We are Anonymous...We are Legion...We do not Forgive...We do not Forget...We shall not be Stopped...Expect Us!
Hacker groups Anonymous and LulzSec have issued a joint statement in response to recent FBI arrests of suspected Anonymous members thought to have carried out a cyber attack against PayPal in 2010.
The hacker collectives responded with a list of what they define as “unacceptable” practices!
According to the AP, the FBI on Tuesday arrested 14 people across the United States and confiscated computers in connection with the PayPal attack. Another two were arrested for unrelated activities. In addition, Britain's Scotland Yard took into custody one person, and the Dutch National Police Agency arrested four.
Seemingly undeterred, Anonymous on Thursday claimed to have bypassed NATO's online security and swiped “restricted” files. According to a tweet from @AnonymousIRC, “We are sitting on about one Gigabyte of data from NATO now, most of which we cannot publish as it would be irresponsible. But Oh NATO....”
Assistant New York University professor Gabriella Coleman, who has been studying the Anonymous hackers, recently told The Huffington Post that these arrests would not stop the hacktivists' efforts. “Some people surely will get scared off,” said Coleman. “Others will feel more emboldened to fight the fight; but I don't think at the moment it's going to slow things down.”
Hello thar FBI and international law authorities,
We recently stumbled across the following article with amazement and a certain amount of amusement: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138555799/fbi-arrests-alleged-anonymous-hackers
The statements made by deputy assistant FBI director Steve Chabinsky in this article clearly seem to be directed at Anonymous and Lulz Security, and we are happy to provide you with a response.
“We want to send a message that chaos on the Internet is unacceptable, even if hackers can be believed to have social causes, it's entirely unacceptable to break into websites and commit unlawful acts.”
Now let us be clear here, Mr. Chabinsky, while we understand that you and your colleagues may find breaking into websites unacceptable, let us tell you what WE find unacceptable:
*Governments lying to their citizens and inducing fear and terror to keep them in control by dismantling their freedom piece by piece.
*Corporations aiding and conspiring with said governments while taking advantage at the same time by collecting billions of funds for federal contracts we all know they can't fulfill.
*Lobby conglomerates who only follow their agenda to push the profits higher, while at the same time being deeply involved in governments around the world with the only goal to infiltrate and corrupt them enough so the status quo will never change.
These governments and corporations are our enemy. And we will continue to fight them, with all methods we have at our disposal, and that certainly includes breaking into their websites and exposing their lies. We are not scared any more. Your threats to arrest us are meaningless to us as you cannot arrest an idea. Any attempt to do so will make your citizens more angry until they will roar in one gigantic choir. It is our mission to help these people and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, you can possibly to do make us stop.
"The Internet has become so important to so many people that we have to ensure that the World Wide Web does not become the Wild Wild West." Let me ask you, good sir, when was the Internet not the Wild Wild West? Do you really believe you were in control of it at any point? You were not. That does not mean that everyone behaves like an outlaw. You see, most people do not behave like bandits if they have no reason to. We become bandits on the Internet because you have forced our hand. The Anonymous bitchslap rings through your ears like hacktivism movements of the 90s. We're back, and we're not going anywhere. Expect us.
After failing to control Americans during the Vietnam era, the Pentagon has been planning and refining ways to prevent a peaceful revolution in the United States.
The following seven signs indicate how martial law can overtake peaceful resistance in the U.S.
1. The U.S. military is operating within the United States.
2. Obama authorized “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
3. The Federal Aviation Administration has requested drones for U.S. civilian and law-enforcement functions within the U.S. and declared a perpetual war perpetual war for Full Spectrum Dominance and drones will start flying coast to coast.
4. John Yoo said that drones could kill people within the United States, if we were in a time of war.
5. The Department of Defense training manuals considers protests to be “low-level terrorism.”
6. The national security apparatus has been hijacked to serve the needs of big business and crush dissent.
7. An FBI memo also labels peace protesters as “terrorists.”
The tens of thousands of human rights defenders who recently prevented U.S. lawmakers from secretly including the provision granting all future presidents a blank check to engage in worldwide war without end in the Defense Authorization bill, are immediately needed to defeat legalizing martial law provisions in the bill; giving the U.S. military powers to investigate and detain civilians inside the United States and abroad plus indefinitely imprison without charge or trial. The dangerous bill is on its way to the Senate floor for vote but needs Senate Judiciary public hearings or it could be passed as it now is according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The secretly passed bill is S.1253 or The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). After the Senate Armed Services Committee's passed the bill, Andrea Prasow, The Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program senior counsel for Human Rights Watch said that the military rule provision in the bill is what martial-law states, not democracies do.
“If the US hopes to promote the rule of law in places like the Middle East, it needs to take a hard look at the policies it is promoting at home,” Human Rights Watch's counter-terrorism senior counsel Andrea Prasow recently stated. “Mandatory military detention for terrorism suspects, indefinite detention for years to come, even the possibility that US citizens could be held without trial at Guantanamo, sends the worst kind of message abroad.”
Before the Senate votes on the bill, (NDAA) H.R. 1253, Senator Leahy and the Senate Judiciary Committee could hold immediate public hearings on these dangerous provisions if a groundswell of rights defenders demands it according to Laura W. Murphy Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office. Otherwise, the bill soon to be voted upon in the Senate, would:
Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial civilians arrested within the United States itself, including some U.S. citizens; Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including suspects arrested within the United States itself; and transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.
According to ACLU, a “full public examination of these dangerous measures” is needed before this bill reaches the Senate floor.
“These provisions could significantly cut back on the historic protections provided to American citizens by the Non-Detention Act of 1971 and to all U.S. residents by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878,” Murphy stated Wednesday.
The mandatory detention provision was drafted by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, the committee chairman, and Republicans John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The committee recently released the official language of the bill that has the “worldwide war authority” provision deleted but the other martial law provisions remain.
"We proved our ability to have a big impact when we successfully challenged efforts to authorize worldwide war without end,” said Murphy. “Now, we have to do the same on attempts to dramatically expand military involvement in investigating and detaining civilians, including on U.S. soil."
The ACLU is seeking support to urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on these provisions, and to assert its jurisdiction to markup sections 1031, 1032, and 1036 before the NDAA bill gets to the Senate floor.
On May 17th at 5 in the morning the Chicano activist Carlos Montes got a wake-up call at his home in California from Barack Obama’s security state. The Los Angeles County sheriff’s SWAT team, armed with assault rifles and wearing bulletproof vests, as well as being accompanied by FBI agents; kicked down his door, burst into his house with their weapons drawn, handcuffed him in his pajamas, and hauled him off to jail. Montes, one of tens of thousands of Americans who have experienced this terrifying form of military-style assault and arrest, was one of the organizers of the demonstrations outside the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, and he faces trial along with 23 other anti-war activists from Minnesota, as well as possible charges by a federal grand jury.
The widening use of militarized police units effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the use of the armed forces for civilian policing. City police forces have in the last few decades amassed small strike forces that employ high-powered assault rifles, armored personnel carriers, tanks, elaborate command and control centers, and attack helicopters. Poor urban neighborhoods, which bear the brunt of the estimated 40,000 SWAT team assaults that take place every year, have already learned what is only dimly being understood by the rest of us; in the eyes of the state we are increasingly no longer citizens with constitutional rights but enemy combatants and government property. And that is exactly how Montes was treated. There is little daylight now between raiding a home in the middle of the night in Iraq and raiding one in Alhambra, California.
Montes is a longtime activist. He helped lead the student high school walkouts in East Los Angeles and anti-war protests in the 1960s and later demonstrations against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was one of the founding members of the Brown Berets, a Chicano group that in the 1960s styled itself after the Black Panthers. In the 1970s he evaded authorities while he lived in Mexico and he went on to organize garment workers in El Paso, Texas. He and the subpoenaed activists are reminders that in Barack Obama’s America, being a dissident is a crime.
“It was an FBI action, as I recall,” Sgt. Jim Scully told reporters of the Pasadena Star-News. “We assisted them.”
Montes was arrested ostensibly because he bought a firearm although a felony conviction 42 years ago prohibited him from doing so. The 1969 felony conviction was for throwing a can of Coke at a police officer during a demonstration. The registered shotgun in his closet, bought last year at a sporting goods shop, became the excuse to ransack his home, charge him, and schedule him for trial in August. It became the excuse to seize his computer, two cell phones, and files and records of his activism on behalf of workers, immigrants, the Chicano community, and opposition to wars. Prosecutors said Montes should have disclosed his four-decade-old felony charge when he bought the shotgun at Big 5 Sporting Goods. Because he neglected to do this he will face six felony charges. The case is to be tried in Los Angeles.
“The gun issue was clearly a pretext to investigate my political activities,” he said when I reached him at his Alhambra home. “It is about my anti-war activities and my links to the RNC demonstrations. It is also about my activism denouncing the U.S. policy of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, their support for Israel and the Colombian government. I have been to Colombia twice.”
“I thought someone is breaking in, somebody is trying to jack me up,” he said. “I was a victim of an armed robbery in December of 2009 in my home. I do have a gun in my bedroom for self-defense. I was startled. I jumped out of bed. I saw lights coming from the front-door area. They looked like flashlights. I saw men with helmets and rifles. I gravitated towards the front door. I didn’t take my gun. I could have done that. I have it there. It is a good thing I didn’t pick anything up and put it in my hand.”
“I yelled, ‘Who is it?’ ” he said. “They said, ‘The police. Carlos Montes, come out’ or ‘come forward,’ something like that. I approached the entryway. They rushed in. They grabbed my hands. They turned me around. There were two police officers on each arm. They brought me out holding my arms. I have a little patio. They handcuffed me and patted me down. I am on a little hill. I looked down the street and it was full of sheriff’s vehicles, patrol cars, and two large green vans. They were bigger than vans. People could stand in there. They didn’t have any logos on them…I thought it was an Army truck at first. Later on I found it was from the sheriff.”
“It was kind of misty,” he said. “The ground was wet. They put me in the back seat of the car. I was handcuffed. They closed the doors and the windows. I was sitting there looking around, in a state of shock, thinking is this a dream or the real thing? I tried to close my eyes for a little while to see if I could wake up from this nightmare. I always had it in the back of my mind, one day they will come and raid me. My name was on the anti-war committee FBI search warrant raid in Minnesota. People were saying ‘we all got raided and your name is there.’ The lawyers said, ‘Beware, it could happen to you sooner or later.’ They were raided on Sept. 24 last year.”
Those who were raided were all issued subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury in Chicago. They have refused to testify. The March on the RNC organizing committee was infiltrated by an agent although the protest groups had obtained licenses to demonstrate at the Republican National Convention. The Justice Department’s inspector general later released a report that criticized the FBI for invoking anti-terrorist laws to justify its investigations and harassment of peace and solidarity groups, including Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the Catholic Worker.
While Montes was in the back of the police car a man in a windbreaker and a baseball cap approached the vehicle. The sheriff’s deputies rolled down the right rear window. The man in the baseball cap told Montes he was from the FBI and wanted to speak with him.
“I blurted out, ‘Do you have a card?’ ” Montes said. “He laughed and said, ‘I don’t have a card.’ He said, ‘I want to talk to you about Freedom Road Socialist Organization.’ I didn’t say anything. I kept quiet. And then he walked away.”
Montes has written articles for the newspaper “Fight Back News” about Chicano immigrants’ rights struggles in Los Angeles, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fight against the rise of charter schools. He said he was not a member of Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The organization, a Marxist group, is reportedly being investigated by the FBI because of connections with the Colombian rebel group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Palestinian group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, both of which have been labeled as terrorist organizations. The Sept. 24, 2010, search warrant for the anti-war committee offices in Minneapolis lists Montes’ name among the group’s affiliates.
Montes was taken to the Los Angeles County Jail, known as the Twin Towers, and held for 24 hours until he was able to post a $35,000 bail.
“They called my sister to secure my house,” he said. “She called the handyman and he put a piece of plywood over my door. I did not have my wallet with me. When I got out of the county jail I did not have any phone numbers or money or an ID. I was walking around in slippers, at least they gave me slippers, and my pajamas. I got back about 5:30 the next morning. I got the door off. There were files and papers on the floor along with photograph albums of the anti-war movement, Latinos Against the War, the ’92 Rebellion, my son’s wedding, my daughter’s birthday, scattered on my kitchen table and floor. It looked like they lined up a bunch of stuff on tables and went through it. It was the same thing with my living room table. They had a file out from 1994 when we did a campaign against police brutality when the sheriffs were going crazy killing people. In my closet I had Chicano archives going back to the 1960s and 1970s. Those were pulled out and on the floor. They went through all my political documents, including my work with the Southern California Immigration Coalition and the campaign to elect a school board member, which we won, to stop the privatization of the local high school and the charters coming in. They went through all those files. It took me a couple of weeks to clean things up. They took a bunch of stuff.”
“The government sees the Chicano people as a threat,” he said. “We were able to turn out millions of people in 2006. In 1994 we had hundreds of thousands. We are growing. There are millions in the Southwest. We are all over the country, but especially in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California. We are still unorganized, but if we get organized we could really demand changes. We had millions of people out in 2006 and then they came after us hard in 2007. There was a lot of police repression, especially in Los Angeles. They fear the Chicano people challenging the status quo.”
“Many of the activists that were raided by the police are anti-war and solidarity activists,” he went on. “And even though the anti-war movement is not massive right now, the potential is there because there is an economic crisis. There is mass disgust with this economic system. People are out of work. It is not yet like COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) started under Hoover and the FBI to carry out surveillance, infiltrate and disrupt domestic political organizations, but the situation is getting worse. That is why we have to have demonstrations to put a stop to it now.”
I no longer see how it can be averted. Politics has replaced the rule of law. The Founding Fathers warned us to preserve a government of laws, and not of men. Arrogant, lawless and lusting for power, government officials have abrogated their responsibility to the Constitution, the country and its citizens.
It was a backroom deal among Congressional Democrats and Republicans, which created our current Constitutional crisis. Congress and our political leadership always knew that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen and, therefore, he was never eligible for the Presidency.
Over the last twenty to thirty years, members of Congress, for both personal and partisan reasons, have unsuccessfully attempted to water down the natural born citizen clause by offering potential Amendments to the Constitution.
Political coup d’état of the Constitution:
In the Spring of 2008, however, politicians found an opportunity to create a precedent, whereby they could change the eligibility requirements for the Presidency without an Amendment.
At that time, John McCain’s eligibility according to the natural born clause was being questioned. So, a deal was struck and the bogus and non-binding Senate resolution 511 was passed, which provided cover for both McCain and Obama. It was a political coup d’état of the Constitution.
After the inauguration, Congress was given talking points to misinform their constituents about Obama’s eligibility to be President. The conspiracy of silence continues.
Unhappily for the Congressional dupes and scoundrels, Obama, by releasing his alleged Certificate of Live Birth, has made them complicit in the possible commission of a felony. They could now be potentially charged with “Misprision of felony.”
Never forget, however, that Congress is mostly driven by the fear of losing their lifestyles of the rich and famous. They will usually respond to a crisis with cowardice and subterfuge.
Now that they are caught in Obama’s web of lies, they have chosen the same strategy as they did in 2008; stall and hope Obama loses. That way, their cover-up and their shenanigans will be overtaken by events and soon forgotten; at least that is what they hope.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, Obama and his cronies have other ideas. They expect to win in 2012 and complete their destructive transformation of America. The US is already hemorrhaging from self-inflicted wounds and our liberties are seriously endangered by the Obama agenda.
Although opposed by a majority of Americans and twice defeated in Congress, Obama has implemented by executive order, the DREAM Act, which grants amnesty to illegal aliens.
According to the Obama policy: “federal immigration officials do not have to deport illegal aliens if they are enrolled in any type of education program, if their family members have volunteered for U.S. military service, or even if they are pregnant or nursing.”
On June 9, 2011, Obama established the White House Rural Council with the participation of 25 executive branch departments. It is an attempt to impose the United Nations Agenda 21 on rural America.
The order from the Oval Office extends unchecked federal control into rural America in education, food supply, land use, water use, recreation, property, energy, in order to regulate the lives of a critical 16% of the U.S. population and place American productivity under UN supervision.
Meanwhile, the Transportation Security Administration administered a 45-minute pat down to a cancer-stricken, 95-year-old American woman, who was forced to remove her adult diaper while going through security.
This federally-imposed, insane political correctness is an affront to our collective liberty. It was designed not to protect us, but to guarantee that Muslim terrorists feel welcome and liberals can wallow in their self-righteousness.
We have frequently heard about union thugs threatening Tea Party activists and New Black Panther Party members menacing voters.
To that, add newer forms of intimidation: “Pandemonium in Peoria: Mob yells kill all white people;” “Teen Mob Of 50 Hits Chicago Wallgreens;” “Flash mob of 40 rips off Philly Sears.” (Drudge Headlines June 27, 2011)
It is the fear induced by such events that paralyzes Congress from challenging Obama and the subsequent inaction by authorities that is further degrading the rule of law. Obama and his followers know this and will use every means possible to intimidate the opposition and sway the 2012 election in his direction.
Obama has already trampled on the Constitution, ruthlessly over-stepped his authority and is rapidly eroding our liberties. According to some opinions, he is an illegal President and most likely a multiple felon.
Unlike many of the political elite, patriotic Americans will wait no longer. We will stand our ground, fight to uphold the Constitution, and restore sanity to the country.
Viva la resistance! Viva la revolution!
A top Secret Service official ended up spilling details about a federal anti-hacker strategy at a relatively obscure federal hearing in Alabama. In the testimony given to the House Committee on Financial Services, Assistant Director Alvin T. Smith revealed just how involved the Secret Service is in federal investigations into cyber crime...and told some extremely cool stories in the process.
Smith was a witness at a field hearing called, “Hacked Off: Helping Law Enforcement Protect Private Financial Information.”
At the naughtily named hearing, Smith detailed how the Secret Service has infiltrated underground websites (including both hacker and cyber fraud sites) and bulletin boards. A 2008 investigation into criminals who stole credit and debit card numbers from Dave & Buster's, OfficeMax, Sports Authority, and Barnes & Noble customers was largely accomplished thanks to accounts by undercover feds on illegal websites.
Undercover Secret Service agents then, with the assistance of Turkish and other international investigators, traced the sale of stolen American credit card numbers to Russia and Eastern Europe.
While The Guardian has previously revealed that the secret service has infiltrated hacker websites, this is one of the first times a federal official has spoken on the record about the extent of law enforcement penetration.
But pride of place in the presentation went to the elaborate methods that the Secret Service used to nab alleged credit card data thief “BadB,” aka Russian national Vladislav Horohorin. “BadB” was arrested in France in 2009 on charges related to the CarderPlanet website, which sold more than $9 million worth of stolen credit card numbers to criminals around the world.
Smith referred to Horohorin not by name, but as “one of the world's most notorious traffickers of stolen financial information.” His testimony also unveils how the Secret Service simultaneously embeds itself with cyber fraud investigators across the federal spectrum and works with international law enforcement:
“The suspect is alleged to have created the first fully automated online store for selling stolen credit card data. Working with our international law enforcement partners, the suspect was identified and apprehended as he was boarding an international flight to Russia. Both the Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section and the Office of International Affairs of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice played critical roles in this apprehension. This type of cooperation is crucial if law enforcement is to be successful in disrupting and dismantling criminal organizations involved in cyber crime.”
In testimony, Smith also detailed how the Secret Service teamed up with Dutch law enforcement services to track a series of cyber attacks in 2010. These cyber attacks included everything from brute force attacks to sophisticated spear phishing attacks aimed at specific users.
Most importantly, the Secret Service has been embedding agents and staff at almost all levels of the federal government. The Secret Service has thoroughly melded handling of what they call “cyber” investigations with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other government agencies.
Secret Service agents are assigned on detail to (among others) the DHS' National Cyber Security and Office of Infrastructure Protection Divisions, DHS' Science and Technology Directorate, every individual FBI joint terrorism task force, the FBI's National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, the Treasury Department's Terrorist Finance and Financial Crime and Financial Crime Enforcement Network sections, the DEA's Special Operations Division, the Department of Justice's International Organized Crime division, the CIA, EUROPOL and INTERPOL.
The hearing was held at the Secret Service's National Computer Forensics Institute in Hoover, Alabama, which offers courses on everything from mobile device data recovery to intelligence/evidence gathering via social media to local law enforcement nationwide.
Militarization of Civilian Police: How the United States has slowly crept into a Police State, and is moving towards Martial Law
Just after midnight on May 16, 2010, a SWAT team threw a flash-bang grenade through the window of a 25-year-old man while his 7-year-old daughter slept on the couch as her grandmother watched television. The grenade landed so close to the child that it burned her blanket. The SWAT team leader then burst into the house and fired a single shot which struck the child in the throat, killing her. The police were there to apprehend a man suspected of murdering a teenage boy days earlier. The man they were after lived in the unit above the girl's family.
The shooting death of Aiyana Mo'Nay Stanley-Jones sounds like it happened in a war zone. But the tragic SWAT team raid took place right here on our homeland in Detroit, Michigan.
Shockingly, paramilitary raids that mirror the tactics of US soldiers in combat are not uncommon in America. According to an investigation carried out by the Huffington Post's Radley Balko, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement over the last 30 years, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units for routine police work. In fact, the most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.
Some 40,000 of these raids take place every year, and are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. And as demonstrated by the case of Aiyana Mo'nay Stanley-Jones, these raids have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries.
How did we allow our law enforcement apparatus to descend into militaristic chaos? Traditionally, the role of civilian police (Peace Officer) has been to maintain the peace and safety of the community while upholding the civil liberties of residents in their respective jurisdiction. In stark contrast, the military soldier is an agent of war, trained to kill the enemy.
Clearly, the mission of the police officer is incompatible with that of a soldier, so why is it that local police departments are looking more and more like paramilitary units in a combat zone? The line between military and civilian law enforcement has been drawn for good reason, but following the drug war and more recently, the war on terror, that line is inconspicuously eroding, a trend that appears to be worsening by the decade.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is a civil war-era law that prohibits the use of the military for civilian policing. For a long time, Posse Comitatus was considered the law of the land, forcing militarization advocates to come up with creative ways to get around it. In addition to assigning various law enforcement duties to the military, such as immigration control, over the years Congress has instituted policies that encourage law enforcement to emulate combat soldiers. Hence, the establishment of the SWAT team in the 1960s.
Originally called the Special Weapons Attack Team, the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) units were inspired by an incident in 1966, when an armed man climbed to the top of the 32-story clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin and fired randomly for 90 minutes, shooting 46 people and killing 15, until two police officers got to the top of the tower and killed him. This episode is said to have “shattered the last myth of safety Americans enjoyed and was the final impetus the chiefs of police needed” to form their own SWAT teams. Soon after, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) formed the country's first SWAT team, which acquired national prestige when used against the Black Panthers in 1969.
Use of these paramilitary units gradually increased throughout the 1970s, mostly in urban settings. The introduction of paramilitary units in America laid the foundation for the erosion of the barrier between police and military, a trend which accelerated in the 1980s under President Reagan, when the drug war was used as a pretext to make exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act.
In 1981, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act, which amended Posse Comitatus by directing the military to give local, state and federal law enforcement access to military equipment, research, and training for use in the drug war. Following the authorization of domestic police and military cooperation, the 1980s saw a series of additional congressional and presidential maneuvers that blurred the line between soldier and police officer, ultimately culminating in a memorandum of understanding in 1994 between the US Department of Justice and Department of Defense. The agreement authorized the transfer of federal military technology to local police forces, essentially flooding civilian law enforcement with surplus military gear previously reserved for use during wartime.
Between 1995 and 1997 the Department of Defense gave 1.2 million pieces of military hardware, including 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across the country. But this was only the beginning.
In 1997, Congress, not yet satisfied with the flow of military hardware to local police, passed the National Defense Authorization Security Act which created the Law Enforcement Support Program, an agency tasked with accelerating the transfer of military equipment to civilian police departments. Between January 1997 and October 1999, the new agency facilitated the distribution of 3.4 million orders of Pentagon equipment to over 11,000 domestic police agencies in all 50 states.
By December 2005, that number increased to 17,000, with a purchase value of more than $727 million of equipment. Among the hand-me-downs were 253 aircraft (including six- and seven-passenger airplanes, and UH-60 Blackhawk and UH-1 Huey helicopters), 7,856 M-16 rifles, 181 grenade launchers, 8,131 bulletproof helmets, and 1,161 pairs of night-vision goggles.
The military surplus program and paramilitary units feed off one another in a cyclical loop that has caused an explosive growth in militarized crime control techniques. With all the new high-tech military toys the federal government has been funneling into local police departments, SWAT teams have inevitably multiplied and spread across American cities and towns in both volume and deployment frequency. Criminologist Peter Kraska found that the frequency of SWAT operations soared from just 3,000 annual deployments in the early 1980s to an astonishing 40,000 raids per year by 2001, 75-80 percent of which were used to deliver search warrants.
In 1997, Kraska observed that close to 90 percent of cities with populations exceeding 50,000 and at least 100 sworn officers had at least one paramilitary unit, twice as many as in the mid 1980s. Radley Basko correctly points out that the trends giving rise to SWAT proliferation in the 1990s have not disappeared, so it's safe to assume these numbers have continued to rise and are significantly higher today.
Then there are the effects of the war on terror, which sparked the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the introduction of DHS grants to local police departments. These grants are used to purchase policing equipment, although law enforcement is investing in more than just bullet-proof vests and walkie-talkies. DHS grants have led to a booming law enforcement industry that specifically markets military-style weaponry to local police departments. If this sounds familiar, that's because it is law enforcement’s version of the military industrial complex.
By instituting public policies that encouraged the collaboration of military and domestic policing, the US government handed a massive and highly profitable clientele to private suppliers of paramilitary gear. Following the breakdown of Posse Comitatus in the 1980s and '90s, Peter Cassidy writes in Covert Action Quarterly that “gun companies, perceiving a profitable trend, began aggressively marketing automatic weapons to local police departments, holding seminars, and sending out color brochures redolent with ninja-style imagery.”
Private suppliers of military equipment advertise a glorified version of military-style policing attire to local police departments and SWAT teams. One such defense manufacturing company, Heckler and Koch, epitomized this aggressive marketing tactic with its slogan for the MP5 submachine gun, “From the Gulf War to the Drug War, Battle Proven.”
Today's latest in paramilitary fashion sweeping through local police departments is the armored tank, which is making appearances all over the country at an increasingly alarming rate. The police department in Roanoke, Virginia paid Armet Armored Vehicles, a private company that specializes in military vehicles, $218,000 to assemble a 20,000-pound bulletproof tank with a $245,000 federal grant.
Not to feel left out, the Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was recently seen sporting the Lenco BearCat, a camouflage colored Humvee-styled tank that can knock down a wall, pull down a fence, withstand small-arms fire and deliver a dozen heavily armed police officers to a tense emergency scene. The BearCat was purchased a year and a half ago with a $226,224 grant from DHS, yet it has spent nearly two years sitting in a garage at the county's Public Safety Training Center.
The most widely used justification for the purchase of heavily armored war machines is that violence against police officers has increased exponentially, necessitating the tank for protection of the men and women who serve our communities. But examination of the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, a database that tracks the number of law enforcement officers killed and assaulted each year, reveals that this is simply not true. According to the UCR, since 2000 an average yearly toll of about 50 police officers have been feloniously killed, the highest reaching 70 in 2001. So the notion that militarization is a necessary reaction to a growth in violence against police officers is absurd, considering that violent crime is trending downward.
Others argue these tanks are needed in case of a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. But on September 11, 2001, I do not recall the NYPD complaining that a lack of armored tanks was impeding its policing efforts. And during the catastrophic tornado that tore through Joplin, Missouri earlier this year, heavily armored vehicles weren't present nor were they needed to assist in the aftermath.
The majority of paramilitary drug raid proponents maintain that military-style law enforcement is required to reduce the risk of potential violence, injury and death to both police officers and innocents. The reality is that SWAT team raids actually escalate provocation, usually resulting in senseless violence in what would otherwise be a routine, nonviolent police procedure.
Just consider your reaction in the event of a SWAT team breaking down your door in the middle of night, possibly even blowing off the hinges with explosives, while you and your family are asleep. Imagine the terror of waking up to find complete strangers forcing their way into your home and detonating a flash-bang grenade, meant to disorient you. Assuming nobody is hurt, what thoughts might be raging in your mind while the police forcefully incapacitate you and your loved ones, most likely at gunpoint, while carrying out a search warrant of your home. Assuming you were able to contain the mix of fear and rage going through your body, consider how helpless you would feel to know that any perceived noncompliance would most certainly be met with lethal force.
Training and technology-sharing between the defense and civilian law enforcement seems responsible for the pervasive culture of militarism plaguing domestic law enforcement. In fact, an estimated 46 percent of paramilitary units were trained by “active-duty military experts in special operations.” Lawrence Korb, a former official in the Reagan administration, famously SAID that soldiers are “trained to vaporize, not Mirandize.” As police officers continue to emulate soldiers in their weaponry, language, tactics, uniform, and mindset, it won't be long before they vaporize instead of Mirandize as well.
We have created circumstances under which the American people are no longer individuals protected by the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution of the United States, but rather “enemy combatants.” The consequences of such a mindset have proven time and again to be lethal, as we now rely on military ideology and practice to respond to crime and justice. For some insight into the implications, one needn't look any further than minority communities, which have long been the victims of paramilitary forces posing as police officers. Black and Latino communities in the inner-cities of Washington DC, Detroit, and Chicago have witnessed first-hand the deadly consequences of militarization on American soil. Military culture now permeates all aspects of our society. Does anyone really believe that heavily armed soldiers trained to kill are capable of maintaining an atmosphere of nonviolence?
It's important to remember that police officers are not responsible for instituting these policies. Over the last three decades local police departments supplied with military uniforms, weaponry, vehicles, and training, were told they were fighting a war on drugs, crime, and terror. The politicians who instituted these policies are responsible for the militarization creeping into civilian law enforcement. What might the end result be if the distinction between police and military ceases to exist? The answer is a police state and eventually; certain segments of our society are already living in this imminent police state.
President Obama signed his 86th Executive Order (#13575) on June 9th, which established the White House Rural Council (WHRC). According to The Blaze, the Executive Order seems to be in line with the United Nations radical Agenda 21, as it is designed “to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16 percent of the American people.”
Evidence of this can be found in Section One of the Executive Order, which reads: Section 1. Policy: Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
As the Executive Order references “sustainable rural communities,” it raises a few eyebrows, since that is one of the key phrases found in the UN plan for sustainable development known as Agenda 21. The order admits that it intends to seize greater power over “food, fiber, and energy,” items that are key to human sustenance.
The mission and function of the White House Rural Council, according to the Executive Order, is as follows: “The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.”
The order doesn't at all camouflage the levels of authority it will achieve. In order to reach the mission set out, the Executive Order states that the council will “make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America.”
Analyzing the language of the document, The Blaze questions, “Is there a hint that a rural stimulus plan might be in the making? Will the Federal government start pumping money into farmlands under the guise of creating economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America?”
The order also states that the WHRC will “coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, healthcare providers, telecommunications service providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.”
In other words, the federal government will seemingly control every aspect of rural America.
The order’s mention of “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs) should be disconcerting, as NGOs are unelected, often government-funded organizations that are key to Agenda 21.
Executive Order 13575 asserts that the WHRC will “coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas, and identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation-related activities.”
As observed by The Blaze, “When did outdoor recreation become a conservation-related activity?”
So who will be heading these opportunistic efforts? The following is a list of members who will be serving on the new council, which will be headed by Tom Vilsack, the current Secretary of Agriculture:
(1) Department of the Treasury; Timothy Geithner
(2) Department of Defense; Robert Gates
(3) Department of Justice; Eric Holder
(4) Department of the Interior; Ken Salazar
(5) Department of Commerce; Gary Locke
(6) Department of Labor; Hilda Solis
(7) Department of Health and Human Services; Kathleen Sebelius
(8) Department of Housing and Urban Development; Shaun Donovan
(9) Department of Transportation; Ray LaHood
(10) Department of Energy; Dr. Steven Chu
(11) Department of Education; Arne Duncan
(12) Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric Shinseki
(13) Department of Homeland Security; Janet Napolitano
(14) Environmental Protection Agency; Lisa Jackson
(15) Federal Communications Commission; Michael Copps
(16) Office of Management and Budget; Peter Orszag
(17) Office of Science and Technology Policy; John Holdren
(18) Office of National Drug Control Policy; R. Gil Kerlikowske
(19) Council of Economic Advisers; Austan Goolsbee
(20) Domestic Policy Council; Melody Barnes (former VP at Center for American Progress)
(21) National Economic Council; Gene B. Sperling
(22) Small Business Administration; Karen Mills
(23) Council on Environmental Quality; Nancy Sutley
(24) White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs; Valerie Jarrett
(25) White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate. Chris Lu (or virtually anyone to be designated by the 24 people named above).
The Blaze says of the list, “It appears that not a single department in the federal government has excluded from the new White House Rural Council, and the wild card option in number 25 gives the president and the agricultural secretary the option to designate anyone to serve on this powerful council.”
Even more notable than the levels of power being achieved by the creation of this new council is the various connections to Agenda 21.
For example, Valerie Jarrett served as a member on the board of the Local Initiatives Support Coalition (LISC), which uses the language of Agenda 21 and ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) as their webpage descriptively explains the organization’s work to build “sustainable communities."
Likewise, Melody Barnes is the former Vice President of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress. Soros is a prime advocate of Agenda 21 and in fact, his Open Society provided $2,147,415 to ICLEI.
Additionally, Hilda Solis and Nancy Sutley, through their environmental endeavors, appear to be connected to Agenda 21. In 2000, Solis received an award for her work on “Environmental Justice.” Sutley served on the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District and supported the low-flow toilets, which are now being revealed as costing more money and creating an odor problem in the city of San Francisco.
Finally, the timing of the Executive Order is a bit suspicious, since the administration is meeting with a number of Agenda 21 operatives at the end of the month. ICLEI reports: ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA (ICLEI USA) and U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) today announced the launch of the National Press Club Leadership Speaker Series to be held on June 28. The event’s inaugural keynote speaker will be the Honorable Sha Zukang, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), whose keynote address, The Road to Rio+20, will explain the role of key global and national stakeholders, and the impact and vision of this historic conference.
Fortunately, Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the radical agenda being pushed by the U.N. and supported by this government, and have already hosted a number of anti-ICLEI rallies, with more planned in the future.
Take a moment; imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world. In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development” and with the goal of promoting “the green agenda.” An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity. What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be, and how much fuel you can use is determined by them. Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for “re-education.” The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons. Does all of that sound good to you? I’m assuming you answered no. Well, this is what Agenda 21 is all about.
Yes, I know all this sounds like a plot from a science fiction novel, however, it’s not…Agenda 21 is real. 178 nations have signed on to Agenda 21. “Eco-prophets” such as Al Gore travel all over the world teaching us how wonderful “sustainable development” will be. This agenda is being pushed in our schools, at our universities, on our televisions, and in our movies.
So exactly what is Agenda 21? The following is how the United Nations defines Agenda 21...”Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
When you start doing deep research into Agenda 21, you will find that describing it as a “comprehensive plan” is an understatement. Virtually all forms of human activity impact the environment. The rabid “environmentalists” behind the green agenda intend to take all human activity and put it into a box called “sustainable development.”
One of the key elements of “sustainable development” is population control. The United Nations (along with radical “environmental leaders” such as Al Gore) actually believes that there are far too many people on earth.
So what is the solution?
Sadly, they actually believe that we need to start reducing the population.
Just this week, Al Gore made the following statement regarding population control...”One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children. You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important, you have to educate girls and empower women. And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”
Do you notice how whenever global leaders talk about “empowering” women these days it always ends up with them having fewer children?
This population control agenda is also reflected in official UN documents.
The following is language from a UN resolution that was adopted by the UN General Assembly that was designed to further the implementation of Agenda 21....“Population growth rates have been declining globally, largely as a result of expanded basic education and health care. That trend is projected to lead to a stable world population in the middle of the twenty-first century. The current decline in population growth rates must be further promoted through national and international policies that promote economic development, social development, environmental protection, and poverty eradication; particularly the further expansion of basic education, with full and equal access for girls and women, and health care, including reproductive health care, including both family planning and sexual health, consistent with the report of the International Conference on Population and Development."
Most Americans don't grasp it yet, but the truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with population control. In fact, there is a growing consensus among the global elite that they need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of us.
The number one commandment of the infamous Georgia Guidestones is this: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
Unfortunately, a very high percentage of our global leaders actually believe in this stuff.
Sadly, this philosophy is now regularly being reflected in official UN documents. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following shocking statement...”What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”
Apparently the poorest nations are the primary target for the population control freaks over at the UN.
This agenda showed up again when the United Nations Population Fund released its annual State of the World Population Report for 2009 entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population, and Climate.”
The following are three quotes that were pulled right out of that document....1) “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.” 2) “No human is genuinely “carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.” 3) “Strong family planning programs are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”
If no human is “carbon neutral,” then what is the solution?
To those that are obsessed with Agenda 21 and “sustainable development,” the fact that you and I are alive and breathing air is a huge problem.
The population control agenda is also regularly showing up in our newspapers now.
In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled “The Earth Is Full,” Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement...”You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornadoes plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced, and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth / climate / natural resource / population redlines all at once?
But Friedman is quite moderate compared to many of the “eco-prophets” that are running around out there today.
For example, James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, stated in an interview with the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” if the fight against global warming is going to be successful and that only “a few people with authority” should be permitted to rule the planet until the crisis is solved.
A Finnish environmentalist named Pentti Linkola has gone even farther than that. Linkola is openly calling for climate change deniers to be “re-educated,” for an eco-fascist world government to be established, for humans to be forcibly sterilized and for the majority of humans to be killed.
That doesn't sound pleasant, now does it?
This agenda is even being taught by professors at our top universities. The truth is that academia is brimming with nutjobs who want to see the vast majority of humans wiped out.
For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka is a very prominent advocate of radical human population control.
In an article entitled “What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know,” Pianka made the following shocking statements... “First, and foremost, we must get out of denial and recognize that Earth simply cannot support many billions of people.” “This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.” “I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”
Now keep in mind that this is a university professor that is teaching our kids. People actually pay a lot of money to get educated by this guy.
If those pushing Agenda 21, “sustainable development” and population control get their way, the world is going to be a much different place in the future.
Just watch the video posted below. It was originally produced by the Forum for the Future, a major NGO funded by big corporations such as Time Warner and Royal Dutch Shell. In this video, the Forum for the Future presents their chilling version of the future. Are you ready to live in a “Planned-opolis?” Are you ready to use a “calorie card” and to have what you eat determined by a “global food council?” This is the kind of tyrannical future that these radical environmental organizations want to impose on you and me. http://youtu.be/Q966tz9aEHM
Yes, the video is almost comical, but this is the kind of world that the global elite want to push us towards. In fact, we see radical steps being taken all over the globe even now.
In Europe, the European Commission has unveiled a plan to ban all cars from major European cities by the year 2050.
In Europe, the mantra “carbon dioxide is causing global warming” has become gospel. This banning of cars from city centers is all part of a draconian master plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Europe by 60 percent over the next 40 years.
Hopefully this plan will never come to fruition, but the fact that the European Commission is seriously pushing it just shows how far things have progressed.
But we don't have to peer into the future to see how this agenda is going to affect us.
Today, the U.S. government and governments all over the industrialized world have become so obsessed with reducing carbon emissions that now they even tell us what kinds of light bulbs we are allowed to buy.
There are millions of Americans that love the old light bulbs. But soon we will not have the choice to buy them anymore. What kind of freedom is that?
In some areas of the United States, government snoopers actually sort through the trash of residents to ensure that environmental rules are being followed. For example, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio authorities have announced plans to have “trash supervisors” go snooping through trash cans to ensure that people are actually recycling according to city guidelines. How would you feel if government officials went snooping around in your trash cans?
The world is changing. The global elite have immense amounts of wealth and power and they are intent on imposing a radical environmental agenda on all the rest of us. The reality is that many of the wealthiest and most prominent people in the world are absolutely obsessed with the green agenda and with population control. Just consider the following quotes.
David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”
CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
Maurice Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Michael Oppenheimer: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
This radical agenda is even represented in the White House.
John P. Holdren, Barack Obama's top science advisor, co-authored a textbook entitled “Ecoscience” back in 1977 in which he actually advocated mass sterilization, compulsory abortion, a one world government, and a global police force to enforce population control.
On page 837 of Ecoscience, a claim is made that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution. “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
On pages 942 and 943, a call is made for the creation of a “planetary regime” that would control the global economy and enforce population control measures. “Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime, sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.” “The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
On page 917, the surrender of U.S. national sovereignty to an international organization is advocated. “If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
As mentioned earlier, Holdren is the number one science advisor to Barack Obama, and the truth is that the top levels of the U.S. government are packed with people that believe this stuff.
Yes, a lot of what you have read in this article sounds crazy. But the global elite really do believe in population control and they really are seeking to implement a radical environmental agenda across the entire planet. They want total control of everyone and everything so that they can impose the measures that they believe are necessary to “fix” the planet.