China’s Cyber Hackers Target Western Firms

By Holly Williams, in Beijing

Sky News

Sky News has learnt of the growing threat Western governments and corporations are under from hackers based in China.

Cyber crime costs the UK tens of billions of pounds every year.

The attacks cannot be traced but I have gained access to some of the country’s growing number of hackers to discover just how big a risk they pose:

The man I meet is 21, he has no technical training and has moved to Beijing from a small town in southern China.

But within minutes of our meeting, he’s shown me how he can hack into my email account.

A few more clicks of his mouse, and he’s stolen my credit card details as I make an online purchase.

He says he’s a “cyber security expert” – not a hacker – but we can’t use his name and he refuses to show his face.

I ask him whether he could successfully hack into more carefully guarded computer systems: those of government officials and top companies in the West.

“Even the strongest security systems have holes,” he tells me. “Everyone knows that those people haven’t realised that there are hackers who can attack them. They probably think they have the best security possible.”

Last year, cyber attacks cost Britain £27bn. The global hub for targeted attacks is China. An estimated 1.6 billion attacks are launched from the country each month.

The Chinese government says it is cracking down on hackers. Last year authorities reportedly made several hundred arrests and closed one online hacking school that was said to have 180,000 members.

But other websites that offer the same service are still operating.

Sky News recently gained access to a conference organised by a well-known hacking group in a four-star hotel in Beijing.

The event was sponsored by a security firm with alleged connections to the Chinese military. Speakers covered topics such as Defeat Windows 7 and Virtual Viruses Infection.

The conference also highlighted the murky connections between hackers and the Chinese government.

One man who identified himself as a policeman said: “We’re here to see if they have anything we can use. If there is, then we’ll get in touch with them, and take the next step.”

Holly Williams interviews a 'hacker'

Chinese hackers are accused of breaching the computer systems of the Pentagon in the US and the French and German governments, as well as several Whitehall departments.

In 2009, investigators discovered that Ghostnet, the largest ever network of cyber attacks, could be traced back to China.

The operation’s command and control had gained real time control over 1,200 computers belonging to foreign embassies, international organisations, and media groups in more than 100 countries.

However, according to experts, the biggest threat posed by attacks traced to China is the loss of industrial secrets.

Last year several attacks targeted some of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies – an area of enormous strategic importance to China’s economy.

It was also recently revealed that investment bank Morgan Stanley was hit by a six-month attack emanating from China.

Experts say Britain’s high-tech industries are particularly vulnerable.

“Britain spends £25bn a year in these areas,” says British cyber security expert Will Gilpin.

“It has a lot of specialist knowledge, abilities and plans available in its computers which are tremendously appealing to a country like China that wants to short circuit and leapfrog the Western countries in developing their economy.”

But the young “cyber security expert” says there may be an even bigger threat. If the West ever came into conflict with China, he says the country’s hackers would be able to inflict untold damage.

“They may be able to shut down the electrical grid,” he says. “Lots of things don’t function without electricity. You could stop a whole area or the entire country from working.”

Fatal betrayal of America – HR 1505

Editor’s NoteDr. Ed Berry is the Chief Sciences Adviser to the SUA Kitchen Cabinet and is a world renowned expert on Climate issues.

By Dr. Ed Berry

Cross-posted at PolyMontana

America is defined by its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. America is further defined by its English language, its Christian heritage, and its culture of achievement.

Politics is a triangle.

Many people think politics can be described by a horizontal line between left and right. In fact, this horizontal line is but the base of the political triangle. At the top of the political triangle is our Constitution. Those who support our Constitution, left or right, rise above the horizontal line in the direction of supporting true America. As they reach the peak, they converge.

Those who support our Constitution are not at some fictitious “extreme right” but are the top beacon showing the way for America.

Both the lower-left and the lower-right favor more federal government power over the states and the people. Neither follow our Constitution. This is why both Democrats and Republicans who are not following our Constitution are helping to destroy America.

Who cares about whether Obama is a legal president? Not the Democrats. Not the RINOs. Only those who support our Constitution.

The top believes what our Constitution’s 10th Amendment clearly says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Democrats betray our Constitution when they give earth-worshipping environmentalists unconstitutional power over America. RINO Republicans betray our Constitution when they give power-hungry neocons unconstitutional power over America. Real Republicans and Americans support our Constitution.

Democrats don’t like HR 1505 because it removes some of their earth-worshipping environmental control over America. RINOs like HR 1505 because they think it provides more security for Americans. Real Republicans don’t like HR 1505 because it betrays our Constitution, trades our freedom for a false security, and is a path to an American Auschwitz.

Denny Rehberg’s proposed “Sheriffs First” amendment is a move toward our Constitution.

Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg moved upward in our political triangle when he introduced his “Sheriffs First” amendment to HR 1505, which, if approved, would give county sheriffs law enforcement power over federal agencies and personnel. The exception to a sheriff’s ultimate authority should be our Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which may be our only way to remove corruption among local police.

If Rehberg’s amendment is successful, it will give Montana county sheriffs jurisdictionover DHS in their counties. Although our Constitution and the Mack-Printz Supreme Court decision already give county sheriffs this power, having it affirmed in a federal law would set a valuable precedent and make HR 1505 less oppressive, should it pass. Rehberg’s amendment applies only to Montana. It is up to the other states to join Rehberg’s amendment.

In summary, while I oppose HR 1505, I still support Rehberg’s Sheriffs First amendment because it move us from where we are now toward where we want to go.

Now, we will discuss the last amended version of HR 1505 without Rehberg’s proposed Sheriffs First amendment.

The last amended version of HR 1505 replaces Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with US Customs & Border Protection (CRB). However, it is difficult to accept CRB as divorced from its master.

DHS is a beast with “seven heads.”

DHS is seven agencies wrapped into one:

  1. TSA – Transportation Security Administration
  2. CBP – US Customs & Border Protection
  3. CIS – US Citizenship & Immigration Services
  4. ICE – US Immigration &Customs Enforcement
  5. SS – US Secret Service
  6. FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency
  7. USCG – US Coast Guard


FEMA is the one with the small cages to put you in if you do not behave. TSA is the one that gives you a useless body scan before you get on an airplane, bus, etc. DHS is the oneadding its sensors to streetlights around America and the promoter of E-Verify and Real ID as a cradle-to-grave biometric tracking system for every American. HR 2164 promotes E-Verify and it goes hand-in-hand with HR 1505.  (See Tom DeWeese: “E-Verify and the Emerging Surveillance State“)

Here are some facts:

  • DHS is forming an international surveillance network
  • DHS is implementing the Real ID program
  • Real ID originated in the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
  • Real ID is a United Nations plan to control Americans and to rule the world.
  • DHS is taking its marching orders from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The DHS big plan is to expand E-Verify into a global system. New technology is powerful and will become more powerful. Unless you stop DHS, it will control your life. When your government controls your life, you are their slave.

DHS will put your data in the world-wide DHS data banks assisted by DHS partners American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

The DHS goal is a one-size fits all international identification system using massive data banks that contain individual biometric information on nearly everyone in the world.

The DHS ordered specific changes to E-Verify to include biometric information and the use of enhanced photographs that measure and analyze the unique identifiable characteristics of a person’s face into a numeric code, usable and in compliance with these international databases.

Your identifying facial number code will be read by a computer and they can track your face by cameras worldwide. In addition, DHS has expanded the number of data bases used by E-Verify to check on employees. E-Verify is a central tool to implement an international ID system. With it, the government will watch your every move and your freedom will be gone with the wind.

DHS representatives have openly stated they wish to create a national ID card that tells everything about its owner. DHS would like to implement E-Verify and Real ID using an RFID microchip placed somewhere in your body where it would be impossible to extract.

DHS will control your travel, food, and water.

Perhaps in response to an Executive Order in January 2013, when Obama or Hillary becomes our next president, DHS will begin forcefully inserting RFID chips into you and your fellow Americans. All they need to do is catch you in a TSA flight check or at one of their road stops. Once they find you without your RFID, they will insert one into you on the spot. Zap. The pain will wear off in about 4 hours. From that point on, you are theirs, baby.

DHS already claims (unconstitutionally) federal government authority it to set up road blocks and sensors anywhere it wishes on private land within 100 miles of our borders. HR 1505 allows DHS to put sensors everywhere within 100 miles of our borders. In time, their territory will expand to everywhere in America. If we don’t stop them, we can expect to undergo body cavity scans and RFID insertions on our way to the grocery store.

If you know anything about how a database system works, you will understand that once you are tagged like a dog and once the DHS installs RFID sensors everywhere, even in wilderness areas, they can not only monitor you but also control everything you do. They will track you wherever you go and can limit where you go.

They will know who you meet with, what meetings you attend. They will know where you are even when you are traveling in your car on a highway. They will know when you buy fuel and how much. They can limit the amount of fuel you buy.

Consider these novelistic examples:

The DHS guy working in one of their border fortresses will see your ID pop up on his computer screen and say,

Hey, look. There goes Fred Jones with his family trying to hike to Canada. Go get him!

Or, if they have not yet inserted their RFID into you, the DHS guy will say,

“Hey, look. There goes someone without an RFID. Go get him and stick an RFID in him.”


“Hey, look. There goes Ted Turner and Bill Gates with their families hiking in our wilderness area. They give us money. Let ‘em go.”

They will control your food.

They will know when and where you go to the grocery store. They can limit the food you buy, perhaps leaving the good food for government employees and restricting you to junk food and high fructose corn syrup. They can starve you, or fatten you up so you can’t outrun them. They can make RFID’s that can terminate you when they wish. Bad boy? Bye-bye.

Thought you would grow your own food?

New federal laws say you no longer have that right. Try to survive by growing your own food and federal goons will poison your garden and kill your chickens.

They will control your water supply.

Given the authority the environmentalists and RINOs have given various federal agencies, HR 1505 opens the door to DHS diabolical control over your whole life.

Think you have a good, reliable well?

New federal water laws give the federal government authority over all water in America, even your well water. So, they can blow up your well. Of course, this is all in the name of saving the environment. “Hey, we can’t disturb the ground water.”

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I don’t like HR 1505. Here’s why.

First, the reasons for HR 1505 are invalid.

The stated reasons for HR 1505 are:

1. Reason given: To stop the turf war between federal agencies. The Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) don’t like DHS on their land. Hmmm. Maybe they have good reasons to keep DHS off their land.

Solution A: Let the county sheriff decide who comes into his county, as according to the US Constitution. This is Rehberg’s proposed amendment.

Solution B: Return all federally confiscated land back to the states. This should be done anyway.

The irony is DHS-CBP never asked for power to overrule land managers or ignore environmental laws. Last spring the Government Accountability Office found,

“Most agents reported that land management laws have had no effect on Border Patrol’s overall measure of border security.”

2. Reason given: Drug growers are hiding the forests.

Solution A: Declare state sovereignty over federal drug laws. We don’t need feds coming into Montana enforcing federal laws that conflict with Montana laws.

Solution B: Stop America’s War on Drugs.

America’s War on Drugs is a scam. It keeps the price of drugs high by limiting supply, so drug cartels and our CIA can make money selling drugs. It hires police to catch pot growers and smokers to overflow up our prisons. But wealthy drug dealers who pay off the police have a free run. The solution is not to give DHS control over our land. The solution is to stop the War on Drugs.

Solution C: Rather than a War on Drugs, how about a massive information campaign in media and schools telling people how bad drugs are? Think we can’t do it? Why did we make Joe Camel illegal? Because Joe Camel proved good advertising will influence people’s behavior. Look at what the government has done to influence people to “believe” in global warming. With massive spending, media hype, and school indoctination they have accomplished a virtual miracle in causing people to believe in global warming when no evidence exists. This proves it would be easy to get most of our population to give up drugs, and this would be far cheaper and more effective than theWar on Drugs.

Solution D: Let DHS prove themselves on our southern border first.

Virtually all drugs used in America come across our southern border and DHS has not been able to stop it. So why should we allow DHS to control non-existent drug traffic our northern border when they can’t stop the problem where it exists?

The National Drug Intelligence Center, a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice, recently released a document entitled the “National Drug Threat Assessment 2011”. The Assessment’s Executive Summary states

The illicit trafficking and abuse of drugs present a challenging, dynamic threat to the United States. Overall demand is rising, largely supplied by illicit drugs smuggled to U.S. markets by major transnational criminal organizations (TCOs).

Major Mexican-based TCOs continue to solidify their dominance over the wholesale illicit drug trade as they control the movement of most of the foreign-produced drug supply across the U.S. Southwest Border. The estimated economic cost of illicit drug use to society for 2007 was more than $193 billion.”

One of the contributing factors is the high demand for drugs in the United States. This high demand finances the drug cartels, allowing them to spend more and expand their operations.

The Southwest Border remains the primary gateway for moving illicit drugs into the United States. Most illicit drugs available in the United States are smuggled overland across the Southwest Border…”

Despite enhanced detection efforts and better countermeasures, Mexican drug traffickers will continue to build tunnels under the Southwest Border.

That DHS would be involved in controlling drug operations begs the question of what is the role of DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration)? Is DHS is taking over all police powers of the federal government?

3. Reason given: To catch criminals who are hiding in the forests.

Solution A: This is a county sheriff problem. The idea that we need HR 1505 to find Dave Burgert who is hiding somewhere in the mountains is ridiculous. He did not commit a federal crime. Besides, he may be found innocent if he could get a fair trial but he cannot get a fair trial. Finding Burgert has nothing to do with controlling our borders. The Burgert problem may have more to do with corruption in our law enforcement and legal systems that should be investigated by our FBI.

More importantly, using the Burgert example shows the real intent of HR 1505 is to control American citizens.

4. Reason given: To stop illegal aliens from coming into America.

Solution A: Stop all the benefits the illegal’s receive free from the American taxpayer.

Tom DeWeese “E-Verify and the Emerging Surveillance State” says,

The fact is, the U.S. government is not doing its job to secure the border and stop the flood of illegal aliens from rushing across it. Even though Congress passed legislation demanding that a fence be built, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has dragged its feet, deliberately holding up the project.

Moreover, DHS is fighting efforts in local communities to allow police to arrest illegal’s. There is little effort to tighten visa security, or allow law enforcement to track down and deport those who stay here past their allotted time. Those illegal’s caught committing crimes are still allowed to leave, only to easily and surreptitiously return at their will. The border is a sieve. There is no border control – period.

DHS imprisons border guards who actually do their jobs, like stopping an illegal from crossing our border. Our Justice Department sues Arizona for attempting to do the border job DHS was supposed to do. Does this sound like they are serious about stopping illegal immigration?

Obama recently announced he would allow illegal immigrants to remain in the US so long as they are not caught committing a crime. As a result, our Border Patrol has halted its long-standing routine searching of buses, trains and airports for illegal immigrants at transportation hubs. This routine has long been considered an effective tool for finding illegal immigrants. Now, these border patrol agents spend their days doing cross-word puzzles.

Do you see a pattern here? All the claimed reasons for HR 1505 are the result of federal laws or lack or enforcement of our Constitution. Now the feds want another law to supposedly cure the problems they created.

Second: We can’t trust DHS.

They are lying to us about their objectives and they don’t need 100 miles to patrol our border. A 1-mile strip along the border is sufficient to patrol our border. The 100-mile demand is about something else.

There is only one logical reason for DHS to install sensors virtually everywhere: HR 1505 is not about keeping bad guys out of America. It is about keeping Americans from escaping when they turn up the heat.

This federal government authority is unconstitutional, thanks to our constitution-impaired Congress.

The DHS-TSA inspections in our airports are a scam and a massive inconvenience. Any good weapons expert can get a weapon by them. TSA is training Americans to accept being fully controlled and body scanned. They are cooking us like frogs, slowly, so we become accustomed to the hot water and accept it.

Working with DHS, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) ran operation “Fast and Furious” allowing our enemy to purchase automatic weapons in America and walk them to Mexico.

According to the LA Times:

A federal operation dubbed Fast and Furious allowed weapons from the U.S. to pass into the hands of suspected gun smugglers so the arms could be traced to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which ran the operation, has lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which have been linked to crimes, including the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

In the fall of 2009, ATF agents installed a secret phone line and hidden cameras in a ceiling panel and wall at Andre Howard’s Lone Wolf gun store. They gave him one basic instruction: Sell guns to every illegal purchaser who walks through the door.

DHS has printing-press money to hire Americans who have no other source of income and turn them into predators on other Americans.

Third: The SPLC is creating policy for DHS.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), one of the nation’s leading hate groups, has direct ties to the Department of Homeland Security and is helping to write official DHS policy. As well summarized by Tom DeWeese, SPLC runs the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center that trains DHS and other law enforcement personnel in America.

The result of these close ties with SPLC is evident in these reports published by DHS:

A. “Right- wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
B. “Domestic Extremism Lexicon

DHS Report “A” says:

“Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movement, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti- government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

DHS Report “B” says the following types of persons are extremists, bordering on terrorism:

  • Those concerned over our economy, loss of jobs, or foreclosures;
  • Those who are antagonistic toward the Obama Administration;
  • Those who criticize free trade programs;
  • Those who are anti-abortion;
  • Those who oppose same sex marriage;
  • Those who believe in the “end times;”
  • Those who stock pile food;
  • Those who oppose illegal immigration;
  • Those who oppose a New World Order;
  • Those who oppose the UN;
  • Those who oppose global governance;
  • Those who fear of Communist regimes;
  • Those who oppose loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations;
  • Those who oppose loss of US prestige; and
  • Those who use the internet (or alternative media) to express any of these ideas.

Do any of these descriptions fit anyone you know?

DHS has established Fusion Centers in each state to combine federal, state and local law enforcement. Now your local law enforcement personnel are being indoctrinated by the SPLC. The DHS Missouri Fusion Center released the report:

C. The Modern Militia Movement.

DHS issued its Report “C” to law enforcement agencies as official documentation warning cops who they should consider potential violent terrorists. The list of potential terrorists includes:

  • Americans who voted for presidential candidate Ron Paul;
  • Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin; and
  • Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr.
  • And those who opposed the creation of a North American Union with Canada and Mexico.

Do we need any more evidence that we cannot trust DHS and that it should be abolished?

These 3 DHS reports are sufficient evidence alone to kill HR 1505 and abolish DHS. The inmates are truly in charge of the asylum.

Fourth: DHS is building fortresses.

See those icons of Border Patrol stations on the map?

Those are not your everyday Forest Service public information stations. According to anonymous eye witnesses, these Border Patrol stations are fortresses capable of keeping Obama’s Civilian Security Force (or a Chinese army) housed, fed, armed, and fully equipped to control the population of the United States. These Border Patrol Stations cannot be justified for border control.

These Border Patrol stations are not all on the border. They are not going to stop illegal border crossings. But if an enemy has already captured our federal government (as it has), then these stations are a perfect way to control you.

These Border Patrol stations have large underground fuel tanks (so when you run out of fuel for your home and vehicles, DHS will be able to control you). These Border Patrol stations have veterinarian facilities for dogs and horses (so DHS can follow and find you).

You have already read about how the federal government has purchased almost all the survival food from producers who formerly provided survival food to the public. Guess where this food went. George Soros is buying up Montana’s grain elevators.

With the environmentalists’ wolves, our federal government has pretty much decimated our wildlife food supply of moose and elk and much of the deer. The DHS sensor plan, they will keep you out of your hunting area.

When the shit hits the fan … as the federal government is gearing up to make happen, you will not have a chance against Obama’s federal army.

You thought you would be able to hold them off with your guns. You will run out of ammo and they won’t. You will run out of food and they won’t. You will run out of fuel and they won’t. They will take you in the ice cold weather when you cannot heat your home or even move. They will take you one at a time with an overpowering force any time they want you.

Years ago, no enemy would invade America because we had too many guns. Now, our enemy has constructed a way to invade us from within with government actions like HR 1505. We are allowing them, even paying them, to build fortresses right on our own backyard. We are fools.

The feds will keep a low profile until after the 2012 elections because they don’t want to scare citizens into voting for constitutional representatives.  Beginning in January 2013, they will tighten the screws.

Now, I have another question for you:

Given that our federal government has already sold some of our American land and military bases to China, what will you do when they sell the DHS fortresses to China?

Fifth: HR 1505 would take away our legal and constitutional rights.

While it may seem useful to rid our state of some outrageous environmental laws that are causing disasters with our wildlife and economy, the HR 1505 blanket removal of these environmental laws may come at a high price.

The really bad, unconstitutional environmental laws are those forcing non-indigenous wolves on our land and laws that derive from the scientifically unsound and insane delusion that our emissions of carbon dioxide are causing significant climate change.

HR 1505 comes with its own environmental laws to replace those it cancels. The difference is they will be under DHS control. Under the new rules, there is no guarantee about how Montana will be able to control wolf populations, or protect real endangered species like moose and elk. Unless we have authority to control wolf populations we could end up in a worse situation than now.

Another downside of removing the listed environmental laws is they contain important “coordination” requirements.

Coordination requires federal agencies to work with local representatives before approving environmental regulations. Under HR 1505, we would have no coordination rights. The fed would have the final say. This equivalent to giving away America.

Under HR 1505, you will have no legal right to bring a lawsuit against the DHS in a state court. DHS’s actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims. Just as in the case of the EPA ruling against home owners in Idaho, the courts will dismiss our case, saying it is a federal administrative matter.

HR 1505 gives unconstitutional dictatorial power to the president and overrides state sovereignty, which is what our enemy wants.

Here is how DHS does Environmental Control.

DHS-CBP created an extensive Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to guide its invasion of our northern border. This PEIS says:

CBP is undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the impact of its activities along the U.S. – Canada Border in order to improve strategic planning for any future border security enhancements.

CBP is preparing the Northern Border PEIS to:

  • Assess the combined and cumulative effects of CBP activities along the Northern Border;
  • Improve strategic planning;
  • Incorporate public concerns about environmental impacts into CBP planning;
  • More effectively adapt and respond to an ever changing threat environment for any future border security enhancements; and,
  • Incorporate and tier into future site specific project planning by reference and general discussion.

The PEIS is intended to:

  • Provide CBP, the public, and other stakeholders with an understanding of the cumulative impacts from current CBP programs on the NB;
  • Evaluate the potential impacts of various action alternatives that would involve the expansion of those programs, which will inform CBP decision making going forward; and,
  • Define the potential levels of impacts regarding CBP’s security activities along the Northern Border.

The PEIS represents one element of the CBP approach to incorporate strategic planning, environmental and cultural stewardship considerations, and stakeholder outreach and involvement to improve accomplishment of its mission in balance with other important sustainability considerations. It is the means for providing your input, comments, and concerns.

CBP maintains a strong continued commitment to early stakeholder outreach and involvement to improve border security, transboundary trade and commerce, and the long-term sustainable productivity of the northern border regional environments.

As part of CBP’s effort in stakeholder outreach during project development, this website was developed to provide you with a resource for learning about the Northern Border PEIS effort, as well as, offer a means for providing your input, comments, and concerns.

Analysis: Notice all the eco-buzz words: comprehensive, strategic, cumulative, alternatives, environmental and cultural stewardship, sustainability, sustainable productivity.

These eco-buzz words mesmerize liberal eco-freaks who run most of our government and who control most environmental organizations. Mention these words and their eco-juices flow in their eco-freak brains like saliva flows in Pavlov dogs. So mesmerized, they do not stop to consider whether the government action is even in their interest. They simply think, “Yea, man. That sounds great!

Sixth: DHS plans to enforce UN Agenda 21.

On the CBP website, look under “Resources and Documents >> Materials” and you will find their Draft PEIS in detail. Let’s just pick one, “Chapter 4: West of the Rockies Region.” Scan the Contents. Looks pretty large doesn’t it. I see money, money, money wasted.

Their chapter title associating “climate change” with “sustainability” gives away that DHS is helping to implement the United Nations Agenda 21. The first paragraph below demonstrates DHS is based upon the climate change fraud. We cannot have a federal agency like DHS that is based upon a fraud.



According to the 2009 U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” documented impacts to the Nation from climate change include increased average temperatures, more frequent heat waves, high-intensity precipitation events, sea-level rise, more prolonged droughts, and more acidic ocean waters, among others. … In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identified global climate change as a long-term trend and global challenge that threatens America’s national-security interests (USDHS, 2010).

For U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the concepts of sustainability and smart growth include the ability to adjust to changing geopolitical realities while preserving the environment and working to improve the quality of life for American residents and visitors.

To reduce environmental impacts and address the challenge of limited resources, the DHS prepared a “Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan” to promote sustainable planning, design, development, and operations. The guidelines aim to decrease energy use, minimize reliance on traditional fossil fuels, protect and conserve water, and reduce the environmental impact of materials use and disposal. CBP’s overarching goal is to size, plan, and carry out proposed development in a manner that is sustainable and that works to preserve and protect limited resources.

DHS has demonstrated its delusional mind set that human carbon dioxide emissions cause undesirable climate change. On this basis, under HR 1505, what is to stop DHS from closing down the Bakken oil fields and all other energy production within 100 miles of the Canadian border?

Their chapter title associating “environmental justice” with “protection of children” is further evidence the DHS is helping to implement the United Nations Agenda 21.



Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (EO 12898, 1994), titled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires that each Federal agency identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse effect of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justiceas “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (USEPA, 2010).

And they are concerned about the “children.”

Executive Order 13045 of April 21, 1997 (EO 13045), titled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” places a high priority on the identification and assessment of environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.”

EO 13045 considers that physiological and social development of children makes them more sensitive than adults to adverse health and safety risks and recognizes that children in minority, low-income, and indigenous populations are more likely to be exposed to, and have increased health risks from, environmental contamination than the general population (USEPA, 2010).

In summary, none of the DHS track record or written agenda has anything to do with keeping bad guys and their toys out of America. DHS is about implementing UN Agenda 21 and giving control of America to our enemies.

To put it bluntly, DHS is the beginning of Obama’s diabolical civilian national security force:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

We cannot afford to allow DHS to grow. We cannot afford to allow HR 1505 to pass.

In this article, we have shown:

  1. Politics is a triangle with the Constitution at the top.
  2. DHS is a beast with “seven heads.”
  3. DHS will control your travel, food, and water.
  4. The reasons for HR 1505 are invalid.
  5. We can’t trust DHS.
  6. The SPLC is creating policy for DHS.
  7. DHS is building fortresses.
  8. HR 1505 would take away our legal and constitutional rights.
  9. DHS plans to enforce UN Agenda 21.
  10. HR 1505 is a fatal betrayal of America

Here are 4 things you should do about HR 1505 and DHS:

  1. Encourage Congress to pass Congressman Rehberg’s “Sheriffs First” amendment to HR 1505. While this will not stop HR 1505, it will defang DHS much of the control over your life. Then you can focus on electing a good constitutional sheriff.
  2. Encourage Congress to reject HR 1505 and encourage Congressman Rehberg to vote against it, possibly using the excuse that Congress rejected his amendment.
  3. Elect a president, like Ron Paul, who will cancel HR 1505 by executive order. But … this is a long shot. Without a revolution in the minds of American voters, the favorites to be our next president are Obama or Hillary. It does not matter how much you wish or pray for Ron Paul, you still have only one vote. So when voting comes to your state after Romney or Cain are the only two possible nominees, you must be smart enough to vote for Cain, since only he has a chance to beat Obama or Hillary. If you do not, you will be helping elect Obama or Hillary.
  4. Most important: Elect the strongest-possible, constitutional, conservative team for your state governor, lt. governor, and attorney general. This should be your primary focus. You can accomplish this most important goal IF tea party voters truly choose the best such team. – As more information becomes available, I believe you will learn why Robert Fanning is the strongest-possible, constitutional governor you can elect to save Montana.

Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Islam – What is the connection?

Editor’s Note – One of the constant themes that has been shadowing the Obama Administration is his connection and alledged fealty to Islam. From his boyhood education in a Madrassah, to his attendance at the Black Liberation Theology church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, to the curious nature that the Obama’s have not chosen a local Christian Church for the last three years in the DC area, to his frequent visits and speeches about Islam only fuels the charges that he is a ‘closet Muslim’ or a promoter of Sharia Law. He has salaried employees on his staff that have known connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, and his security advisers are more akin to Islamic apologists than they are to concerned advisers who are securing our nation from infiltration by enemies to our Representative Republic.

Please read this well validated essay by Dr. Abdallah, an Egyptian writer who undertsands the issue far better than our media here in the USA. Again, we need to understand Eastern thinking, they understand us, but we do not come close to understanding them.

Note to John Brennan: The Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular group.

Where are the Muslim Brotherhood and the Obama Administration Taking America?

Dr. Essam Abdallah

From Elaph via Family Security Matters

In this article, published in the leading liberal pan Arab “Elaph”, Egyptian liberal writer Dr. Essam Abdallah exposes the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood within the Obama Administration and the campaign led by CAIR and its allies against Middle East Christians, US experts and American Muslim reformers. Abdallah’s article is powerful evidence to a reckless policy of backing Islamists, perpetrated by the Obama Administration and its advisors on Islamic affairs. The Editors.

Disturbing reports are coming out of Washington, D.C.

These reports reveal the depth of the below-the-surface coordination between the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya and Jordan. This bloc of regimes and organizations is now becoming the greatest Islamist radical lobby ever to penetrate and infiltrate the White House, Congress, the State Department and the main decision making centers of the US government. All of this is happening at a time when the US government is going through its most strategically dangerous period in modern times because of its need to confront the Iranian Mullahs regime, which is expanding in the Middle East, as well as penetrating the United States, via powerful and influential allies.

It looks like the near future will uncover many surprises after the fall of the Gaddafi regime, as we realize more and more that the popular revolts in the Arab world – and the Obama Administration’s position towards them – were determined by political battles between various pressure groups in Washington. Moreover, pressures by these lobbying groups have left an impact on the region’s events, the last of which was the canceling of the visit of Maronite Patriarch Rahi to Washington. A number of Arab and Western news agencies have leaked that one of “those who sought to cancel this visit was Dalia Mujahid, a top advisor on Islamic and Arab affairs at the State Department, who is of Egyptian origin. And that”, said the reports, “came at the request of the high command of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who wish to see the US Administration support the Islamist Sunni current.”

Courtesy: Family Security Matters

Also very noticeable at this point is the growing domination of Islamist forces around the Mediterranean: the victory of the Nahda Islamist Party in Tunisia, the declaration by (TNC Chairman) Mustafa Abdeljalil that Libya is an Islamist state and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. These developments wouldn’t have happened without the approval of the United States. A document published in Washington indicated that Egypt will face more violence and tensions while moving to the Pakistani, rather than the Turkish, model. Egypt will be ruled by an opportunistic bourgeoisie and a regime declaring itself Islamist, and it will be backed by a military institution. The military will be used by the Islamists to maintain power but the armed forces, the parliament, the regime and the constitution will all become Islamist.

In return, the Maronite Patriarch is denied a visit to Washington, Coptic Christian churches are destroyed in Egypt, and Coptic demonstrators are massacred at Maspero in Cairo by the Egyptian military, demonstrating that the goal is to suppress Christians in the Middle East, who are – as Patriarch Rahi said – paying a high price for the revolts of the Arab Spring. Rahi expressed his concerns about the fate of Syrian and Lebanese Christians and sees, as does the world, the flight of millions of Iraqi and Middle Eastern Christians from their homelands as a result of events in Iraq, and the methodic persecution against the Copts. The Christians of Egypt aren’t only facing suppression and ethnic cleansing but a form of genocide.

The real question now is: who is allowing the Muslim Brotherhood lobby to damage the relationship between the US Administration and millions of Middle East Christians? This lobby was able to delay meetings between leaders from Coptic Solidarity International, including Magdi Khalil and Adel Guindy, with the US Government. Similar obstructions have been happening with Chaldean and Assyrian delegations over the past few years. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood has waged a hysterical campaign against prominent experts in counterterrorism such as Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, John Guandolo and Robert Spencer. One particularly rough campaign was waged by CAIR against Professor Walid Phares, one of the most important, and even prescient, experts in counterterrorism and Jihadist movements in the US. In his book, “The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East”, Dr. Phares predicted its evolution and the shape of coming Islamist regimes in the region.

But the Muslim Brotherhood’s campaign is not limited to liberal Arabs, Christians, Jews and Atheists. It has also targeted Muslims who oppose the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) lobby such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD); Sherkoh Abbas, from the Syrian Kurdish Council; Farid Ghadri; the Somali-American author Ayan Hirsi Ali; Ali al Yammi; Tarek Fatah and many more. Attacking Muslim liberals in the West helps the Muslim Brotherhood’s project in the radical Islamization of the Middle East, but it does not at all help US interests. Oppressing opposition, diversity, pluralism, and shedding human rights and freedoms are in direct contradiction to the values defended, and sacrificed for, by America’s founding fathers as well as by all those who fought wars for America throughout her history.

These intimidation and suppression campaigns directed against Arab and Middle East Christians – and against intellectuals and researchers opposing the Muslim Brotherhood and its sinister ties to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran – in fact are aimed at America’s ability to become aware of the threat all of them pose to American freedoms. For American strength isn’t only in its navies and military power, but in its Constitution and the laws which provide the moral force for all other distinctly American liberties.

Note that the US Constitution did not include any suppressive articles (regarding freedom of religion or freedom of speech), the lack of which is the case in many Middle Eastern countries. Rather, it was written in the spirit of a Jeffersonian federal democracy based on individual freedoms.

So, all things considered both here and in the Middle East, where exactly are the Obama Administration and the Muslim Brotherhood lobby, together, taking America? And why?

Dr. Essam Abdallah is an Egyptian liberal intellectual who writes for the leading liberal pan Arab “Elaph”.

Oliver North – Security is the prime issue

Editorial Note – Lt. Col. Oliver North, along with MG Paul Vallely, former Congressman Duncan Hunter, Lt. Gen. Boykin, David Keane & Wayne Lapierre  of the NRA and many friends and associates arrived home this weekend from the 2011 Freedom Cruise. Reporting from St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, SUA Kitchen Cabinet Member Oliver North penned the following article after discussions with fellow cruise members about the now impending troop withdrawal from Iraq and our overall readiness. The noteworthy assessment he gives pertains to the lack of leadership in office today, and any similarity to truly great leaders like Ronald Reagan running to be the Republican Party’s nominee to run against Obama in 2012 seems non-existent. Again, it is clear, unless we are secure as a nation, all else takes a back seat. Unfortunately, few understand this foundational philosophy, in either major party.

Republicans and Risks

By Oliver North, SUA Kitchen Cabinet Member

Lt. Col. Oliver North

Fox News/War Stories with Oliver North

St. Thomas, USVI – We arrived at a tiny outpost on St. Thomas on Wednesday, October 26. As we stepped ashore, the gentleman beside me said, “28 years ago at this very minute, I was lining up my thirsty A-7 to land on the deck of the USS Independence (CV-62) not far from here. It was day two of Operation Urgent Fury. We were flying nonstop close air support missions for troops in contact on the island of Grenada.”

The retired naval aviator went on to describe his admiration for the then commander in chief, who boldly ordered more than 5,000 American troops ashore to prevent the 800 medical students and staff members from being taken hostage by the Cuban-supported communists who had seized control on the island. He added, “It was a high-risk decision, the right thing to do and the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire. President Reagan knew who our enemies were, knew what needed to be done — and did it.” My interlocutor then asked a question I could not answer. “Are there any Ronald Reagan Republicans running for president?”

“There do not seem to be,” was all I could reply. Anyone paying attention can see Barack Obama is taking us down the path of massive defense cuts and unilateral disarmament. Unfortunately, none of the leading GOP candidates has addressed our national security risks or set forth a plan to defend us.

“Well, there’s a lot more at stake in this election than just the economy,” the former attack pilot said. As we shook hands and parted, he added, “If the Republicans don’t realize we still have enemies in this world and fail to come up with a plan to defend us, we’re finished. It won’t matter what they do about Obamacare and all these entitlements.”

Unfortunately, the old Navy pilot is right. Republican candidates are busily defending competing tax and spending plans, alternative health care policies and strategies for Social Security. But other than Newt Gingrich, none has articulated a strategy for defending Americans and our way of life.

It ought to be apparent where the “O-Team” is taking us. As Jimmy Carter was more than 30 years ago, Mr. Obama and his allies in Congress are on course to unilaterally disarm. On October 21, in the midst of euphoria over the demise of Muammar Qaddafi, Mr. Obama was lauded for announcing that the war in Mesopotamia was over and “the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year.”

The decision to withdraw more than 40,000 U.S. military personnel from Iraq by December 31 means massive quantities of valuable mission-essential gear — armored vehicles, heavy generators, engineer equipment, trucks, aviation support materiel and even air defense and communications infrastructure — must be left behind. According to officers on the ground, the Iraqis lack the logistics systems and training necessary to maintain most of the gear our troops will not bring home. In a matter of months, most of it will be inoperable — or, as it’s described by our military, “deadlined.”

Former House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter says, “The price tag for this hasty withdrawal and no residual base rights goes well beyond the cost of abandoning this gear.” Units returning to home bases in the U.S. will remain combat ineffective for months or years to come because we are not buying replacement equipment necessary for the next fight.

Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, who served as a deputy undersecretary of defense during the George W. Bush administration, warns that “the inevitable loss of unit readiness will provide a rationale for the White House and Congress to make even further cuts in U.S. Army and Marine ground combat and combat support units for years to come.”

Major General Paul Vallely notes, “We’re making the same mistakes we made at the end of the Vietnam War. After a decade of fighting, cutting defense is popular, but it emboldens our enemies, and whether the politicians know it or not, we do have enemies.”

These experts are spot on. The ayatollahs in Tehran, intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and radical Islamists, such as those grasping for power in Egypt and Libya, are the immediate beneficiaries of the Obama Doctrine and the “O-Team’s” already-announced cuts in defense. In Asia, Japanese, South Korean, Australian and Taiwanese defense officials have told anyone who will listen that Beijing is building offensive capabilities to fill the vacuum created by “America’s withdrawal from the Pacific.”

Today’s U.S. military is smaller than it was in 1938. We now have fewer combatant ships at sea and carrier battle groups able to project power than we had at the start of World War II. Jimmy Carter believed his cuts were a risk we could afford to take. Ronald Reagan disagreed, and he beat Carter by promising “peace through strength.” In rebuilding our military, he created millions of new jobs, restored American credibility and brought down the Evil Empire.

Will any of today’s Republican presidential candidates follow the Reagan model and replace the current occupant of the Oval Office? We should hope so.


Obama – Comparable to Reagan or FDR?

Editor’s Note – It is very common for political mavens to make comparisons during a sitting President’s tenure, but often, its a snap shot of a very precise moment that is considered. These comparisons are often very short-sighted, they lack perspective, are self-serving to political slant, and are invariably shot down as history progresses. In Obama’s case, Christopher Ruddy does a fine job of elaborating on comparisons made between Obama and larger-than-life icons from the past; Ronald Reagan and FDR.

Ruddy compares Obama’s administration to a an often used SUA comparison, the ‘Keystone Kops’, and another of our favorites; the ‘Gang that cannot shoot straight’ also applies well. Please read on:

Obama Is Neither FDR nor Reagan

By Christopher Ruddy

In observing the workings of the Obama White House as it grapples with the worst American economy since the Great Depression, it’s difficult not to smile in amusement at the inept wheel-spinning of our executive branch, which bears a closer resemblance to a clueless team of Keystone Kops than to a savvy group of wise statesmen.

But to millions of jobless Americans, and all the rest who are suffering through these hard times, the poor performance of our feckless president is no laughing matter.

After 2 1/2 years in office, this administration is clearly not up to meeting the dire challenges that now confront the nation — challenges which are so ominous that they continually threaten to push the United States over the brink into a gigantic crisis.

Although at this point I cannot be surprised by new proof of the White House’s detachment from reality, I was nevertheless struck by a recent report in Time magazine describing an offsite meeting held in June by Obama’s senior staff during the debt-limit debate.

Seeking to blow away the foggy gloom that continues to bewilder, befuddle, and bedevil the administration, the wise men who advise the president decided to bring in Michael Beschloss, a well-known historian, to give the executive team a pep talk using feel-good historical comparisons between their mediocre boss and previous great presidents to aid in the task.

This “grasping at straws” exercise quickly descended from the sublime to the ridiculous when, according to the Time report, Beschloss told the assemblage that they shouldn’t lose hope in Obama’s chances of winning a second term because “two presidents in the last century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936 and Ronald Reagan in 1984, won re-election amid substantial economic sufferings.”

Now, I don’t claim to be a historian, but I happen to have lived through the Reagan administration and the second part of this assertion is simply not true.

I remember very clearly that Reagan’s first two years in office were a brutally difficult time, through no fault of his own I might add. The nation was a stricken patient after the horrific Jimmy Carter “malaise” of the 1970s and tough economic medicine was not pleasant for the American people to swallow at that time, especially the bitter taste that came with high interest rates.

But by 1983 the economy had begun to turn around. Inflation, for instance, fell dramatically as Reagan (working in conjunction with Paul Volcker at the Federal Reserve) restored consumer confidence by the sheer force of his political courage in sticking with his highly effective recovery plan during its painful implementation.

The plan included an across-the-board tax cut of 25 percent, including for “rich” folk.

By August of that year (the point in Reagan’s first term that is comparable to where Obama stands today within his own first term), inflation had dropped under 3 percent — a tremendous decrease from the 12 percent rate that Reagan inherited when he was sworn in.

Right around the same time, the American economy took off, registering an impressive 9.3 percent growth rate in the third quarter of that year, with strong growth thereafter.

Given these facts, it is patently absurd to compare Obama’s first term to Reagan’s, which are starkly different.

Right now, we stand on the precipice of a new recession — the dreaded “double-dip” — while at this stage of Reagan’s first term the American economy was already bouncing back in resounding fashion, which we now know rocketed the nation into the stratosphere of unrivaled growth and prosperity in the decades that followed.

Lest we forget, Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign was built around his famous television ad, “It’s Morning Again in America,” which was a well-deserved victory lap that the current president has obviously not earned.

Reagan won a stunning 49-state landslide that year —a result which Obama, even if he squeaks out a victory next year, will fall short of by a country mile.

I wasn’t around in the early 1930s, but it’s equally disingenuous to compare Obama’s first term to Franklin Roosevelt’s.

On close inspection, Obama and FDR bear little resemblance to each other, except perhaps in their reliance on government spending as the best way to inject life into a moribund economy. But even here there is an important difference to remember.

FDR was a great president for a whole host of reasons, but not because his New Deal policies were particularly sound. In truth, they proved largely ineffective in restoring the American economy during that tumultuous period. Massive mobilization during World War II put a stake through the malignant heart of the Great Depression, not massive government spending and “make work” programs.

The New Deal recovery plan was deeply flawed, but we can forgive the well-meaning FDR for his mistake because the Keynesian approach he advocated was new and untried economic theory at the time. We can’t cut Obama the same slack, however.

FDR enjoyed remarkable success during his first term that Obama has not approached in his. Under FDR, for instance, the unemployment rate fell from 24 percent in 1932 to 17 percent in 1936 — still a high level, but progress significant enough to generate public approval at the time and to ensure a landslide re-election that year.

FDR also created popular programs such as Social Security and the Works Progress Administration during his first term. These programs didn’t fix the Depression, but they made people feel good.

Obama’s landmark healthcare legislation, in contrast, was pushed through by a single vote in the U.S. Senate, and continues to be so unpalatable to the electorate that the president has thus far made no effort to run on what is supposed to be his greatest achievement.

If one desires to identify presidents who are similar to Obama, the first terms of Reagan and FDR are the wrong places to look.

Unlike Obama, these two men were charismatic leaders who were able to persuade the American people to follow them down a particular path toward economic recovery, and in doing so were able to convince Congress to go along with the plan.

Where is Obama’s leadership? Where is his plan for recovery?

The nation’s confidence in the first is non-existent and the fabric of the second has the tensile strength of wet newspaper.

His recent “jobs” program is nothing more than a $447 billion shell game that has the federal government spending money it doesn’t have over the next 15 months to get the president re-elected.

No, Obama hasn’t demonstrated he is anything like Reagan or FDR, two of the most beloved presidents in American history.

In truth, he is most similar to Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover, and, if we go far back into the 19th century, to the “Little Magician,” Martin Van Buren — all weak, one-term presidents who could not revive the American economy after it had fallen off a cliff into the deepest of holes.

Running on unsuccessful records, all of these presidents met crushing defeats when they sought re-election.

As of today, Obama is following very much in their footsteps. His current jobs program proposal is a short-term gimmick, just like the first $800 billion stimulus that has failed to cure the recession, as he promised it would.

How will the recession be cured?

Perhaps The Gipper put it best during the1980 presidential campaign when he prophetically observed with his characteristic humor that “recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours, and recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his” — timeless words that should apply to Barack Obama when the American public gives its job review in 2012.

Christopher Ruddy is CEO and editor of Newsmax Media Inc.