RAND Corporation Blueprint for Militarized “Stability Police Force”

RAND Corporation Blueprint for Militarized “Stability Police Force”

Posted by William Grigg on December 10, 2009 05:08 PM

The RAND Corporation, one of the most fecund research arms of the Military-Industrial-Homeland Security Complex, has released a study entitled A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Creating U.S. Capabilities.

The SPFOR (to use the inevitable acronym) would be a “hybrid” military/law enforcement unit created within the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) for use “in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and investigations of organized criminal groups” — both abroad, in UN-directed multilateral military operations, and at home, as dictated by the needs of the Regime.

Initially as small as 2–6,000 personnel, the SPFOR’s size “could be increased by augmenting it with additional federal, state, or local police from the United States” as necessary.

The RAND study, which was conducted for the U.S. Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, recommended using the Marshals Service rather than the US Army’s Military Police  as host for the SPFOR in order to avoid conflicts with the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids (albeit in principle more than in practice) the domestic use of the military as a law enforcement body.

“The USMS hybrid option … provides an important nondeployed mission for the force: augmenting state and local agencies, many of which currently suffer from severe personnel shortages,” states the report without explaining how the SPFOR could at once “augment” those under-manned agencies while at the same time being “augmented” by them if necessary.

That little lapse in logic is one of several indications that the report’s authors weren’t so much addressing a “problem” as making a case for a preordained “solution” — in this case, creating the vanguard of a militarized internal security force.

Building the SPFOR within the Marshals Service “would place it where its members can develop the needed skills under the hybrid staffing option,” summarizes the document. “Furthermore, the USMS has the broadest law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency…. [This model]provides significant domestic policing and homeland security benefits by providing thousands of additional police officers across the United States.” (Emphasis added.)

Back in 1961, the U.S. Government produced a document entitled “Freedom From War” that envisioned the creation of a globe-spanning United Nations “Peace Force” that would work in collaboration with a militarized “internal security” force in each country. Since that time, critics of the UN have anticipated the day when foreign “peacekeepers” would be assigned to police American streets and, if necessary, confiscate privately owned firearms.

While the monstrosity headquartered on the East River  is a proper target of our scorn and hostility, the new RAND study underscores the fact that if “peacekeepers” end up patrolling American streets, they probably won’t be foreigners in blue berets, but homegrown jackboots commanded by Washington.

(My thanks to Jack Slater for tipping me about the RAND report.)

Idiotic American Transfer of Patriot Missiles to Taiwan Endangers Special Economic Relationship

Chinese media warns of damage to US ties

China unveils anti-missile system

Wednesday, January 13, 2010
‘The US on the one hand wants all kinds of cooperation, but on the other hand keeps selling weapons to Taiwan’

BEIJING: China successfully tested emerging military technology aimed at destroying missiles in mid-air, the government said, while state media warned ties with Washington would be hurt by US missile sales to Taiwan.

China claims Taiwan is an illegitimate breakaway from mainland rule and sees the US arms sales an intrusion into a domestic dispute.

The brief report on the “ground-based mid-course missile interception technology” from China’s state-run Xinhua news agency gave few details, and did not specify whether any missile or object had been destroyed in the test, staged on Chinese soil.

“The test has achieved the expected objective,” said the report, without describing that objective. “The test is defensive in nature and is not targeted at any country,” it quoted the Chinese Foreign Ministry as saying.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu gave few clues about the test, but she told a news briefing it had not left fragments in space or created risks for orbiting vessels. This latest flexing of China’s maturing military hardware came after the United States cleared a sale of Patriot air defence missiles to Taiwan last week, drawing condemnation from Beijing.

China’s ire over the arms sales shows no sign of escalating into military confrontation or diplomatic upheaval. But Beijing’s growing assertiveness over the issue could magnify strains with Washington while both sides grapple with economic tensions and the US seeks Chinese backing on Iran and other disputes.

“China feels the United States on the one hand wants all kinds of cooperation, but on the other hand keeps selling weapons to Taiwan, and this discrepancy is expanding,” said ZhuFeng, a professor of international relations at Peking University.

“There won’t be any substantive reversal in relations over this,” he added. “But China’s self-confidence is growing and it feels these weapons sales to Taiwan are humiliating.” The Patriot “PAC-3” missiles can destroy missiles in mid-air, and could be used against the thousand or more offensive missiles that Taiwan says China has along its coast facing the island.

A commentary from the Xinhua agency on Monday warned of broader fallout from the Patriot missile deal. “Each time the United States has sold weapons to Taiwan, there has been huge damage to China-US relations,” said the commentary, issued separately from the report on the anti-missile test. “This US arms sale to Taiwan will be no exception.”

The commentary accused the Obama administration of betraying a commitment to respect each country’s “core interests.” “Immediately halt weapons sales to Taiwan to avoid damaging cooperation between China and the United States in important areas,” it said. It did not specify those areas. China curtailed military-to-military contacts with the United States after then President

George W Bush notified Congress in October 2008 of plans to sell Taiwan a long-delayed arms package worth up to $6.4 billion. Senior Chinese People’s Liberation Army officials have also urged Beijing to punish Washington and US firms for arms deals with the disputed island.

“We have the power and ability to adopt counter-measures (against US arms sales to Taiwan),” Jin Yinan, a PLA major-general and professor at China’s National Defence University, wrote in a newspaper, the Study Times, earlier this month. “We must use counter-measures to make the other side pay a corresponding price and suffer corresponding punishment.”

Beijing has claimed sovereignty over self-ruled Taiwan since 1949, when Communist forces won the Chinese civil war and fleeing Nationalists gained control of the island. Beijing has vowed to bring Taiwan under its rule, by force if necessary.

The United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, recognising Beijing’s “one China” policy. But Washington remains Taiwan’s biggest military backer and says it is obliged to help the island defend itself.

Banning Islam4UK is not enough.

Banning Islam4UK is not enough.

As with Pakistani fundie/para-military outfits linked to the Pakistan army, in the UK’s case groups such as Islam4UK/Al Muhajiroun and a certain Mr.Anjem Chaudary are extremist groups which have linkages with the UK security Services, notably MI-5.

If the UK authorities are serious about tackling race relations issues in a climate of wars being fought abroad, and economic woes, then perhaps one needs to tackle the issue of how a person such as Anjem Chaudary became a media personality in the first place, and the apparent spokesperson for angry Asian Muslim youths…….as with Pakistan’s case and their fundie groups who also change their names frequently, Mr. Chaudary’s group were known as Hizb-i- Tahrir initially, then Al-Muhairoun, Al Ghurabaaand now Islam4UK.

So after being banned, presumably Islam4UK will change its name again to “al-MI5-ullah”.

The fundamental problem is not the name of the group, but:

  • The activities of its leaders , namely Ajem Chaudary and his close followers.
  • The freedom to operate in the UK, without the slightest bit of state sanctions against Mr. Choudarys name changing groups.
  • The media attention they receive.
  • The covert backing of MI-5.

The British State, within the limits of a Liberal Democracy, needs to find an avenue through which it can tackle the problem of Mr. Ajem Chaudary and his once flourishing legal career as a solicitor, and his race baiting staged events within the UK now, through the numerous meta morphed organizations he runs.

No, no ,no its not sour gripes, but how does a guy with such a background have a flourishing career as a lawyer, AND as a political activist running controversial organizations in the UK over so many years

Otherwise given ones own experience of the issue of security and what is tolerated in Liberal Democratic UK, one must conclude that the British State overtly sanctions and approves of Mr. Ajem Chauhary’s activities, and Mr. Ajem Chaudary is a paid agent of the British State.

Agent Provocateur in French: 5

Then maybe 2 million Muslims allowed to live in the UK, were only invited in by the state to be used as mere a race baiting tools against the majority, and nothing more.

Which in light of unfolding politics and history, with the addition of new perspective gained would not be such a suprise.

There are signs of US forces’ intention of nearing the Iranian borders gradually

There are signs of US forces’ intention of nearing

the Iranian borders gradually

Jan.13, 2010 (Hamsayeh.Net) – US military claims victory in the strategic province of Helmand in Afghanistan. US Marine commanders say their forces have driven out Taliban fighters from most of the towns and villages in the strategic Helmand province, paving the way for start of reconstruction projects in the area.

‘They’ve taken on the Taliban, the insurgency, right in the heartland and they’ve defeated them, ’said Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Mills in a report by USA Today.

Commanders warned that the region in and around the Helmand would continue to be a dangerous place because Taliban in the next-door Kandahar province is able to  mount attacks at any time. While US military officials claim their main goal is to begin reconstruction projects in the region, local Afghan experts say the US has other plans through taking over the Helmand province.

Vahid Mojdeh an Afghanistan political analyst told Iran’s Fars News Agency on Tuesday, that the United States has deployed its forces near the Iranian borders. He said, ‘There are signs of US forces’ intention of nearing the Iranian borders gradually.’

Mojdeh likened the Helmand province offensive to an earlier troops deployment in Nimrooz province in southwestern Afghanistan, despite the fact that the Nimrooz enjoyed relative calm in comparison with other Afghan provinces. The Afghan analysts believed the presence of US forces near the Iranian border would pose little security risk since Tehran is more than ready to defend itself against possible aggression from that direction.

The NATO and US forces already deployed over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and they plan to boost the numbers by 30,000 more troops by the end of 2010. In addition, there are 100,000 troops in Afghanistan as private security contractors.

Social Engineering and the Mind Of Lucifer

Social Engineering and the Mind Of Lucifer

You’ve got to hand it to these New World Order policy wonks sitting there in their corporate funded think-tanks, you really do.

They’re clever.

They get what they want by promoting the opposite of what they want.

The mainstream media and schools promote a ‘diversity’ agenda. ‘Common Purpose’ trainees are instructed on how to enforce the same. We must not discriminate against any person on the basis of their nationality, their race, their sex or their sexual orientation.

Sounds like a good idea.

Doesn’t sound like war against the family, the Christian religion and the dominant cultural group in the country, particularly the male of this dominant group, does it?

Let us look at what modern culture has done to principle. Let us look at the effects of the social engineering that continues to be quietly inflicted against us. Let us try to be aware of the cultural onslaught that has all but destroyed our society and (one hopeful thing at least) our belief in this society.

We (me included….no high horse here) have removed the spiritual connection between intercourse and procreation and abandoned responsible sexual behaviour by accepting the universal use of contraceptives.

We have stopped protecting the most fundamental human right, the right to life itself, by allowing abortion (more or less) on demand.

Once principles are abandoned the rest is easy enough. Sex is perceived as a leisure activity. It is for pleasure and self-satisfaction. Actually giving birth to your baby becomes a matter of preference, how you ‘feel’ about it….and if sex is all about pleasure well, vaginal or ‘up the arse’, what’s the difference? Gay marriage or traditional marriage, what’s the difference?

We have now reached the stage where full traditional, even ‘Christian’, marriage is there for ‘gays’ if they want it. Homosexuals can adopt children, even have their own with the help of a third party.

In my opinion it is NOT ‘anti-gay’ to object to this.

It is anti-child not to.

And, here’s the best of it. It is against the law to even object to this state of affairs.

For instance, if you are a Christian or a Muslim and run a ‘Bed & Breakfast’ hotel you cannot refuse to offer a double bed to gay men in your establishment even if you live there yourself. You can be sued for this.

Catholic adoption agencies have had to disband because of their refusal to allow gays onto their lists.
Christians cannot openly display the crosses they wear. In France, we read that Muslim women will be fined for wearing the burkha in public.

The next step will doubtless see the Catholic Church sued under ‘anti-discrimination’ laws for having an all-male clergy. How long before someone marries their domestic pet with the blessing of some Church or other?

‘Holocaustianity’ has made the white male apologetic and guilt ridden and, it must be said, submissive to Jewish interests. This situation has been created by relentless and intensive propaganda that never ever stops since it began in about 1968 and these phobias and inhibitions have been inculcated in spite of the fact that the crimes of the Holocaust happened before the vast majority of us were even born.

‘Anti-racism’ legislation and propaganda has brainwashed the core population into accepting continuous mass immigration. This has all but destroyed the British sense of identity and damaged the white working class in particular. Speaking against this does not mean that one would be in favour of any racial bias but there is betrayal here. Social cohesiveness in most of England, at least, is all but gone.

…..and here is the purpose of the whole ‘diversity’ agenda……

To destroy any real diversity. To create a society that is but a profane mass of disorientated people with no values nor family nor class nor race nor religion that they can hold on to or unite and organise with, that they might defend themselves against the financial powers that ever more effectively gather wealth and all power to themselves. These people sit behind their high walls or in their gated communities manipulating and conspiring for the day when they can take it all.

We might notice also that the US, the UK and most of the EU can no longer be called Christian countries. We are now Zionist countries. When Israel savaged Gaza last winter the British public were outraged and Gordon Brown went on to ‘The Andrew Marr Show’ one Sunday morning and called for a ‘ceasefire’ in Gaza. On that same day, his ambassador at the United Nations supported the US in its veto against the UN unanimously demanding exactly such a ceasefire (this was reliably reported by Craig Murray, an ex-UK ambassador who spoke to a ‘friend’ in the British UN delegation).

So we legislate for ‘anti-racism’ but support the most racist state on earth….oh, and our foreign policy is responsible for our participation in causing the deaths of MILLIONS of brown-skinned Muslims over the last few decades.

It is so important not to be a racist, isn’t it?

Let us put the whole thing more simply. The government of our one-party state, soon to be one-world state (if they get their way) give us evil but call it ‘good’. They have perfected the technique of dressing themselves in the universalist loving robes of Christ in order to deliver us into the hands of Lucifer.

“Do what you will” is the whole of the Law of Lucifer. This is to be our freedom. The more principle-free and degenerate, the better……”as long as you do what we say”.

2010–Widespread Social Unrest Greets Arrival of Garrison State

[SEE:  Changing Images of Man]

Moody’s warns of ‘social unrest’ as sovereign debt spirals

Britain and other countries with fast-rising government debts must steel themselves for a year in which “social and political cohesiveness” is tested, Moody’s warned.

By Edmund Conway

Comments 58Comment on this article

Riot police clash with protestors during an anti G20 demonstration near the Bank of England. Moody's has warned future tax rises and spending cuts could trigger more social unrest.

Riot police clash with protestors during an anti G20 demonstration near the Bank of England. Moody’s has warned future tax rises and spending cuts could trigger more social unrest.

In a sombre report on the outlook for next year, the credit rating agency raised the prospect that future tax rises and spending cuts could trigger social unrest in a range of countries from the developing to the developed world.

It said that in the coming years, evidence of social unrest and public tension may become just as important signs of whether a country will be able to adapt as traditional economic metrics. Signalling that a fiscal crisis remains a possibility for a leading economy, it said that 2010 would be a “tumultuous year for sovereign debt issuers”.

It added that the sheer quantity of debt to be raised by Britain and other leading nations would increase the risk of investor fright.

Strikingly, however, it added that even if countries reached agreement on the depth of the cuts necessary to their budgets, they could face difficulties in carrying out the cuts. The report, which comes amid growing worries about Britain’s credit rating, said: “In those countries whose debt has increased significantly, and especially those whose debt has become unaffordable, the need to rein in deficits will test social cohesiveness. The test will be starker as growth disappoints and interest rates rise.”

It said the main obstacle for fiscal consolidation plans would be signs not necessarily of economic strength but of “political and social tension”.

Greece, where the government has committed to drastic cuts in public expenditure, has suffered a series of riots over the past year which are thought to have been fuelled by economic pressures.