New World Order
Obama demanded that all forms of digital communications allow the US government backdoor access to intercept them
The real capabilities and behavior of the US surveillance state are almost entirely unknown to the American public because, like most things of significance done by the US government, it operates behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy. But a seemingly spontaneous admission this week by a former FBI counterterrorism agent provides a rather startling acknowledgment of just how vast and invasive these surveillance activities are.
Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN’s Out Front with Erin Burnett have been excitingly focused on the possible involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the 24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As part of their relentless stream of leaks uncritically disseminated by our Adversarial Press Corps, anonymous government officials are claiming that they are now focused on telephone calls between Russell and Tsarnaev that took place both before and after the attack to determine if she had prior knowledge of the plot or participated in any way.
On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?
CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.
BURNETT: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”
“All of that stuff” – meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant – “is being captured as we speak”.
On Thursday night, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that “all digital communications in the past” are recorded and stored:
Let’s repeat that last part: “no digital communication is secure”, by which he means not that any communication is susceptible to government interception as it happens (although that is true), but far beyond that: all digital communications – meaning telephone calls, emails, online chats and the like – are automatically recorded and stored and accessible to the government after the fact. To describe that is to define what a ubiquitous, limitless Surveillance State is.
There have been some previous indications that this is true. Former AT&T engineer Mark Klein revealed that AT&T and other telecoms had built a special network that allowed the National Security Agency full and unfettered access to data about the telephone calls and the content of email communications for all of their customers. Specifically, Klein explained “that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T” and that “contrary to the government’s depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists . . . much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic.” But his amazing revelations were mostly ignored and, when Congress retroactively immunized the nation’s telecom giants for their participation in the illegal Bush spying programs, Klein’s claims (by design) were prevented from being adjudicated in court.
That every single telephone call is recorded and stored would also explain this extraordinary revelation by the Washington Post in 2010:
Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications.
It would also help explain the revelations of former NSA official William Binney, who resigned from the agency in protest over its systemic spying on the domestic communications of US citizens, that the US government has “assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about US citizens with other US citizens” (which counts only communications transactions and not financial and other transactions), and that “the data that’s being assembled is about everybody. And from that data, then they can target anyone they want.”
Despite the extreme secrecy behind which these surveillance programs operate, there have been periodic reports of serious abuse. Two Democratic Senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, have been warning for years that Americans would be “stunned” to learn what the US government is doing in terms of secret surveillance.
Strangely, back in 2002 – when hysteria over the 9/11 attacks (and thus acquiescence to government power) was at its peak – the Pentagon’s attempt to implement what it called the “Total Information Awareness” program (TIA) sparked so much public controversy that it had to be official scrapped. But it has been incrementally re-instituted – without the creepy (though honest) name and all-seeing-eye logo – with little controversy or even notice.
Back in 2010, worldwide controversy erupted when the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates banned the use of Blackberries because some communications were inaccessible to government intelligence agencies, and that could not be tolerated. The Obama administration condemned this move on the ground that it threatened core freedoms, only to turn around six weeks later and demand that all forms of digital communications allow the US government backdoor access to intercept them. Put another way, the US government embraced exactly the same rationale invoked by the UAE and Saudi agencies: that no communications can be off limits. Indeed, the UAE, when responding to condemnations from the Obama administration, noted that it was simply doing exactly that which the US government does:
“‘In fact, the UAE is exercising its sovereign right and is asking for exactly the same regulatory compliance – and with the same principles of judicial and regulatory oversight – that Blackberry grants the US and other governments and nothing more,’ [UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef Al] Otaiba said. ‘Importantly, the UAE requires the same compliance as the US for the very same reasons: to protect national security and to assist in law enforcement.’”
That no human communications can be allowed to take place without the scrutinizing eye of the US government is indeed the animating principle of the US Surveillance State. Still, this revelation, made in passing on CNN, that every single telephone call made by and among Americans is recorded and stored is something which most people undoubtedly do not know, even if the small group of people who focus on surveillance issues believed it to be true (clearly, both Burnett and Costello were shocked to hear this).
Some new polling suggests that Americans, even after the Boston attack, are growing increasingly concerned about erosions of civil liberties in the name of Terrorism. Even those people who claim it does not matter instinctively understand the value of personal privacy: they put locks on their bedroom doors and vigilantly safeguard their email passwords. That’s why the US government so desperately maintains a wall of secrecy around their surveillance capabilities: because they fear that people will find their behavior unacceptably intrusive and threatening, as they did even back in 2002 when John Poindexter’s TIA was unveiled.
Mass surveillance is the hallmark of a tyrannical political culture. But whatever one’s views on that, the more that is known about what the US government and its surveillance agencies are doing, the better. This admission by this former FBI agent on CNN gives a very good sense for just how limitless these activities are. source – Guardian UK
Vice President Joe Biden calls for the creation of a “new world order” at the Export Import Bank conference in Washington on April 5, 2013.
The One World Government Is Coming
Step #1 in disarming the people legally is pass a law saying that anyone suffering from mental illness is forbidden from owning firearms. Step #2 will be declaring anyone who trusts in Jesus Christ and believes that He is going to return for His Church is mentally ill. Step #3 will be a global religion approved by the state. It begins…
From Time: Religion can be a source of comfort that improves well-being. But some kinds of religiosity could be a sign of deeper mental health issues.
Seeing their kids more eager to pray than play video games, most parents would shout, “Hallelujah” or whatever their expression of joy. And they should. Research shows that religion can be a positive force in the lives of children, just as can be for adults. “Religion,” says Bill Hathaway, a clinical psychologist of religion and Dean of the School of Psychology and Counseling at Regent University, “is related to the child having a higher sense of self esteem, better academic adjustment and lower rates of substance abuse and delinquent or criminal behavior.”
So if your child is immersed in scripture after school and prays regularly throughout the day, you may breathe a sigh of relief. She’s such a good girl. My boy is okay.
Or maybe not. Your child’s devotion may be a great thing, but there are some kids whose religious observances require a deeper look.
For these children, an overzealous practice of their family faith — or even another faith — may be a sign of an underlying mental health issue or a coping mechanism for dealing with unaddressed trauma or stress.
Therapists in private practice report that they are seeing children and teens across a range of faiths whose religious practice can be problematic. The amount of time they spend praying, or in other acts of spiritual practice, is not as important, they say, as the quality of this devotion, and whether it helps the children or instead isolates them and undermines their schoolwork and relationships. Children with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), for example, may rigidly repeat holy verses, say Hail Mary’s or focus on other rituals less out of a deeper sense of faith but more as an expression of their disorder. “It looks positive but could be negative,” says Stephanie Mihalas, a UCLA professor and licensed clinical psychologist.
Such ritualistic behavior, she says, may also reflect a child’s way of coping with anxiety, and in reality could be no more spiritual than fanatical hand washing or dreading to walk on cracks. “These kids fear that if they don’t obey their religious rules perfectly,” explains Carole Lierberman, MD, a psychiatrist in Beverly Hills, “God will punish them.”
Some children suffer from scrupulosity, a form of OCD that involves a feeling of guilt and shame. Sufferers obsessively worry that they have committed blasphemy, been impure or otherwise sinned. They tend to focus on certain rules or rituals rather than the whole of their faith. They worry that God will never forgive them. And this can signal the onset of depression or anxiety, says John Duffy, a Chicago area clinical psychologist specializing in adolescents. “Kids who have made ‘mistakes’ with sex or drug use,” he says, “may have trouble forgiving themselves.”
Such fastidiousness to religious practices may not seem so harmful, but extreme behavior such as delusions or hallucinations may be a sign of serious mental illness. Seeing and hearing things that are not there can be symptoms of manic-depressive, bipolar disorder, or early onset schizophrenia. But parents may be less attuned to such unhealthy behavior when it occurs under the guise of faith.
It’s not unusual that children in families where marital discord, harsh discipline, abuse, or addiction are present, perform rituals for protection. If they know their parents approve of religion, says Lieberman, “they try to be good little children and stay below the radar of the family chaos or parents’ rage.” Or, as Mihalas has seen, some children push their already observant parents to be even stricter, fearing that catastrophe will strike otherwise.
When does religiosity raise these red flags? The crucial test focuses on how the kids are functioning in the rest of their lives. Are they doing well at school, playing sports or music, socializing with friends? If so, then their faith is probably a source of strength and resilience. If, however, the religious practices and rituals seem to be overtaking their daily lives, and displacing their normal activities, experts suggest taking steps to understand what’s triggering the focus on faith. source – Time
The 666 Surveillance System
For many years now, NTEB has been telling you of the coming worldwide tracking system that, one day, will be connected to the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast. We call it the 666 Surveillance System. Please keep that in mind as your read the story below…
From Fox News: Apple is looking to beef up the iPhone’s indoor location capabilities by acquiring WiFiSlam. According to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the deal, Apple paid $20 million to scoop up the two-year-old startup based in Silicon Valley.
Using Wi-Fi signals, WiFiSlam determines a user’s location within buildings, which has implications for shopping, advertising and social networking. According to WiFiSlam, its technology can pinpoint a smartphone with 2.5 accuracy.
“We are building the next generation of location-based mobile apps that, for the first time, engage with users at the scale that personal interaction actually takes place,” a description reads on AngelList’s investment page for WiFiSlam. “Applications range from step-by-step indoor navigation, to product-level retail customer engagement, to proximity-based social networking.”
Perhaps WiFiSlam’s technology could help Apple not only makes its iAd platform more robust by delivering location-based offers but enhance the accuracy of its Passbook service. We’ve received lock screen notifications for Walgreens while we were a quarter of a mile away.
Apple gets some Google juice out of the deal, too. WiFiSlam’s co-founder, Joseph Huang, is a former Google software engineering intern. And one of the company’s angel investors was a Google employee. source – Fox News
Bloomberg’s Vision of a Drone Police State Coming True
RELATED STORY: The 666 Surveillance System and the Mark of the Beast
Envisioning a future where privacy is a thing of the past, Mayor Bloomberg said Friday it will soon be impossible to escape the eye of Big Brother in the city.
“You wait, in five years, the technology is getting better, they’ll be cameras every place,” Bloomberg said during his weekly radio appearance. “Get used to it — whether you like it or not.”
The Police Department already has a network of its own surveillance cameras throughout the city, including in Times Square. And in Lower Manhattan, an initiative developed after 9/11 known as the “Ring of Steel” integrates the NYPD’s cameras with those of banks and other institutions.The security measures have drawn scorn from some civil libertarians — but Bloomberg scoffed at privacy concerns on his Friday morning program on WOR-AM. “The argument against using automation is just this craziness that ‘Oh, it’s Big Brother,’” Bloomberg said. “Get used to it!”
In the future, the cameras won’t just be limited to buildings and red lights. Some of them will be able to fly, the mayor pointed out.
“It’s scary,” he said. “But what’s the difference whether the drone is up in the air or on the building? I mean intellectually I have trouble making a distinction. And you know you’re gonna have face recognition software. People are working on that.”
Bloomberg warned that drones would be able to peep into a home’s windows — adding that Peeping Tom legislation could help maintain some privacy.
“It’s just we’re going into a different world, unchartered…,” he said, adding that you “can’t keep the tides from coming in.” source- NY Daily News
The Blood of the Saints
“And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” Revelation 17:6
From TIME: Habemus Papam Franciscum came the tweet, the first official word from the @Pontifex account, after the white smoke curled from the copper chimney watched by hundreds of thousands in St. Peter’s Square, by millions and millions on every imaginable 21st century technology around the world. And there it was, old and new, past and present, the arrival of a Pope who for the first time hails from “the most unequal part of the world,” as he once called Latin America, who cooked his own dinners and rode the bus and took his regal name from the sainted champion of the least among us.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, brings to the throne of St. Peter a concern about the “spiritual sickness” that can afflict a church if it seems to care more for its priests than its people. “I want you to bless me,” he told the crowd, before it was his turn to bless them. He noted that his brother Cardinals had gone “to the end of the earth” to find the new Bishop of Rome.
But there was a kind of subtle, rounded—perhaps divine—justice to it all. And by the time his brief debut was over, it was already clear that a profound change had occurred in an institution famously resistant to it.
He will deliver much-needed oxygen to parts of the Catholic empire. Just before the conclave convened, he celebrated his 55th year as a member of the Society of Jesus—popularly called the Jesuits.
That itself is a matter of rejoicing for the order—even though Bergoglio is on the conservative end of the often liberal Jesuit scale. The order has seen its once formidable influence wane as the star of Opus Dei rose during the reign of John Paul II. Bergoglio’s choice of name is also telling.
Many people immediately saw the reference to the great saint of the church, Francis of Assisi. But anyone raised by the Jesuits would have heard the resonance of another great saint and member of the Society of Jesus: the evangelist to Asia, Francis Xavier. In Mexico City, stunned Jesuits simply murmured “the Argentine” at the news, with one older priest saying, “Our first Pope—let us pray for him and for our church.” source – TIME
For more than 800 years, scholars have pointed to a prophecy regarding “the last pope,” and of a “great apostasy” and even the destruction of Rome. Taken from St. Malachy’s “Prophecy of the Popes,” it includes a list of verses predicting each of the Roman Catholic popes from Pope Celestine II to the final pope, “Peter the Roman,” whose reign would end in the destruction of Rome.
The prophecies, first published in 1595, were attributed to St. Malachy by Benedictine historian Arnold de Wyon, who recorded them in his book “Lignum Vitæ.” Tradition holds that Malachy had been called to Rome by Pope Innocent II. While there, he experienced a vision of the future popes, including the last one, which he wrote down in a series of cryptic phrases.
According to the prophecy, the next pope is to be the final pontiff, Petrus Romanus or Peter the Roman. Some Catholics believe that the next pope on St. Malachy’s list heralds the beginning of “great apostasy” followed by “great tribulation,” setting the stage for the imminent unfolding of apocalyptic events – something many non-Catholics would agree with.
This would give rise to a false prophet, who according to the book of Revelation leads the world’s religious communities into embracing a political leader known as Antichrist. source – WND
RELATED STORY: The Mark of the Beast
We believe that the mark of the beast spoken of in the bible is an actual mark, and more than that, it will part of a worldwide system. It will be a system in which every person is under constant, 24 hour surveillance, and it will as the bible says, either grant or deny you the abilty to conduct financial transactions -
“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelation 13:16,17
Google and countless other technology companies are working overtime at a pace never seen before in world history to create this coming system that the Antichrist will takeover when he arrives on the scene. Don’t believe it? Just look into the camera and smile…you’ll get the picture soon enough.
From Daily Mail UK: They look like something you’d see at a Star Trek convention, perhaps worn with a pair of fake pointy ears. And that’s entirely fitting, given that these high-tech specs are about to propel us into a sci-fi future few could have envisaged a decade ago.
Google Glass has had the tech world giddy with excitement since it was unveiled nearly a year ago. Last week, at the South By Southwest technology convention in Austin, Texas, a Google designer gave the first demonstration to a rapt audience.
This remarkable new innovation represents the advance guard of what Silicon Valley is banking on being the next great step in our addiction to the internet: ‘wearable computing’.
Apple and Samsung are working on smart watches, Google is developing talking shoes, but nothing compares to these head-mounted ‘glasses’ that can shoot video footage, search the internet or send an email, all at the command of their wearer’s voice.
To look at, they are nothing special, certainly rather nerdy, but put them on and you are immersed in what the experts like to call ‘augmented reality’.
But what exactly is augmented reality?
Each pair of glasses is fitted with a miniaturised camera and web browser which displays digital information on a tiny screen — a clear plastic block the width of a pencil — just in front and slightly above a wearer’s eye.
The arm of the headset, which sits near the wearer’s temple, acts as a touch pad. By sliding your finger up and down it, you can scroll through the text visible in your eyepiece. To select something on the screen, the user simply taps the headset.
The device is also fitted with a tiny speaker, microphone and motion sensors which interpret commands based on the wearer’s head movements.
Google Glass does everything a smartphone does without the bother of having to pull it out of your pocket and fiddle with the controls. Text messages and emails can be dictated by voice command and then read back on the screen to check that the computer has heard — and spelt — everything correctly.
Want to catch up on the news? Wearers can see headlines and pictures and have full stories read back to them simply by tapping the frame of their glasses.
Wear them while driving and the glasses’ in-built GPS system will identify your location and give you turn-by-turn directions via Google Maps. Ask the glasses a question and the answer will pop up on screen.
At the Texas convention, the Google representative gave an in-depth demonstration showing how, in addition to voice commands, simple eye movements can also be used to control the device. Looking up activates the screen and gentle head motions allow you to scroll through various different programmes.
The technician took a photo of the packed audience and then asked his glasses how to say ‘thank you’ in Japanese.
Google Glass is expected to go on sale by the end of this year at an estimated price of $1,500 (£995). Already, tech junkies have shown themselves willing to pay even more.
When someone claiming to be testing Google Glass offered their device for sale on eBay this month, bidding went as high as $16,000 (£10,610). The auction was cancelled only when it became clear that the opportunistic vendor didn’t yet have the device.
Google has allowed only a trusted few volunteer guinea pigs to try out the glasses, which they insist are still in development. Those who have put these early prototypes through their paces have generally been impressed — with a few caveats.
The screen, they say, is distracting because, when you are trying to get on with other tasks, you are always tempted to look up at it.
Those who normally wear glasses have also reported difficulties in reading the screen. Google says it is working on a spectacles-compatible version and Google Glass contact lenses are surely only years away.
Wearers also report feeling self-conscious while wearing them. They certainly are not the most chic of options. Google says it is working on that, too — by collaborating with trendy spectacles manufacturers to make later Google Glass designs more attractive.
Some reported that the glasses made friends and family feel uncomfortable. How can you be sure the Google Glass wearer you are talking to is actually paying attention — and not checking the sports results popping up on his screen?
But of all the promised features of these spectacular specs, it is the glasses’ ability to take pictures and shoot video footage and upload it instantly to the internet that is proving most disturbing.
Some fear candid camera snooping will become all too easy when no one realises that the person simply looking in their direction is actually filming them.
And it gets worse
According to Google co-founder Sergey Brin, the company plans to have Google Glass fitted with an automatic picture-taking mode, snapping photos at pre-set intervals. This could be as often as every five seconds.
While people may rightly worry about being photographed without their knowledge or permission, such fears pale into insignificance when you consider the true extent of the insidious reach of Google Glass.
Time and again, Google has proved that it has no time for that quaint old concept called ‘privacy’
You may already have been filmed unknowingly by someone with Google Glass — one of those lucky guinea pigs hand-picked to try out the developing technology. If not, rest assured you soon will be. A growing number of industry insiders say we should all be very worried.
Scott Cleland, an internet analyst, told me ‘creepy’ Google Glass technology represented the ‘ultimate escalation of Google’s privacy invasion’.
He says: ‘Say you’re huddled in Starbucks with your spouse and someone next to you is recording your conversation on Google Glass. Remember, the glasses have no storage capacity so all the information goes directly back to Google’s huge data centres.’
Nick Pickles, of the UK privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, says Google Glass ‘makes CCTV cameras look trivial . . . the person next to you isn’t just a commuter any more, they’re a Google agent’. source – Daily Mail UK