http://www.businessinsider.com/shot-fired-through-window-at-obama-campaign-office-in-denver-2012-10
and......
http://www.infowars.com/will-the-election-results-cause-massive-riots-to-erupt-all-over-america/
Vince gave permission to record not only his speech but also the uncut Q&A session that followed.
The GS2AC thanks Vince for taking time out to speak to us and present his thoughts to the world.
http://beforeitsnews.com/u-s-politics/2012/10/us-govt-massacres-virginia-family-blamed-on-obama-re-election-after-so-called-killer-threatens-to-expose-us-govt-secrets-2444722.html
The US cyber attacks have taken advantage of our vulnerability “which is part of why they are doing it,” Lieberman said. “And it’s a warning to us that if we take action against their nuclear weapons development program that they have the capacity to strike back at us.”
Supporting this fake threat are “experts” like Rodney Joffe, senior vice president of the cybersecurity firm Sterling, who said: “The nature of this attack is sophisticated enough or large enough that even the largest of the financial institutions would find it difficult to defend against.”
Shot Fired At Obama Campaign Office In Denver
Somone shot at an Obama campaign field office in Denver Friday afternoon, The Denver Post reports.
No one was hurt and police are still looking for the suspect.
Sam Levin, a reporter for the Denver Westword, posted a photo of the damage on Twitter:
 |
and......
http://www.infowars.com/will-the-election-results-cause-massive-riots-to-erupt-all-over-america/
Will The Election Results Cause Massive Riots To Erupt All Over America?
Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse
Oct 12, 2012
The Economic Collapse
Oct 12, 2012
Will the most divisive campaign in modern American history culminate in massive riots in our major cities? Right now, supporters of Barack Obama and supporters of Mitt Romney are both pinning all of their hopes on a victory on November 6th. The race for the presidency is extremely tight, and obviously the side that loses is going to be extremely disappointed when the election results are finalized. But could this actually lead to violence? Could we actually see rioting in communities all over America? Well, the conditions are certainly ripe for it. A whole host of surveys over the past few years have shown that Americans are very angry and very frustrated right now. In fact, a Pew Research Center poll from late last year found that86 percent of all Americans are either angry or frustrated with the federal government. We have seen this frustration manifest in protest movements such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, but right now things are fairly calm as liberals and conservatives both look forward to November 6th. Many Republicans started the countdown to the next election literally the day after John McCain lost back in 2008. All of their hopes of getting Obama out of the White House are riding on a Romney victory. For many Democrats, Barack Obama is a “once in a generation” icon. Just the thought of Mitt Romney replacing Obama in the White House is enough to push many of them to the brink of insanity. In recent years we have seen horrible rioting erupt in cities after major sports championship games. How much worse could the rioting potentially be if this bitterly contested election is decided by a very narrow margin – especially if there are allegations that the election is “stolen”?
The election is nearly four weeks away, and many Obama supporters are already threatening to riot if Obama loses. The following are some very disturbing messages that were posted on Twitter recently that have been reposted on Twitchy.com….
“If Romney wins I’m Starting a Riot….Who’s WIT ME???”
“I Hope The USA Is Well Aware That If In The Event This Character Romney Wins The Election, The People Will Start A Country Wide Riot! #Power”
“If Romney is elected president, its gon be a riot its gon be a riot.”
“If ROMNEY GETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE …U MIGHT AS WELL KILL ME NOW …..CAUSE ITS GONNA BE A ************ RIOT !!!”
“If Romney became President and took away welfare Downtown Cincinnati would become a riot”
“If Romney takes away food stamps 2 Chainzz in this bit IMMA START A RIOT”
“If Romney wins. (which i highly doubt) THERE WILL BE A RIOT—”
The following are a few more tweets that I found which threaten a potential riot if Obama loses the election….
From @joecools_world….
“Need 2 come up wit a game plan if Romney win…. Riot all thru Newark”
From @killacate….
“I swear on everything I love if Romney wins ima riot. I don’t even care if its just me.”
Romney supporters are not really threatening to riot, but many of them are proclaiming that they may leave the country if Obama wins. Here are some examples….
From @BrentskiTheBoss….
“If Obama gets reelected I may leave the country”
From @AbbieFickes….
“im sorry but if obama were to win again, i might as well leave the country and live in zimbabwe”
This presidential campaign has been getting increasingly heated, and individuals on both sides have been committing some despicable acts.
For example, in a previous article I mentioned that some Romney campaign signs down in Virgina have been smeared with excrement.
Over in Ohio, a huge pile of manure was dumped right in front of Warren County Democratic headquarters early on Tuesday morning….
Volunteers at the Warren County Democratic headquarters, just north of Cincinnati, were shocked and disappointed by a political prank unloaded on them early Tuesday morning – someone dumped a pile of horse manure in the parking lot of the headquarters building on US 42, just north of Lebanon.
It appears that both sides have resorted to literally slinging crap around.
There is so much hate in America today, and this campaign is bringing a lot of it to the surface. It is even being reported that a bus driver told a 12-year-old boy that he should have been aborted because his family has a Romney campaign sign in their yard….
Belling read a letter from the 12-year-old boy’s mother, detailing the alleged abusive behavior by the bus driver.Apparently, the Romney-Ryan yard sign bugs the bus driver and she’s been harassing the boy, making rude comments to him related to politics.When the driver engaged the 12-year-old boy in a political conservation, he responded by saying that Obama is pro-abortion.The bus driver allegedly said to the child, “Maybe your mom should have chosen abortion for you.”
How sick is that?
You can strongly disagree with someone without being mean and without being hateful.
Right now, the United States is a bubbling cauldron of frustration and anger that could be set off at any moment. This election could potentially be a “trigger point” which could end up unleashing a lot of that anger and frustration.
Already, there have been allegations that the Republicans have been committing voter registration fraud. Democrats are furious about this.
Evidence has also emerged that Democrats have been willing to assist voters in registering to vote in two different states. The following is from a recent article by Mac Slavo….
When undercover reporters visited various locations across the country they received the same response from Obama campaign staffers – that it’s basically okay to vote multiple times if you happen to be registered in two or more states.In Houston, Texas, for example, the Project Veritas reporter made her intentions known, and rather than being rebuffed for her planned illegal activity, she was provided assistance with obtaining the proper forms to be registered in two states and was told to say “I don’t know” if the double-voting ever became an issue.Similar situations unfolded at other DNC funded community organizations.
It appears quite probable that whichever side loses this election will accuse the other side of stealing the election.
And if millions of Americans feel that the election has been stolen from them, that will make it much more likely that we will see rioting.
Keep your ears open for phrases such as “voter fraud” and “election fraud” following this election. People are so angry already that even allegations that someone stole the election could be enough to set the streets of America on fire.
As always, let us hope for the best, but let us also prepare for the worst.
And another Executive Order - note how Iran Sanctions so to speak can result in anyone deemed to be a sanctioned person at the whim of you know whom..... while this is much more longwinded than necessary ( on purpose of course ) , here's the deal - if the President ( or his Secretary of State or The Treasury that report to him ) deem you to be a sanctioned person your bank accounts and assets can be seized , you can de denied loans or credit , you can prohibited from making financial transactions....in all ways relevant , you will be rendered a complete financial persona non grata....
Executive Order from the President regarding Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions with respect to Iran
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS SET FORTH IN THE IRAN THREAT REDUCTION AND SYRIA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OF 2012 AND ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172) (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), as amended (ISA), the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-195) (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.), as amended (CISADA), the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-158) (ITRSHRA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995,
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, hereby order:
Section 1. (a) When the President, or the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, has determined that sanctions shall be imposed on a person pursuant to ISA, CISADA, or ITRSHRA and has, in accordance with those authorities, selected one or more of the sanctions set forth in section 6 of ISA to impose on that person, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take the following actions with respect to the sanctions selected and maintained by the President, the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of the Treasury:
(i) with respect to section 6(a)(3) of ISA, prohibit any United States financial institution from making loans or providing credits to the sanctioned person consistent with that section;
(ii) with respect to section 6(a)(6) of ISA, prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which the sanctioned person has any interest;
(iii) with respect to section 6(a)(7) of ISA, prohibit any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of the sanctioned person;
(iv) with respect to section 6(a)(8) of ISA, block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the sanctioned person, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in;
(v) with respect to section 6(a)(9) of ISA, prohibit any United States person from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of a sanctioned person;
(vi) with respect to section 6(a)(11) of ISA, impose on the principal executive officer or officers, or persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities, of a sanctioned person the sanctions described in sections 6(a)(3), 6(a)(6), (6)(a)(7), 6(a)(8), 6(a)(9), or 6(a)(12) of ISA, as selected by the President, Secretary of State, or Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate; or
(vii) with respect to section 6(a)(12) of ISA, restrict or prohibit imports of goods, technology, or services, directly or indirectly, into the United States from the sanctioned person.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 2. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with or at the recommendation of the Secretary of State:
(i) to have knowingly, on or after August 10, 2012, transferred, or facilitated the transfer of, goods or technologies to Iran, any entity organized under the laws of Iran or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of Iran, or any national of Iran, for use in or with respect to Iran, that are likely to be used by the Government of Iran or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or by any other person on behalf of the Government of Iran or any of such agencies or instrumentalities, to commit serious human rights abuses against the people of Iran;
(ii) to have knowingly, on or after August 10, 2012, provided services, including services relating to hardware, software, or specialized information or professional consulting, engineering, or support services, with respect to goods or technologies that have been transferred to Iran and that are likely to be used by the Government of Iran or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or by any other person on behalf of the Government of Iran or any of such agencies or instrumentalities, to commit serious human rights abuses against the people of Iran;
(iii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the activities described in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section; or
(iv) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 3. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with or at the recommendation of the Secretary of State:
(i) to have engaged in censorship or other activities with respect to Iran on or after June 12, 2009, that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Iran, or that limit access to print or broadcast media, including the facilitation or support of intentional frequency manipulation by the Government of Iran or an entity owned or controlled by the Government of Iran that would jam or restrict an international signal;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the activities described in subsection (a)(i) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 4. (a) No entity owned or controlled by a United States person and established or maintained outside the United States may knowingly engage in any transaction, directly or indirectly, with the Government of Iran or any person subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of Iran, if that transaction would be prohibited by Executive Order 12957, Executive Order 12959 of May 6, 1995, Executive Order 13059 of August 19, 1997, Executive Order 13599 of February 5, 2012, section 5 of Executive Order 13622 of July 30, 2012, or section 12 of this order, or any regulation issued pursuant to the foregoing, if the transaction were engaged in by a United States person or in the United States.
(b) Penalties assessed for violations of the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section, and any related violations of section 12 of this order, may be assessed against the United States person that owns or controls the entity that engaged in the prohibited transaction.
(c) Penalties for violations of the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section shall not apply if the United States person that owns or controls the entity divests or terminates its business with the entity not later than February 6, 2013.
(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 5. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, and with the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and other agencies and officials as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a person any of the sanctions described in section 6 or 7 of this order upon determining that the person:
(a) knowingly, between July 1, 2010, and August 10, 2012, sold, leased, or provided to Iran goods, services, technology, information, or support with a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, or with an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more during a 12-month period, and that could directly and significantly facilitate the maintenance or expansion of Iran's domestic production of refined petroleum products, including any direct and significant assistance with respect to the construction, modernization, or repair of petroleum refineries;
(b) knowingly, between July 1, 2010, and August 10, 2012, sold or provided to Iran refined petroleum products with a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, or with an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more during a 12-month period;
(c) knowingly, between July 1, 2010, and August 10, 2012, sold, leased, or provided to Iran goods, services, technology, information, or support with a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, or with an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more during a 12-month period, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the enhancement of Iran's ability to import refined petroleum products;
(d) is a successor entity to a person determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section to meet the criteria in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section;
(e) owns or controls a person determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section to meet the criteria in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, and had knowledge that the person engaged in the activities referred to in that subsection; or
(f) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section to meet the criteria in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, and knowingly participated in the activities referred to in that subsection.
Sec. 6. (a) When the Secretary of State, in accordance with the terms of section 5 of this order, has determined that a person meets any of the criteria described in section 5 and has selected any of the sanctions set forth below to impose on that person, the heads of relevant agencies, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take the following actions where necessary to implement the sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State:
(i) the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank shall deny approval of the issuance of any guarantee, insurance, extension of credit, or participation in an extension of credit in connection with the export of any goods or services to the sanctioned person;
(ii) agencies shall not issue any specific license or grant any other specific permission or authority under any statute that requires the prior review and approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export or reexport of goods or technology to the sanctioned person;
(iii) with respect to a sanctioned person that is a financial institution:
(1) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shall take such actions as they deem appropriate, including denying designation, or terminating the continuation of any prior designation of, the sanctioned person as a primary dealer in United States Government debt instruments; or
(2) agencies shall prevent the sanctioned person from serving as an agent of the United States Government or serving as a repository for United States Government funds; or
(iv) agencies shall not procure, or enter into a contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from the sanctioned person.
(b) The prohibitions in subsections (a)(i)–(a)(iv) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 7. (a) When the Secretary of State, in accordance with the terms of section 5 of this order, has determined that a person meets any of the criteria described in section 5 and has selected any of the sanctions set forth below to impose on that person, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take the following actions where necessary to implement the sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State:
(i) prohibit any United States financial institution from making loans or providing credits to the sanctioned person totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period, unless such person is engaged in activities to relieve human suffering and the loans or credits are provided for such activities;
(ii) prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which the sanctioned person has any interest;
(iii) prohibit any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of the sanctioned person;
(iv) block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the sanctioned person, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in; or
(v) restrict or prohibit imports of goods, technology, or services, directly or indirectly, into the United States from the sanctioned person.
(b) The prohibitions in subsections (a)(i)–(a)(v) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 8. I hereby determine that, to the extent that section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) may apply, the making of donations of the types of articles specified in such section by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsections 1(a)(iv), 2(a), 3(a), and 7(a)(iv) of this order.
Sec. 9. The prohibitions in subsections 1(a)(iv), 2(a), 3(a), and 7(a)(iv) of this order include but are not limited to:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 10. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens who meet one or more of the criteria in subsections 2(a) and 3(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Sec. 11. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and sections 6(a)(6), 6(a)(7), 6(a)(8), 6(a)(9), 6(a)(11), and 6(a)(12) of ISA, and to employ all powers granted to the United States Government by section 6(a)(3) of ISA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 12. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order or in Executive Order 12957, Executive Order 12959, Executive Order 13059, or Executive Order 13599 is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order or in Executive Order 12957, Executive Order 12959, Executive Order 13059, or Executive Order 13599 is prohibited.
Sec. 13. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(b) the term "Government of Iran" includes the Government of Iran, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Iran, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Iran;
(c) the term "Iran" means the Government of Iran and the territory of Iran and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Iran claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Iran exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements;
(d) the terms "knowledge" and "knowingly," with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, mean that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result;
(e) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(f) the term "sanctioned person" means a person that the President, or the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, has determined is a person on whom sanctions shall be imposed pursuant to IEEPA, ISA, CISADA, or ITRSHRA, and on whom the President, the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of the Treasury has imposed any of the sanctions in section 6 of ISA;
(g) for the purposes of section 4 of this order, the term "subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of Iran" means a person organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction within Iran, ordinarily resident in Iran, or in Iran, or owned or controlled by any of the foregoing;
(h) the term "United States financial institution" means a financial institution (including its foreign branches) organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States or located in the United States; and
(i) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Sec. 14. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, there need be no prior notice of an action taken pursuant to subsections 1(a)(iv), 2(a), 3(a), and 7(a)(iv) of this order.
Sec. 15. Executive Order 13622 is hereby amended as follows:
(a) Subsection (1)(c)(ii) is amended by deleting the words "with respect to the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution."
(b) Subsection (2)(b)(ii) is amended by deleting the words "with respect to the country with primary jurisdiction over the person."
(c) Subsection 1(d) is amended by inserting the words "agricultural commodities," after the words "sale of."
Sec. 16. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out section 104A of CISADA (22 U.S.C. 8514). The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 17. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 18. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 19. The measures taken pursuant to this order are in response to actions of the Government of Iran occurring after the conclusion of the 1981 Algiers Accords, and are intended solely as a response to those later actions.
Fast And Furious Special Agent Vince Cefalu Tells All After He’s Fired in Denny’s Parking, Shocking Video
Friday, October 12, 2012 18:21
Special Agent Vince Cefalu has worked for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms for more than 25 years.
On top of successfully placing dozens of hard criminals behind bars throughout his career, Cefalu has received promotions and consistently positive evaluations.
When he started raising his voice about ATF corruption and the Fast and Furious Gun Walikng Scandel things changed.
Tuesday evening, Cefalu was asked to meet Special Agent in Charge of the San Francisco Field Division Joseph Riehl at a Denny’s Restaurant near Lake Tahoe.
When he arrived, he was served termination papers in the parking lot. Classy move. The exchange was secretly recorded by a confidential source. David Codrea has more:
Riehl, seen talking to Cefalu through his Jeep window and reportedly telling him he couldn’t leave because he had to sign papers, had been criticized on the CUATF forum, and Gun Rights Examiner is attempting to track down audit reports to determine what an independent assessment reveals about the allegations there.
But the bottom line is, an employee with over 25 years of service who has been a leading spokesman for whistleblowers was unceremoniously canned in a public parking lot by senior division management.. Read full article
Must See Video, The Truth About Fast and Furious is in, Straight From the Whislte Blower Special Agent Vince Cefalu’s Mouth!
It’s tragic to see that promoting failed leadership is the trend in govenment today. It’s not only his agency, it’s the whole lot of them that are all the “unchecked power goes (gone) corrupt”.
Vince Cefalu, a BATFE Agent and the whistleblower for the BATFE Fast and Furious operation spoke at the Golden State Second Amendment Council’s November meeting on November 17, 2011.
Vince gave permission to record not only his speech but also the uncut Q&A session that followed.
The GS2AC thanks Vince for taking time out to speak to us and present his thoughts to the world.
My name is Vincent A. Cefalu. I am a special agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under the U.S. Department of Justice.
Welcome to our nightmare. I say “our” because dozens of us can’t write a single article, and I have been asked and am privileged to speak on behalf of my peers who have not had the opportunity to voice their concerns related to ATF mismanagement, particularly with Operation Fast and Furious.
This grotesquely dangerous and reckless operation should have never been considered, much less allowed to occur.
It employed the unprecedented practice of allowing fi rearms to be transferred to violent criminals without any interdiction effort at all, in hopes of somehow later identifying high-level Mexican cartel members.
But it was the pattern of gross mismanagement that had been allowed to exist in ATF—and that I witnessed—which fostered an environment that unleashed this operation, violating public trust on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.
At no time in my career prior to becoming a complainant against my own agency—the agency I love and have been honored to serve— could I have ever been convinced I would be the poster boy for whistleblowers and challenges to corrupt government. As a young Marine military policeman, I was thrilled, proud and honored to be in law enforcement. I never considered it work….
But I ended up the lead agent in a case with huge vendetta overtones by my state and local counterparts, where members of an ad hoc task force insisted on fast-tracking wiretap attempts against the suspects. I refused.
When I reported this officially, senior management retroactively fabricated justifications for the actions they were preparing to take against me.
This led to a network of frustrated agents and inspectors, which ultimately resulted in my being contacted regarding the gun-walking practices and cover-ups related to Fast and Furious.
I took this information to Congress and advocated others to do the same.
In the 18 months leading up to Fast and Furious, Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell’s actions required that the agency had to pay out over a million dollars in settlements which should have led to his removal for the related conduct, had it ever been investigated and documented.Special Agent in Charge George Gillette had been disciplined multiple times, and his subordinates had logged dozens of complaints related to his incompetence and mismanagement.
Had ATF dealt with them at the time, the Fast and Furious program would never have been undertaken. However, by attacking those who exposed corruption, ATF was able to keep their golden boys in place.
This process was repeated all over the country (Newell has since been relocated to D.C. headquarters, but not fired). So pronounced was the mismanagement that ATF logged more complaints than either the DEA or FBI per agent. This is notable because the latter two are much larger agencies.
I write this article almost 6 years into the whistleblower process with ATF and only after millions of taxpayer dollars and countless hours of manpower have been expended by my agency to attack and discredit me and other whistleblowers.
The environment at ATF today is one where honest officers cannot act without fear of reprisal from dishonest officers. Such is this agent’s story, and the story of many other whistleblowers, including those involved in Fast and Furious.
As you may be aware, I recently contacted both Nevada U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Acting Director B. Todd Jones about allegations from whistleblowers that a breakdown in relations had occurred between ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) in Reno, Nevada.[1] I have not yet received a briefing from either of their offices.
The alleged breakdown is illustrated in a declination memorandum from the Reno USAO, which indicates that as of September 29, 2011, the Reno USAO categorically refused to accept any cases submitted by Reno ATF. The declination memo states, “We are willing to consider your cases again when your management addresses and resolves the issues at hand.”[2] Apparently as a consequence, ATF’s Reno Field Office has only opened one case in 2012, as the attached chart indicates.[3]
I have since obtained documents from whistleblowers which indicate that these issues were raised with ATF headquarters and the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) almost a year ago. According to one document, ATF agents in Reno notified ATF’s Internal Affairs Division of the issue on October 13, 2011.[4] According to a second document, an ATF agent in Reno notified OPR on October 25, 2011.[5] As you may know, because of ATF and the Reno USAO’s inability to resolve these issues, three ATF line agents and a supervisor were transferred out of Reno in April 2012.In light of these facts, I am seeking to understand whether Justice Department management was also notified of the problems between ATF and the USAO in Reno, and if so, what actions were taken to rectify these issues. Your office, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), is responsible for overseeing both ATF and U.S. Attorneys.
Well, they’ve finally gone ahead and done it. ATF’s San Francisco hatchet men just served Special Agent Vince Cefalu with termination papers in the parking lot of a Dennys. They did this over a year and half after proposing the termination . Notwithstanding the transparently trumped-up nature of the so-called “charges” in question, proposing a termination and then excuting it over a year and a half later is prima facie evidence that the action is unsustainable and is virtually certain to be reversed on appeal.
Moreover, the allegations used as a basis for the adverse action are laughably unfounded, deliberately fabricated, and relied largely on the testimony of ATF officials who committed easily-provable felony perjury in open court and later in sworn depositions. I herein predict that a number of the people involved in this grotesque act of bald-faced unlawful retaliation and obstruction of justice will do significant jail time before this is all over.
I will also say with confidence that this was by far the stupidest , most ill-advised course of action that they (ATF management) could possibly have taken in this case. Rather than quietly settling what a mediocre first-year law student would recognize to be a Hindenburg of a losing case (for them), ATF just substantially amplified the damages award that Cefalu will, in my opinion, recover at trial. Talk about stepping in it.
It’s well-known that ATF management and their viciously corrupt counsel are, for the most part, brutally self-serving and mean-spirited. But this Cefalu termination is nevertheless surprising in its utter incomprehensibility under the circumstances, from purely legal and elemental federal labor law standpoints. If they had any prayer of making the action stick, they had to do it more than a year ago, before so many additional events have transpired that will render the termination plainly unlawful and inescapably untenable. It’s just plain moronic no matter how you slice it.
and......
“Several of my former colleagues were and still are Blackbird employees. They do a lot of recruiting in FBNC,” says a retired special operator, using the acronym for U.S. Army Special Operations Command’s home base of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. “Their business is heavily weighted towards the dark side.”
From The Daily Mail linked below: ‘He said he wanted to expose something at work’
.jpg)
Story by Live Free Or Die and Beforeitsnews
The United States govt has massacred an entire family in the state of Virginia while the mainstream media has blamed it upon the murder-suicide of ‘a man distraught over the potential re-election of Barack Obama‘ after the so-called killer, Albert Peterson, threatened to expose govt. secrets.
Massacred by dark forces within the US govt were 13 year old Christopher Peterson, 16 year old Matthew Peterson and their parents, Albert and Kathleen Peterson. Both Kathleen and Albert had been employed by ‘highly secretive’ defense contractors Blackbird Technologies and Northrop Grumman. Blackbird Technologies, an offshoot of the infamous Blackwater/XE paramilitary group, is run by ex-CIA and Blackwater spook Cofer Black and is responsible for ‘tracking’targets of US Defense, Law Enforcement and Intelligence Communities, including Osama bin Laden. It’s also believed that Blackbird Tech is responsible for tracking Americans on Barack Obama ‘secret kill list’.
Though the mainstream media was quick to push the cover-up that Albert Peterson was suicidal and depressed over the potential re-election of Barack Obama, the likelihood of a long time employee of Northrup Grumman with Top Secret security clearances falling into the category of a suicidal killer are highly unlikely. If they knew he was mentally unstable, why would the government have allowed him to maintain the Top Secret security clearance that he still had?
“Peterson had recently lost a beloved uncle to suicide, and reportedly battled mental illness himself – including severe paranoia – for years.”
According to a neighbor who had met with the family at a picnic earlier in the day of the massacre:
Neighbor Jeremy Wilcox told local news radio station WTOP that the family had attended a community picnic together on Sunday and “showed no signs of any problem.”
Pictured below are Albert Peterson and his wife Kathleen and their two sons, murdered by highly secretive elements within the US government over Albert’s threats to expose top secret information that he had at work, according to The Daily Mail.
Kathleen Peterson had been employed by Blackbird Technologies, an offshoot of the infamous Blackwater/XE paramilitary group run by ex-CIA spook Cofer Black, who also happened to be the VP of Blackbird Technologies. According to Blackbird Technologies own website:
Blackbird Technologies, Inc. is a technology solutions provider whose mission is to solve challenging problems for customers in the Defense, Intelligence, and Law Enforcement Communities. We apply our technical expertise, innovation, and operational experience to meet our customers’ unique and complex challenges.
Blackbird’s core competencies are:
Tagging, tracking, and locating expertise, including experience with technical systems that provide a clear picture of operational assets and targets
Customized hardware and software development combined with quick-reaction, rapid-prototyping capabilities
Specialized communications, including devices and networks that are global, secure, and reliable—even in hostile environments
Information security solutions, including offensive and defensive capabilities that keep systems protected and data safe
Blackbird’s engineers, scientists, researchers, and analysts develop practical, field-ready solutions designed to address the toughest issues facing our customers. We successfully meld science with robust and reliable communications technology; fuse data and create multi-level data dissemination systems; and develop specialized networks that meet stringent requirements for reliability, security, and attribution.
We may never know what information Albert Peterson had threatened to expose about the US government but we do not that a highly orchestrated cover-up is now in progress. The propaganda mainstream media is playing their usual part and the ‘usual candidates’ linked back to the mercenary army of Blackwater/XE and the CIA are scurrying away to the woodwork after they’ve brutally massacred a lovely family, including two teenage boys who will be dearly missed by their classmates and community. The videos below tell this twisted tale from several different angles. What do you believe, that a man who threatens to expose govt secrets would thereafter slaughter himself and his family due to his fears over Obama being re-elected or was he massacred for threatening to expose top secret govt info, such as Obama’s secret kill list? Knowing the players involved and their track record of lies, the answer is clear to me.
http://occupycorporatism.com/cyber-attacks-on-banks-inspire-secret-technocratic-network-to-protect-financial-information/
Cyber Attacks on Banks Inspire Secret Technocratic Network to Protect Financial Information
Last month, mainstream media reported on the cyber-attacks to our banking institutions that disrupted business and caused havoc for customers. National Security officials stated that although the attacks have begun to subside, they are remaining vigilant.
A nameless, faceless group of alleged Iranian hackers is being blamed for the attacks to JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America (BoA), Wells Fargo, US Bancorp and Citigroup. Initially, the hacker group claimed they were upset by the 14 minute trailer produced by the US government and distributed by Israeli citizen and FBI informant, Sam Bacile. Now their story is changing and Iran is the culprit behind these attacks.
US intelligence fueled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Intelligence Directorate (J-2) claims that Iran has been focusing on schemes to attack the US using a cyber army to target US financial institutions – although this information is derived from a “highly classified” document.
According to Pentagon analysis, “Iran’s cyber aggression should be viewed as a component, alongside efforts like support for terrorism, to the larger covert war Tehran is waging against the west.”
The cyber threat level of these banks has been raised to “high” by the industry.
Senator Joseph Lieberman was quick to point out that he believed the Iranian government was to blame and that “I don’t believe these were just hackers who were skilled enough … to cause a disruption of the websites … of Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase.”
Lieberman continued: “I think this was done by Iran and the Quds Force, which has its own developing cyber attack capacity,” he continued. “And I believe it was in response to the increasingly strong economic sanctions that the United States and our European allies have put on Iranian financial institutions.”
The US cyber attacks have taken advantage of our vulnerability “which is part of why they are doing it,” Lieberman said. “And it’s a warning to us that if we take action against their nuclear weapons development program that they have the capacity to strike back at us.”
Gholam Reza Jalali, head of Iran’s Civil Defense Organization, denies Iranian involvement. “Iran has not hacked the U.S. banks.”
Frank J. Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute , told the House Committee on Homeland Security that “the government of Iran and its terrorist proxies are serious concerns in the cyber context. What Iran may lack in capability, it makes up for in intent. They do not need highly sophisticated capabilities – just intent and cash – as there exists an arms bazaar of cyber weapons, allowing Iran to buy or rent the tools they need or seek.”
Thanks to this rhetoric, the White House is actively pursuing a cybersecurity executive order that would not only usurp Congress, but also give the executive branch more over-reaching power to declare law without approval by the citizens of the US.
Confidence in the American banking system is dwindling as the cyber-attacks compound the problem. Keeping the public in the dark about the purpose behind the attacks allows the propaganda surrounding them to become more effective.
Mainstream “experts” claim that Islamic cyber terrorism justifies more stringent cybersecurity measures. Banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America support these controls because they facilitate more secrecy within banking institutions.
A fact that is not reported in the mainstream media readily is that denial of service attacks, as the alleged Islamic cyber army chose to enact, are accomplished without any actual hacking. The ATMs, banking information and data is not stolen or disturbed. Denial of service attacks are a lockout of the customer from the public banking website.
This means that the attacks were designed to play on the ignorance of the public. Using the Hegelian Dialectic, financial institutions in tandem with the mainstream media blow the actual problem out of proportion, stirring the psyche of the public to believe that the situation was worse than it was.
Why wouldn’t hackers destroy documents of actually disrupt banking transactions? Because the scheme was perpetrated by the banking cartels in conjunction with the White House to not only bring about draconian cybersecurity, but also explain how a false flag concerning our banking system will occur in the near future.
Supporting this fake threat are “experts” like Rodney Joffe, senior vice president of the cybersecurity firm Sterling, who said: “The nature of this attack is sophisticated enough or large enough that even the largest of the financial institutions would find it difficult to defend against.”
This style of propaganda keeps the average American in fear that somewhere in the stratosphere there are Islamic extremists waiting to destroy the US. It is the same fear-mongering that occurred just after 9/11 to gain support for the coming “war on terror” – which never seems to end when the terror is state-sponsored.
Verizon Communications has jumped into the mix to assist in investigations into cyber attacks. Verizon, along with the federal government through the authority of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) are perfecting control tools.
The “campaign” seeks to identify the nameless, faceless perpetrators and commandeer their computers. More information is considered classified.
At a recent conference last month called the Cybersecurity Summit, influential members of the cyber-world gathered to discuss how they will implement controls on the internet to stop the Islamic cyber army.
At a recent conference last month called the Cybersecurity Summit, influential members of the cyber-world gathered to discuss how they will implement controls on the internet to stop the Islamic cyber army.
The items up for discussion revolved around building infrastructure that “protect” commerce for public and private institutions with regard to cybersecurity. And with technological advances motivating the market, these think-tankers believe that the executive branch of the government must act before it is too late.
Speaking at the conference were:
• Janet Napolitano, secretary of DHS
• Sean McGurk, director of control system security for Verizon
• Paul Nguyen, vice president of cyber solutions for Knowledge Consulting Group
• Dr. Catherine Lotrionte, associate director of law, science and global security at Georgetown University
• Sean McGurk, director of control system security for Verizon
• Paul Nguyen, vice president of cyber solutions for Knowledge Consulting Group
• Dr. Catherine Lotrionte, associate director of law, science and global security at Georgetown University
The banking institutions have decided to join forces to fight the cyber-attacks, along with the federal government so that technological vulnerabilities are identified and eliminated. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are discussing converging on a shared data center where secret banking information can be kept under wraps so that hackers cannot steal information as well as sound an alarm when other banks are under attack.
This new network of technocrats will privatize customer banking information in the name of security while allowing the banksters to further hide their questionable dealings. Banks across America will be able to communicate in covert means that will never be released to the general public. The days of banking scandals are over because their network will prevent them for being caught.
and......
http://news.yahoo.com/shamoon-virus-most-destructive-yet-private-sector-panetta-030432187.html
"Shamoon" virus most destructive yet for private sector, Panetta says
Reuters – 23 hrs ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The "Shamoon" virus that attacked Saudi Arabia's state oil company,ARAMCO, was probably the most destructive attack the business sector has seen to date, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday.
Addressing business leaders in New York, Panetta described the virus as sophisticated and noted that a similar attack days later struck Qatar's natural gas firm, Rasgas.
"More than 30,000 computers that it infected (at ARAMCO) were rendered useless, and had to be replaced," he said.
He said Shamoon included a routine called a "wiper," coded to self-execute, which replaced crucial system files with an image of a burning U.S. flag. It also overwrote all the real data on the machine with what he called garbage data.
"Imagine the impact an attack like this would have on your company," Panetta said, as he called for steps to bolster the nation's cyber defenses.
In his speech, Panetta also cited recent denial-of-service attacks against major U.S. banks, which delayed or disrupted services on customer websites.
"While this kind of tactic isn't new, the scale and speed with which it happened was unprecedented," he said.
One U.S. official, briefing reporters before the speech on condition of anonymity, said the United States knew who carried out the attacks cited in Panetta's speech, but declined to disclose that information.
and.....
NYPD concern about ‘Iran terror’ should put U.S. security on alert
On September 25, The Passionate Attachment broke the story of the Israel lobbyist who suggested that a Pearl Harbor-type attack might be necessary to get a recalcitrant Obama Administration to go to war with Iran. As Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, brazenly put it during question time at the pro-Israel think tank’s policy forum luncheon on “How to Build U.S.-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout”:
So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.
In light of Clawson’s thinly-veiled call for a false flag attack to trigger another Middle East war for Israel, a story in yesterday’s New York Post entitled “NYPD on alert for Iran terror” should be of major concern to those charged with protecting U.S. national security. Reported Jessica Simeone:
A terror attack sponsored by Iran is an ongoing concern for the NYPD, Commissioner Ray Kelly revealed yesterday.“We’ve been concerned about Iran for a while, and I think the history of those events throughout the world since January give us cause for concern,” Kelly said during an anti-terror conference called NYPD SHIELD.Kelly also said that a possible conflict between Iran and Israel is a particular area of concern, given New York City’s large Jewish population.One issue is the potential for a retaliation attack on New York City by Iran and Hezbollah, said NYPD Lt. Kevin Yorke of the Intelligence Division.
“Within the last year, we’ve seen a worldwide increase in incidents involving the stockpiling of explosives, the surveillance of targets, and a number of very significant plots and attacks,” Yorke said.That increase in activity is in direct relation to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program and the tension surrounding it, Yorke said.“Obviously if there’s any action involving Israel and Iran we have to be very cognizant of the potential of retaliation here in New York City,” Kelly said.
Considering the intimate ties between the “rogue” NYPD Intelligence Division & Counter-Terrorism Bureau and the “criminal state” of Israel — with its sordid history of false flag attacks and other crimesagainst the United States as well as its ongoing dubious propaganda campaign of allegations against its Islamic enemies — this public statement of “concern” about an Iranian-sponsored terror attack in New York should put those genuinely concerned about U.S. national security on high alert.
It may also be of note to national security that a recent Israeli delegation to the city headed by Minister for Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuri Edelstein cited the 9/11 attacks as “an example of the destructive capability of terrorist groups governed, motivated and supported by the terrorist capital of the world — Iran.” Presumably, Minister Edelstein did not mention that his prime minister thought that those same attacks were “very good” for Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment