish systematic nuclear security training programs and facilities.

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:

Read more:

What this means is, China has called in their markers, and we are to share all our nuclear secrets with them. Don’t it make you feel good to know your government sold you out?