DaniMartExtras, Too



Posted by Xaniel777 on February 19, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : February 19, 2012


Welcome to ‘ THE BETTER LATE THAN NEVER ‘ Danimartextras Weekend Edition. Had trouble publishing again. Something that seems to happen quite allot around here for some unknow reason. However, I’m happy to report, that we are rolling along again. Sorry for the daily ! } ~~ Xaniel777


NDAA Is A Hoax: You Can’t Legalize Tyranny


{ XANIEL’S NOTE : I personally do not agree with Alex Jones on everything he does or does not.

There are times that I find Jones suspect on certain things like defending the Zionist Israelis after they’ve broken International Law.

Jones has jumped all over many of the callers to his show after they have raised the Israeli connection to 9-11, something that everyone else in the Alternative News Media is fully aware of and Jones is helping to cover up.

Only recently has he started becoming a little bit critical of some Israel’s illegal acts when he started drawing heavy fire ( with me being one of many giving a rebuttal ) for his position and started losing many listeners to his show. For more about Jones see :Alex Jones – EXPOSED ‘.

However, on this NDAA matter, he and I agree 100% and I highly recommend that you listen to every word as it does effect everyone of us and our freedom !! } ~~ Xaniel777


Uploaded by on Jan 4, 2012

President Obama quietly waited weeks to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation on New Year’s Eve after publicly threatening to veto the bill that, among other things, authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Obama’s signing statement tries to reassure observers that he wouldn’t use the “law” to detain citizens, but that is an illusion; his signing statement is meaningless, and the establishment occupying Washington have pulled a hoax on The People in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to enslave them.

But you can’t legalize tyranny. One of the nation’s most well known legal precedents, Marbury vs. Madison, set in 1803, makes clear that any “law” that is “repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.”

The blatant unconstitutional powers enacted in the legislature and executive branch is backfiring, however. This crowning act of tyranny is awakening people to the true intentions of Big Government in its takeover. The NDAA is so openly in violation of the American way, that Obama had to play lip-service to it in his signing statement language, even as he gave it the power of law.

Critics in the ACLU and Human Rights centers have abandoned their comfort zones and attacked the president from the left for crossing the Rubicon on rights, as they rightly should.

Now is the time for more to join that call; for Americans of all stripes to speak out against so-called “laws” that enable blatant political targeting of dissidents and declare a war against the citizens of this country. Make no mistake, if we sit idly by and let this precedent become accepted– like the Patriot Act, with the appearance of law– more and more unconstitutional legislation will obviously take hold.


Rep. Jackie Speier Stands Up Against DHS Big Brother Policies

From The Intel Hub

The Intel Hub
By Madison Ruppert
February 17, 2012

It remains to be seen if anything will actually come of this, but regardless the stand taken by Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, in a Homeland Security subcommittee hearing is not only highly abnormal but in my opinion, quite admirable.

During the hearing Speier said that she wants the Department of Homeland Security to cease their social media and news monitoring operations which were recently revealed in great detail thanks to the hard work of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

EPIC is currently pursuing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in order to obtain more information about their surveillance programs targeting social media, news organizations and bloggers.

In fact, the EPIC v. DHS suit has already turned up documents which revealed that the agency was focusing on tracking media stories which “reflect adversely” on the agency or the government of the United States as a whole.

EPIC originally sent their request for the documents in April 2004 but was finally forced to file suit in December of 2011 because of the typical dismissive DHS response to the FOIA request.

Among the almost 300 pages of documents obtained through EPIC’s FOIA lawsuit, some highlights include that the DHS instructed General Dynamics (the contractor in charge of the program) to “[identify] media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government, DHS or prevent, protect respond or recovery activities” along with capturing “public reaction to major government proposals.”

General Dynamics was also told to create “reports on DHS, Components, and other Federal Agencies: positive and negative reports on FEMA, CIA, CBP, ICE, etc. as well as organizations outside the DHS.”

If they are monitoring websites like End the Lie , which they very well might be seeing as they are monitoring “online forums, blogs, public websites, and messages boards” I am sure they would have a considerable number of negative reports I have penned about the DHS and the countless other corrupt federal agencies.

While they produced a list of the websites they are monitoring, I highly doubt that it is an exhaustive list, furthermore, some of the sites include services like Twitter and RSS aggregators which would open up the monitored content to just about anything on the internet.

From what I can tell, the list of websites is nothing more than a starting point, given that Google Blog Search is one of the listed websites and that could easily be used to find alternative news blogs like End the Lie and others.

The problem is not only that they are collecting this information, but that they are actually going through the effort to link individuals with the articles, something which Speier highlighted in her statements.

“I find that outrageous,” Speier said of the DHS practice of analyzing the authors of online postings during January 16’s 90-minute Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence hearing.

Speier said that the DHS should correct the $11 million contract with General Dynamics in order “to prevent that type of information from being collected.”

During the hearing, the DHS chief privacy officer Mary Ellen Callahan claimed in response to Speier’s statements that, “We are just focusing on the event, the situation that is going on, and not worrying about the individual.”

Yet Callahan blatantly contradicted herself in saying that they do analyze who the author of a particular online posting “when it lends credibility to the report or facilities coordination with federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, and foreign governments or international law enforcement partners.”

They claim that the category of individuals who have personally identifiable information collected on them is narrow, but when one actually examines it, it becomes quite obvious that it could include a great deal of people around the world.

They include individuals (American and foreign) in situations involving potential life or death (which is up to the DHS to determine, of course), Senior U.S. and foreign government officials who make public statements or provide public updates, U.S. and foreign government spokespersons who make public statements or provide public updates, U.S. and foreign private sector officials and spokespersons who make public statements or provide public updates, Names of anchors, newscasters, or on-scene reporters who are known or identified as reporters in their posts or articles, or who use traditional and/or social media in real time to provide their audience situational awareness and information, Current and former public officials who are victims of incidents or activities related to homeland security, and terrorists, drug cartel leaders or other persons known to have been involved in major crimes of homeland security interest.

Like most things when it comes to government, this language can be exploited in order to create a great deal of wiggle room while still not exceeding the boundaries.

Even more importantly, the only agency holding the DHS accountable for this activity is the DHS itself, so if they breach these conditions it is likely the case that no one outside the agency would even know about it.

Speier fought back against Callahan’s statements in saying, “I’m suggesting to you that it is irrelevant and you don’t need it and you should suspend that part of the contract.”

Callahan then nonsensically claimed, “We don’t collect information on individuals. We don’t monitor them in regards to First Amendment activity.”

The way that so many of these so-called officials operate makes me think that they genuinely believe that most Americans are downright imbecilic.

It’s either that or they’re so confident that no one actually holds them to account or pays attention that they believe they can get away with just about anything.

One would have to possess an attention span of thirty seconds in order to logically reconcile all of Callahan’s statements.

Ginger McCall, an attorney for EPIC, said that they want the DHS to actually close the program, although it appears that Speier might not be quite as ambitious.

Indeed, EPIC maintains the position that, “The agency has demonstrated no legal basis for its social network and media monitoring program, which threatens free speech and expression rights.”

They point out, “Law enforcement agency monitoring of online criticism and dissent chills legitimate criticism of the government, and implicates the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Expression are at the core of civil liberties and have been strongly protected by the Constitution and US courts.”

Unfortunately, all of our most essential civil liberties are actively under attack – even the right to due process – and being concerned about this has actually become an indication of possible terrorist activity according to our government.

Ginger McCall went on to say that EPIC has “asked for the program to be suspended.” She added that they want the DHS to “suspend the collection of public reaction and reports to policy proposals that reflect adversely on DHS or the government.”

These only seem like reasonable requests in what is supposed to be the freest country in the world.

Not a single other person sitting on the 12-member committee came to Speier’s side in demanding that the rights of Americans be protected, indeed the closest was likely when Representative Patrick Meehan, a Republican from Pennsylvania and chairman of the subcommittee, said that the program had a “chilling effect” which might lead to erosion of “an expectation [of a] right [to] privacy.”

When the DHS director of office operations Richard Chavez was asked why the DHS even needed General Dynamics to monitor the internet instead of just doing it with their own staff, Chavez said that General Dynamics has “skilled technicians in surfing the web.”

The fact that only one person is standing up against this egregious Big Brother activity is nothing short of disturbing. If we were living in an overtly totalitarian regime like, say, Soviet Russia, I would only expect to see programs like this in action.

For some reason I thought I lived in the United States where we have a right to free speech and a reasonable expectation of privacy but apparently we have neither a right to keep our digital lives free of government monitoring nor a right to keep anything away from Big Brother’s prying eyes, especially if said material represents “dissent” in any way.

Hopefully more of our so-called representatives will start standing up for the most essential rights of the American people, or else the DHS will continue on with programs like these at the breakneck speed they have been operating at for the past decade.

Want to help me continue to cover the stories you find important? Then email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com with your tips, opinions, comments or insults.

This article originally appeared on End the Lie


Ron Paul scores big wins in Hancock and Washington counties but statewide total doesn’t top Romney

From Bangor Daily News

By Tom Walsh, BDN Staff

Posted Feb. 18, 201

Texas Congress Ron Paul was the top choice in a presidential nominee preference poll conducted by registered Republican voters here as Maine winds up its controversial GOP caucuses.

Paul attracted 41 votes, more than twice the votes for Mitt Romney, who had 16. Rick Santorum attracted 17 votes, while Newt Gingrich finished last with 9.


COMMENTS BY : Mike Rivero of WRH.com

I predict that the GOP will cheat on top of the cheat and insist Romney is still the winner to save itself from embarrassment and “preserve public trust in the elections process” which is politick-speak for keeping the Ron Paul supporters in the other states from demanding where the missing votes vanished to in Iowa, why there were more votes than voters in Nevada, etc. etc. etc. etc.

But at this point, regardless of who is actually declared to be the winner, the sheer scale of the discrepancy between the original Maine counts and the new totals has destroyed the legitimacy of the GOP, this entire election, and the Federal Government!

Nothing short of a complete redo of the votes, using paper ballots, public hand counts, and total transparency, will bring back trust in this government’s elections process.~~ Mike R.


Washington DC: FBI Foils Own Terror Plot (Again)


{ XANIEL’S NOTE : These so-called Home Grown Terrorist, or ( insert other name of your choosing here ), would not be doing anything illegal if it were not for the F.B.I. setting it all up.


And of course these poor fools believe it and actually feel like their going be somebody for once in their miserable lives. Because they’ll be working hand in hand with ‘ THE GREAT ( hahaha… oh..that’s just too funny… ‘ Great ‘.. hahaha ) F.B. I. ‘

Only to found themselves arrested BY their so-friends, the ‘ great ‘ F.B.I., who is pushing the fear ( and NDAA ) agenda along with justifying their existence as well as their outrageously high budget, which of course is paid for by the taxpayer.

And what can this poor twisted soul say? Whose going to believe a so-called terrorist’s word over the word of ‘ THE GREAT BUT CORRUPT F.B.I.’ ???

One final comment on this, not one F.B.I. agent ( that I’m aware of anyway ) has been arrested for these scams/treasonous false flag actions of fear and deception against the U.S. citizens.

When are our government officials and federal agents going to be made accountable for their illegal crimes against the people? Because it just never seems to end.  And it won’t until ‘ WE MAKE IT END ‘ !!!}~~ Xaniel777


FBI’s nation-wide stable of patsies can be switched “live” at any moment

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has once again proven that the only thing Americans need fear, is their own government, with the latest “terror attack” foiled being one entirely of their own design.

USA Today reports that a suspect had been arrested by the FBI who was “en route to the U.S. Capitol allegedly to detonate a suicide bomb.” While initial reports portrayed the incident as a narrowly averted terrorist attack, CBS would report that a “high ranking source told CBS News the man was ‘never a real threat.'”

The explosives the would-be bomber carried were provided to him by the FBI during what they described as a “lengthy and extensive operation.” The only contact the suspect had with “Al Qaeda” was with FBI officials posing as associates of the elusive, omnipresent, bearded terror conglomerate.

The FBI, much like their MI5 counterparts in England, have a propensity for recruiting likely candidates from mosques they covertly run.

This is but the latest in a string of national terror plots carried out from start to finish by the FBI, who has made a business of approaching likely candidates and grooming them to carry out terror attacks. In September 2011, another FBI terror operation targeting the Capitol was “foiled,” involving a patsy who believed he was to take part in an assault that would involve multiple gunmen and even a drone bomber provided to him by the FBI.

And perhaps the most dubious of all, was the December 2010 Portland “Christmas Tree Bomber,” who was also approached by the FBI, provided demolition training, including a demonstration with live explosives performed in a Lincoln County park, and a van within which the patsy believed his handlers had provided him a bomb. The van with the inert device was parked next to a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony where the patsy attempted to detonate it remotely before being arrested by FBI agents.

It would later turn out that Portland had heroically withdrew from the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, (JTTF), with the operation then being carried out behind Portland Mayor Sam Adam’s back only for its conclusion to humiliatingly catch the mayor off guard. The city of Portland would eventually rejoin the JTTF after the fallout from the FBI’s own terror plot.

The FBI is carrying out what is essentially a campaign of entrapment fueling what alternative news outlet Media Monarchy appropriately calls “terronoia.” And while it is true that these incidents are being used to foment a climate of fear to justify the ongoing “War on Terror,” there is a more sinister implication readers must be aware of.

In 1993 the FBI was carrying out an identical “sting operation” in New York City. The target was the World Trade Center, the weapon of choice would be a bomb-laden van that, like the above-mentioned attacks, was supposed to contain an inert device. Helping the FBI was an Egyptian informant, Emad Salem, who over the course of the investigation grew suspicious of the federal agents and began recording his phone conversations with them.

From these recordings released by the New York Times, it turns out that the FBI switched out the inert device for real explosives at the last moment resulting in an attack that killed 6 and injured over a thousand. Despite this evidence, the 1993 bombing is still to this day attributed to “terrorists” with the FBI’s involvement muted if ever mentioned.

The implications are, of course, that with the FBI’s current nationwide stable of patsies being trained, directed, and provided material support to carry out attacks the FBI then “foils,” at any given moment, any one of these operations can be switched “live” just as in 1993. The resulting carnage can then be used to manipulate public opinion just as it was in 1993, 2001, on 7/7 in London, and in Madrid, Spain in 2004.

The risk rises exponentially now with Israel being confirmed to be training, arming, and directing US State Department-listed terrorist organization, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, also known as Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK). The US has also played an extensive role in supporting MEK who is currently carrying out a campaign of terror inside of Iran.

This is part of a plot by the US indicated in its own policy papers, openly conspiring to provoke a war with Iran. This is best encapsulated in this often cited quote from US policy think-tank, Brookings Institution:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)  –Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

The same report would go on to say:

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians ‘brought it on themselves’ by refusing a very good deal. –Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 52.

Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. Brookings would continue throughout their report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran’s economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations (MEK) to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself. Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian targets, Brookings noted there was still the strong possibility Iran would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not.

The report continues:

However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks. –Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 95.

With this in mind, and with the 1993 World Trade Center attack as a historical precedent, it is almost a certainty that the West and Mossad are carrying out the current global wave of bombings now being blamed on Iran. This includes two failed bombings in India and Georgia, and a more recent incident in Bangkok, Thailand.

Law enforcement officers across America may be witnessing the FBI conducting through their JTTF what they believe to be a “sting operation” that may end up being the next major terrorist attack on US soil — and the pretext for certain war with Iran.

The fears of Portland Mayor Sam Adams were well founded, and it took an act of terror to strong-arm him and the people of Portland into capitulating to the federal JTTF program. Local law enforcement, for the safety of themselves and the people they are charged to serve and protect, would be wise to keep an eye on the FBI — apparently the most likely source from which terror plots both “foiled” and “successful” are hatched.

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.   Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here.


Bush Admits Government Plants Fake News Stories For Political Agendas

From Alexander Higgins Blog

Posted by  – February 16, 2012

Bush admits he participates in the long standing federal government practice of planting fake propaganda news stories in US media to promote political agendas.

Bush Admits To Planting Fake News Stories In The US Media

Bush Admits To Planting Fake News Stories In The US Media

In this clip, Bush tells a reporter it has been a long standing federal government practice to pay journalists to run fake pre-packaged news stories, which serve as government propaganda to further political agendas.

For more just Google “bush government planted news stories”

As an example, in the first result, The Independent reports:

Bush ‘planted fake news stories on American TV’

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies’ products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.

“We know we only had partial access to these VNRs and yet we found 77 stations using them,” said Diana Farsetta, one of the group’s researchers. “I would say it’s pretty extraordinary. The picture we found was much worse than we expected going into the investigation in terms of just how widely these get played and how frequently these pre-packaged segments are put on the air.”

Ms Farsetta said the public relations companies commissioned to produce these segments by corporations had become increasingly sophisticated in their techniques in order to get the VNRs broadcast. “They have got very good at mimicking what a real, independently produced television report would look like,” she said.

The FCC has declined to comment on the investigation but investigators from the commission’s enforcement unit recently approached Ms Farsetta for a copy of her group’s report.


Source: The independent


Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: