Returning? Login

The HardCore News

  • What's New?

  • Say goodbye to the public interest: Top Obama Admin Antitrust Officials Tied To Comcast, NBC-Comcast to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion

    NBC-Comcast agrees to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion - Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable TV company, agreed to buy No. 2 Time Warner Cable Inc. for about $45.2 billion in stock, or $158.82 per share, the two companies announced Thursday morning.

    The proposed merger with Time Warner means Comcast wants to screw you over even more.

    Ten Even Worse Things You Don’t Know About Comcast’s Proposed Merger With Time Warner
    A greedy, arrogant, connected corporation wants a bigger monopoly.

    By Steven Rosenfeld - 2/14/2014 - AlterNet

    Talk about revenge of the C students! The nation’s biggest telecom company, Comcast, which took over NBCUniversal a year ago, wants to buy the second biggest company, Time-Warner Cable, to create an empire of 30-million subscribers. That’s a third of all American homes with cable for its TV, internet service and telephones.

    The merger has to be approved by federal regulators as being in the public interest and not a monopoly. How Comcast, the world’s largest media company and one of America’s most reviled companies threads that needle will be a sight to behold. Here are 10 things about its record—on customer service, profiteering, lobbying and sky-high political connections—that you may not know.

    1. Worst Company In America Lists. It’s bad enough that both Comcast and Time-Warner are regularly cited on “worst company” lists and are at the bottom of consumer surveys for subscription television services. Consumerist, which ranked it the third worst company in 2013, has a string of reports describing the numerous ways that Comcast rips off subscribers—overpromising and underdelivering—including CEO Brian Roberts’s reply last fall blaming his customers for Comcast’s bad reputation, saying that it is noticed only because a giant company like his gets lots and lots of service calls.

    2. Local Cable Already Is A Monopoly. As most cable users know, cable companies already are a monopoly. There is no alternative provider offering the mix of TV, internet and phone in most locales. The nation’s business press thinks that’s fine and has lauded Comcast—such as this Forbes article—for succeeding “by providing less customer service.” Industry spin like that has lead to a phenomenon rarely seen in online journalism: torrents of incredibly detailed comments describing just how much people despise Comcast and wish there was competition for telecom services.

    “Comcast is one of the worst companies in this country,” replied Sandi D to that Forbes piece, saying how she spent nine weeks to resolve issues and only got a response after filing a formal complaint with the Better Business Bureau. Another writer, Allawash, was billed for data speeds that Comcast’s equipment wouldn’t deliver, telling Forbes, “They are relying on customer’s lack of knowledge to nickel and dime them.” Commenter Craig Oren said, “Half of the [customer service] representatives cannot speak English fluently.” Other websites have dozens and dozens of comments following Comcast articles with examples detailing their lousy experiences with the service, tech support and billing.

    3. Their Pricing Is Predatory And Will Become Worse. Like big banks, Comcast is always looking for new fees and charges to top off its pricey monthly cost—which is four times as expensive as Europe. Last November, it announced a new $1.50 “broadcast TV fee” would begin in 2014 in addition to the monthly rate, Consumerist reported. “Others, like AT&T and Charter have similar tack-on fees, but unlike those companies, which have not benefitted in any way from increased retransmission fees charged by broadcasters, Comcast also happens to own NBC,” it said, making the point that Comcast already owns much of the content—such as coverage of the Olympics—that it’s charging double for.

    What will customers receive for this fee? According to TechDirt.com, more commercials, especially when people are watching reruns of old TV series. “Basically, Comcast wants to flip the current advertising system upsides-down and have older episodes of primetime shows carrying the same commercial load as the most recent episode,” it reported. These are examples of why a deal giving Comcast—already America’s biggest cable company and internet-service provider—more monopoly power is bad for the public.

    4. Comcast’s Contempt for Customers Is More Widespread. It’s astounding to read what Comcast executives have said about how they treat customers. Matt Strauss, senior vice-president of video services, boasted to The New York Post in December that their on-demand video service system disables fast-forwarding through commercials, which frustrates users but earns Comcast billions more from ad sales. In another example of its greed trumping the video viewers’ experience, The Wall Street Journal reports that it is talking to Netflix about making its shows available to subscribers, but Comcast won’t give Netflix access to the best-quality video streaming. “Netflix believes the technology is critical,” the Journal reported last October, adding, “No deal is imminent.”

    5. Comcast’s Antics Include Its Broadband Service. Comcast isn’t just a TV company. It is a giant internet service provider, as well as phone company for some people. When it comes to the internet, TechDirt reports that Comcast “is still continuing its stealthy push toward capped broadband.” Techdirt is referring to charging people by how much data flows into their homes. The trade journals DSLreports.com said Comcast recently raised prices in “uncompetitive” rural media markets in Maine and Georgia. It said, “Augusta locals tell the local media they were surprised to suddenly see they had a 300 GB cap and had to pay $10 for every 50 GB they travel.” Predatory pricing like that is what accounts for its $64.76 in revenues in 2013, with $7.1 billion in net profits.

    6. Comcast Blames Users For Its Predatory Pricing. As TechDirt notes, price gouging in media markets where Comcast is the only provider is accompanied by more ridiculous industry spin: Comcast “spokespeople ‘informing’ reporters that ‘most people’ don’t use that much data and that sneaking in usage caps is the ‘fairest’ way to make sure data hogs don’t use up all the Internet.” TechDirt’s bottom-line: “It’s just a way to make users pay more for their services.”

    7. Comcast says Americans Don’t Want Faster Broadband. That explanation for price gouging is the tip of the distorted public relations iceberg that its top executive roll out. A Philadelphia Enquirer op-ed by lobbyist David Cohen touts mediocre broadband speeds by claiming that few people want anything faster. “The reality is that the United States is leading the way in speed, reach, and access—and doing so in a vast, rural nation that poses logistical connectivity challenges unlike any other country,” he wrote, ignoring the fact that much of world has far faster and much cheaper internet service. Comcast’s “triple-play” monthly packages—for TV, internet and phone—cost from $100 to $200, compared to France, for example, where it’s $40 a month and download speeds are 10 times faster and upload speeds are 20 times faster.

    As Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Professor Susan Crawford detailed in Salon, the broadband service in the U.S.—provided by Comcast and other telecoms—is far inferior to most of Europe and East Asia. “In a nutshell, America has a series of regional cable monopolies controlling the pricing and capacity of fixed high-speed Internet access (and every other form of data reaching Americans),” she said.

    8. Comcast Also Says People Don’t Want Alternatives. In that same Philadelphia Enquirer op-ed, lobbyist Cohen says that Americans don’t need what a real competitor, Google Fiber, is offering—a one-gigabit per second connection via a fiber-optic line. “Most websites can’t deliver content as fast as current networks move,” he said, adding, “most U.S. homes have routers that can’t support the speed that’s already available.” Nowhere in this dig at Googledoes Comcast’s lobbyist suggest that his company would upgrade the gear that it’s put in millions of homes unless user paid more to do it.

    “Consumers are demanding faster speeds, though,” TechDirt countered. “When someone like Google comes along and offers a gigabit connection for $30/month, it’s delivering what consumers actually want: higher speeds and lower prices… Comcast frequently throw(s) data caps into the mix, which nullifies the positive effects of a speed boost.”

    9. Comcast Wants The Next Big Telecom Monopoly. Comcast’s corporate goal in its pending takeover of Time Warner Cable goes far beyond subscriptions to television and video and today’s most popular internet uses. They want to stand like sentries at a toll gate that prevent people from crossing and using every emerging broadband-based tool unless they pay its fees. “The cable companies, with their inherently better bandwidth than phone company DSL lines, are becoming natural monopolies for wired-line internet access except in the few places where other providers have installed fiber lines,” wrote Dan Gillmor in The Guardian. Every era has its highways. In the late 1800s, it was the railroads and telegraph lines. In the mid-20th century, it was telephones, highways and broadcast networks. In the early 21st century, it’s the internet and broadband.

    10. Comcast Has Political Friends In The Highest Places. By any objective standard, Comcast’s proposed takeover of Time Warner is not the public interest. But there are real reasons to more than suspect that neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the Department of Justice will veto the deal, citing anti-monopoly legal standards. The company’s power and influence is enormous. Last year, after the FCC approved the deal acquiring NBC Universal, FCC Commissioner Meredith Baker was hired by Comcast. Top lobbyist Cohen held a fundraiser at his home for President Obama in 2011 netting $1.2 million. And last summer, Obama and other top White House officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder—who heads the Justice Department that must approve Comcast’s merger with Time Warner—vacationed at Comcast CEO Brian Roberts’ Martha’s Vineyard home.

    As The New York Post noted, “A source told us the reception was ‘very relaxed, with no speeches. People were sitting out on the terrace.’ Roberts has reportedly been close to the president for years and endorsed the Affordable Care Act.”

    http://www.alternet.org/media/ten-even-worse-things-you-dont-know-about-comcasts-proposed-merger-time-warner

    COMCAST-TWC MERGER WORRIES, OUTRAGES CONSUMERS
    AP - 2/14/2014
    LOS ANGELES (AP) — Comcast and Time Warner Cable regularly rank at the bottom of the pay TV industry when it comes to customer satisfaction. So it didn't take long for customers to vent frustrations online over high prices, spotty service and fears of a monopoly after Comcast announced its $45 billion purchase of Time Warner Cable.

    Outrage that these two big cable companies would join hands to form an even more massive entity spurred a cascade of sarcastic tweets and satirical memes: the killer Death Star battle station from "Star Wars," the evil Eye of Sauron from "The Lord of the Rings," and a "South Park" snippet where character Eric Cartman and friends are tormented by cable employees before a logo curiously similar to Time Warner Cable's own.

    Consumers weren't buying the assertion of Comcast CEO Brian Roberts that the combination, which will have 30 million TV and Internet subscribers, would be "pro-consumer and pro-competitive."
    The two companies are expected to argue to anti-trust regulators that the fact they don't directly compete against each other in many parts of America shows the deal won't reduce competition and therefore should be approved.

    But it is that lack of overlap, and lack of choice, which is at the root of customer frustration, according America Customer Satisfaction Index managing director David VanAmburg. Cable companies that purposely don't compete against each other to provide fast Internet or reliable TV service can get away with not fully meeting customer needs in markets where they dominate.
    "It's almost subconsciously built into their business model that they don't have to worry so much you're going to leave for a competitor," said VanAmburg. "It's definitely a big factor."
    Skepticism about the benefits of the deal to consumers was visible in many of the tweets that surfaced after the takeover announcement.

    "I love that we're headed back to the era of the monopoly," tweeted Chris Buecheler. "'Eh, I'm sure it'll work out this time!'"

    "A Time Warner/Comcast merger would create a combined customer service department of well over 10 employees," tweeted MrScottFletcher.

    "The sale of Time Warner Cable to Comcast will be completed between 8am and 1pm depending on if the CEO is late at another appointment," read a tweet by William Gallahue that made fun of service appointment windows that seem designed to cause inconvenience.

    Michael Pinto, a 48-year-old Time Warner Cable customer in Brooklyn, N.Y., said a lot of people in the city are trapped into whatever service happens to run into their building that the landlord allows. He worries that a lot of creativity could be stifled if control of Internet and TV service is consolidated into too few hands.

    "I suppose it's good news for shareholders. You get a bigger, growing company with smaller cost structures," said Pinto, a website designer and chief creative officer at Very Memorable Inc. "But I think as a democracy - not just a democracy in politics but in a creative sense - I wonder what new channels are we missing out on?"

    Simon Eldridge, a 36-year-old media technology consultant in San Jose, Calif., is concerned about everything from the combined company raising prices to throttling back the streaming speeds of online video companies such as Netflix.

    The British native is a Comcast Internet customer, mainly because no other provider in his area will give him the speed he needs to work from home. He pays about $80 a month for a download speed of 50 Megabits per second. He says that's about one-third pricier than in the U.K., where there is more competition.

    "This kind of a merger is going to give them a third of the Internet market in the U.S. and they can charge even more," he said.

    He's read up about their reputation for poor service, although Comcast has been "pretty decent" to him. Eldridge is hopeful that the companies fulfill pledges they made Thursday to boost Internet speeds and reliability for consumers if the deal is approved.

    "Hopefully some good will come out of it rather than the worst side of both," he said.

    http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/ap_dbecd815a0a5411ab09ae4709f80a91f

    Comcast to buy Time Warner Cable: Say goodbye to the public interest - Reports are swirling around the media universe that Comcast is prepared to announce, as early as Thursday, a deal to acquire Time Warner Cable for north of $45 billion.

    The deal would combine the nation's biggest and second-biggest cable firms. Comcast, already No. 1 in subscribers, would end up with about 30 million video customers, a net gain of 8 million (following a reported commitment to divest 3 million subs). It would put that subscriber base together with its ownership of NBCUniversal -- the network, the film studio and several other cable channels.

    Let's get to the bottom line. There's no way this combination can conceivably be in the public interest. The deal is a blunt challenge to the Federal Communications Commission and its new chairman, Tom Wheeler; the question is whether the FCC will fold against the economic and political power of these two behemoths.

    As the leading provider of Internet services to American homes, Comcast has already shown that it's not above using its effective near-monopoly on Internet connectivity in its service area to stifle competitors. The FCC slapped its wrist after it was caught engaging in this illicit behavior in 2007, but then inexplicably waved through Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal in 2011.

    The acquisition of Time Warner Cable will simply expand the geographical area subject to its ruthless competitive practices. (Comcast is committed to adhering to standards of net neutrality, which forbid its discriminating among Web services in carrying them to subscribers' homes, until January 2018. That was a condition of the NBCUniversal deal, but after that date the shackles are off.)

    Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal was a deal that the FCC should never have approved. Here's what we wrote about it in 2011:
    "Neither Comcast nor NBC needs this merger for its survival. It won't improve cable TV or Internet technology. It won't by itself lead to more innovative or even more popular television programming. It won't result in more efficient entertainment production.
    "In fact, by concentrating economic power in fewer hands, it may lead to less of all that."
    Nothing that's happened since the merger has contradicted those predictions.

    In fact, since then the threat to a free and open Internet from the concentration of economic power over online services has increased. A federal appeals court ruling last month threw out the FCC's rules protecting the open Internet (on the urging of Verizon, which is Comcast's counterpart as an excessively powerful player in the wireless sphere).

    As we wrote at the time, the court ruling made clear that the FCC has all the authority it needs to protect net neutrality, if it only goes about it the right way, but Wheeler has yet to tip his hand about whether, or how, he will do that.

    Wheeler spoke publicly just three days ago about "the primacy of 'competition, competition, competition,'" in safeguarding the public interest: "Our competition policy will take the 'see-saw' approach," he told a high-tech conference in Boulder, Colo. "When competition is high, regulation can be low; when competition is low, we are willing to act in the public interest."

    The Comcast-Time Warner deal manifestly would be disastrous for the competitive landscape Wheeler says is his paramount goal. The principles he articulated dictate that he and his fellow FCC commissioners must block it. Will he stick to his guns?

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-comcast-20140212,0,4158731.story#ixzz2tDCKkDVp

    Revolving Door: Top Obama Admin Antitrust Officials Tied To Comcast - The news that cable and news giant Comcast has struck a deal to purchase Time Warner, another large cable business, has raised concerns over market concentration. Observers note that the combined company, even if it divests some holdings, would create monopoly-like conditions for the industry.

    Many are predicting a lobbying blitz by both companies to pressure governments officials to accept the deal. When Comcast purchased NBC Universal, lobbyists were hired to ensure the merger went through. Critics charge that the payments went beyond the traditional influence industry: after signing off on the Comcast-NBC deal, FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker was hired by Comcast for an undisclosed amount.

    Could the revolving door shape the antitrust enforcement for the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner? Republic Report looked into the officials responsible for overseeing antitrust enforcement, and found that at least two have close ties to Comcast.

    The recently installed head of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, William Baer, was a lawyer representing GE and NBC in their push for the merger with Comcast. At the time, Baer was an attorney with the firm Arnold & Porter. To his credit, Baer said last month that he is skeptical of further consolidation of the cable market. Disclosures reviewed by Republic Report show that Baer will continue receiving payments from Arnold & Porter for the next eleven years as part of his retirement package.

    Maureen Ohlhausen, one of four commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission, which oversees antitrust enforcement, provided legal counsel for Comcast as an attorney just before joining the FTC. She also represented NBC Universal in the year before before becoming a commissioner in April of 2012. NBC Universal completed its merger with Comcast in January of 2011.

    Still, several officials have signaled that they may reject the Comcast-Time Warner deal. FTC Commissioner Ajit Pai told the Wall Street Journal that the merger could face “a number of hurdles in the Obama administration.”

    Comcast and Time Warner are major players in both political parties.

    http://www.republicreport.org/2014/comcast-antitrust-revolvingdoor/#sthash.RcCta4Py.dpuf

    Comcast takeover of Time Warner Cable 'will throttle choice on the web' -
    Angry consumer groups say proposed $45.2bn mega-deal will drive up costs for millions – and call on FCC to block takeover
    Dominic Rushe - 02-12-2014 - TheGuardian.com

    Consumer groups reacted angrily to the merger of cable giant Comcast and Time Warner Cable on Thursday, claiming the combination could “throttle” choice on the internet.

    Comcast’s proposed $45.2bn takeover of TWC will create a media behemoth that will dominate broadband internet access across the US. Comcast, which owns NBC Universal, will also cement its position as the pre-eminent force in cable TV.

    Jodie Griffin, senior staff attorney at consumer rights group Public Knowledge said: “This is a deal that needs to be blocked.” She said Comcast was likely to use the extra leverage to “drive up costs and reduce choices for consumers.”, and claimed the new company would be too powerful, becoming a “gatekeeper” capable of “throttling competition.”

    Comcast, America’s largest cable company, took over NBC Universal in 2011 and was given a long list of conditions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Among them was a commitment to net neutrality – a ban on internet service providers from favouring affiliated content or blocking or slowing web content sent to homes and businesses. At present, Comcast is bound to abide by net neutrality rules until the end of 2017.

    Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has attacked Comcast, accusing the cable firm of capping data it provides to streaming companies like his own in order to favour Comcast’s own Xfinity video-on-demand app. Recent studies show that Comcast users receive their Netflix media at significantly slower speeds than those using other internet service providers.

    Griffin said there were other examples where Comcast had failed to live up the pledges it had made or was pushing hard at the limits of the rules. She cited Comcast’s dispute with Bloomberg Television. Bloomberg clashed with Comcast after the cable firm refused to put its business news channel alongside its own affiliated news stations – including rival finance channel CNBC and MSNBC – in its cable lineup. The FCC ruled last year that the refusal to “neighbourhood” Bloomberg’s channel close to its rivals contravened the conditions of its NBC merger.

    “In our experience, allowing this merger to go through with added conditions is not a workable solution,” said Griffin.

    Craig Aaron, president of internet rights lobby group Free Press, said that while the immediate effects of the merger were likely to be price rises and less competition, the long-term consequences could be even more serious.

    Alongside Netflix, Comcast has been criticised for slowing users’ broadband connections by the lobby group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and by file-sharing and copyright website TorrentFreak for interfering with legal file-sharing on the web.

    “This is a company that has already been caught blocking internet traffic,” said Aaron. “But it’s clear their long-term plan is to take a free and open internet and turn it into something like cable TV, where they pick the channels and they speed them up and slow them down based on who pays them the most.”

    “If you hate your cable guy now, you are going to hate your cable guy on steroids,” said Aaron.

    EFF attorney Mitch Stoltz called the merger “dangerous”.

    “One company will effectively control the only data pipe going into a near majority of American homes, whether that’s internet TV or phones,” Stoltz said. “If that company gets to play favourites … that’s dangerous.”

    Stoltz said the companies might not compete directly, but that their combined marketing and purchasing power would give them unprecedented clout over programming whether it was delivered to TVs or to the internet. “At this point that is largely an irrelevance,” he said.

    The two firms have begun what looks set to be an expensive and protracted lobbying effort to sell the consumer benefits of the deal.

    On a conference call with journalists Thursday, Brian Roberts, the chairman and CEO of Comcast, and Robert Marcus, the chairman and CEO of TWC, argued the deal was a “pro-consumer”. They said the two firms did not directly compete geographically and would sell off the small areas where they do.

    “If there is a benefit of a national scale of being able to grow in the future with capabilities that are expensive and untested that require a national presence, we are able to do that,” said Roberts.

    Marcus said: “First of all, the broadband market today is more competitive than you give it credit for. But most importantly, by combining Time Warner and Comcast in cable, we are not removing a competitor from any consumer. We are not removing a choice from any consumer.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/13/comcast-time-warner-cable-takeover-throttle-internet

  • JPMorgan Vice President’s Death in London Shines a Light on the Bank’s Close Ties to the CIA and becomes 5th Banker to Die in Last 2 Weeks

    By Pam Martens/Russ Martens - Feb 12, 2014 - WallStreetOnParade.com

    The nonstop crime news swirling around JPMorgan Chase for a solid 18 months has started to feel a little spooky – they do lots of crime but never any time; and with each closed case, a trail of unanswered questions remains in the public’s mind.

    Just last month, JPMorgan Chase acknowledged that it facilitated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, looking the other way as Bernie Madoff brazenly turned his business bank account at JPMorgan Chase into an unprecedented money laundering operation that would have set off bells, whistles and sirens at any other bank.

    The U.S. Justice Department allowed JPMorgan to pay $1.7 billion and sign a deferred prosecution agreement, meaning no one goes to jail at JPMorgan — again. The largest question that no one can or will answer is how the compliance, legal and anti-money laundering personnel at JPMorgan ignored for years hundreds of transfers and billions of dollars in round trip maneuvers between Madoff and the account of Norman Levy. Even one such maneuver should set off an investigation. (Levy is now deceased and the Trustee for Madoff’s victims has settled with his estate.)

    Then there was the report done by the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the London Whale episode which left the public in the dark about just what JPMorgan was doing with stock trading in its Chief Investment Office in London, redacting all information in the 300-page report that related to that topic.

    Wall Street On Parade has been filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the Federal government in these matters, and despite the pledge from our President to set a new era of transparency, thus far we have had few answers coming our way.

    One reason that JPMorgan may have such a spooky feel is that it has aligned itself in no small way with real-life spooks, the CIA kind.

    Just when the public was numbing itself to the endless stream of financial malfeasance which cost JPMorgan over $30 billion in fines and settlements in just the past 13 months, we learned on January 28 of this year that a happy, healthy 39-year old technology Vice President, Gabriel Magee, was found dead on a 9th level rooftop of the bank’s 33-story European headquarters building in the Canary Wharf section of London.

    The way the news of this tragic and sudden death was stage-managed by highly skilled but invisible hands, turning a demonstrably suspicious incident into a cut-and-dried suicide leap from the rooftop (devoid of eyewitnesses or motivation) had all the hallmarks of a sophisticated covert operation or coverup.

    The London Evening Standard newspaper reported the same day that “A man plunged to his death from a Canary Wharf tower in front of thousands of horrified commuters today.” Who gave that completely fabricated story to the press? Commuters on the street had no view of the body because it was 9 floors up on a rooftop – a rooftop that is accessible from a stairwell inside the building, not just via a fall from the roof. Adding to the suspicions, Magee had emailed his girlfriend the evening before telling her he was finishing up and would be home shortly.

    If JPMorgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, needed a little crisis management help from operatives, he has no shortage of people to call upon. Thomas Higgins was, until a few months ago, a Managing Director and Global Head of Operational Control for JPMorgan. (A BusinessWeek profile shows Higgins still employed at JPMorgan while the New York Post reported that he left late last year.) What is not in question is that Higgins was previously the Senior Officer and Station Chief in the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, a component of which is the National Resources Division. (Higgins’ bio is printed in past brochures of the CIA Officers Memorial Foundation, where Higgins is listed with his JPMorgan job title, former CIA job title, and as a member of the Foundation’s Board of Directors for 2013.)

    According to Jeff Stein, writing in Newsweek on November 14, the National Resources Division (NR) is the “biggest little CIA shop you’ve never heard of.” One good reason you’ve never heard of it until now is that the New York Times was asked not to name it in 2001. James Risen writes in a New York Times piece:

    [the CIA’s] “New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas.”

    Stein gets much of that out in the open in his piece for Newsweek, citing sources who say that “its intimate relations with top U.S. corporate executives willing to have their companies fronting for the CIA invites trouble at home and abroad.” Stein goes on to say that NR operatives “cultivate their own sources on Wall Street, especially looking for help keeping track of foreign money sloshing around in the global financial system, while recruiting companies to provide cover for CIA operations abroad. And once they’ve seen how the other 1 percent lives, CIA operatives, some say, are tempted to go over to the other side.”

    We now know that it was not only the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Treasury Department’s FinCEN, and bank examiners from the Comptroller of the Currency who missed the Madoff fraud, it was top snoops at the CIA in the very city where Madoff was headquartered.

    Stein gives us even less reason to feel confident about this situation, writing that the NR “knows some titans of finance are not above being romanced. Most love hanging out with the agency’s top spies — James Bond and all that — and being solicited for their views on everything from the street’s latest tricks to their meetings with, say, China’s finance minister. JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sach’s Lloyd Blankfein, one former CIA executive recalls, loved to get visitors from Langley. And the CIA loves them back, not just for their patriotic cooperation with the spy agency, sources say, but for the influence they have on Capitol Hill, where the intelligence budgets are hashed out.”

    Higgins is not the only former CIA operative to work at JPMorgan. According to aLinkedIn profile, Bud Cato, a Regional Security Manager for JPMorgan Chase, worked for the CIA in foreign clandestine operations from 1982 to 1995; then went to work for The Coca-Cola Company until 2001; then back to the CIA as an Operations Officer in Afghanistan, Iraq and other Middle East countries until he joined JPMorgan in 2011.

    In addition to Higgins and Cato, JPMorgan has a large roster of former Secret Service, former FBI and former law enforcement personnel employed in security jobs. And, as we have reported repeatedly, it still shares a space with the NYPD in a massive surveillance operation in lower Manhattan which has been dubbed the Lower Manhattan Security Coordination Center.

    JPMorgan and Jamie Dimon have received a great deal of press attention for the whopping $4.6 million that JPMorgan donated to the New York City Police Foundation. Leonard Levitt, of NYPD Confidential, wrote in 2011 that New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly “has amended his financial disclosure forms after this column revealed last October that the Police Foundation had paid his dues and meals at the Harvard Club for the past eight years. Kelly now acknowledges he spent $30,000 at the Harvard Club between 2006 and 2009, according to the Daily News.”

    JPMorgan is also listed as one of the largest donors to a nonprofit Foundation that provides college tuition assistance to the children of fallen CIA operatives, the CIA Officers Memorial Foundation. The Foundation also notes in a November 2013 publication, the Compass, that it has enjoyed the fundraising support of Maurice (Hank) Greenberg. According to the publication, Greenberg “sponsored a fundraiser on our behalf. His guest list included the who’s who of the financial services industry in New York, and they gave generously.”

    Hank Greenberg is the former Chairman and CEO of AIG which collapsed into the arms of the U.S. taxpayer, requiring a $182 billion bailout. In 2006, AIG paid $1.64 billion to settle federal and state probes into fraudulent activities. In 2010, the company settled a shareholders’ lawsuit for $725 million that accused it of accounting fraud and stock price manipulation. In 2009, Greenberg settled SEC fraud charges against him related to AIG for $15 million.

    Before the death of Gabriel Magee, the public had lost trust in the Justice Department and Wall Street regulators to bring these financial firms to justice for an unending spree of fleecing the public. Now there is a young man’s unexplained death at JPMorgan. This is no longer about money. This is about a heartbroken family that will never be the same again; who can never find peace or closure until credible and documented facts are put before them by independent, credible law enforcement.

    The London Coroner’s office will hold a formal inquest into the death of Gabriel Magee on May 15. Wall Street On Parade has asked that the inquest be available on a live webcast as well as an archived webcast so that the American public can observe for itself if this matter has been given the kind of serious investigation it deserves. We ask other media outlets who were initially misled about the facts in this case to do the same.

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/02/jpmorgan-vice-president%E2%80%99s-death-in-london-shines-a-light-on-the-bank%E2%80%99s-close-ties-to-the-cia/

    Another JPMorgan Banker Dies, 37 Year Old Executive Director Of Program Trading
    By Tyler Durden - 02/12/2014 - ZeroHedge.com
    Ordinarily we would ignore the news of another banker's death - after all these sad events happen all the time - if it wasn't for several contextual aspects of this most recent passage. First, the death in question, as reported by the Stamford Daily Voice is that of Ryan Henry Crane, a Harvard graduate, who is survived by his wife, son and parents at the very young age of 37. Second, Ryan Henry Crane was formerly employed by JPMorgan - a bank which was featured prominently in the news as recently as two weeks ago when another of its London-based employees committed suicide by jumping from the top floor of its Canary Wharf building. Third: Crane was an Executive Director in JPM's Global Program Trading desk, founded in 1999 by an ex-DE Shaw'er, a function of the firm which is instrumental to preserving JPM's impeccable and (so far in 2013) flawless trading record of zero trading losses.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-12/another-jpmorgan-banker-dies-37-year-old-executive-director-program-trading

  • APPROACHING IRANIAN WARSHIPS RAISE EMP THREAT... (USA Defenseless)

    Experts: U.S. 'defenseless' against high-altitude explosion

    F. MICHAEL MALOOF - 02-11-14 - WND.com

    WASHINGTON – National security experts have expressed alarm over the announcement by Iran that it will position its warships off the coast of the United States, from where they could launch a nuclear warhead to explode at high altitude to create an electromagnetic pulse.

    That could knock the American electrical grid out of commission, disrupting supplies of energy, food, communications, fuel and more for a long period.

    These experts agree that there would be no warning and that the U.S. missile defense system would not be able to respond in time to prevent the high altitude nuclear explosion. They also believe that if such a missile were launched, it would not be from an Iranian warship but from a commercial vessel sailing along the East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.

    “It shows they could put a weapon on a boat or freighter, and if Iran has ballistic missiles it could put it anywhere on the U.S. coast,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and currently a senior fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute.

    Last month, the Iranian Fars News Agency announced that the fleet would undertake a three-month mission and would consist of a destroyer and a helicopter-carrying vessel.

    While the Iranian deployment may consist of two vessels, the commander of Iran’s Northern Navy Fleet, Adm.l Afshin Rezayee Haddad, said that Iran would send a “fleet” to the Atlantic Ocean.

    These ships undoubtedly would be under constant U.S. Navy observation while trolling along the U.S. East Coast and possibly in the Gulf of Mexico.

    The ships could use Venezuela as station to refuel and resupply, or could return to Iran.

    Iran’s decision to place its warships off the U.S. East Coast was prompted by the U.S. decision to place warships of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet at Bahrain, not far from Iran. And there are U.S. carrier task forces constantly patrolling through the Strait of Hormuz, which skirts Iranian territory.

    This deployment to the U.S. East Coast would be the first time Iran has stationed ships outside the Persian Gulf. For the past three years, it has been sending its warships through the Suez Canal and into the Mediterranean to show its capabilities.

    Bolton said that the Iranian exercise is more of a training mission to show that it can sail across the Atlantic and come up to the U.S. coast.

    “They’re building up capabilities,” Bolton said. “That’s what training missions do.”

    The coastal deployment plan comes as the United States and its allies again meet on Feb. 18 with Iranian officials in Vienna to come to a comprehensive agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.

    Iran wants to end Western economic sanctions while the U.S. and its allies seek to halt any effort by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, which Iran claims it is not doing with its nascent nuclear program.

    Some national security experts are worried that Iran could park is warships outside U.S. territorial waters and be in a position to launch an EMP attack should the U.S. decide to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    Retired Army Brig. Gen. Kenneth Chrosniak said that the Iranian warships will be “extensively tracked and, if need be, engaged by an overwhelming triad of conventional U.S. forces if they attempt to fire a missile.

    “However, if they home port out of Venezuela, we may be more vulnerable to engagement to our exposed southern shores,” Chrosniak said. “Even so, I believe we’ll have adequate ‘visability/awareness.’”

    Former Ambassador Henry Cooper, who heads High Frontier and was the Strategic Defense Initiative Director under former President George H.W. Bush, said that the issue is not one just of awareness.

    “What if they covertly erect and launch a nuclear armed ballistic missile from near our coast?” Cooper asked. “And actually, I am more concerned that they could do this from a more conventional vessel than a warship – perhaps while we are watching the few warships and ignoring the hundreds of commercial vessels.”

    Cooper, who is a member of the newly formed EMP Coalition headed by former Central Intelligence Director James Woolsey and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has expressed concern about America’s exposure to any missile launches from the south.

    His main concern is that the U.S. lacks a ballistic missile system to watch the south part of the U.S. should there be a missile launch from either North Korea or Iran, both which have previously tested missiles over the southern polar icecap.

    Cooper would like to see the U.S. Navy move more of its Aegis warships into the Gulf and off the southern portion of the East Coast to respond to any missile attack.

    However, other experts agree that a missile fired by North Korea, Iran or any other nation with missile and nuclear warhead stockpiles off the coast so close to the East or Gulf Coasts could not be intercepted in time.

    In referring to the impending arrival of the Iranian warships off the U.S. East Coast, former CIA operative Reza Kahlili said that they are test runs “for a long term presence in collaboration with their allies in this region.”

    In addition to Venezuela, those other countries close to Iran include Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador.

    “If (the Iranians) do anything, it will be via a commercial vessel,” Kahlili said.

    Experts have suggested that an EMP strike could disable most electronics, which control food, water, fuel, energy and other supplies, as well as communications links and more. Ultimately, such a strike on an unprepared U.S. is estimated to result in tens of millions of casualties.


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/approaching-iranian-warships-raise-emp-threat/#LSFw6A4PcAztzzx3.99

  • National Guard trains to fight 'anti-government' Second Amendment supporters...

    Ohio National Guard Training Envisions Right-Wing Terrorism
    By: Jesse Hathaway | February 10, 2014 MediaTrackers.org

    Documents from an Ohio National Guard (ONG) training drill conducted last January reveal the details of a mock disaster where Second Amendment supporters with “anti-government” opinions were portrayed as domestic terrorists.

    The ONG 52nd Civil Support Team training scenario involved a plot from local school district employees to use biological weapons in order to advance their beliefs about “protecting Gun Rights and Second Amendment rights.”

    Portsmouth Chief of Police Bill Raisin told NBC 3 WSAZ-TV in Huntington, West Virginia that the drill accurately represented “the reality of the world we live in,” adding that such training “helps us all be prepared.”

    Internal ONG documents provided to Media Trackers after repeated delays provide further context to what WSAZ-TV reported last winter.

    In the disaster-preparedness scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School employees poisoned school lunches with mustard gas, acting on orders from white-nationalist leader William Pierce.

    The ONG team discovered biological weapons being produced in the school, requiring activation of containment and decontamination procedures.

    Participants in the disaster drill located documents expressing the school employees’ “anti-government” sentiments, as well as a note identifying Pierce as the fictional right-wing terrorists’ leader.

    ONG’s 52nd Civil Support Unit participated in a similar drill involving left-wing terrorists with Athens County first responders last year; public officials apologized for that training the next day in response to complaints from local environmentalist groups.

    No apology to Ohioans who support limited government and the Second Amendment appears to be forthcoming.

    Scioto County Emergency Management Agency director Kim Carver refused to comment, telling Media Trackers she was “not going to get into an Ohio Army National Guard issue that you have with them.”

    Ohio National Guard Communications Director James Sims II suggested Media Trackers was “inferring” from the ONG document’s contents as opposed to “what’s actually in the report.”

    After excerpts of the report were read to him, Sims said it was “not relevant” to understand why conservatives may feel unduly targeted by ONG’s training scenario.

    “Okay, I’m gonna stop ya there. I’m going to quit this conversation,” Sims concluded. “You have a good day.”

    Buckeye Firearms Association spokesman Chad Baus told Media Trackers that “it is a scary day indeed when law enforcement are being trained that Second Amendment advocates are the enemy,”

    “The revelation of this information is appalling to me, and to all citizens of Ohio who are true conservatives and patriots, who don’t have guns for any other reason than that the Second Amendment gives them that right,” Portage County TEA Party Executive Director Tom Zawistowski said in a separate Media Trackers interview.

    Media Trackers reached out to Portsmouth-area state legislators Representative Terry Johnson and Senator Joe Uecker for comment about the drill, which took place within their respective districts. Neither replied to phone calls or emails in time for publication.

    ONG’s January 2013 training exercise is one of many instances where government officials have identified those with limited-government or pro-Second Amendment opinions as potential terror threats.

    In 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned law enforcement agencies that a predicted rise in“right-wing extremism” would be fueled by “proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans” and “the election of the first African American president.”

    Throughout modern history, groups and individuals associated with left-wing causes have proven far more likely to commit acts of domestic terror.

    In 2012, members of the anarcho-socialist Occupy Cleveland movement were arrested and prosecuted for attempting to destroy the Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge with explosives, to commemorate International Workers’ Day.

    Last year, leftist groups Earth First and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) claimed responsibility for the sabotage and property destruction of businesses in Washington and Van Wert counties.

    http://mediatrackers.org/ohio/2014/02/10/ohio-national-guard-training-envisions-right-wing-terrorism

    Ohio National Guard portrayed gun rights supporters as domestic terrorists during drill
    Published: February 11, 2014 - RT America

    Questions are being raised about the Ohio National Guard after internal documents revealed that the agency conducted a training drill last year in which Second Amendment advocates were portrayed as domestic terrorists.

    WSAZ News reported out of Portsmouth, Ohio early last year that a mock disaster had been staged in order to see first responders from Scioto County and the Ohio Army National Guard’s Fifty-Second Civil Support Unit would react to a make-believe scenario in which school officials plotted to use chemical, biological and radiological agents against members of the community.

    "It's the reality of the world we live in," Portsmouth Police Chief Bill Raisin told the network last January. "Don't forget there is such a thing as domestic terrorism. This helps us all be prepared."

    This week, though, the website MediaTrackers published documents pertaining to that drill, and with it they’ve raised concerns regarding how gun rights activists were depicted.

    Those documents, Jesse Hathaway wrote for MediaTrackers on Monday, “reveal the details of a mock disaster where Second Amendment supporters with ‘anti-government’ opinions were portrayed as domestic terrorists.”

    One of those documents referenced by Hathaway is an incident summary that appears to have been completed by the first responders who participated in last year’s exercise.

    According to that report, the first responders who handled the mock emergency took special note of what appeared in the classroom of a school that was searched during the exercise.

    “On the chalkboard as well as the tables there were several statements about protecting Gun Rights and Second Amendment rights,” the summary read.

    The summary also suggests that the first-responders took note of documents found inside the building pertaining to the school’s lunch schedule, as well as instructions and informational sheets on the poisonous compound ricin. Although it’s not referenced specifically in the incident summary report, the 38 pages of documents obtained by MediaTrackers also includes a 2011 article pertaining to gun control that’s on file alongside other evidence obtained from the school, including the name and phone number purportedly belonging to William Pierce, a now-deceased notorious neo-Nazi. MediaTrackers’ Hathaway says the documents that have been made public show that Pierce was portrayed during the trill as the “fiction right-wing terrorists’ leader.”

    When MediaTrackers approached the Scioto County Emergency Management Agency director Kim Carver about the documents, though, she said she was “not going to get into an Ohio Army National Guard issue that you have with them.”

    Ohio National Guard Communications Director James Sims II, MediaTrackers claims, told the website that it was “not relevant” as to why conservatives may feel targeted by being portrayed as anti-government extremists.

    “Okay, I’m gonna stop ya there. I’m going to quit this conversation,” Sims told the site when reached for comment. “You have a good day.”

    Those who did agree to speak to MediaTrackers, however, had much more to say.

    “The revelation of this information is appalling to me, and to all citizens of Ohio who are true conservatives and patriots, who don’t have guns for any other reason than that the Second Amendment gives them that right,” Portage County TEA Party Executive Director Tom Zawistowski told the website.

    “[I]t is a scary day indeed when law enforcement are being trained that Second Amendment advocates are the enemy,” added Buckeye Firearms Association spokesman Chad Baus.

    http://rt.com/usa/ohio-nationalguard-gun-drill-590/

  • Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

    Glenn Greenwald on security and liberty - TheGuardian.com

    Are you ok with any one person or administration having a secret kill list without due process. Not only does the NDAA say you can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial, read this about being assassinated without charge or trial. Can it happen to anyone? Yes it can and it already has happened to at least two American citizens and one was only 16 years old...
    JB - Glenn Greenwald The president's partisan lawyers purport to vest him with the most extreme power a political leader can seize - The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen.

    Since then, senior Obama officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and John Brennan, Obama's top terrorism adviser and his current nominee to lead the CIA, have explicitly argued that the president is and should be vested with this power. Meanwhile, a Washington Post article from October reported that the administration is formally institutionalizing this president's power to decide who dies under the Orwellian title "disposition matrix".

    When the New York Times back in April, 2010 first confirmed the existence of Obama's hit list, it made clear just what an extremist power this is, noting: "It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing." The NYT quoted a Bush intelligence official as saying "he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president". When the existence of Obama's hit list was first reported several months earlier by the Washington Post's Dana Priest, she wrote that the "list includes three Americans".

    What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.

    In fact, The Most Transparent Administration Ever™ has been so fixated on secrecy that they have refused even to disclose the legal memoranda prepared by Obama lawyers setting forth their legal rationale for why the president has this power. During the Bush years, when Bush refused to disclose the memoranda from his Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that legally authorized torture, rendition, warrantless eavesdropping and the like, leading Democratic lawyers such as Dawn Johnsen (Obama's first choice to lead the OLC) vehemently denounced this practice as a grave threat, warning that "the Bush Administration's excessive reliance on 'secret law' threatens the effective functioning of American democracy" and "the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the [OLC] upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government."

    But when it comes to Obama's assassination power, this is exactly what his administration has done. It has repeatedly refused to disclose the principal legal memoranda prepared by Obama OLC lawyers that justified his kill list. It is, right now, vigorously resisting lawsuits from the New York Times and the ACLU to obtain that OLC memorandum. In sum, Obama not only claims he has the power to order US citizens killed with no transparency, but that even the documents explaining the legal rationale for this power are to be concealed. He's maintaining secret law on the most extremist power he can assert.

    Last night, NBC News' Michael Isikoff released a 16-page "white paper" prepared by the Obama DOJ that purports to justify Obama's power to target even Americans for assassination without due process (the memo is embedded in full below). This is not the primary OLC memo justifying Obama's kill list - that is still concealed - but it appears to track the reasoning of that memo as anonymously described to the New York Times in October 2011.

    This new memo is entitled: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force". It claims its conclusion is "reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a US citizen". Yet it is every bit as chilling as the Bush OLC torture memos in how its clinical, legalistic tone completely sanitizes the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.

    I've written many times at length about why the Obama assassination program is such an extreme and radical threat - see here for one of the most comprehensive discussions, with documentation of how completely all of this violates Obama and Holder's statements before obtaining power - and won't repeat those arguments here. Instead, there are numerous points that should be emphasized about the fundamentally misleading nature of this new memo:

    1. Equating government accusations with guilt

    The core distortion of the War on Terror under both Bush and Obama is the Orwellian practice of equating government accusations of terrorism with proof of guilt. One constantly hears US government defenders referring to "terrorists" when what they actually mean is: those accused by the government of terrorism. This entire memo is grounded in this deceit.

    Time and again, it emphasizes that the authorized assassinations are carried out "against a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or its associated forces who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." Undoubtedly fearing that this document would one day be public, Obama lawyers made certain to incorporate this deceit into the title itself: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida or An Associated Force."

    This ensures that huge numbers of citizens - those who spend little time thinking about such things and/or authoritarians who assume all government claims are true - will instinctively justify what is being done here on the ground that we must kill the Terrorists or joining al-Qaida means you should be killed. That's the "reasoning" process that has driven the War on Terror since it commenced: if the US government simply asserts without evidence or trial that someone is a terrorist, then they are assumed to be, and they can then be punished as such - with indefinite imprisonment or death.

    But of course, when this memo refers to "a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida", what it actually means is this: someone whom the President - in total secrecy and with no due process - has accused of being that. Indeed, the memo itself makes this clear, as it baldly states that presidential assassinations are justified when "an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US".

    This is the crucial point: the memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo - and those who defend Obama's assassination power - willfully ignore it.

    Those who justify all of this by arguing that Obama can and should kill al-Qaida leaders who are trying to kill Americans are engaged in supreme question-begging. Without any due process, transparency or oversight, there is no way to know who is a "senior al-Qaida leader" and who is posing an "imminent threat" to Americans. All that can be known is who Obama, in total secrecy, accuses of this.

    (Indeed, membership in al-Qaida is not even required to be assassinated, as one can be a member of a group deemed to be an "associated force" of al-Qaida, whatever that might mean: a formulation so broad and ill-defined that, as Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller argues, it means the memo "authorizes the use of lethal force against individuals whose targeting is, without more, prohibited by international law".)

    The definition of an extreme authoritarian is one who is willing blindly to assume that government accusations are true without any evidence presented or opportunity to contest those accusations. This memo - and the entire theory justifying Obama's kill list - centrally relies on this authoritarian conflation of government accusations and valid proof of guilt.

    They are not the same and never have been. Political leaders who decree guilt in secret and with no oversight inevitably succumb to error and/or abuse of power. Such unchecked accusatory decrees are inherently untrustworthy (indeed, Yemen experts have vehemently contested the claim that Awlaki himself was a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat to the US). That's why due process is guaranteed in the Constitution and why judicial review of government accusations has been a staple of western justice since the Magna Carta: because leaders can't be trusted to decree guilt and punish citizens without evidence and an adversarial process. That is the age-old basic right on which this memo, and the Obama presidency, is waging war.

    2. Creating a ceiling, not a floor

    The most vital fact to note about this memorandum is that it is not purporting to impose requirements on the president's power to assassinate US citizens. When it concludes that the president has the authority to assassinate "a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida" who "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US" where capture is "infeasible", it is not concluding that assassinations are permissible only in those circumstances.

    To the contrary, the memo expressly makes clear that presidential assassinations may be permitted even when none of those circumstances prevail: "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful." Instead, as the last line of the memo states: "it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation" - not that such conditions are necessary to find these assassinations legal. The memo explicitly leaves open the possibility that presidential assassinations of US citizens may be permissible even when the target is not a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat and/or when capture is feasible.

    Critically, the rationale of the memo - that the US is engaged in a global war against al-Qaida and "associated forces" - can be easily used to justify presidential assassinations of US citizens in circumstances far beyond the ones described in this memo. If you believe the president has the power to execute US citizens based on the accusation that the citizen has joined al-Qaida, what possible limiting principle can you cite as to why that shouldn't apply to a low-level al-Qaida member, including ones found in places where capture may be feasible (including US soil)? The purported limitations on this power set forth in this memo, aside from being incredibly vague, can be easily discarded once the central theory of presidential power is embraced.

    3. Relies on the core Bush/Cheney theory of a global battlefield

    The primary theory embraced by the Bush administration to justify its War on Terror policies was that the "battlefield" is no longer confined to identifiable geographical areas, but instead, the entire globe is now one big, unlimited "battlefield". That theory is both radical and dangerous because a president's powers are basically omnipotent on a "battlefield". There, state power is shielded from law, from courts, from constitutional guarantees, from all forms of accountability: anyone on a battlefield can be killed or imprisoned without charges. Thus, to posit the world as a battlefield is, by definition, to create an imperial, omnipotent presidency. That is the radical theory that unleashed all the rest of the controversial and lawless Bush/Cheney policies.

    This "world-is-a-battlefield" theory was once highly controversial among Democrats. John Kerry famously denounced it when running for president, arguing instead that the effort against terrorism is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world".

    But this global-war theory is exactly what lies at heart of the Obama approach to Terrorism generally and this memo specifically. It is impossible to defend Obama's assassination powers without embracing it (which is why key Obama officials have consistently done so). That's because these assassinations are taking place in countries far from any war zone, such as Yemen and Somalia. You can't defend the application of "war powers" in these countries without embracing the once-very-controversial Bush/Cheney view that the whole is now a "battlefield" and the president's war powers thus exist without geographic limits.

    This new memo makes clear that this Bush/Cheney worldview is at the heart of the Obama presidency. The president, it claims, "retains authority to use force against al-Qaida and associated forces outside the area of active hostilities". In other words: there are, subject to the entirely optional "feasibility of capture" element, no geographic limits to the president's authority to kill anyone he wants. This power applies not only to war zones, but everywhere in the world that he claims a member of al-Qaida is found. This memo embraces and institutionalizes the core Bush/Cheney theory that justified the entire panoply of policies Democrats back then pretended to find so objectionable.

    4. Expanding the concept of "imminence" beyond recognition

    The memo claims that the president's assassination power applies to a senior al-Qaida member who "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States". That is designed to convince citizens to accept this power by leading them to believe it's similar to common and familiar domestic uses of lethal force on US soil: if, for instance, an armed criminal is in the process of robbing a bank or is about to shoot hostages, then the "imminence" of the threat he poses justifies the use of lethal force against him by the police.

    But this rhetorical tactic is totally misleading. The memo is authorizing assassinations against citizens in circumstances far beyond this understanding of "imminence". Indeed, the memo expressly states that it is inventing "a broader concept of imminence" than is typically used in domestic law. Specifically, the president's assassination power "does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future". The US routinely assassinates its targets not when they are engaged in or plotting attacks but when they are at home, with family members, riding in a car, at work, at funerals, rescuing other drone victims, etc.

    Many of the early objections to this new memo have focused on this warped and incredibly broad definition of "imminence". The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer told Isikoff that the memo "redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning". Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller called Jaffer's objection "an understatement", noting that the memo's understanding of "imminence" is "wildly overbroad" under international law.

    Crucially, Heller points out what I noted above: once you accept the memo's reasoning - that the US is engaged in a global war, that the world is a battlefield, and the president has the power to assassinate any member of al-Qaida or associated forces - then there is no way coherent way to limit this power to places where capture is infeasible or to persons posing an "imminent" threat. The legal framework adopted by the memo means the president can kill anyone he claims is a member of al-Qaida regardless of where they are found or what they are doing.

    The only reason to add these limitations of "imminence" and "feasibility of capture" is, as Heller said, purely political: to make the theories more politically palatable. But the definitions for these terms are so vague and broad that they provide no real limits on the president's assassination power. As the ACLU's Jaffer says: "This is a chilling document" because "it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen" and the purported limits "are elastic and vaguely defined, and it's easy to see how they could be manipulated."

    5. Converting Obama underlings into objective courts

    This memo is not a judicial opinion. It was not written by anyone independent of the president. To the contrary, it was written by life-long partisan lackeys: lawyers whose careerist interests depend upon staying in the good graces of Obama and the Democrats, almost certainly Marty Lederman and David Barron. Treating this document as though it confers any authority on Obama is like treating the statements of one's lawyer as a judicial finding or jury verdict.

    Indeed, recall the primary excuse used to shield Bush officials from prosecution for their crimes of torture and illegal eavesdropping: namely, they got Bush-appointed lawyers in the DOJ to say that their conduct was legal, and therefore, it should be treated as such. This tactic - getting partisan lawyers and underlings of the president to say that the president's conduct is legal - was appropriately treated with scorn when invoked by Bush officials to justify their radical programs. As Digby wrote about Bush officials who pointed to the OLC memos it got its lawyers to issue about torture and eavesdropping, such a practice amounts to:

    "validating the idea that obscure Justice Department officials can be granted the authority to essentially immunize officials at all levels of the government, from the president down to the lowest field officer, by issuing a secret memo. This is a very important new development in western jurisprudence and one that surely requires more study and consideration. If Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had known about this, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble."

    Life-long Democratic Party lawyers are not going to oppose the terrorism policies of the president who appointed them. A president can always find underlings and political appointees to endorse whatever he wants to do. That's all this memo is: the by-product of obsequious lawyers telling their Party's leader that he is (of course) free to do exactly that which he wants to do, in exactly the same way that Bush got John Yoo to tell him that torture was not torture, and that even it if were, it was legal.

    That's why courts, not the president's partisan lawyers, should be making these determinations. But when the ACLU tried to obtain a judicial determination as to whether Obama is actually authorized to assassinate US citizens, the Obama DOJ went to extreme lengths to block the court from ruling on that question. They didn't want independent judges to determine the law. They wanted their own lawyers to do so.

    That's all this memo is: Obama-loyal appointees telling their leader that he has the authority to do what he wants. But in the warped world of US politics, this - secret memos from partisan lackeys - has replaced judicial review as the means to determine the legality of the president's conduct.

    6. Making a mockery of "due process"

    The core freedom most under attack by the War on Terror is the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. It provides that "no person shall be . . . deprived of life . . . without due process of law". Like putting people in cages for life on island prisons with no trial, claiming that the president has the right to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield without any charges or trial is the supreme evisceration of this right.

    The memo pays lip service to the right it is destroying: "Under the traditional due process balancing analysis . . . . we recognize that there is no private interest more weighty than a person's interest in his life." But it nonetheless argues that a "balancing test" is necessary to determine the extent of the process that is due before the president can deprive someone of their life, and further argues that, as the New York Times put it when this theory was first unveiled: "while the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch."

    Stephen Colbert perfectly mocked this theory when Eric Holder first unveiled it to defend the president's assassination program. At the time, Holder actually said: "due process and judicial process are not one and the same." Colbert interpreted that claim as follows:

    "Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper scissors, who cares? Due process just means that there is a process that you do. The current process is apparently, first the president meets with his advisers and decides who he can kill. Then he kills them."

    It is fitting indeed that the memo expressly embraces two core Bush/Cheney theories to justify this view of what "due process" requires. First, it cites the Bush DOJ's core view, as enunciated by John Yoo, that courts have no role to play in what the president does in the War on Terror because judicial review constitutes "judicial encroachment" on the "judgments by the President and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force". And then it cites the Bush DOJ's mostly successful arguments in the 2004 Hamdi case that the president has the authority even to imprison US citizens without trial provided that he accuses them of being a terrorist.

    The reason this is so fitting is because, as I've detailed many times, it was these same early Bush/Cheney theories that made me want to begin writing about politics, all driven by my perception that the US government was becoming extremist and dangerous. During the early Bush years, the very idea that the US government asserted the power to imprison US citizens without charges and due process (or to eavesdrop on them) was so radical that, at the time, I could hardly believe they were being asserted out in the open.

    Yet here we are almost a full decade later. And we have the current president asserting the power not merely to imprison or eavesdrop on US citizens without charges or trial, but to order them executed - and to do so in total secrecy, with no checks or oversight. If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable.

    DOJ white paper

    Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Q... by Mike Riggs
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

  • COURT: BLOGGERS HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS

    BY JEFF BARNARD - Jan 17, 2014 - ASSOCIATED PRESS

    GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.

    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.

    The appeals court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure, which could have invoked an even higher standard of showing the writer acted with malice, but the issue was of public concern, so the negligence standard applied.

    Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.

    "It's not a special right to the news media," he said. "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others."

    Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., now living in Port Townshend, Wash., was sued for defamation by Bend attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, after she made posts on several websites she created accusing them of fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other illegal activities. The appeals court noted Padrick and Obsidian were hired by Summit Accommodators to advise them before filing for bankruptcy, and that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court later appointed Padrick trustee in the Chapter 11 case. The court added that Summit had defrauded investors in its real estate operations through a Ponzi scheme.

    A jury in 2011 had awarded Padrick and Obsidian $2.5 million.

    "Because Cox's blog post addressed a matter of public concern, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently," judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote. "We hold that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages."

    The appeals court upheld rulings by the District Court that other posts by Cox were constitutionally protected opinion.

    Though Cox acted as her own attorney, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who had written an article on the issue, learned of her case and offered to represent her in an appeal. Volokh said such cases usually end up settled without trial, and it was rare for one to reach the federal appeals court level.

    "It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists," he said. "There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers."

    An attorney for Padrick said in an email that while they were disappointed in the ruling, they noted the court found "there was no dispute that the statements were false and defamatory."

    "Ms. Cox's false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to our clients, and we are evaluating our options with respect to the court's decision," wrote Steven M. Wilker.

    http://apne.ws/1gXHHTl

    Bloggers, public have First Amendment protection – US court

    Published time: January 18, 2014 - RT

    A federal appeals court has ruled that bloggers and the general public have the same protection of the First Amendment as journalists when sued for defamation. Should the issue be of public concern, the claimant has to prove negligence to win the case.

    "It's not a special right to the news media," he said. "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others," Gregg Leslie, of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, told AP.

    The federal court’s ruling came after a new trial in a defamation case: an Oregon bankruptcy trustee was the plaintiff against a Montana blogger who wrote on the Internet that the trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.

    In 2011, Crystal Cox, a blogger from Montana was sued by attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, following her posts disclosing the alleged fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other criminal activities carried out by Obsidian. It should be noted that Padrick is not a public figure, so the facts exposed by Cox couldn’t inflict reputational damage on him.

    Padrick and Obsidian won the case, and were granted $2.5 million.

    Cox addressed the court of appeals, and was joined by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who found out about her case and offered her to represent her as an attorney in court.

    "Because Cox's blog post addressed a matter of public concern, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    "We hold that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages," he added.

    Eugene Volokh, who wrote an article on the issue, stated that the case ensures that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional media workers.

    "There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers," Volokh said.

    The plaintiff, however, disagreed with the decision and was disappointed with the ruling.

    "Ms. Cox's false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to our clients, and we are evaluating our options with respect to the court's decision," AP reported Steven Wilker, an attorney for Obsidian and Padrick, as saying.

    The issue of defining the term “journalist” has been on the table for a long time.

    In 1974, the Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. case marked the beginning of the debate on the level of state protection for public or private figures.

    In September 2013, the US Senate committee voted 13-to-5 early Thursday to approve S.987, a bill meant to protect members of the press from government intrusion and “maintain the free flow of information to the public.”

    The legislation covered bloggers and freelancers both paid and unpaid who work with the "primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information."

    http://bit.ly/1dDVobL

  • State Department torpedoes NY Times Benghazi story

    Jim Kouri - January 10, 2014 - Examiner

    Officials at the U.S. Department of State on Friday torpedoed the controversial New York Times story on the Benghazi terrorist attack which blamed an Internet motion picture that "blasphemed" against the Muslim religion for the destruction and killing of four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

    A State Department announcement blamed certain terrorist groups for the 2012 Benghazi attack, designating them as terrorists which refutes President Barack Obama's and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's claims that the attack was spontaneous, as well as contradicts the New York Times recent news story which many believe was written in order to provide "cover" for Hillary Clinton in her pursuit of the presidency.

    "It is unacceptable that the New York Times would lie to it's readers and tell them that the attack wasn't a planned assault by al-Qaida aligned terrorists, but instead was a spontaneous political protest over a YouTube video," said officials at the Conservative Campaign Committee.

    The State Department also reported that the leader of the al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group that attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been released from the military detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    According to the U.S. Department of State, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah, and Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia are now separately Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist entities.

    Besides the group designations, U.S. officials also designated Ahmed Abu Khattalah, Sufian bin Qumu, and Seifallah Ben Hassine, a/k/a “Abou Iyadh,” as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Bin Qumu's background includes training at Osama bin Laden's training camp and being a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo). He was released in 2010 from the detention center and became a top Ansar al-Sharia commander.

    Catherine Herridge of Fox News had previously reported Ansar al-Sharia was a prime suspect in the Bengahzi attack. And despite State Department claims that Al Qaeda leadership was not involved and the recent New York Times news report echoing that assessment, Fox News had learned that bin Qumu has Al Qaeda ties, according to his Gitmo records.

    Created separately after the fall of Libyan dictator Col. Moamar Khaddhafi, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi and Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya, according to past Examiner news stories.

    Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya.Ahmed Abu Khattalah is a senior leader of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi and Sufian bin Qumu is the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/state-department-torpedoes-ny-times-benghazi-story?cid=rss

  • Cruz Calls President ‘Dangerous And Terrifying’

    January 10, 2014 10:24 AM - AUSTIN, Texas (CBS Houston/AP)

    U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has told a conservative conference that President Barack Obama is lawless, providing the rightwing rhetoric that makes him so popular in his home state.
    The conservative Republican laid out his reasoning for why he thinks the president is “dangerous and terrifying.”
    The public policy conference at which he spoke was sponsored by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Minutes before his address, the organization posted a photograph of Cruz on their official Facebook page.
    Cruz has garnered national attention by frequently condemning the Obama administration and the federal health care overhaul. He called for the complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act and said he would replace it with a conservative alternative that would expand health care coverage. Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation.
    Cruz also criticized Obama for not enforcing drug laws in states that have legalized use of marijuana.

    http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/10/cruz-calls-president-dangerous-and-terrifying/

  • Former defense secretary, Robert Gates, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’

    By Bob Woodward - Tuesday, January 7, 7:32 PM - WashingtonPost

    In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

    Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.”

    Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. “I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission,” Gates writes.

    As a candidate, Obama had made plain his opposition to the 2003 Iraq invasion while embracing the Afghanistan war as a necessary response to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, requiring even more military resources to succeed. In Gates’s highly emotional account, Obama remains uncomfortable with the inherited wars and distrustful of the military that is providing him options. Their different worldviews produced a rift that, at least for Gates, became personally wounding and impossible to repair.

    In a statement Tuesday evening, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said Obama “deeply appreciates Bob Gates’ service as Secretary of Defense, and his lifetime of service to our country.”

    “As has always been the case, the President welcomes differences of view among his national security team, which broaden his options and enhance our policies,” Hayden said in the statement. “The President wishes Secretary Gates well as he recovers from his recent injury, and discusses his book.” Gates fractured his first vertebra last week in a fall at his home in Washington state.

    It is rare for a former Cabinet member, let alone a defense secretary occupying a central position in the chain of command, to publish such an antagonistic portrait of a sitting president.

    Gates’s severe criticism is even more surprising — some might say contradictory — because toward the end of “Duty,” he says of Obama’s chief Afghanistan policies, “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.” That particular view is not a universal one; like much of the debate about the best path to take in Afghanistan, there is disagreement on how well the surge strategy worked, including among military officials.

    The sometimes bitter tone in Gates’s 594-page account contrasts sharply with the even-tempered image that he cultivated during his many years of government service, including stints at the CIA and National Security Council. That image endured through his nearly five years in the Pentagon’s top job, beginning in President George W. Bush’s second term and continuing after Obama asked him to remain in the post. In “Duty,” Gates describes his outwardly calm demeanor as a facade. Underneath, he writes, he was frequently “seething” and “running out of patience on multiple fronts.”

    The book, published by Knopf, is scheduled for release Jan. 14.

    [PHOTOS: A look at Robert Gates’s career in government]

    Gates, a Republican, writes about Obama with an ambivalence that he does not resolve, praising him as “a man of personal integrity” even as he faults his leadership. Though the book simmers with disappointment in Obama, it reflects outright contempt for Vice President Biden and many of Obama’s top aides.

    Biden is accused of “poisoning the well” against the military leadership. Thomas Donilon, initially Obama’s deputy national security adviser, and then-Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the White House coordinator for the wars, are described as regularly engaged in “aggressive, suspicious, and sometimes condescending and insulting questioning of our military leaders.”

    In her statement, Hayden said Obama “disagrees with Secretary Gates’ assessment” of the vice president.

    “From his leadership on the Balkans in the Senate, to his efforts to end the war in Iraq, Joe Biden has been one of the leading statesmen of his time, and has helped advance America’s leadership in the world,” Hayden said. “President Obama relies on his good counsel every day.”

    Gates is 70, nearly 20 years older than Obama. He has worked for every president going back to Richard Nixon, with the exception of Bill Clinton. Throughout his government career, he was known for his bipartisan detachment, the consummate team player. “Duty” is likely to provide ammunition for those who believe it is risky for a president to fill such a key Cabinet post with a holdover from the opposition party.

    He writes, “I have tried to be fair in describing actions and motivations of others.” He seems well aware that Obama and his aides will not see it that way.

    While serving as defense secretary, Gates gave Obama high marks, saying privately in the summer of 2010 that the president is “very thoughtful and analytical, but he is also quite decisive.” He added, “I think we have a similar approach to dealing with national security issues.”

    Obama echoed Gates’s comments in a July 10, 2010, interview for my book “Obama’s Wars.” The president said: “Bob Gates has, I think, served me extraordinarily well. And part of the reason is, you know, I’m not sure if he considers this an insult or a compliment, but he and I actually think a lot alike, in broad terms.”

    During that interview, Obama said he believed he “had garnered confidence and trust in Gates.” In “Duty,” Gates complains repeatedly that confidence and trust were what he felt was lacking in his dealings with Obama and his team. “Why did I feel I was constantly at war with everybody, as I have detailed in these pages?” he writes. “Why was I so often angry? Why did I so dislike being back in government and in Washington?” 

    His answer is that “the broad dysfunction in Washington wore me down, especially as I tried to maintain a public posture of nonpartisan calm, reason and conciliation.”

    His lament about Washington was not the only factor contributing to his unhappiness. Gates also writes of the toll taken by the difficulty of overseeing wars against terrorism and insurgencies in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Such wars do not end with a clear surrender; Gates acknowledges having ambiguous feelings about both conflicts. For example, he writes that he does not know what he would have recommended if he had been asked his opinion on Bush’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq.

    Three years later, Bush recruited Gates — who had served his father for 15 months as CIA director in the early 1990s — to take on the defense job. The first half of “Duty” covers those final two years in the Bush administration. Gates reveals some disagreements from that period, but none as fundamental or as personal as those he describes with Obama and his aides in the book’s second half.

    “All too early in the [Obama] administration,” he writes, “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.”

    Gates offers a catalogue of various meetings, based in part on notes that he and his aides made at the time, including an exchange between Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he calls “remarkable.”

    He writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

    Earlier in the book, he describes Hillary Clinton in the sort of glowing terms that might be used in a political endorsement. “I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world,” he wrote.

    [READ: The Fix on what Gates’s memoir could mean for a Clinton campaign]

    March 3, 2011

    “Duty” reflects the memoir genre, declaring that this is how the writer saw it, warts and all, including his own. That focus tends to give short shrift to the fuller, established record. For example, in recounting the difficult discussions that led to the Afghan surge strategy in 2009, Gates makes no reference to the six-page “terms sheet” that Obama drafted at the end, laying out the rationale for the surge and withdrawal timetable. Obama asked everyone involved to sign on, signaling agreement.

    According to the meeting notes of another participant, Gates is quoted as telling Obama, “You sound the bugle . . . Mr. President, and Mike [Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and I will be the first to charge the hill.”

    Gates does not include such a moment in “Duty.” He picks up the story a bit later, after Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the central commander in charge of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, made remarks to the press suggesting he was not comfortable with setting a fixed date to start withdrawal.

    At a March 3, 2011, National Security Council meeting, Gates writes, the president opened with a “blast.” Obama criticized the military for “popping off in the press” and said he would push back hard against any delay in beginning the withdrawal.

    According to Gates, Obama concluded, “ ‘If I believe I am being gamed . . .’ and left the sentence hanging there with the clear implication the consequences would be dire.”

    Gates continues: “I was pretty upset myself. I thought implicitly accusing” Petraeus, and perhaps Mullen and Gates himself, “of gaming him in front of thirty people in the Situation Room was inappropriate, not to mention highly disrespectful of Petraeus. As I sat there, I thought: the president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

    [READ: World Views: Gates was wrong on the most important issue he ever faced]

    ‘Breaches of faith’

    Lack of trust is a major thread in Gates’s account, along with his unsparing criticism of Obama’s aides. At times, the two threads intertwine. For example, after the devastating 2010 Haitian earthquake that had left tens of thousands dead, Gates met with Obama and Donilon, the deputy national security adviser, about disaster relief.

    Donilon was “complaining about how long we were taking,” Gates writes. “Then he went too far, questioning in front of the president and a roomful of people whether General [Douglas] Fraser [head of the U.S. Southern Command] was competent to lead this effort. I’ve rarely been angrier in the Oval Office than I was at that moment. . . . My initial instinct was to storm out, telling the president on the way that he didn’t need two secretaries of defense. It took every bit of my self-discipline to stay seated on the sofa.”

    Gates confirms a previously reported statement in which he told Obama’s first national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, that he thought Donilon would be a “disaster” if he succeeded Jones (as Donilon did in late 2010). Gates writes that Obama quizzed him about this characterization; a one-on-one meeting with Donilon followed, and that “cleared the air,” according to Gates.

    His second year with Obama proved as tough as the first. “For me, 2010 was a year of continued conflict and a couple of important White House breaches of faith,” he writes.

    The first, he says, was Obama’s decision to seek the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gays serving in the military. Though Gates says he supported the decision, there had been months and months of debate, with details still to work out. On one day’s notice, Obama informed Gates and Mullen that he would announce his request for a repeal of the law. Obama had “blindsided Admiral Mullen and me,” Gates writes.

    Similarly, in a battle over defense spending, “I was extremely angry with President Obama,” Gates writes. “I felt he had breached faith with me . . . on the budget numbers.” As with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” “I felt that agreements with the Obama White House were good for only as long as they were politically convenient.”

    Gates acknowledges forthrightly in “Duty” that he did not reveal his dismay. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as [Hillary] Clinton, [then-CIA Director Leon] Panetta, and others) saw as the president’s determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations. His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost.”

    It got so bad during internal debates over whether to intervene in Libya in 2011 that Gates says he felt compelled to deliver a “rant” because the White House staff was “talking about military options with the president without Defense being involved.”

    Gates says his instructions to the Pentagon were: “Don’t give the White House staff and [national security staff] too much information on the military options. They don’t understand it, and ‘experts’ like Samantha Power will decide when we should move militarily.” Power, then on the national security staff and now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been a strong advocate for humanitarian intervention.

    Another time, after Donilon and Biden tried to pass orders to Gates, he told the two, “The last time I checked, neither of you are in the chain of command,” and said he expected to get orders directly from Obama.

    Life at the top was no picnic, Gates writes. He did little or no socializing. “Every evening I could not wait to get home, get my office homework out of the way, write condolence letters to the families of the fallen, pour a stiff drink, wolf down a frozen dinner or carry out,” since his wife, Becky, often remained at their home in Washington state.

    “I got up at five every morning to run two miles around the Mall in Washington, past the World War II, Korean, and Vietnam memorials, and in front of the Lincoln Memorial. And every morning before dawn, I would ritually look up at that stunning white statue of Lincoln, say good morning, and sadly ask him, How did you do it?”

    The memoir’s title comes from a quote, “God help me to do my duty,” that Gates says he kept on his desk. The quote has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln’s war secretary, Edwin Stanton.

    At his confirmation hearings to be Bush’s defense secretary in late 2006, Gates told the senators that he had not “come back to Washington to be a bump on a log and not say exactly what I think, and to speak candidly and, frankly, boldly to people at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue about what I believe and what I think needs to be done.”

    But Gates says he did not speak his mind when the committee chairman listed the problems he would face as secretary. “I remember sitting at the witness table listening to this litany of woe and thinking, “What the hell am I doing here? I have walked right into the middle of a category-five shitstorm. It was the first of many, many times I would sit at the witness table thinking something very different from what I was saying.”

    “Duty” offers the familiar criticism of Congress and its culture, describing it as “truly ugly.” Gates’s cold feelings toward the legislative branch stand in stark contrast to his warmth for the military. He repeatedly describes his affection for the troops, especially those in combat.

    Gates wanted to quit at the end of 2010 but agreed to stay at Obama’s urging, finally leaving in mid-2011. He later joined a consulting firm with two of Bush’s closest foreign policy advisers — former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser during Bush’s second term. The firm is called Rice-Hadley-Gates. In October, he became president-elect of the Boy Scouts of America.

    Gates writes, “I did not enjoy being secretary of defense,” or as he e-mailed one friend while still serving, “People have no idea how much I detest this job.”


    Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

    http://wapo.st/19QBBFw

  • Drudge: 'I've opted out of Obamacare for life,' the tax is 'Monopoly money

    Posted By Devonia Smith - 01-07-2014 - Political - Examiner

    On Jan. 7, 2013, Matt Drudge of the politically influential Drudge Report declared, "I've opted out of Obamacare for life. Not interested. Pay the tax. Monopoly money anyway."

    Ezra Klein tried to pin Matt down, asking,

    @DRUDGE Are you going to be uninsured? Or are you just buying qualifying insurance (in which case you're not opting out)? Ezra Klein @ezraklein Follow
    Klein is making the point that Matt's statment could be all bravado, because it only qualifies if Drudge is buying insurance, not self-insuring. Since all insurance purchases now must meet qualifying Obamacare standards, whether Matt goes through the health care exchange or purchases private insurance, any new insurance he purchases would fall under the Obamacare umbrella as long as ithe Affordable Health Care Act remains the law of the land.

    In short order the Twitchy team pondered, "Is the Drudge Report founder uninsured?" Whether Matt is merely adhering to his status as top pot-stirrer or not, there appears to be several schools of thought on the wording of Drudge's provocative declaration. Some are parsing his use of "for life." Over on Twitchy, a very confident BoscoBolt opined, "'For life' might only mean another year (or a few) - Obamacare will eventually be repealed."

    Others are clearly offended that Drudge appeared to refer to the tax as "Monopoly money," with one a quick snark from Michele @haymakers, "It's nice that you've got Monopoly money to burn. Millions aren't as fortunate as you."

    Like Obamacare, Matt's possibly soon-to-be-viral statement is confusing. The same Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein who questioned Matt Drudge questioned the Obama administration's decision to allow those whose insurance was canceled to opt for the catastrophic plans closed to others, pointing out that “A 45-year-old whose plan just got canceled can now purchase catastrophic coverage. A 45-year-old who didn’t have insurance at all can’t.”

    Since the cancellation of thousands of private policies, policies many thought would automatically be "grandfathered" in, there has been considerable anger. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of the employer health benefits of 2013, information found in Chapter 13 indicates that since ACA has been even partially implemented, the percentage of grandfathered plans have substantially decreased. See the percentages of grandfathered plans below:
    http://www.examiner.com/article/drudge-i-ve-opted-out-of-obamacare-for-life-the-tax-is-monopoly-money?cid=rss

  • Obama To Americans: You Don't Deserve To Be Free


    Harry Binswanger - 12-31-2013 - Forbes Contributor

    Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...
    President Obama’s Kansas speech is a remarkable document. In calling for more government controls, more taxation, more collectivism, he has two paragraphs that give the show away. Take a look at them.

    there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

    Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

    Though not in Washington, I’m in that “certain crowd” that has been saying for decades that the market will take care of everything. It’s not really a crowd, it’s a tiny group of radicals–radicals for capitalism, in Ayn Rand’s well-turned phrase.

    The only thing that the market doesn’t take care of is anti-market acts: acts that initiate physical force. That’s why we need government: to wield retaliatory force to defend individual rights.

    Radicals for capitalism would, as the Declaration of Independence says, use government only “to secure these rights”–the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (Yes, I added “property” in there–property rights are inseparable from the other three.)

    That’s the political philosophy on which Obama is trying to hang the blame for the recent financial crisis and every other social ill. But ask yourself, are we few radical capitalists in charge? Have radical capitalists been in charge at any time in the last, oh, say 100 years?

    I pick 100 years deliberately, because it was exactly 100 years ago that a gigantic anti-capitalist measure was put into effect: the Federal Reserve System. For 100 years, government, not the free market, has controlled money and banking. How’s that worked out? How’s the value of the dollar held up since 1913? Is it worth one-fiftieth of its value then or only one-one-hundredth? You be the judge. How did the dollar hold up over the 100 years before this government take-over of money and banking? It actually gained slightly in value.

    Laissez-faire hasn’t existed since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. That was the first of a plethora of government crimes against the free market.

    Radical capitalists are just beginning to have a slight effect on the Right wing. The overwhelming majority on the Right are eclectic. Which is a nice way of saying inconsistent.

    The typical Republican would never, ever say “the market will take care of everything.” He’d say, “the market will take care of most things, and for the other things, we need the regulatory-welfare state.”

    They are for individualism–except when they are against it. They are against free markets and individualism not only when they agree with the Left that we must have antitrust laws and the Federal Reserve, but also when they demand immigration controls, government schools, regulatory agencies, Medicare, laws prohibiting abortion, Social Security, “public works” projects, the “social safety net,” laws against insider trading, banking regulation, and the whole system of fiat money.

    Obama blames economic woes, some real some invented (“inequality”) on a philosophy and policy that was abandoned a century ago. What doesn’t exist is what he says didn’t work.

    Obama absurdly suggests that timid, half-hearted, compromisers, like George W. Bush, installed laissez-faire capitalism–on the grounds that they tinkered with one or two regulations (Glass-Steagall) and marginal tax rates–while blanking out the fact that under the Bush administration, government spending ballooned, growing much faster than under Clinton, and 50,000 new regulations were added to the Federal Register.

    The philosophy of individualism and the politics of laissez-faire would mean government spending of about one-tenth its present level. It would also mean an end to all regulatory agencies: no SEC, FDA, NLRB, FAA, OSHA, EPA, FTC, ATF, CFTC, FHA, FCC–to name just some of the better known of the 430 agencies listed in the federal register.

    Even you, dear reader, are probably wondering how on earth anyone could challenge things like Social Security, government schools, and the FDA. But that’s not the point. The point is: these statist, anti-capitalist programs exist and have existed for about a century. The point is: Obama is pretending that the Progressive PGR +0.41% Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society were repealed, so that he can blame the financial crisis on capitalism. He’s pretending that George Bush was George Washington.

    We radical capitalists say that it was the regulatory-welfare state that imploded in 2008. You may disagree, but let’s argue that out, rather than engaging in the Big Lie that what failed was laissez-faire and individualism.

    The question is: in the messy mixture of government controls and remnants of capitalism, which element caused the Great Depression and the recent financial crisis?

    By raising that question, we uncover the fundamental: the meaning of capitalism and the meaning of government controls. Capitalism means freedom. Government means force.

    Suddenly, the whole issue comes into focus: Obama is saying that freedom leads to poverty and force leads to wealth. He’s saying: “Look, we tried leaving you free to live your own life, and that didn’t work. You have to be forced, you have to have your earnings seized by the state, you have to work under our directions–under penalty of fines or imprisonment. You don’t deserve to be free.”

    As a bit of ugly irony, this is precisely what former white slave-owners said after the Civil War: “The black man can’t handle freedom; we have to force him for his own good.” The innovation of the Left is to extend that viewpoint to all races.

    Putting the issue as force vs. freedom shows how the shoe is on the other foot regarding what Obama said. Let me re-write it:

    there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The government will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just pile on even more regulations and raise taxes–especially on the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the losers are protected by more social programs and a higher minimum wage, if there is more Quantitative Easing by the Fed, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle up to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle up, well, that’s the price of the social safety net.

    Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our intellectuals’ collectivism and Paul Krugman’s skepticism about freedom. That’s in Harvard’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the Soviet Union. It’s not what led to the incredible booms in India and China. And it didn’t work when Europe tried it during over the last decades. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this statist theory.

    How does that sound? That’s blaming an actual, existing condition–government controls and wealth-expropriation–not a condition that ended in the late 19th century.

    So which is the path to prosperity and happiness–freedom or force? Remember that force is aimed at preventing you from acting on your rational judgment.

    Obama’s real antagonist is Ayn Rand, who made the case that reason is man’s basic means of survival and coercion is anti-reason. Force initiated against free, innocent men is directed at stopping them from acting on their own thinking. It makes them, under threat of fines and imprisonment, act as the government demands rather than as they think their self-interest requires. That’s the whole point of threatening force: to make people act against their own judgment.

    The radical, uncompromised, laissez-faire capitalism that Obama pretends was in place in 2008 is exactly what morality demands. Because, as Ayn Rand wrote in 1961: “No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. . . . To claim the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man–the right to compel his agreement by the threat of physical destruction–is to evict oneself automatically from the realm of rights, of morality and of the intellect.”

    Obama and his fellow statists have indeed evicted themselves from that realm.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/12/31/obama-to-americans-you-dont-deserve-to-be-free/

  • 100 YEARS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

    FED up? Hundred years of manipulating the US dollar
    Adrian Salbuchi - December 23, 2013 - RT America

    Monday 23 December marks the 100th Anniversary of the creation of the Federal Reserve System - the Central Bank of the United States of America.

    The mainstream media are keeping remarkably quiet about this key milestone.

    No doubt, they know only too well that growing millions of workers inside and outside the US are realizing that a century of central banking monopoly in the hands of a private clique of usurer banksters is enough. More than enough!

    ‘Twas the night before Christmas…
    …when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse”. These words written by 19th Century American poet, Clement Clarke Moore, aptly describe the scene a hundred years ago when the Federal Reserve Act was discretely rubberstamped in the US Congress: true, hardly a mouse was stirring either in the House or in the Senate… But the big rats were definitely there to vote in their act!

    1913: Woodrow Wilson was President of the United States; World War One was but eight months away; and three years earlier a very hush-hush meeting had taken place at mega-banker, John Pierpont Morgan’s, private estate on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia.

    Bloomberg News described this in a February-15, 2012 article as “a secret meeting that launched the Federal Reserve Bank. In November 1910, a group of government and business leaders fashioned a powerful new financial system that has survived a century, two world wars, a Great Depression and many recessions.”

    That’s the Bloomberg Version. The ugly truth is probably exactly the opposite: in November 1910 a group of government, banking and business leaders fashioned a powerful new financial system that triggered, promoted and imposed a century of conflict and genocide, including two world wars, a Great Depression, many recessions and systematic mega-banker bailouts using taxpayer’s money.

    In 1995, American investigator and author, G. Edward Griffin, published what is clearly the most authoritative book on the “FED” – as it is colloquially called in banking circles and by the mainstream media – “The Creature from Jekyll Island”.

    Griffin’s book describes how a top secret conspiracy – sorry, can’t think of a better phrase – of very high-powered bankers, government officials and foreign agents met to plan the take-over of the American economy, finance and national currency, the US Dollar, to then wage global wars of conquest.

    Bloomberg went on to describe how Rhode Island Senator, Nelson Aldrich, whose daughter married John D. Rockefeller Jr, “invited men he knew and trusted, or at least men of influence who he felt could work together: Abram Piatt Andrew, assistant secretary of the Treasury; Henry P. Davison, a business partner of JP Morgan's; Charles D. Norton, president of the First National Bank of New York; Benjamin Strong, another Morgan friend and the head of the Bankers Trust; Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank; and Paul M. Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and a German citizen.”

    Paul Warburg was the actual mastermind behind the FED. Interestingly, his main partner at Kühn, Loeb & Co, Jakob Shiff, had just financed the Japanese war against the Russian Tsar; he would later channel 20,000,000 US dollars via a Russian exile living in Brooklyn by the name of Lev Davidovich Bronstein (better known as Leon Trotsky) to ensure the 1917 victory of the Bolshevik Revolution.

    Neither 'Federal', nor 'Reserve', nor a 'Bank'
    Actually, it’s a “system”. Officially, the “Federal Reserve System” wields full control over the US Dollar, not to serve the American people but on the contrary the interests of private bankers, who hold its very special type of stocks and shares.

    In practice, the FED is over 95 percent privately-owned, is not integrated into the US Government, nor accountable to any branch of government. There is nothing “Federal” about it as it lies fully outside the government system of checks-and-balances.

    Nor does it “Reserve” anything. Rather it arbitrarily prints all the money the mega-bankers and power elites need to keep the “globalized” world rolling in the direction that they wish and need. This includes such things as multi-trillion dollar “quantitative easings” to keep Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, CityCorp, Wachovia and JPMorgan Chase happy and “healthy”; financing clandestine and terror operations to overthrow the governments of Iran, Nicaragua, Argentina, Cuba, Chile, Syria, Libya, Vietnam and many others; waging decades-long wars against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Africa and Latin America; unflinchingly supporting “little Israel’s” genocide in Palestine and its “democratic” 400-bomb strong nuclear program; and keeping Wall Street on permanent life-support.

    Finally, it is definitely no “Bank” in the sense of a financial institution promoting the credit needs of the real economy for the benefit of the vast majority of the working population’s needs.

    Rather, the FED supports the financial needs of the global war system, covert operations, usury, drug dealers, and the global banksters.

    The FED answers to no one. It clearly does not serve “We the People” of the US or anywhere else. Its purpose is to serve the global power elites, regularly meeting to plan world government through entities like the Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, World Economic Forum and others forming part of todays’ intricate planetary web of global money power.

    Straight from the horse’s mouth
    In a Public Broadcast System (PBS) interview on “News Hour” aired on September 18, 2007, US journalist Jim Lehrer had this Q&A session with former decades-long Fed Chairman (and JP Morgan bank officer) Alan Greenspan:

    Jim Lehrer: “What is the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and a president of the United States?”

    Alan Greenspan: “Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t frankly matter.”

    Huh? If you’re a US citizen, you should re-read the above once or twice.

    The FED System lies at the root of US “superpower” status. Allow me to explain how the FED scam really works from the point of view of someone living in Argentina - a very down-trodden country repeatedly made to bite the dust by the global power elites through their local agents imposed upon us through money-power “democracy”.

    This means that every time Argentina needs to buy 100 dollars-worth of, say, oil, medicines or technological components, the Argentine people must work to earn those 100 dollars through exports and genuine work.

    By comparison, every time the US Government needs to buy 100 dollars-worth of oil, medicines or whatever, all they need to do is tell the Fed to print 100 dollars and that’s that. Let’s just say that this makes it much easier to be a “superpower”.

    OK, the mechanism’s not that simple, but this certainly explains schematically how the whole US-Dollar power system really works. It also explains why the elites won’t tolerate anybody challenging the dollar.

    Oh, when the Fed... comes marchin’ in…
    Look at the world’s oil market. It is a monopoly run by three global trading centers located in New York, London and Dubai. The idea is to ensure that “petro-dollars” flow around the world 24/7, and only incidental small amounts should flow back into the US financial system.

    This explains why when in late 2002 Saddam Hussein decided he would do his UN-sanctions authorized “One Billion Dollars Iraqi Oil for Food” trade with the West in euros instead of dollars, he was quickly visited by the Fed’s military branch in March 2003.

    Or take Muammar Kaddafi who in 2011 was about to launch a program to trade Libyan and North African oil using a new gold-backed currency – the gold dinar. He too got a little visit from Peace Prize Barack and Babylon Hillary. Do you begin to see the pattern?

    But don’t think that the FED’s global financial enslavement system is simply aimed outside the US; it kicked off a century ago by first silently enslaving the very people of the United States it is supposed to serve.

    Here’s how that works: every time the US Government decides to put money into circulation – those 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 dollar bills we’re all so familiar with – instead of asking the government mint to print them at a penny’s cost in paper and ink, the government instead asks the private banksters at the Fed to print those bills for the Treasury, in exchange delivering to the Fed interest-bearing US Treasury Bills and Bonds, which translates into trillions of dollars’ in profits funneled to the private banking elite though the Fed.

    It was all so well planned a hundred years ago, that just before the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23, 1913, they also maneuvered to close this parasitic circle, for if the US Government was to begin making gigantic interest payments to the Fed just for printing its own money, they first needed to have a revenue scheme in place to milk the American taxpayer: the Income Tax Act!

    Actually, it was the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution passed by Congress in July 1909, and enacted as law in February 1913. Thus international banksters have been ripping off Americans and getting America to fight their wars as proxies for a full century, whilst most of the population haven’t got a clue of what’s going on.

    Clearly, the FED lies so far above the US White House, Congress and Supreme Court, that over the past five decades no one has been able to have a proper audit done on its books and numbers. Oh, you Homer Simpsons!

    Not that you haven’t been warned. In 1923, Minnesota representative, Charles Lindbergh, father of the famous aviator, sent an early warning: “The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board which administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money.”

    In the 60’s, republican senator and presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, said “most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of international moneylenders; the accounts of the Federal Reserve system have never been audited; it operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States.” Today, former representative, Ron Paul, has been sending the same message.

    Even president John Kennedy understood this when he issued Executive Order No. 11110 on June 4, 1963, ordering the US Treasury to print zero-interest public money to the tune of 4.3 billion dollars, fully bypassing the Fed. But he too ran into some trouble in Dallas barely five months later on 22 November.

    Epilogue: Fed Up?
    One would have thought that something as important as whether to continue to allow a private FED to operate in its present format, or revamping it, or even doing away with it after a whole century, would be something that should be squarely on the American and global public agenda… big time!

    And yet all we have is silence from the US Government, Congress and politicians; silence from world leaders; total silence from the mainstream media, and from the academic world.

    And so you little parasitic mega-bankers running planet Earth: come Monday 23 December you can uncork all the champagne you like and celebrate your “One Hundredth Masters of the Universe Slave Drivers Anniversary”, partying on straight into Christmas Day.

    Then, come Thursday 26th, just carry on crucifying the entire world. For you it will be business as usual.

    http://bit.ly/JYSkeb

    -------------------------------------------------

    100 YEARS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
    Posted by Ben Swann

    New: “The United States Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it will start drawing down (i.e. “tapering”) its multibillion-dollar quantitative easing policies in 2014.
    The Fed will begin tapering its $85 billion monthly purchases of Treasuries and Treasury mortgage-backed securities by $5 billion each starting in January.”

    100 years ago, this December, the United States Congress created a central bank today, we know it as the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. What most people don’t know is that the bank isn’t a federal entity and candidly, it really has nothing in reserves.

    Is the Federal Reserve good for the United States? Is it even possible to get rid of it?

    The first step toward truth is to be informed.

    10 years ago, virtually no American knew anything about the Federal Reserve Bank. Most thought it was a government agency, an entity that helps to create and protect U.S. currency and our economy. Then came along the national rise of a Congressman from Texas by the name of Ron Paul.

    One of the most impressive things about the career of now retired Congressman Ron Paul was the national attention he drew to the Federal Reserve Bank.

    It was Congressman Paul who made millions of Americans aware of a simple truth. That the single entity with the most power and control over the U.S. dollar is not accountable to the American people.

    So what exactly is the Federal Reserve?

    To begin with, it is a private bank that serves as the exclusive bank of the U.S. government. Though it was created by Congress, the Federal Reserve does not answer to Congress. The President himself doesn’t have direct oversight.

    So what else does the fed do?

    The Fed regulates financial institutions, manages the nation’s money and has incredible influence over the economy. The fed can raise and lower interest rates, in fact, they are the only entity able to do so.

    That is very big deal because with that power, the fed is able to control the U.S. economy. can cause the life savings of Americans to lose value through inflation, controls the value of your investments, and even impacts employment rates and manufacturing outputs.

    An awful lot of power for an entity that has no accountability to the U.S. people. so where did this central bank come from?

    A writer by the name of G. Edward Griffin blew the modern lid off this story when he wrote a book called “The Creature from Jekyll island.”

    He spoke to me via Skype.

    Ben: For folks who don’t know the name, why is the book called “The Creature from Jekyll Island”?

    Griffin: Sure, because there is a lot of significance to it. Many people think it’s just a tricky title to attract attention which frankly that’s some of the motive for doing that but Jekyll Island is a real island, Ben, as you well know, and it’s significant because it was on that island back in 1910 that the Federal Reserve was created. And that’s an interesting fact of history that why should something as important as the Federal Reserve system be created any place other than Washington D.C.

    Ben: How did the meeting at Jekyll Island in 1910 become a central bank in 1913?

    Griffin: Back in 1910 when all of this happened, there was a great deal of concern in Congress and among the American people about this concentration of financial power in the hands of a small group of companies, financial centers, on Wall Street. The big banks, the big insurance companies, the brokerage houses and so forth. There was a clamor at that time for legislative reform, there’s that word that we hear so much about. What happened is that the banks decided that the public was going to get its reform one way or the other, so why should they just sit back and let it happen? They decided to take the lead in that parade and make sure that they provide the so-called reform. They were going to draft this legislation and of course, if it were known that they were the ones drafting the reform legislation, it wouldn’t sell too well. So there had to be a lot of secrecy about that particular period of history. Well what were they concealing? It wasn’t just, they weren’t concealing just the fact that they were the ones writing the legislation to control themselves but when you follow that thread you come to the realization was what they were doing is creating a cartel. You see these were competing banking companies within the industry and this was at the time of history when competition was being replaced by monopolies and cartels and this happened in spades as far as the banking industry is concerned. And on Jekyll Island they created a banking cartel to regulate itself, to set up its own rules, to offer it to the American people as though as it was some kind of banking reform and the stupid politicians in Washington accepted it and they passed this banking cartel agreement into law and they called it the Federal Reserve Act.

    It was in 1913 that congress, in passing the “Federal Reserve Act” violated the U.S. Constitution and essentially granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. Since 1913, the fed has ordered the printing of currency and then loaned it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to, among other things, pay the interest on the debt.

    So when you take a dollar out of your pocket, look at what it says at the top. This is a Federal Reserve Note, currency issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
    In 1964, that changed. President John F Kennedy issued an Executive Order, 11110. It gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there.

    These were United States Notes. As a result, of that executive order, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated.

    After his assassination, The United States Note Project ceased.

    Ben: To your knowledge, Mr. Griffin, is that Executive Order that was issued by President Kennedy still active today?

    Griffin: The Executive Order is not still in existence. It went through several transitions. First it was absorbed into another Executive Order, it was consolidated into another order, and then finally it was repealed, I think Johnson himself got rid of it. But that’s really not the important question whether it’s still standing or not because it never did represent what many people thought it meant in my view. I checked into the allegation that President Kennedy had taken a stand against the bank and that he was going to put an end to the fiat money and go back to government issued notes. That’s the general idea and that therefore that’s the reason he was killed. Unfortunately or fortunately, whichever the case may be, the record really doesn’t support that at all. And every time I went to try and run down the origins of this myth as I call it, it just fizzled out unless somebody can give me some hard information that I haven’t yet seen. I think it’s just one of those urban myths that is popular.

    So what has the Federal Reserve Bank been up to in the past few years? As you probably know, the Fed has been holding interest rates at historically low rates. Meanwhile, the Fed has been creating between $40 and $80 billion dollars a month in U.S. currency. The name you have heard this by, quantitative easing.

    The first round of Quantitative Easing came in late 2008 under President George W. Bush. The Fed initiated purchases of $500 billion in mortgage backed securities in order to help resolve the housing crisis. The Fed also cut the key interest rate to nearly 0%. QE1

    The economy didn’t improve, but banks sure got a lot of money.

    So, under Bernanke, the fed was at it again. The second round of Quantitative Easing was from November of 2010 until June of 2011. The Federal Reserve went to work buying up $600 billion in U.S. Treasury Bonds to spur the economy. But again, it didn’t work.

    Part of the reason QE2 failed was because it wasn’t meant to spur the U.S. economy. That $600 billion was given to foreign banks. During the QE2 funding period cash reserves of foreign banks grew from $308 billion to $940 billion

    In the fall of 2012, came the beginning of QE3, in this case, the Fed began purchasing mortgage backed securities and treasuries at a rate of $85 billion dollars a month. What made this Quantitative Easing attempt different than others, there is no end to it.

    In January of 2013 the Fed began what is called. QE4, an attempt to continue to purchase securities and hold interest rates down until the unemployment rate drops to below 6.5%.

    In February of 2014, Janet Yellen will succeed Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman and has already said that her priority is to continue these programs even longer than was originally anticipated. Yellen says that unemployment is a bigger problem than inflation so the for the Fed it will be business as usual.

    What you need to know: Is that in 1913, the original charter for the Federal Reserve Bank allowed it to exist for only 20 years. In 1927, the Fed charter was renewed.

    Some believe that on December 23rd, 2013, the Fed charter runs out. That at the 100 year anniversary, the Fed will have to be renewed by Congress. Others say that the Fed does not have to be renewed, that it is a permanent entity. That happened they say in 1927 under the McFadden Act.

    Whether that is true or not, here is something undeniable, in the 100 years that the federal reserve bank has been in existence, the U.S. dollar has lost 98% of its value.

    The purpose of creating the Federal Reserve was to protect the dollar. The Fed hasn’t done that.

    The Federal Reserve Bank didn’t stop the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve Bank has done nothing to improve the so called great recession. In fact, some can make the argument that the fed policies under Alan Greenspan in the early 2000‘s and not only helped to create our current situation, but the Fed policies under Ben Bernanke have made the economy worse.

    The bottom-line, the one entity that truly has the power to end the Fed is Congress, but if Congress were to do that then Congress would also have to be responsible for fulfilling its constitutionally mandated role to “to coin money” and “regulate the value thereof”.

    Sources:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-3
    http://www.rense.com/general76/jfkvs.htm

    http://bit.ly/1a3Mz4E
    -------------------------------------------------
    The Federal Reserve was created 100 years ago. This is how it happened.
    By Neil Irwin - December 21, 2013 - WashingtonPost

    A century ago this week, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, creating a central bank for a nation that was only beginning its economic ascendance. This is the story of how it came to be, from a nearly catastrophic financial panic to secret meetings of plutocrats on the Georgia coast to the pitched battle in the halls of Congress, excerpted from The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire.

    The mustachioed man in the silk top hat strode to his private railcar parked at a New Jersey train station, a mahogany-paneled affair with velvet drapes and well-polished brass accents. Five more men — and a legion of porters and servants — soon joined him. They referred to one another by their first names only, an uncommon informality in 1910, intended to give the staff no hints as to who the men actually were, lest rumors make their way to the newspapers and then to the trading floors of New York and London. One of the men, a German immigrant named Paul Warburg, carried a borrowed shotgun in order to look like a duck hunter, despite having never drawn a bead on a waterfowl in his life.

    Two days later, the car deposited the men at the small Georgia port town of Brunswick, where they boarded a boat for the final leg of their journey. Jekyll Island, their destination, was a private resort owned by the powerful banker J.P. Morgan and some friends, a refuge on the Atlantic where they could get away from the cold New York winter. Their host — the man in the silk top hat — was Nelson Aldrich, one of the most powerful senators of the day, a lawmaker who lorded over the nation’s financial matters.

    For nine days, working all day and into the night, the six men debated how to reform the U.S. banking and monetary systems, trying to find a way to make this nation just finding its footing on the global stage less subject to the kinds of financial collapses that had seemingly been conquered in Western Europe. Secrecy was paramount. “Discovery,” wrote one attendee later, “simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would have been wasted. If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress.”

    For decades afterward, the most powerful men in American finance referred to one another as part of the “First Name Club.” Paul, Harry, Frank and the others were part of a small group that, in those nine days, invented the Federal Reserve System. Their task was more than administrative. Because the men at Jekyll Island weren’t just trying to solve an economic problem — they were trying to solve a political problem as old as their republic.

    Banking's rough beginning
    The U.S. financial system needed remaking. The United States had a long but less than illustrious history with central banking. Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury secretary, believed a national bank would stabilize the new government’s shaky credit and support a stronger economy — and was an absolute necessity to exercise the new republic’s constitutional powers.

    But Hamilton’s proposal faced opposition, particularly in the agricultural South, where lawmakers believed a central bank would primarily benefit the mercantile North, with its large commercial centers of Boston, New York and Philadelphia. “What was it drove our forefathers to this country?” said James “Left Eye” Jackson, a fiery little congressman from Georgia. “Was it not the ecclesiastical corporations and perpetual monopolies of England and Scotland? Shall we suffer the same evils to exist in this country?” Some founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, believed that the bank was unconstitutional.

    By 1811, Madison was in the White House. The Bank of the United States closed down. Until, at least, Madison realized how hard it was to fight the War of 1812 without a national bank to fund the government. The Second Bank of the United States was founded in 1816. It lasted a little longer — until it crashed against the same distrust of centralized financial authority that undermined the first. The populist Andrew Jackson managed its demise in 1836.

    Running an economy without a central bank empowered to issue paper money caused more than a few problems in late 19th-century America. For example, the supply of dollars was tied to private banks’ holdings of government bonds. That would have been fine if the need for dollars was fixed over time. But one overarching lesson of financial history is that that’s not the case. In times of financial panic, for example, everybody wants cash at the same time (that’s what happened in fall 2008).

    Without a central, government-backed bank able to create money on demand, the American banking system wasn’t able to provide it. The system wasn’t elastic, meaning there was no way for its supply of money to adjust with demand. People would try to withdraw more money from one bank than it had available, the bank would fail, and then people from other banks would withdraw their funds, creating a vicious cycle that would lead to widespread bank failures and the contraction of lending across the economy. The result was economic depression. It happened every few years. One particularly severe panic in 1873 was so bad that until the 1930s, the 1870s were the decade known as the “Great Depression.” There were lesser panics in 1884, 1890 and 1893
    Then came the Panic of 1907, the one that finally persuaded American lawmakers to deal with their country’s backward financial system. What made the Panic of 1907 so severe? A bunch of things that happened to converge at once.

    It started with a devastating earthquake in San Francisco in 1906. Suddenly, insurers the world over needed access to dollars at the same time. In what was then still an agricultural economy, it was also a bumper year for crops, and an economic boom was under way — so companies nationwide wanted more cash than usual to invest in new ventures. In San Francisco, deposits were unavailable for weeks after the quake: Cash was locked in vaults so hot from fires caused by broken gas lines that it would have burst into flames had they been opened.

    All of that meant the demand for dollars was uncommonly high — at a time when the supply of dollars couldn’t increase much. This manifested itself in the form of rising interest rates and withdrawals. Withdrawals begat more withdrawals, and before long, banks around the country were on the brink of failure.

    Then in October 1907, the copper miner turned banker F. Augustus Heinze and his stockbroker brother Otto tried to take over the market of his own United Copper company by buying up its shares. When he failed, the price of United Copper stock tumbled. Investors rushed to pull their deposits out of any bank even remotely related to the disgraced F. Augustus Heinze.

    First, a Heinze-owned bank in Butte, Mont., failed. Next came the huge Knickerbocker Trust Co. in New York, whose president was a Heinze business associate. Depositors lined up by the hundreds in its ornate Fifth Avenue headquarters, holding satchels in which to stuff their cash. Bank officials standing in the middle of the room and yelling about the bank’s alleged solvency did nothing to dissuade them. The failure of the trust led every bank in the country to hoard its cash, unwilling to lend it even to other banks for fear that the borrower could be the next Knickerbocker.

    The power of J.P. Morgan
    It is true that the United States, in that fearful fall of 1907, didn’t have a central bank. That doesn’t mean it didn’t have a central banker. John Pierpont Morgan was, at the time, the unquestioned king of Wall Street, the man the other bankers turned to to decide what ought to be done when trouble arose. He was not the wealthiest of the turn-of-the-century business titans, but the bank that bore his name was among the nation’s largest and most important, and his power extended farther than the (vast) number of dollars under his command. His imprint on the financial system has long survived him. Two of the most important financial firms in America today, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, trace their lineage to John Pierpont Morgan.

    When the 1907 crisis rolled around, Morgan held court at his bank’s offices at 23 Wall St. while a series of bankers came to make their requests for help.

    Morgan asked the Treasury secretary to come to New York — note who summoned whom — and ordered a capable young banker named Benjamin Strong to analyze the books of the next big financial institution under attack, the Trust Company of America, to determine whether it was truly broke or merely had a short-term problem of cash flow — the old question of insolvent versus illiquid. Merely illiquid was Morgan’s conclusion. The bankers bailed it out.

    It wouldn’t last — with depositors unsure which banks, trusts and brokerages were truly solvent, withdrawals continued apace all over New York and around the country. At 9 p.m. on Saturday, Nov. 2, 1907, Morgan gathered 40 or 50 bankers in his library.

    The bankers awaited, as Thomas W. Lamont, a Morgan associate, put it, “the momentous decisions of the modern Medici.” In the end, Morgan engineered an arrangement in which the trusts would guarantee the deposits of their weaker members — something they finally agreed to at 4:45 a.m. Medici comparisons aside, it is remarkable how similar Morgan’s role was to that of Timothy Geithner, the New York Fed president, a century later during the 2008 crisis. Both knocked heads to encourage the stronger banks and brokerages to buy up the weaker ones, bailing out some and allowing others to fail, working through the night so action could be taken before financial markets opened.

    With a big difference, of course: Geithner was working for an institution that was created by Congress and acted on the authority of the government. His major decisions were approved by the Fed’s board of governors, its members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. His capacity to address the 2007–08 crisis was backed by an ability to create dollars from thin air.

    Morgan, by contrast, was simply a powerful man with a reasonably public-spirited approach and an impressive ability to persuade other bankers to do as he wished. The economic future of one of the world’s emerging powers was determined simply by his wealth and temperament.

    Time for a change
    Enough was enough. The Panic of 1907 sparked one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, as well as similar crises across much of the world. Members of Congress finally saw that having a central bank wasn’t such a bad idea after all. “It is evident,” said Sen. Aldrich, he of the silk top hat and the trip to Jekyll Island, “that while our country has natural advantages greater than those of any other, its normal growth and development have been greatly retarded by this periodical destruction of credit and confidence.”

    Legislation Congress enacted immediately after the panic, the Aldrich-Vreeland Act, dealt with some of the financial system’s most pressing needs, but it put off the day of reckoning with the bigger question of what sort of central bank might make sense in a country with a long history of rejecting central banks. It instead created the National Monetary Commission, a group of members of Congress who traveled to the great capitals of Europe to see how their banking systems worked. But the commission was tied in knots.

    Agricultural interests were fearful that any new central bank would simply be a tool of Wall Street. They insisted that something be done to make agricultural credit available more consistently, without seasonal swings. The big banks, meanwhile, wanted a lender of last resort to stop crises — but they wanted to be in charge of it themselves, rather than allow politicians to be in charge.

    The task for the First Name Club gathered in Jekyll Island in that fall of 1910 was to come up with some sort of approach to balance these concerns while still importing the best features of the European central banks.

    The solution they dreamed up was to create, instead of a single central bank, a network of them around the country. Those multiple central banks would accept any “real bills” — essentially promises businesses had received from their customers for payment — as collateral in exchange for cash. A bank facing a shortage of dollars during harvest season could go to its regional central bank and offer a loan to a farmer as collateral in exchange for cash. A national board of directors would set the interest rate on those loans, thus exercising some control over how loose or tight credit would be in the nation as a whole.

    The men at Jekyll drafted legislation to create this National Reserve Association, which Aldrich, the most influential senator of his day on financial matters, introduced in Congress three months later.

    A rocky reception
    It landed with a thud. Even though the First Name Club managed to keep its involvement secret for years to come, the idea of a set of powerful new institutions controlled by the banks was a non-starter in this nation with a long distrust of centralized financial authority.

    Aldrich’s initial proposal failed, but he had set the terms of the debate. There would be some form of centralized power, but also branches around the country. And what soon became clear was that the basic plan he’d laid out — power simultaneously centralized and distributed across the land and shared among bankers, elected officials, and business and agricultural interests — was the only viable political solution.

    Carter Glass, a Virginia newspaper publisher and future Treasury secretary, took the lead on crafting a bill in the House, one that emphasized the power and primacy of the branches away from Washington and New York. He wanted up to 20 reserve banks around the country, each making decisions autonomously, with no centralized board. The country was just too big, with too many diverse economic conditions, to warrant putting a group of appointees in Washington in charge of the whole thing, Glass argued.

    President Woodrow Wilson, by contrast, wanted clearer political control and more centralization — he figured the institution would have democratic legitimacy only if political appointees in Washington were put in charge. The Senate, meanwhile, dabbled with approaches that would put the Federal Reserve even more directly under the thumb of political authorities, with the regional banks run by political appointees as well.

    But for all the apparent disagreement in 1913, there were some basic things that most lawmakers seemed to agree on: There needed to be a central bank to backstop the banking system. It would consist of decentralized regional banks. And its governance would be shared — among politicians, bankers, and agricultural and commercial interests. The task was to hammer out the details.

    Who would govern the reserve banks? A board of directors comprising local bankers, businesspeople chosen by those bankers, and a third group chosen to represent the public. The Board of Governors in Washington would include both the Treasury secretary and Federal Reserve governors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

    How many reserve banks would there be, and where? Eight to 12, the compromise legislation said, not the 20 that Glass had envisioned. An elaborate committee process was designed to determine where those should be located. Some sites were obvious — New York, Chicago. But in the end, many of the decisions came down to politics. Glass was from Virginia, and not so mysteriously, its capital of Richmond — neither one of the country’s largest cities nor one of its biggest banking centers — was chosen.

    The vote over the Federal Reserve Act in a Senate committee came down to a single tie-breaking vote, that of James A. Reed, a senator from Missouri. Also not so mysteriously, Missouri became the only state with two Federal Reserve banks, in St. Louis and Kansas City. The locations of Federal Reserve districts have been frozen in place ever since, rather than evolving with the U.S. population — by 2000, the San Francisco district contained 20 percent of the U.S. population, compared with 3 percent for the Minneapolis district.

    And in a concession to those leery of creating a central bank, the Federal Reserve System, like the First and Second Banks of the United States, was set to dissolve at a fixed date in the future: 1928. One can easily imagine what might have happened had its charter come up for renewal just a couple of years later, after the Depression had set in.

    Creation of a central bank
    The debate over the Federal Reserve Act was ugly. In September 1913, Rep. George Ross Smith of Minnesota carried onto the floor of the House a 7-by-4-foot wooden tombstone — a prop meant to “mourn” the deaths of industry, labor, agriculture and commerce that would result from having political appointees in charge of the new national bank.

    “The great political power which President Jackson saw in the First and Second National banks of his day was the power of mere pygmies when compared to the gigantic power imposed upon [this] Federal Reserve board and which by the proposed bill is made the prize of each national election,” he argued.

    It wasn’t just the fiery populists who opposed the bank. Aldrich, the favored senator of the Wall Street elite, complained that the Wilson administration’s insistence on political control of the institution made the bill “radical and revolutionary and at variance with all the accepted canons of economic law.” He wanted the banks to have more control, not a bunch of politicians.

    For all the noise, the juggling of interests was effective enough — and the memory of 1907 powerful enough — for Congress to pass the bill in December 1913. Wilson signed it two days before Christmas, giving the United States, at long last, its central bank. “If, as most experts agree, the new measure will prevent future ‘money panics’ in this country, the new law will prove to be the best Christmas gift in a century,” wrote the Baltimore Sun.
    The government, of course, hadn’t solved the problem of panics. It had just gained a better tool with which to deal with them.

    And opposition to a central bank, rooted as deeply as it was in the American psyche, didn’t go away. Instead, it evolved. Whenever the economic tide turned — during the Great Depression, during the deep recession of the early 1980s, during the downturn that followed the Panic of 2008 — the frustration of the people was channeled toward the institution they’d granted an uncomfortable degree of power to try to prevent such things.

    But after more than a century of trying, the United States had its central bank. Before long, New York would supplant London as the center of the global financial system, and the dollar would replace the pound as the leading currency in the world. And as the years passed, the series of compromises that the First Name Club dreamed up a century earlier, and the unwieldy and complex organization it created, would turn out to have some surprising advantages — even in a country that had previously been better at creating central banks than keeping them.

    Adapted from "The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire," published in 2013 by The Penguin Press.

    http://wapo.st/1bYdrGp

  • Congress cites 9/11 Bush cover-up, demands Obama act, Inside the Saudi 9/11 Coverup

    By Paul Sperry December 16, 2013 - FamilySecurityMatters.org

    After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.
    But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress' investigative report on 9/11 dealing with "specific sources of foreign support" for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.

    It was kept secret and remains so today.
    President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn't just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).
    A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are "absolutely shocked" at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

    Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can't reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they've proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, "Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001."

    Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

    The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi government officials - not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom - helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

    The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast:

    LOS ANGELES: Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers - Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi - as they arrived at LAX in 2000. One of the advance men, Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, left the LA consulate and met the hijackers at a local restaurant. (Bayoumi left the United States two months before the attacks, while Thumairy was deported back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11.)

    SAN DIEGO: Bayoumi and another suspected Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, set up essentially a forward operating base in San Diego for the hijackers after leaving LA. They were provided rooms, rent and phones, as well as private meetings with an American al Qaeda cleric who would later become notorious, Anwar al-Awlaki, at a Saudi-funded mosque he ran in a nearby suburb. They were also feted at a welcoming party. (Bassnan also fled the United States just before the attacks.)

    WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers. Though the Bandars claim the checks were "welfare" for Bassnan's supposedly ill wife, the money nonetheless made its way into the hijackers' hands.

    Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy - so much so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client.

    The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes, Riyadh recalled Bandar.

    "Our investigations contributed to the ambassador's departure," an investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington told me, though Bandar says he left for "personal reasons."

    FALLS CHURCH, VA.: In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up together again - this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a Pentagon-area mosque built with funds from the Saudi Embassy. Awlaki was recruited 3,000 miles away to head the mosque. As its imam, Awlaki helped the hijackers, who showed up at his doorstep as if on cue. He tasked a handler to help them acquire apartments and IDs before they attacked the Pentagon.

    Awlaki worked closely with the Saudi Embassy. He lectured at a Saudi Islamic think tank in Merrifield, Va., chaired by Bandar. Saudi travel itinerary documents I've obtained show he also served as the ­official imam on Saudi Embassy-sponsored trips to Mecca and tours of Saudi holy sites.

    Most suspiciously, though, Awlaki fled the United States on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11.

    As I first reported in my book, “Infiltration,” quoting from classified US documents, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was briefly detained at JFK before being released into the custody of a “Saudi representative.” A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.

    HERNDON, VA.: On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel. Did he meet with them? The FBI never found out. They let him go after he “feigned a seizure,” one agent recalled. (Hussayen’s name doesn’t appear in the separate 9/11 Commission Report, which clears the Saudis.)

    SARASOTA, FLA.: 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd. FBI agents investigating the connection in 2002 found that visitor logs for the gated community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers. Just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi luxury home was abandoned. Three cars, including a new Chrysler PT Cruiser, were left in the driveway. Inside, opulent furniture was untouched.
    Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “coverup.”

    Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy, which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.

    Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.

    Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families, calls the suppression of Saudi evidence a “coverup beyond belief.” Last week, he sent out an e-mail to relatives urging them to phone their representatives in Congress to support the resolution and read for themselves the censored 28 pages.

    Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US history.

    Granted, it’s not easy to do. It took a monthlong letter-writing campaign by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them access to the material.

    But it’s critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White House to let all Americans read it. This isn’t water under the bridge. The information is still relevant today. Pursuing leads further, getting to the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.

    As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum to their heavily redacted 2002 report, “State-sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more ­lethal attacks within the United States.”

    Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi relations. If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.

    Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.
    Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.”

    http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup#ixzz2oGsLMuA3

    http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

    -----------------------------------------

    Congress cites 9/11 Bush cover-up, demands Obama act

    Two members of Congress, specially authorized to view documents on 9/11 censored under the personal authority of President Bush (43), have come away “absolutely shocked,” demanding immediate action.

    By Gordon Duff and Press TV

    Two members of Congress, specially authorized to view documents on 9/11 censored under the personal authority of President Bush (43), have come away “absolutely shocked,” demanding immediate action.

    However, the full story, told for the first time below, explains “why now” and who is really being targeted by revelations of cover-up and conspiracy.

    In accusations published yesterday by the leading Tea Party publication, Family Security Matters, Saudi Defense Minister and Intelligence chief Prince Bandar referred to as “Bandar Bush” in his Wikipedia biography for his close relationship with that family, was said to be the planner of 9/11.

    In an article by Paul Sperry of the Hoover Institute, Bandar was cited with fleeing the US to avoid prosecution. Here, Sperry quotes a government source:

    “Our investigations contributed to the ambassador’s departure,” (2005) an investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington told me, though Bandar says he left for “personal reasons.”

    Despite these pronouncements, these accusations may well be unfounded speculation. What we have to ask is why are they being made now and why by political groups long close to the Saudi government. Why has Saudi Arabia failed to respond to these very public accusations coming from some of the highest authorities in Washington? “Why are the rats turning on each other?”

    Startling disclosures?

    This week, Congressional representatives Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) have officially requested a congressional resolution demanding President Obama declassify the heavily redacted Congressional Investigative Report on 9/11.

    The two representatives had just been given authority under penalty of “national security secrecy” to read the censored 28 pages of the 800-page report that had not been seen.

    For nearly a decade, the US has maintained security policies, both domestic and international, based on threats now known to have been totally fabricated. The cost, trillions of dollars, thousands of Americans dead in wars against “enemies” long known to have never been involved in terror attacks on America, the phony “hunt for bin Laden,” all of it, nothing but utter hogwash.

    Bush cited as conspirator

    What has been made clear is that President Bush was fully aware that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were involved in 9/11 and that military action against those two nations was done to cover involvement of his administration in 9/11, involvement that included support from foreign intelligence agencies.

    The representatives, while reviewing the report, came to the portion titled “Specific Sources of Foreign Support.” A 28-page section here had been “butchered” by the White House on the personal orders of President Bush. On the original report given to Congress, an estimated 5-10,000 words were omitted from this section with page after page of dotted lines replacing text.

    The full report carries a tale of not only broad complicity of foreign intelligence agencies but, in the use of the term “complicity,” indications of full knowledge of the funding and planning of 9/11 by the Bush administration.

    However, the lawmakers, without the support of a resolution, are under a “gag order” and unable to name the nation or nations that supplied.

    Israel, Saudi Arabia or both

    Recent revelations tied to events in Syria and Egypt have exposed an unimagined level of cooperation between the intelligence services of Israel and Saudi Arabia. For years, Israel has cited Saudi Arabia as the greatest threat to their security, much greater than Iraq under Saddam or their claims of a “nuclear Iran.”

    This and much else of what Israel has publicly claimed as part of their “mythology of victimization” is now recognized as falsehood. Though both Israel and Saudi Arabia are known as allies of the US, their partnerships with America have been with specific groups, extremists within government and the military willing to back the plots now plainly evident even when US interests are sacrificed or even American lives are lost.

    Telling, today, is the relationship between Al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda “franchises” and the Israeli/Saudi alliance, a relationship that has provided both financial support and weapons, used against Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

    The sections of the 9/11 report that were censored by President Bush may well include reference to that al-Qaeda/Israel/Saudi nexus. What is clear is that not only did the Bush administration wrongly blame bin Laden or “al-Qaeda,” a spurious and illusory group at best, but that those cited, Israel, Saudi Arabia or both, though named for funding and supporting the 9/11 attack, were always under the full control of the Bush administration.

    What does exist is proof that the war on terror was, in reality as confirmed by General Wesley Clark, a plan to invade and occupy 7 oil- and gas-rich nations.

    Israel put the blame on Saudi Arabia

    In an article released yesterday on www.familysecuritymatters.org , Paul Sperry of the Hoover Institute cited, not just the Saudi government as having been behind 9/11 but set the relationship between George W. Bush and Prince Bandar at the crux of the conspiracy.

    After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al-Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors. “But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.

    It was kept secret and remains so today. President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report.”

    Sperry goes on:

    “Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers – Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi – as they arrived at LAX in 2000.”

    Sperry continues, citing instance after instance where Saudi intelligence directly aided al-Qaeda every step of the way.

    What is important is that we understand who Sperry represents. Family Security Matters isn’t a simple blog. It is the voice of not just the extreme right but AIPAC as well. Their editors include Senator Ted Cruz, top GOP domestic policy maker and former UN Ambassador John Bolton, Islamophobe extremist, “Israel Firster” and a man who never saw a war he didn’t love.

    “Family Matters” is the power center for everything pro-money, pro-hate and pro-Israel. Self-proclaimed “investigative journalist Paul Sperry serves with the Hoover Institute, along with former Secretary of State Condi Rice. The critical aspect of yesterday’s article is that it represents the first time the Israel lobby has been willing to throw former President Bush “under a bus” in order to distance themselves from accusations of complicity in 9/11.

    Prior to the exposure of Israel’s role as “mentor” for al-Qaeda in Syria, America’s media was able to suppress not just “conspiracy theories” but accusations backed by evidence and testimony that placed Israel at the center of the 9/11 attacks.

    Prince Bandar accused of planning 9/11

    Though there is no reason to assume Saudi Arabia is mentioned whatsoever in the redacted Congressional report, Sperry cites payments by Bandar to the alleged 9/11 hijackers and other funding to al-Qaeda.

    “Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy – so much so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client. The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes, Riyadh recalled Bandar.”

    Real from conjecture

    Members of Congress have openly admitted that they have seen documentation that would support an immediate criminal investigation against President Bush (43) and his closest advisors. Further, those agencies involved in compiling this report, key portions of which have remained secret, were also responsible for lying to the 9/11 Commission, not just through omission. All the intelligence that sent America into two wars is now not just suspect, it is proven false.

    Recognizing that the nations responsible have not yet been named, though attempts by Family Security Matters to subvert this process are underway, what does stand is evidence of the same conspiracy.

    From a CIA transcript dated September 24, 2001, Osama bin Laden is quoted: “The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.”

    Family Security Matters celebrates the death of Osama bin Laden as a terrorist fanatic. They also celebrate the death of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist fanatic. Mandela was right, as history has shown.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/22/congress-cites-911-bush-cover-up-demands-obama-act/
    -----------------------------------------
    Investigating the Saudi Government's 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disilliusionment - Sen. Graham on Reality Asserts Itself -

    Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham says greater awareness of Saudi Arabia as “essentially a co-conspirator in 9/11...would change the way in which, particularly in the current milieu of events in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is being viewed” by the U.S. public.

    Saudi Arabia, an historic ally of the U.S., had put significant pressure on the Obama administration in recent months to militarily intervene in Syria, and had also attempted to derail recent U.S.-Iran rapprochement.

    Senator Graham co-chaired the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 that investigated intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. The inquiry’s final report included a 28-page chapter describing the Saudi connection to 9/11, but it was completely redacted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

    “I was stunned that the intelligence community would feel that it was a threat to national security for the American people to know who had made 9/11 financially possible,” said Senator Graham. “And I am sad to report that today, some 12 years after we submitted our report, that those 28 pages continue to be withheld from the public.”

    The investigation into 9/11 intelligence failures and the subsequent cover-up of Saudi involvement by the Bush administration led Senator Graham to question his life-long reverence of presidential authority.

    “I grew up with the idea that the president was almost a divine figure, that he was the literally the father of the country and always acted in a way that was beneficial to the mass of people in America,” said Graham. “You may have disagreements with the current occupant of the office, but the presidency itself was a benighted position deserving of your respect and worthy of your confidence.”

    “So when I got involved particularly at the national level in the U.S. Senate and saw some of the things that were happening—which were not theoretical; they were things that I was dealing with on a very day-to-day hands-on basis that were contrary to that view of what was the presidency—it was a very disillusioning experience. And maybe some of the comments that I make in the book Intelligence Matters reflect that path to disillusionment,” said Graham.

    http://www.szaboservices.com/show/investigating-the-saudi-governments-911-connection-and-the-path-to-disilliusionment---sen-graham-on-reality-asserts-itself-

    Exclusive: Private talks between Tony Blair and George Bush on Iraq war to be published -

    OLIVER WRIGHT Author Biography Sunday 29 December 2013 - Independent.co.uk

    The Government is working to declassify more than 100 secret documents detailing discussions that took place between Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war. The Independent understands that, in an unprecedented move, a cache of notes from Mr Blair to Mr Bush, records of telephone conversations and meetings, as well as up to 200 minutes of cabinet-level discussions are to be published in the new year. The release of the documents, which is likely to be in the next few months, will clear the way for Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq Inquiry to publish its long-awaited report into Britain’s involvement in the conflict.

    There had been fears that Mr Blair and the US authorities would block the release of the confidential papers, which are said to provide an intimate picture of how decisions were made in the lead-up to war.

    On Sunday, a government source said that “good progress” had been made towards declassifying many of the records. “The intention is to be as open as possible,” they said. “There is an ongoing process of declassification, which is attempting to strike a careful balance to ensure that you are not setting a legal precedent that could oblige you to publish other documents in the future or damage national security.”

    The process is being led by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, and is expected to be completed “within the next few months”. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and other senior ministers do not know what the documents contain because they refer to discussions that took place under the previous government. A final decision on what to release will be made by Sir Jeremy.

    Once declassified, the documents will be passed to Sir John, who heads the Iraq Inquiry. He has already had access to the material but wants to be able to refer to it in his final report.

    Although no final decision has been made, the documents are likely to be made available to the public, either by the Government or on the Iraq Inquiry website. “There are likely to be some redactions – but only where absolutely necessary,” the government source said.

    Publication of the documents will allow the Iraq Inquiry to complete its final task of contacting those people who are due to be criticised and allow them to put forward a defence. That process could take several months, but it is now possible that the inquiry could report by the end of 2014 – five years after it was set up by Mr Brown.

    A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said last night: “The Government is currently engaged in discussions with the [Iraq] inquiry which the inquiry recognises raises difficult issues, including legal and international relations issues.

    “As the exchange of letters between government and the inquiry shows, these issues are being worked through in good faith and with a view to reaching a position as rapidly as possible. The inquiry should be allowed to publish its findings and we should not pre-empt the content of the report.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-private-talks-between-tony-blair-and-george-bush-on-iraq-war-to-be-published-9029531.html

  • Shock Claim: Ted Cruz Said Obama Not Eligible To Be President; Citizen Parents?

    Sen. Ted Cruz has voiced strong objections to ObamaCare but not to Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of president in keeping with Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution

    Act of Real Heroism Call to Rafael and Ted Cruz “NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
    By JB Williams | The Post & Email

    Junior Texas Senator Ted Cruz has captured the imagination of many American conservatives hungry for a “real deal” statesman willing to stand up for American principles and values. His fiery pro-American tone is undoubtedly inherited from his very fiery father, Rev. Rafael Cruz.

    Rev. Rafael Cruz has become somewhat of a folk hero to many Americans as a result of his polished public delivery of the American Dream, often delivered best by one who was himself delivered from foreign government tyranny by the grace of American freedom and liberty.

    Immigrant Americans from Cuba via Canada, the Cruz family most likely does hold a special reverence toward American freedom as a result of their own life experiences. Often, immigrant Americans have a deeper sense of American exceptionalism in the world than Natural Born Americans do, those who more often than not take such great blessings for granted today.

    The Cruz family message is hard to misinterpret, and it often sets opponents of American freedom, liberty and exceptionalism into fits of blind rage, while inspiring many others who yearn for new pro-American national leadership.

    Rev. Cruz has been quoted as saying that he believes his son Ted is “ordained by God, to change the course of history in America.” I pray that Rev. Cruz is right about that, because his son Ted is in the highly unique position to do exactly that…

    Today, I write to call upon Ted and his father Rafael to stand together upon their stated convictions, as only they can do. These two men are indeed in a unique position to alter the course of history in America and save freedom and liberty for many generations to come.

    Leaving all political rhetoric and aspirations aside, Senator Ted Cruz can single-handedly end the ongoing systematic destruction of the United States of America and with the help of his father, Rev. Rafael Cruz, I have every reason to believe he will.

    What Senator Cruz can do is very simple, though it will not be easy. It will require that both Ted and his father set aside their own ambitions in a selfless act of true heroism, for the greater good of America. It will require brave and bold actions that only Ted is in the position to take. It is simple, but not easy, because it requires the Senator to stand up before the world and make the following proclamation…

    “I am honored that so many Americans want me to run for the office of President. However, my moral convictions require that I state clearly for the record that I am not eligible for the office of president or vice president according to Article II – Section I – Clause V of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, born of an American Citizen Father, seek or hold these offices. As I was born the son of a Cuban Citizen living in Canada at the time, I am not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. On this Constitutional ground, I hereby state that Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a Kenyan Citizen Father, is also not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States…I hereby call for the immediate investigation and resignation of Barack Hussein Obama and all who were involved in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the world, as well as all who have engaged in the greatest political cover-up in the history of politics.”

    Accepting on faith that Ted and his father Rafael are both Christian men, who do understand and believe that they find themselves in this unique position at the historical moment, I call upon the Cruz family to act upon their stated moral convictions and save America from this massive fraud known as Obama.

    Now, a close personal friend worked on Ted’s senate campaign in Texas. He shared with me a conversation he had with Ted during the early days of the campaign. In that conversation, he asked Ted – “what is your understanding of the term Natural Born Citizen?” – to which Ted answered, “someone born on soil to Citizen parents…”

    Ted no doubt learned this definition from Tea Party friends helping out with his campaign. Despite it not being exactly correct, it was close enough for my friends to ask the second question…

    “Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen of the United States? – to which Ted correctly answered, “NO!”

    Then the most important question was asked… “If we get you elected to the Senate, will you do something about our illegal occupant of the White House?” – to which Ted answered…. “I think repealing ObamaCare is more important…” The witness is willing to go on record if need be.

    In the end, Senator Ted Cruz has a monumental opportunity to write himself into history as the man who righted the most egregious political wrong in American history. He has only a few weeks to do it, immediately following the holiday, before Obama, Reid and Boehner can ram through amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and pass massive gun control laws against legal American citizens.

    If Rev. Rafael Cruz and his son want to be true American heroes, they can be. If they choose not to be, then the Americans who hold such great hopes for Ted will have lost just another hopeful hero who says many of the right things, but refuses to do the most important right things.

    Join me in calling upon Rev. Rafael Cruz and his son Ted to stand up, do the right thing…

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2013/12/17/act-of-real-heroism-call-to-rafael-and-ted-cruz/

  • NSA slayer goes on Obama impeachment hunt 'Most outrageous violation of constitutional rights in American history'

    JEROME R. CORSI | WND.com | 12/17/2013

    NEW YORK – Fresh from winning a restraining order against the National Security Agency’s telephone surveillance, attorney Larry Klayman declared that the misdeeds of Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace, pale in comparison to President Obama’s.

    “In Watergate, Richard Nixon faced impeachment for breaking into the offices of the chairman of the Democratic National Party,” Klayman told WND in an interview.

    “Obama has broken into the homes of 300 million Americans.”

    WND asked Klayman if he was calling for the impeachment of Obama.

    “Yes,” Klayman responded. “The NSA and the Obama administration are engaging in criminal behavior, and both are lying.”

    He called it the “most outrageous violation of constitutional rights in American history.”

    Klayman is a WND columnist and founder of the political-watchdog organizations Judicial Watch and FreedomWatch.

    His case, on behalf of a Verizon Wireless customer, was launched after the extent of government spying on Americans was unveiled by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who said the court’s decision made him feel justified in releasing classified documents.

    Named in the case are the NSA, Department of Justice and several U.S. officials, including President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

    Klayman alleged in a WND interview Monday that after he filed the case, he was put under surveillance by the NSA.

    The complaint alleges the government, with the participation of private telephone companies, has been conducting “a secret and illegal government scheme to intercept and analyze vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications.”

    Klayman dismissed Obama administration arguments that the NSA is collecting only “metadata” and not recording for analysis the content of ordinary citizens’ conversation unless there is suspicion of criminal activity that might violate the Patriot Act or other national security legislation.

    “The NSA takes interest in countless Americans, even boyfriends and girlfriends of NSA employees, as we now know,” he argued.

    “If you end up being a person of interest to the NSA or the Department of Justice, the NSA recording of telephone conversations permits the NSA to know everything about you, even whether or not your wife is pregnant, just by the number of times she calls her doctor and the pattern of her health-care-related telephone conversations.”

    Klayman charged that Obama’s criminal violations in the NSA case are more egregious than Nixon’s violations of law in Watergate.

    “Nixon did not have Obama’s NSA,” Klayman said. “Both Nixon and Obama lied repeatedly to the American public after they got caught, but Nixon did not have Obama’s technology.”

    Klayman also praised the courage of Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who ordered injunctive relief in the case, staying the order only long enough to permit the government a timely appeal.

    “Very few people have the guts to take on the NSA,” Klayman said. “Judge Leon knows the NSA can get into the communications of federal judges. That’s the level of intimidation the NSA is capable of handing out. Judge Leon is an American hero for his willingness to take on the NSA and the Obama administration.”

    Klayman explained to WND that he is preparing to return to Leon to begin discovery proceedings in the next phase of the court case. His aim is to take depositions from top NSA administrators and Obama administration officials and to obtain relevant government documents.

    Klayman noted that in November, when Leon dismissed the Obama Justice Department’s request to delay the proceedings after a status conference, he clearly intended to proceed quickly.

    “I don’t think Judge Leon is prepared to put up with efforts by the Obama administration to drag this case out,” Klayman said.

    In response to a request by DOJ attorney James J. Gilligan for more time, Leon showed no patience.

    “We work 24/7 around this courthouse, my friend,” Leon explained to Gilligan. “Twenty-four/seven. I don’t want to hear anything about vacations, weddings, days off. Forget about it. This is a case at the pinnacle of public national interest, pinnacle. All hands 24/7. No excuses.”

    When Gilligan argued the court would be better served if the government had a chance to fully prepare arguments, Leon pointed out that the case had been filed four months earlier.

    “You have had, not you personally, the Department of Justice, the NSA and the allied government agencies that have an interest in this, have had four months to think through its position,” Leon responded. “That’s a lot of time, Mr. Gilligan. I am sad to say I don’t believe or assume that they worked seven days a week for four months. I wish it were true, but I am sure it isn’t.”

    Leon was not sympathetic to the government’s suggestion the case turned on classified information.

    “I don’t know to what extent the government’s position is going to be based on classified information,” Leon explained. “I have no idea, but obviously if it is going to be in whole or in part based on classified information, then we have to start figuring out people getting clearances.”

    In granting Klayman an order for an injunction against the NSA, Leon indicated a stay pending appeal was appropriate because of the national security interests the government was asserting in the case.

    At the same time, Leon ordered the government to act quickly in appealing his decision and to be prepared to obey the injunction immediately should the government lose the appeal.

    “However, in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues, I will stay my order pending appeal,” Leon wrote in his decision.

    “In doing so, I hereby give the government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld, this ruling will go into effect forthwith,” he said. “Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the government will take whatever steps necessary to prepare itself to comply with this order when, and if, it is upheld. Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/nsa-slayer-goes-on-obama-impeachment-hunt/#QZDmEzpFvDT9lxe5.99

  • Washington’s New Islamic Front: Expanded U.S. Support to Al Qaeda Rebels in Syria

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky - Global Research - December 15, 2013

    From the outset, the Western military alliance has (covertly) supported the terrorists with a view to destabilizing Syria as a nation state.

    Lest we forget, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA.

    The US, NATO, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have channeled most of their support to the Al Qaeda brigades, which are also integrated by Western Special Forces.

    British and French Special Forces have been actively training opposition rebels from a base in Turkey.

    Israel has provided a safe have to Al Qaeda affiliated rebels in the occupied Golan Heights.

    Western special forces have been training the rebels in the use of chemical weapons in Jordan.

    NATO and the Turkish High command have been involved in the development of a jihad involving the recruitment of thousands of “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of the enlistment of the Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (Debkafile, August 31, 2011). Debka, August 2011 emphasis added)

    This is a war of aggression. It is not a civil war.

    The New Islamic Front

    The Al Qaeda fighters integrated by mercenaries, trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar constitute the mainstay of so-called opposition forces, which have been involved in countless atrocities and terrorist acts directed against the civilian population from the outset in March 2011.

    The existence of “more moderate opposition brigades” supported by the West is a myth. They exist in name, they do not constitute a meaningful military force. They are not the object of significant support by their Western handlers, who prefer to channel their aid to the Al Qaeda affiliated brigades.

    The FSA and its Supreme Military Command essentially serve as a front organization. The SMC under the helm of General Salim Idriss has largely been used to channel support to the terrorists.

    In recent developments, fighting has broke out between the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels covertly supported by the West and the more moderate FSA brigades, officially supported by the West.

    Having “expressed their concern”, US officials have announced the holding of talks with the rebel commanders of the New Islamic Front (created in November).

    The objective, however, is not to mediate between opposing factions. What is contemplated are new procedures for channeling support to the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, through the newly created Islamic Front umbrella organization.


    The New Islamic Front regroups six or seven major rebel entities, including the former Syrian Islamic Front ( الجبهة الإسلامية السورية‎ al-Jabhah al-Islāmiyya as-Sūriyyah) which constituted a Salafist umbrella organisation. The Salafist Ahrar al-Sham was the lead entity of the (defunct) SIF. The latter has been disbanded and integrated (under a new label) into the New Islamic Front, which is working hand in glove with Washington.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    The expected contacts between Washington and the radical fighters reflect the extent to which the [New] Islamic Front alliance has eclipsed the more moderate Free Syrian Army brigades — which Western and Arab powers tried in vain to build into a force able to topple President Bashar Al Assad. The talks could also decide the future direction of the Islamic Front, which is engaged in a standoff with yet more radical Sunni Muslim fighters from the Al Qaeda-linked Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

    A rebel fighter with the Islamic Front said he expected the talks in Turkey to discuss whether the United States would help arm the front and assign to it responsibility for maintaining order in the rebel-held areas of northern Syria.

    The Islamic Front rebel told reporters that rivalry with the ISIL had already led to a spate of hostage-taking between the two sides, and that the Front’s decision to talk to the Americans had further escalated tension. Although he described the two Islamist forces as ideologically close, he said ISIL appeared set on confrontation, perhaps encouraged by some of their backers in Saudi Arabia. (Gulf Today, December 13, 2013)
    -------------------------------------------------------

    Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Stephen Ford has been involved in negotiations with the Islamic Front. Ford had established contact with New Islamic Front leaders in November.

    The involvement of Ambassador Ford should come as no surprise. He was one of the main architects of the death squad brigades sent into Syria, starting in March 2011. He has, no doubt, been in permanent liaison with Al Qaeda rebel commanders from the outset of the insurgency.

    Robert S. Ford had previously worked at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) under the helm of Ambassador John D. Negroponte. He played a key role in implementing the Pentagon’s “Iraq Salvador Option”. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modeled on the experience of Central America. With regard to Syria, the US State Department has been collaborating with several US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon is overseeing US support to rebel forces in Syria.


    A Syria policy committee was created in 2012. It involved the participation of Ambassador Robert Stephen Ford, former CIA director David Petraeus, Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Derek Chollet, Principal Deputy Director of Clinton’s Policy Planning Staff at the State Department.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Under Jeffrey Feltman’s supervision, the actual recruitment of terrorist mercenaries, however, is carried out in Qatar and Saudi Arabia in liaison with senior intelligence officials from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Libya and NATO. The former Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar, who remains a key member of Saudi intelligence, is said to be working with the Feltman group in Doha. (Michel Chossudovsky, “The Salvador Option For Syria”: US-NATO Sponsored Death Squads Integrate “Opposition Forces”, Global Research, 28 May 2012)
    -------------------------------------------------------

    Expanded US Support to Al Qaeda Affiliated Rebels in Syria

    What the US and its allies are establishing are new effective “direct channels” for increasing their support to their Al Qaeda foot soldiers, essentially using the new Islamic Front as a “Go Between”. This procedure is contemplated following the apparent demise of the Supreme Military Command of the FSA.

    Until recently US and allied support to Al Qaeda was channeled to the rebels through an indirect route, namely through Supreme military Command (SMC) commander General Salim Idriss.

    General Idriss is reported to have fled Syria for Doha, “as a result of the Islamic Front taking over his headquarters.” The takeover of SMC headquarters has, according to reports

    “prompted the United States and Britain to announce [December 11] that they were suspending non-lethal aid to northern Syria, due to fears of equipment ending up in the wrong hands.”

    This again is a smokescreen: the New Islamic Front which attacked the SMC headquarters is working in close liaison with its Western handlers including Ambassador Robert Stephen Ford.

    Washington intends to use the Islamic Front to channel its support to the more radical Al Qaeda factions including Al Nusrah which, according to reports, has established ties to the New Islamic Front.


    The Obama Administration has committed itself to “an expanded Syrian insurgency that includes the recently-formed Islamic Front”:
    -------------------------------------------------------
    The Front has been pressing for inclusion in the SMC, and wants to be represented at the Geneva talks, according to rebel commanders. … Ex-Ambassador Ford is traveling to London on Friday to meet other international backers of the opposition, and then to Turkey for discussions with the Syrian National Coalition. He may also meet there with the Islamic Front, said the senior official. (EA World View, December 13, 2013
    -------------------------------------------------------

    The propaganda ploy is to portray the new Islamic Front as “moderate”. With the FSA Supreme Military Command in disarray, Washington’s objective is to provide a semblance of legitimacy to the insurrection largely integrated by the Western military alliance’s Al Qaeda foot soldiers.

    The creation of a pro-US Islamic Front serves that purpose, namely to channel money and weapons directly to the rebels via the new Islamic Front umbrella organization.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-new-islamic-front-expanded-u-s-support-to-al-qaeda-rebels-in-syria/5361660

  • Don’t be Fooled by Mainstream Media Journalists, “Independent” Experts and the CIA

    By Julie Lévesque - Global Research - December 17, 2013

    Image: Anthony Freda

    “Under CIA manipulation, direction and, usually, their payroll, were past and present presidents of Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay and Costa Rica, “our minister of labor”, “our vice-president”, “my police”, journalists, labor leaders, student leaders, diplomats, and many others. If the Agency wished to disseminate anti-communist propaganda, cause dissension in leftist ranks, or have Communist embassy personnel expelled, it need only prepare some phony documents, present them to the appropriate government ministers and journalists, and – presto! – instant scandal.” (William Blum, CIA Manipulation: The Painful Truths Told by Phil Agee, Anti-Empire Report 27 June 2013)

    Independent media outlets are increasingly challenging the powers that be and, thanks to social media, the truth about what is really happening in our world can be shared at the click of a button.

    Sadly, the imperial war machine continues to rear its violent head in exponential proportion under the guise of democracy and “War on Terrorism”.

    This war machine is promoted by the mainstream media who cannot be trusted for many reasons. It is a well documented fact that the CIA has used journalism as a cover for its agents and has planted stories in the media.

    According to CIA documents, “more than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency“, wrote Carl Bernstein in 1977.

    In this episode of Alternative views, former CIA agent John Stockwell explains “how CIA ‘disinformation’ tactics manipulate public opinion by planting stories in the press and by financing and supporting right-wing newspapers“.

    Planting stories in the media is a standard CIA technique:

    A common Agency tactic was writing editorials and phony news stories to be knowingly published by Latin American media with no indication of the CIA authorship or CIA payment to the media. The propaganda value of such a “news” item might be multiplied by being picked up by other CIA stations in Latin America who would disseminate it through a CIA-owned news agency or a CIA-owned radio station. Some of these stories made their way back to the United States to be read or heard by unknowing North Americans. (Blum, op. cit.)

    Moreover several journalists are members of the very influential foreign policy think tank Council on Foreign Relations, which has among its corporate members:

    1. Major financial institutions such as:

    Bank of America Merrill Lynch

    Citi

    Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co

    The Nasdaq OMX Group

    2. All the companies part of what is known as Big Oil:

    BP p.l.c.

    Chevron Corporation

    ConocoPhillips Company

    Exxon Mobil Corporation

    Shell Oil Company

    TOTAL S.A.

    3. Major defense and security contractors which largely rely on military sales (figures from SIPRI) and government subsidies, among others:

    DynCorp International (70% of revenues from military sales in 2011)

    Lockheed Martin Corporation (78% of revenues from military sales in 2011)

    Northrop Grumman (81% of revenues from military sales in 2011)

    Raytheon Company (90% of revenues from military sales in 2011)

    Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (99% of revenues from federal government)

    In addition, mainstream media experts on foreign policy issues are often linked to the military-industrial complex and are very often presented as ”independent”.

    During the public debate around the question of whether to attack Syria, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to George W. Bush, made a series of high-profile media appearances. Hadley argued strenuously for military intervention in appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg TV, and authored a Washington Post op-ed headlined “To stop Iran, Obama must enforce red lines with Assad.”

    In each case, Hadley’s audience was not informed that he serves as a director of Raytheon, the weapons manufacturer that makes the Tomahawk cruise missiles that were widely cited as a weapon of choice in a potential strike against Syria. Hadley earns $128,500 in annual cash compensation from the company and chairs its public affairs committee. He also owns 11,477 shares of Raytheon stock, which traded at all-time highs during the Syria debate ($77.65 on August 23, making Hadley’s share’s worth $891,189). Despite this financial stake, Hadley was presented to his audience as an experienced, independent national security expert. (Public Accountability, War or No War on Syria: Conflict of Interest of “Experts” who Commented in Favor of Military Intervention, October 15, 2013)

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/dont-be-fooled-by-mainstream-media-journalists-independent-experts-and-the-cia/5361986

  • Forbes Editorial Demands Obama’s Impeachment… and Goes Viral

    As Bob Dylan sung, “Times, they are a changin’.” Everything is collapsing around on Obama, and that’s something to be thankful for. The more people distrust him, then the less likely he is to get new policies passed, meaning the Republic gets a little more breathing room.

    Just recently, Forbes magazine published an open editorial on their website explaining why Obama’s rejection and constant violation should lead to his impeachment and removal from office. It went viral.

    Many patriots are tired of “just talk”, but this talk is absolutely vital: movements begin with words, and right now, we have to give as much attention to those pushing for impeachment as possible.

    Obama's Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic - Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance.

    The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.

    By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.

    The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?

    The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).

    Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class,” he has said. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.” There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.

    If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe.


    Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated Supreme Court Justices sitting helplessly before him during the 2010 State of the Union address—Justices who had not expected to be denounced and who were prevented by the occasion from defending themselves. Mr. Obama condemned them for restoring freedom of speech to corporations and unions.

    Ignoring two centuries of practice, President Obama made four recess appointments in January 2012, when the Senate was not in recess. Three courts have found that his appointments were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case. If the Supreme Court finds against him, what will Mr. Obama do?

    We can get a hint by looking at how other parts of his Administration have dealt with Court decisions they did not like.

    The Attorney General’s Office is the branch of government charged with enforcing federal laws. After the Supreme Court struck down the key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Attorney General Holder announced that he would use other provisions of the act to get around the Court’s decision.

    The Supreme Court has defined the standard for sexual harassment as “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” behavior to a “reasonable person.” In open defiance of that ruling, the Obama Department of Education has declared a new definition of sexual harassment for colleges, that is, “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct,” even if it is not objectively offensive—thus reinforcing the reign of terror over sex on college campuses. If a young man’s request for a date turns out to be unwelcome, he is guilty of sexual harassment by definition.

    The lack of respect for the Supreme Court by the Obama administration is manifest. They feel bound by the Court’s decisions only if they agree with them. If they disagree, it is deuces wild; they will embrace any fiction that nullifies the Court’s decision.

    The direction in which Mr. Obama is taking us would make possible the following scenario. A Republican Congress is elected and repeals Obamacare over a Democratic President’s veto. The President refuses to enforce the repeal. The Supreme Court rules that the President’s refusal is unconstitutional. The President denounces that ruling and refuses to be bound by it.

    If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, the denouement would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces. Whatever side that was, our national self-esteem would be unlikely to recover from the blow of finding that we are living in a banana republic.

    The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?

    Mr. Obama is moving our government away from its traditional system of checks and balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries. He has said that he wants a fair country—implying that, as it stands, the United States is not a fair country—an unprecedented calumny committed against a country by its own leader.

    What country does he think is more fair than the United States? He has three long years left in which to turn us into a fair country. Where does he intend to take us?

    Mr. Obama got his conception of a fair country from his teachers. A fair country is an unfree country because it is regimented to prevent anyone from rising too high. Their ideal is egalitarianism, the notion that no one should be any better, higher, or richer than anyone else. Combined with a dollop of totalitarianism, egalitarianism has replaced communism as the dominant ideal in our most prestigious universities. Mr. Obama and his colleagues are the product of those universities, and they have their marching orders.

    The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.


    Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take—actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.

    At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government had been created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”

    We are losing it. If Mr. Obama’s reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that will be the end. Everyone who values his life and liberty should find some way to say “No!” “Not now!” “Not yet!” “Not ever!”

    M. Northrup Buechner is Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University, New York. http://onforb.es/1kNA2as

  • Media PsyWar: A Short History of the Battle for the Mind

    June 24, 2013 | By Adrian Salbuchi, New Dawn/Waking Times

    As with all totalitarian regimes, the black/white or the good/bad Baby Bush “You’re either with us or you’re with the Terrorists” – binary rhetoric lies at the heart of the Global Power Elite’s PsyWar technology.

    In 2004, Denis Boneau, a French journalist writing for the Voltaire Network, published an article called “The Science of World Domination” (www.voltairenet.org/The-Science-of-World-Domination), making an excellent summary of key milestones in the development of the United States’ post-World War II Global Psychological Warfare Strategy.

    He starts by describing the Truman Doctrine of “Containment” of the former Soviet Union that was based on the so-called “long telegram” sent to the State Department in 1946 by an advisor in the US embassy in Moscow – and key Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) scholar – George S. Kennan.

    Shortly afterwards, Kennan was called back to the US to brief his superiors more fully and his recommendations were finally published in the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the CFR, as “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.” This became known as the “X” article because that’s how Kennan signed it, as there was still heated debated as to whether it would become official US foreign policy.

    It did. With his highly influential article, Kennan gave birth to the US policy of “Containment” of the Soviet Union which consisted in blocking the expansion of communism through the control of national emancipationist movements that could lead to greater power to pro-socialist or nationalist leaders.

    As official policy, “Containment” required the collaboration of experts capable of providing geographical, economic, cultural, psychological and sociological data useful to the US Armed Forces and the intelligence community, working very closely with key think tanks like the CFR.

    Thus began the Cold War which Kennan and the US Government believed would give the United States a historic opportunity to assume leadership over what they would eventually describe as the “Free World.” With time, as the Global Power Elite became more deeply embedded inside the US and British public and private power structures (and that of their key allies), that “leadership” would end up encompassing practically the whole planet.

    In a way, one can say that the CFR in conjunction with other think-tank and university scholars – George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Leo Strauss, Zbigniew Brzezinski included – single-handedly started and macro-managed last century’s forty-five year long Cold War.

    As part of that global strategy, 1947 also saw the Truman Administration sanction the National Security Act which, amongst other things, created the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tasked with designing, planning and executing “propaganda, economic war, direct preventive action, sabotage, anti-sabotage, destruction, subversion against hostile States, assistance to clandestine liberation movements, guerrilla, murders, assistance to indigenous groups opposed to the enemy countries of the ‘free world’…”

    What is Psychological Warfare?

    Boneau defines Psychological Warfare (PsyWar) as a number of actions ranging from radio propaganda to torture, that require comprehensive information on targeted populations. In a document written in 1948, American ground forces defined “psychological warfare” as follows:

    “It is based on moral and physical means different from those upon which orthodox military techniques are based on. Its purpose is: (a) To destroy the will and the fighting spirit of the enemy and avoid its allies’ support and, (b) To encourage our troops and our allies’ will of being victorious.”

    PsyWar uses every possible weapon and tool to influence and impact the will of the enemy. Such “weapons” are labelled “psychological” because of their effect and not because of their own nature. This is the reason why, open propaganda (“white”), secret (“black”) or “grey” propaganda – subversion, sabotage, murders, special operations, guerrilla, espionage, political, economic and racial and ethnic pressures – are all considered useful PsyWar weapons.

    To implement such programs, the intelligence services recruited specialists on behavioural sciences capable of inventing the “simple, clear and repetitive” white propaganda and black propaganda aimed at provoking “disorder, confusion and… terror” within the enemy forces.

    We thus begin to fathom that the so-called “Arab Spring” of today did not just suddenly and spontaneously explode in 2011, but was rather hatched from an “egg” laid decades ago and brooded by the secret intelligence agencies.

    “White” Propaganda

    This began in the 40’s and 50’s with Project Troy that mobilised top scholars to identify available means of transmitting the “truth” (i.e., US propaganda) behind the Iron Curtain through powerful radio transmitters like the Voice of America, the broadcasting network created by the International Information Service (IIS), another PsyWar institution created under the Truman Administration.

    Voice of America was used to promote US “values” of so-called “democracy,” the “American Way of Life,” “freedom” and Corporate Capitalism. A key leader of Project Troy was James Webb, adviser to Secretary of State Dean Acheson and a “psychological warfare” operative who recommended university experts and the government to work closer.

    They soon realised, however, that Voice of America was not enough to penetrate the Iron Curtain and supported by the US Navy and the CIA, they suggested other channels to implement “white” propaganda: university exchanges, publications of books, information through the mail, professional journals, commerce and industrial publications.

    Truman also created the Psychological Strategy Board encouraging studies of “Soviet society” through a program of recruiting dissidents called Project CENIS – Centre for International Studies – at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) directed by CFR operative Max Millikan.

    This worked so well that in 1950 the US Air Force commissioned and funded similar research on the Korean population. Wilbur Schramm, the founding father of the mass communication paradigm, John Ridley and Fredericks Williams were given the mission of interviewing anti-communist refugees to draw up a suitable propaganda strategy on Korea. The study also resulted in the establishment of the “Public Opinion Quarterly” (POQ), the official magazine of “psychological warfare” community.

    In the 1963 Project Camelot was created that defined process models leading to national revolutions in Third World countries to facilitate counter-insurgence operations. Camelot is a good example of the strengthening ties between behavioural scholars and the US Intelligence community (i.e., intel services, universities, major corporations, think-tanks and the Military). It facilitated interventions in Yemen, Cuba and the Congo, and helped foresee and prevent the risk of revolution.

    In Chile, operating through the Special Operations Research Office (SORO), Project Camelot supported CIA plans to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende imposing General Augusto Pinochet’s military junta on Chile on 11 September 1973.

    Psychological Warfare Strategy development also counted on key universities dealing in Communication Sciences to develop the “mass communication” paradigm financed by the US Military, the CIA and the State Department. This led to effective propaganda used to penetrate the Iron Curtain through different means, including leaflets and broadcasting. The discipline’s field of study was wide: persuasion techniques, opinion polls, interviews, military and political mobilisations, ideological dissemination…

    They have now come a long way thanks to dramatic breakthroughs in communications and information technologies, where propaganda and PsyWar have to a great extent been outsourced and privatised. Today, their main PsyWar weapons include TV, radio, press and internet outlets such as Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, New York Times, Newsweek, BBC, RTVE, RAI, Time, Daily Telegraph, Sun, Mirror, Daily News, Reuters, Jerusalem Post and their global subsidiaries and dependants.

    Most importantly, this process also encompasses that key arm of social engineering and thought deformation known as the “entertainment industry” with Hollywood as its main hub and flagship.

    Dirty Tricks Departments

    From the very beginning, torture was considered a research field in social sciences. During the Korean War, the BSSR (main “black” propaganda research centre) was charged with carrying out studies for the Army to identify Eastern Europe population’s “vulnerability targets and factors” while defining different “aspects of psychological violence.” BSSR reported on the effects of traditional interrogation techniques – electric shocks, blows, drugs – all funded in part by the CIA, especially on the populations of Viet Nam and Africa, geared at improving torture effectiveness.

    The paradigm of mass communication was inserted in a broader intellectual plan consisting in the division of the world map based on the American strategists’ logic. The patriarch of this discipline, Wilbur Schramm (as did Leo Strauss), offered a perspective of this reductionist dimension of communication sciences based on the “good guys/bad guys” antagonism, where communism symbolised “Evil” and America symbolised “Good.” This was shared by the majority of the intellectuals and scientists supporting the US government in its fight against Soviet expansionism where neutrality was considered treason.

    In 2001, the Bush Administration reactivated these Cold War mechanisms, not to fight the Soviet Union but to impose a “New World Order.” Since 11 September 2001, the excuse for this reactivation is “The War on Terror.” Once again the intelligence community turned to universities: the CIA’s director of scientific research, John Philips, took control of the Rochester Institute of Technology; Michael Crawl, deputy director of the CIA’s joint economic association in the computer sector was appointed dean of the University of Arizona, and Robert Gates (former CIA director under Bush Senior) before becoming Bush/Obama’s Pentagon Chief was president of Texas A&M University.

    Alas! Nothing new under the sun…

    If you appreciated this article, please consider a digital subscription to New Dawn.

    About the Author

    ADRIAN SALBUCHI is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio talk-show host in Argentina. He has published several books on geopolitics and economics in Spanish, and recently published his first eBook in English: The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope? which can be ordered through his web site www.asalbuchi.com.ar, or details can be requested by E-mail to arsalbuchi@gmail.com. Salbuchi is 58 years of age, married, with four adult children, and works as strategic consultant for domestic and international companies. He is also founder of the Second Republic Project in Argentina, which is expanding internationally (visit: www.secondrepublicproject.com).

    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/06/24/psywar-a-short-history-of-the-battle-for-the-mind/

  • U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

    BY John Hudson - JULY 15, 2013 - TheCable

    For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?

    Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It's viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.

    The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright's amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."

    Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn't be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public's last defense against domestic propaganda?
    BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA "present fair and accurate news."

    "They don't shy away from stories that don't shed the best light on the United States," she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: "Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate."

    A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for news," the source said, "word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia."

    This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota's significant Somali expat community. "Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn't get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia," the source said. "It was silly."

    Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. "Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars -- greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.

    But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon's top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, the Washington Post exposed a counter-propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing al-Shabab. "Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership," reported the Post.

    But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.

    One example included a report by the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the "R" bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)

    But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. "To me, it's a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico's Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another," Thornberry told The Cable last May. "And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire."

    That of course doesn't leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won't be a complete mystery to Americans. "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff," the former U.S. official told The Cable. "Now we'll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we'll know now."

    Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr5736ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr5736ih.pdf

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/12/us_backs_off_propaganda_ban_spreads_government_made_news_to_americans#sthash.3OSiZLf6.dpuf

  • OBAMA: EVERYBODY HATES ME!!!

    Published on: December 12, 2013 by NATIONAL ENQUIRER

    AS his popularity plummets to historic lows and his presidential legacy is in tatters, BARACK OBAMA has suffered a shocking secret meltdown.

    White House insiders say the deeply depressed Commander-in-Chief is hardly eating or sleeping, hasn’t talked to First Lady Michelle, 49, in weeks and is convinced everyone hates him!

    “Barack is shattered that his presidency and his life are in free-fall,” says a source.

    “He can’t believe the American public has turned on him so viciously, mainly because of the Obamacare disaster. No one has been able to help him.

    “Michelle has tried everything she can to comfort him, but he just snaps, ‘Go away. Leave me alone.’

    “Barack watches news reports, reads the papers and sees the shocking poll results – and he loses it.

    “When he saw one report that his approval rating had plummeted to a staggeringly low 37 percent, he had a total meltdown.

    “He buried his head in his hands, saying, ‘Everybody hates me.’ When he raised his head, his eyes were glistening with tears.

    “He’s lost the confidence and affection of the public that he so desperately needs to go on with the hardest job in the world.

    A recent CBS poll said the 52-year-old President has a lower job approval rating than Toronto Mayor Rob Ford – who admitted to smoking crack and is still five points HIGHER than Obama!

    “That was the last straw for Barack,” says the insider. “He was mortified and humiliated.”

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/obama-everybody-hates-me

  • Secret Obamacare handbook the feds don’t want you to see is online

    By Tori Richards / December 13, 2013 / Watchdog.org

    A confidential training manual for Obamacare navigators that threatens prosecution for unauthorized dissemination is on the Internet for the world to see.

    The 217-page manual reads like a primer for Amway or novice car salesmen, offering sales advice on how to disarm potential customers who could be lured into purchasing insurance through exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act.

    Section headers include “Smile: Maintain a Positive Demeanor,” “Make the Customers Feel Welcome,” “Listen” and — in what must now seem ironic given Barack Obama’s troubles with over-promising — “Build Trust: Be True to Your Word.”

    The handbook also delves into the more serious topics of “Identifying Personally Identifiable Information,” “IRS Data Safeguards” and “Preventing Fraud.”

    Nothing in the manual seems to rise to the level of a state secret — raising questions about why the federal government felt it necessary to classify information that has no reason to be classified.

    “It’s a conditioned reflex aimed at preventing agency embarrassment,” said Chris Farrell, a director with Judicial Watch, a nonprofit aimed at rooting out secret government documents. “The federal government routinely overclassifies documents and withholds information the public is owed.”

    Farrell said the most ludicrous example he encountered happened after 9/11.

    “An egregious example that comes to mind is the FBI redacting the name of Osama bin Laden from press reports, and then saying they were protecting his privacy,” Farrell said.

    The Department of Health and Human Services hasn’t encountered issues as death-defying as the FBI, but still takes its “confidential” information just as seriously. A disclaimer at the bottom of each page of the manual is headlined in bold: “INFORMATION NOT RELEASABLE TO THE PUBLIC UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.”

    “This information has not been publicly disclosed and may be privileged and confidential,” the warning reads. “It is for internal government use only and must not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive the information. Unauthorized disclosure may result in prosecution to the full extent of the law.”

    A New Jersey woman who stumbled upon the document was so alarmed that she called the feds to report it. But her concerns fell on deaf ears.

    “I immediately sent an email through the White House web site that these documents are on the web for all to see. I got no response,” said Tammy Duffy, a radiation health physicist who was signing up for Obamacare. “I also called the White House yesterday and spoke to a volunteer (and said) these restricted documents are on web. I have heard from no one. I also sent it to a friend who works at the Department of Defense and said, ‘Get this taken down.’ It’s still up there.”

    Duffy first learned of the document when she was talking to Obamacare navigators who referred to the manual online because they could not answer her questions regarding coverage for a self-employed person.

    “I asked the nice ladies for a copy and they said I could not have it because it was a government document not for the public,” Duffy said. “So I thought maybe there is an outline or shorter version that is for the public. I went to Google and typed in ‘healthcare insurance marketplace navigator SOP.’”

    To her surprise, the document popped up. She found other training materials as well.

    Labeling the manual “confidential” just makes the feds look silly — something they should be used to, Farrell said.

    “They are their own worst enemy,” he added.

    Affordable Care Act Manual:
    http://www.healthreformgps.org/wp-content/uploads/navigator-SOP-manual-8-26.pdf

    http://watchdog.org/120332/secret-obamacare-handbook-feds-dont-want-see-online/

  • Second release of secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement documents - WikiLeaks

    Second release of secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement documents - WikiLeaks 09 Dec 2013 On 13 November 2013

    WikiLeaks released the draft text of the crucial Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Intellectual Property chapter during the lead-up to a TPP chief negotiators' meeting in Salt Lake City on 19-24 November 2013. Today, 9 December 2013, WikiLeaks has released two more secret TPP documents that show the state of negotiations as the twelve TPP countries began supposedly final negotiations at a trade ministers' meeting in Singapore this week. .
    One document describes deep divisions between the United States and other nations, and "great pressure" being exerted by the US negotiators to move other nations to their position. The other document lists, country-by-country, the many areas of disagreement remaining. It covers intellectual property and thirteen other chapters of the draft agreement. This suggests that the TPP negotiations can only be concluded if the Asia-Pacific countries back down on key national interest issues, otherwise the treaty will fail altogether.

    See: TPP Salt Lake Extracts
    http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/tpp-salt-lake-extracts-.pdf
    and
    TPP Salt Lake Positions
    http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/tpp-salt-lake-positions.pdf

    http://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html

  • Bush, Rockefeller, Rothschild & Hitler

    By Michael Collins Piper - January 23, 2013 - AFP

    Some readers were upset by the first two articles in this series reflecting on the proliferation of myths, phony documents and fraudulent “quotations” muddying serious research into big issues of the day and events of the past. However, our job is to report the facts.

    This week, we take a look at one particularly ubiquitous myth—a combination of myths—which has excited many: A variety of claims the Bush, Rockefeller and Rothschild families and a host of “Jewish bankers”—together or independently—helped finance Hitler’s rise to power.

    The most cited source for the story Jewish bankers paved the way for Hitler is Hitler’s Secret Backers, supposedly by a Jewish banker named Sidney Warburg.

    First of all, there was no Sidney Warburg. But those who actually read the spurious book (and most who cite it haven’t read it) will find the unknown author says—in contrast to what people think he said—that Jewish bankers didn’t finance Hitler. Instead, the book claims some naughty non-Jewish bankers did so.

    But even that isn’t true. An accurate assessment by James Pool in Who Financed Hitler absolutely refutes the legend big banking or industrial interests played a substantial role funding Hitler. Most of the Nazi Party’s money came from small contributions and sales of literature.

    No Rothschilds backed Hitler. That’s a myth. One banker, a practicing Christian of one-quarter Jewish descent, was said—by one source, passing on a rumor—to have donated money to Hitler. And that’s it. The one Jewish banker known to have given money to any Nazis gave it to elements in the Nazi party—the Strasser brothers—who were trying to stop Hitler.

    And Hitler wasn’t descended from any Rothschilds or Frankenbergers. If he had any Jewish blood, it has never been authoritatively traced.

    One proponent of the claim Hitler was Jewish cites Brigitte Hamann’s Hitler’s Vienna as proof, pointing out the book describes stories of Hitler’s Jewish heritage. In fact, Hamann dissects the legends, refuting them in detail. Scholars such as Carolyn Yeager and Veronica Clark, in Warwolves of the Iron Cross, have also demolished the rumors.

    Some claim Hitler was pro-Zionist. They are wrong. For a brief period Hitler did encourage some Zionists in efforts to promote Jewish immigration from Germany to Palestine, as described in Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement. However, at the same time, other Zionist forces were calling for war against Hitler as early as 1933.

    The legendary “Nazi-Zionist collaboration” was a tiny blip of no geopolitical consequence. But it makes for great Internet chatter.

    Others are hysterical over the fact American banks and corporations worked with the Nazi regime, yet—despite the frenzy—this is neither a major revelation nor is it extraordinary.

    These were well-known arrangements, sometimes going back decades, with whatever German government was in power.

    Many think that Antony Sutton “proved” in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler that Rockefeller-controlled Standard Oil funded Hitler. However, in his book, Sutton says flatly: “Standard Oil apparently did not finance Hitler’s accession to power.”

    Some cite that same book as evidence the Bush family, with the Harriman banking interests, funded Hitler. In fact, Sutton says only that the Harrimans—like many American financial groups—had connections to corporate interests in Germany. And he concludes that this “does not suggest that the Harrimans directly financed Hitler.” He never mentions the Bushes at all.

    Another rumor claims the Bushes were part of a “fascist plot” to overthrow Franklin Roosevelt, often citing Jules Archer’s The Plot to Seize the White House. While there was a scheme to dislodge FDR—which many patriots believe to have been a good thing—the book never mentions the Bushes, nor is there any other evidence they had anything to do with that plot.

    As Detective Sergeant Joe Friday used to say: “Just the facts.”

    http://americanfreepress.net/?p=8153#sthash.J3hMF1Nc.dpuf

    The Bush Family's British Fascism, How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

    Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president

    George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
    The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

    His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

    The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

    Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

    While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

    http://szaboservices.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-bushs-grandfather-helped-hitlers.html

  • RED CROSS EXPOSES “JEWISH” HOLOCAUST HOAX: INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS (IRC) DOCUMENT CONFIRMS 271 THOUSAND NOT 6 MILLION DIED IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS

    …………
    Official International Red Cross Records Released
    Sealed And Guarded Since The End Of WWII At Arolsen, Germany,
    The Official IRC Records Reveal The Actual Concentration Camp Total Death Toll Was 271,301
    http://monamontgomery.com/products/271304.htm

    JUNE 4, 2012 BY ADMIN
    The Great Jewish Lie Holocaust Truth Exposed [ Re-Post ]

    OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS RECORDS RELEASED
    Sealed and guarded since the end of WWII at Arolsen, Germany, the Official IRC records reveal the actual Concentration Camp total death toll was 271,301

    For years, people around the world – “the West” in particular – have been told that “six million Jews were systematically murdered by Germans in ‘Concentration Camps’ during World War 2.”
    Thousands of honest people disputing this claim have been viciously smeared as a hateful anti-Semite. Several countries around the world have jailed and heavily fined people for disputing the claim that “6 Million” Jews were killed.

    Provided here is a scanned image of an Official International Red Cross document, proving the so-called “Holocaust” [the long-and-often-claimed-6-million Jews] is just plain wrong. Jews around the world have intentionally exaggerated and perpetually lied for the purpose of gaining political, emotional and business advantages for themselves.

    They committed willful, criminal FRAUD upon millions of trusting people around the world!
    Please NOTE that the truth has been known since long before 1979!!! The above compiler, replying to a letter, had to rely on information that was already in existence!!!

    Tax-payers of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Latvia, Poland and other nations have had multiple Millions of dollars taken from their wages to be paid out to “holocaust survivors” and their descendants for something that DID NOT HAPPEN.

    The tax-payers of these United States of America spend Billion$ each year in direct, indirect and military support of the State of Israel (which is not Biblical Israel).

    This is intentional, criminal fraud on a scale so massive as to be almost incomprehensible.
    Red Cross and East German government figures put the total deaths at every camp as 272.000, and 282,000 respectively which includes homosexuals, communists, gypsies, murderers, paedophiles etc. The 6 Million figure is a Kabbalist number, a magickal figure which featured in news papers in the early 1900′s

    Where do the innocent Germans, Americans and others go to get a refund?
    I call for criminal prosecution of individuals and groups who filed false lawsuits to obtain holocaust reparations and financial damage awards and perpetrating deliberate fraud upon Courts.
    I call for the removal of Holocaust references in History books and educational materials.
    I call for the removal of Holocaust Memorials worldwide.

    It is long overdue that this intentional fraud be halted and those who perpetrated it be brought to justice for over 60 years of National Blood Libel against Germany and other nations through vicious lies and financial fraud.

    Two of the most important surveys of the Jewish question in Europe during World War II are David Irvings examination of the Russian archives after the wall came down. Irving published his findings in his book, “Hitler’s War” and said not one word about gas chambers.

    When question about this omission he said that there was no reference to gas chambers in the archives and therefore he did not discuss the question of gas chambers. Irving was arrested in several countries for hate speech for his scholarly omission.

    The International Red Cross published their analysis in a three volume “Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War” published in Geneva in 1948. This analysis expanded findings of two previous publications: “Sur L’activite’ du CICR en faveur des civils detencus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939-1945 (Geneva, 1946) and “Inter Arma Caritas: The Work of the ICRF during the Second World War” (Geneva, 1947).
    In 1949 the International Red Cross interviewed prisoners in the German camps. They were not allowed to interview prisoners in the Russian camps which were far more harsh.

    The German camps held both political prisoners (Schutzhaflinge) and those convicted of crimes. The Germans allowed the Red Cross to distribute food, medicine and clothing to the prisoners.
    Grateful prisoners sent letters of thanks from Dachau, Buchenwalk, Sangerhausen, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Landsberg-am-Lech, Fibha, Ravensbruck, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and others.

    “The principal recipients were Belgians, Dutch, French, Greeks, Italians, Norwegians, Poles and stateless Jews” (Vol. III, p. 83).

    Regarding Theresienstadt, the Red Cross said, “”where there were about 40,000 Jews deported from various countries, was a relatively privileged ghetto” (Vol. III, p. 75).

    “The Committee’s delegates were able to visit the camp at Theresienstadt (Terezin) which was used exclusively for Jews and was governed by special conditions … From information gathered by the Commmee, this camp had been started as an experiment by certain leaders of the Reich … These men wished to give the Jews the means of setting up a communal life in a town under their own administration and possessing almost complete autonomy … two delegates were able to visit the camp on April 6, 1945.

    They confirmed the favourable impression gained on the first visit” (Vol. I, p. 642).
    The ICRC also had praise for the regime of Ion Antonescu of Fascist Rumania where the Committee was able to extend special relief to 183,000 Rumanian Jews until the time of the Soviet occupation.
    The aid then ceased and the ICRC complained bitterly that it never succeeded “in sending anything whatsoever to Russia” (Vol. II, p. 62). The same situation applied to many of the German camps after their “liberation” by the Russians.

    The ICRC received a voluminous flow of mail from Auschwitz until the period of the Soviet occupation, when many of the internees were evacuated westward. But the efforts of the Red Cross to send relief to internees remaining at Auschwitz under Soviet control were futile.
    However. food parcels continued to be sent to former Auschwitz inmates transferred west to such camps as Buchenwald and Oranienburg.

    NO MENTION OF GAS CHAMBERS
    One of the most important aspects of the Report of the ICRC is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps towards the end of the war.
    Says the Report: “in the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims.

    Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1, 1945 … In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results.

    Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp .I.” (Vol. III, p.83).

    Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able.

    The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested on March 15, 1944 against “the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies” (Inter Armet Caritns, p. 78). B
    By October 2, 1944, the ICRC had warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.

    In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatsoever of ‘gas chambers’.
    The original 1946 edition did not even talk of ‘extermination’ or ‘death camps’ but after the emotional impact of the Nuremberg trials the Red Cross felt compelled to introduce into the expanded 1948 Report several, very cursory references to ‘death camps’ (Vol. 1 p. 641) and ‘extermination camps’ (Vol. I p. 645).

    However, no means of’extermination’ is indicated.

    In all its 1,600 pages the three-volume Report does not even mention such a thing as a ‘gas chamber’. It acknowledges that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but’ its complete silence on the subject of’gassings’ is ample refutation of the ‘Holocaust’ legend.

    NOT ALL WERE INTERNED
    Volume III of the Report of the ICRC, Chapter 3 (I. Jewish Civilian Population) deals with the “aid given to the Jewish section of the free population” and this chapter makes it quite plain that by no means all of the European Jews were placed in internment camps but remained, subject to certain restrictions, as part of the free civilian population.

    This conflicts directly with the “thoroughness” of the supposed “extermination programme”, and with the claim in the forged Hoess memoirs that Eichmann was obsessed with seizing every single Jew he could lay his hands on,” In Slovakia, for example, where Eichmann’s assistant Dieter Wisliceny was in charge, the Report states that “A large proportian of the Jewish minority had permission to stay in the country, and at certain periods Slovakia was looked upon as a comparative haven of refuge for Jews, especially for those coming from Poland.

    Those who remained in Slovakia seem to have been in comparative safety until the end of August 1944, when a rising against the German forces took place. While it is true that the law of May 15, 1942 had brought about the internment of several thousand Jews, these people were held in camps where the conditions of food and lodging were tolerable, and where the internees were allowed to do paid work on terms almost equal to those of the free labour market” (Vol. I, p. 646).

    Not only did large numbers of the three million or so European Jews avoid internment altogether, but the emigration of Jews continued throughout the war, generally by way of Hungary, Rumania and Turkey. Ironically, post-war Jewish emigration from German-occupied territories was also facilitated by the Reich, as in the case of the Polish Jews who had escaped to France before its occupation.

    “The Jews from Poland who, whilst in France, had obtained entrance permits to the United States were held to be American citizens by the German occupying authorities, who further agreed to recognise the validity of about three thousand passports issued to Jews by the consulates of South American countries” (Vol. 1, p. 645).

    As future U.S. citizens, these Jews were held at the Vittel camp in southern France for American aliens. The emigration of European Jews from Hungary in particular proceeded during the war unhindered by the German authorities. “Until March 1944,” says the Red Cross Report, “Jews who had the privilege of visas for Palestine were free to leave Hungary” (Vol. 1, p. 648). Even after the replacement of the Horthy Government in 1944 (following its attempted armistice with the Soviet Union) with a government more dependent on German authority, the emigration of Jews continued.

    The Committee secured the pledges of both Britain and the United States “to give support by every means to the emigration of Jews from Hungary, ” and from the U.S. Government the ICRC received a message stating that “The Government of the United States… now specifically repeats its assurance that arrangements will be made by it for the care of all Jews who in the present circumstances are allowed to leave” (Vol. 1, p. 649).

    The Source of the six million figure is a Talmudic (Jewish Talmud) reference to a future holocaust in which six million Jews die.

    The reason why they are claiming six million deaths in Nazi camps, even though that number vastly exceeds the number of Jews in Europe at the time, is because this reference in their scripture is something they fear deeply and wish to prevent at all costs.

    The Ashkenazi Jews, which I have experience with honestly believe that prophecy is real, but can be manipulated.

    They believe that prophets see into the future, and see what was believed and said, and then write that down as much as they reveal the word of GOD.

    SO there is a group of Ashkenazi Jews who wish to make the six million figure HISTORY to prevent it from ever happening in the FUTURE by repeating this number over and over and over into the social concience, in the hope that prophets of old will also latch onto this, and report it as a factual event in the future, which would now be history.

    In other words, they believe they can lie themselves a new future. I don’t think so – I think their hardest days are ahead and one thing is certain, the genie is out of the bottle and through the word, the real truth of Fukushima may be like silly putty slowly sinking into the carpet, eventually it will be TOTALLY sunk in the carpet and nothing will get it out.

    THIS could cause the six million Jewish deaths the prophecy speaks of, and No, I do not believe they can lie their way out of it.
    Jewish Fraternity article

    http://truedemocracyparty.net/2012/06/red-cross-expose-jewish-holocaust-hoax/

  • Investigating the Saudi Government's 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disilliusionment - Sen. Graham on Reality Asserts Itself

    On RAI with Paul Jay, Senator Bob Graham explains why he persists in making the case that facts directly connect the Saudi government with 9/11 conspirators

    TheRealNews - 11-27-2013

    Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham says greater awareness of Saudi Arabia as “essentially a co-conspirator in 9/11...would change the way in which, particularly in the current milieu of events in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is being viewed” by the U.S. public.

    Saudi Arabia, an historic ally of the U.S., had put significant pressure on the Obama administration in recent months to militarily intervene in Syria, and had also attempted to derail recent U.S.-Iran rapprochement.

    Senator Graham co-chaired the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 that investigated intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. The inquiry’s final report included a 28-page chapter describing the Saudi connection to 9/11, but it was completely redacted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

    “I was stunned that the intelligence community would feel that it was a threat to national security for the American people to know who had made 9/11 financially possible,” said Senator Graham. “And I am sad to report that today, some 12 years after we submitted our report, that those 28 pages continue to be withheld from the public.”

    The investigation into 9/11 intelligence failures and the subsequent cover-up of Saudi involvement by the Bush administration led Senator Graham to question his life-long reverence of presidential authority.

    “I grew up with the idea that the president was almost a divine figure, that he was the literally the father of the country and always acted in a way that was beneficial to the mass of people in America,” said Graham. “You may have disagreements with the current occupant of the office, but the presidency itself was a benighted position deserving of your respect and worthy of your confidence.”

    “So when I got involved particularly at the national level in the U.S. Senate and saw some of the things that were happening—which were not theoretical; they were things that I was dealing with on a very day-to-day hands-on basis that were contrary to that view of what was the presidency—it was a very disillusioning experience. And maybe some of the comments that I make in the book Intelligence Matters reflect that path to disillusionment,” said Graham.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11103

  • Americans Are Finally Learning About False Flag Terror

    World Trade Center 9/11

    Posted on November 24, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

    Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:

    A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson

    Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939, and declared that the fire originated from Finland as a basis launching the Winter War four days later

    Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

    The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister

    The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligenceadmit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security”(and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special

    As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

    2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.

    And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals

    A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists

    The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing

    An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)

    Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)

    According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

    The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings


    As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.

    Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country

    Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

    United Press International reported in June 2005:

    U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
    Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians

    Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)

    At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence

    A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat

    U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

    The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists

    So Common … There’s a Name for It

    This tactic is so common that it was given a name for hundreds of years ago.

    “False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

    False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.
    The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

    Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

    Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

    Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

    “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
    - Plato
    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
    - U.S. President James Madison
    “A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
    ― Friedrich Nietzsche
    “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
    - Adolph Hitler
    “Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
    - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
    “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
    - Josef Stalin
    People Are Waking Up to False Flags

    People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war.

    More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/11/false-flag.html

  • RFK Jr. Details the Threat of a Coup From the Dulles Crowd Against His Uncle, President Kennedy

    President John F. Kennedy at work in the Oval office in 1962.
    George Tames/The New York Times

    RFK Jr. Details the Threat of a Coup From the Dulles Crowd Against His Uncle, President Kennedy

    Yesterday, on the eve of the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's murder, JFK's nephew, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has published a bombshell pointing the finger at then-CIA chief Allen Dulles.

    RFK, Jr.'s article, "John F. Kennedy's Vision of Peace," in the Dec. 5 edition of Rolling Stone, relates that "Dulles, fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs, returned to public service when LBJ appointed him to the Warren Commission, where he systematically concealed the agency's involvement in various assassination schemes and its ties to organized crime. To a young writer, he revealed his continued resentment against JFK: 'That little Kennedy... he thought he was a god.'"

    The article makes clear the continuous menace of a coup d'etat against the U.S. government posed by Dulles and his allies in the national security apparatus. This coup threat was directed against JFK's determination to pull the U.S. and Russia out of the Cold War that had trapped the U.S.A. since the end of World War II.

    The author writes that his father, Robert F. Kennedy, told the Soviet Ambassador in a secret meeting, "If the situation [Cuban Missile crisis] continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power." But the "mood in Langley was even uglier.... [It was] an insubordinate, out-of-control agency, which one top official called a 'malignancy. He doubted that 'even the White House could control it any longer.' Another warned, 'If the United States ever experiences a [coup], it will come from the CIA and not from the Pentagon.'"

    RFK, Jr. outlines the President's determination to close out the inherited colonial war in Vietnam. He writes that his father, Robert Kennedy, told Daniel Ellsberg that JFK "did not want to follow France into a war of rich against poor, white versus Asian, on the side of imperialism and colonialism against nationalism and self-determination." The two Kennedy brothers had toured Vietnam back in 1951, and, said Robert, "'we were there! We saw what was happening to the French. We saw it. We were determined never to let that happen to us.'"

    http://larouchepac.com/node/28987

    John F. Kennedy's Vision of Peace
    On the 50th anniversary of JFK's death, his nephew recalls the fallen president's attempts to halt the war machine.

    By Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - November 20, 2013 - RollingStone.com

    On November 22nd, 1963, my uncle, president John F. Kennedy, went to Dallas intending to condemn as "nonsense" the right-wing notion that "peace is a sign of weakness." He meant to argue that the best way to demonstrate American strength was not by using destructive weapons and threats but by being a nation that "practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice," striving toward peace instead of "aggressive ambitions." Despite the Cold War rhetoric of his campaign, JFK's greatest ambition as president was to break the militaristic ideology that has dominated our country since World War II. He told his close friend Ben Bradlee that he wanted the epitaph "He kept the peace," and said to another friend, William Walton, "I am almost a 'peace at any price' president." Hugh Sidey, a journalist and friend, wrote that the governing aspect of JFK's leadership was "a total revulsion" of war. Nevertheless, as James W. Douglass argues in his book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, JFK's presidency would be a continuous struggle with his own military and intelligence agencies, which engaged in incessant schemes to trap him into escalating the Cold War into a hot one. His first major confrontation with the Pentagon, the Bay of Pigs catastrophe, came only three months into his presidency and would set the course for the next 1,000 days.

    JFK's predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had finalized support on March 17th, 1960, for a Cuban invasion by anti-Castro insurgents, but the wily general left its execution to the incoming Kennedy team. From the start, JFK recoiled at the caper's stench, as CIA Director Allen Dulles has acknowledged, demanding assurances from CIA and Pentagon brass that there was no chance of failure and that there would be no need for U.S. military involvement. Dulles and the generals knowingly lied and gave him those guarantees.

    When the invasion failed, JFK refused to order airstrikes against Castro. Realizing he had been drawn into a trap, he told his top aides, David Powers and Kenneth O'Donnell, "They were sure I'd give in to them and send the go-ahead order to the [U.S. Navy aircraft carrier] Essex. They couldn't believe that a new president like me wouldn't panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong." JFK was realizing that the CIA posed a monumental threat to American democracy. As the brigade faltered, he told Arthur Schlesinger that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

    The next confrontation with the defense and intelligence establishments had already begun as JFK resisted pressure from Eisenhower, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA to prop up the CIA's puppet government in Laos against the communist Pathet Lao guerrillas. The military wanted 140,000 ground troops, with some officials advocating for nuclear weapons. "If it hadn't been for Cuba," JFK told Schlesinger, "we might be about to intervene in Laos. I might have taken this advice seriously." JFK instead signed a neutrality agreement the following year and was joined by 13 nations, including the Soviet Union.

    His own instincts against intervening with American combat forces in Laos were fortified that April by the judgment of retired Gen. Douglas MacArthur, America's undisputed authority on fighting wars in Asia. Referring to Dulles' mischief in Southeast Asia during the Eisenhower years, MacArthur told JFK, "The chickens are coming home to roost, and [you] live in the chicken coop." MacArthur added a warning that ought to still resonate today: "Anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined."

    About six months into his administration, JFK went to Vienna to meet Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev with high hopes of beginning a process of détente and mutual nuclear disarmament. Khrushchev met his proposals with bombast and truculent indifference. The Joint Chiefs and the CIA, which had fulminated about JFK's notion of negotiating with the Soviets, were relieved by the summit's failure. Six weeks later, military and intelligence leaders responded by unveiling their proposal for a pre-emptive thermonuclear attack on the Soviet Union, to be launched sometime in late 1963. JFK stormed away from the meeting in disgust, remarking scathingly to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, "And we call ourselves the human race."

    As JFK's relationship with his military-intelligence apparatus deteriorated, a remarkable relationship with Khrushchev began. Both were battle-hardened war veterans seeking a path to rapprochement and disarmament, encircled by militarists clamoring for war. In Kennedy's case, both the Pentagon and the CIA believed war with the Soviets was inevitable and therefore desirable in the short term while we still had the nuclear advantage. In the autumn of 1961, as retired Gen. Lucius Clay, who had taken a civilian post in Berlin, launched a series of unauthorized provocations against the Soviets, Khrushchev began an extraordinary secret correspondence with JFK. With the Berlin crisis moving toward nuclear Armageddon, Khrushchev turned to KGB agent Georgi Bolshakov, a top Soviet spy in Washington, to communicate directly with JFK. Bolshakov, to the horror of the U.S. State Department, was a friend of my parents and a frequent guest at our home. Bolshakov smuggled a letter, the first of 21 declassified in 1993, to JFK's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, in a folded newspaper. In it, Khrushchev expressed regret about Vienna and embraced JFK's proposal for a path to peace and disarmament.

    On October 27th, Gen. Clay made an unauthorized armed threat to knock down the Berlin Wall using tanks equipped with dozer plows, seeking to provoke the Soviets into some action that would justify a nuclear first strike. The Kremlin responded with its own tanks, which met Clay's forces at the border crossing known as Checkpoint Charlie. A 16-hour face-off ensued. Through my father, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and Bolshakov, JFK promised that if Khrushchev withdrew his tanks within 24 hours, the U.S. would pull back 20 minutes later. Khrushchev took the risk, and JFK kept his word. Two weeks later, with tensions still running, Khrushchev sent a second letter to JFK: "I have no ground to retreat further, there is a precipice behind [me]." Kennedy realized that Khrushchev, too, was surrounded by a powerful military and intelligence complex intent on going to war. After the confrontation, Gen. Clay railed against JFK's unwillingness to "face the risk of nuclear war" against the Soviets.

    One year later, on October 16th, 1962, Kennedy saw aerial photographs proving that the Soviets had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba capable of reaching much of the eastern U.S. seaboard. The next 13 days were the most perilous in mankind's history. From the outset, the Pentagon, the CIA and many of JFK's advisers urged airstrikes and a U.S. invasion of the island that, as a Soviet military commander later revealed, would have triggered a nuclear war with the Soviets. JFK opted for a blockade, which Soviet ships respected. By October 26th, the standoff was de-escalating. Then, on October 27th, the crisis reignited when Soviet forces shot down a U.S. reconnaissance plane, killing its pilot, Maj. Rudolf Anderson. Almost immediately, the brass demanded overwhelming retaliation to destroy the Soviet missile sites. Meanwhile, Castro pushed the Kremlin military machine toward a devastating first strike. In a secret meeting with Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, my father told him, "If the situation continues much longer, the president is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power." U.S. marshals appeared at our house to take us to government bunkers in western Virginia. My brother Joe and I were anxious to go, if only to see the setup. But my father, who'd spent the previous six nights at the White House, called to say that we needed to be "good soldiers" and show up for school in Washington. To disappear, he told us, would cause public panic. That night, many people in our government went to sleep wondering if they would wake up dead.

    On Monday, October 29th, the world moved back from the brink. An artfully drafted letter my father wrote with Ted Sorensen pledging that the U.S. would not invade Cuba – plus JFK's secret agreement with Khrushchev to withdraw obsolete Jupiter missiles from Turkey – persuaded the Kremlin to back down.

    My father was not exaggerating to Dobrynin the fragility of White House control over the military. During the 13 days, the president's hold on power became increasingly tenuous as spooks and generals, apoplectic at JFK's reluctance to attack Cuba, engaged in dozens of acts of insubordination designed to trigger a nuclear exchange. CIA spymaster William Harvey screamed at the president and my father during a White House meeting: "We wouldn't be in such trouble now if you guys had some balls in the Bay of Pigs." Defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who years later leaked the Pentagon Papers, reported, "There was virtually a coup atmosphere in Pentagon circles." Incensed brass were in a state of disbelief at what they considered bald treason by the president. Spoiling for a war to end all wars, Gen. Curtis LeMay, the man who pioneered the use of napalm against civilians in Tokyo during World War II, found consolation by allowing himself to believe all was not lost. "Why don't we go in there and make a strike on Monday anyway?" LeMay said, as he watched the crisis subside.

    Khrushchev said afterward that Kennedy had won his "deep respect" during the crisis: "He didn't let himself become frightened, nor did he become reckless. . . . He showed real wisdom and statesmanship when he turned his back on the right-wing forces in the United States who were trying to goad him into taking military action against Cuba."

    Today it's fashionable to view the quagmire of Vietnam as a continuum beginning under Eisenhower and steadily escalating through the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations. But JFK was wary of the conflict from the outset and determined to end U.S. involvement at the time of his death.

    JFK inherited a deteriorative dilemma. When Eisenhower left office, there were by official count 685 military advisers in Vietnam, sent there to help the government of President Ngo Dinh Diem in its battle against the South Vietnamese guerrillas known as the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese soldiers deployed by Communist ruler Ho Chi Minh, who was intent on reunifying his country. Eisenhower explained that "the loss of South Vietnam would set in motion a crumbling process that could, as it progressed, have grave consequences for us." Ho Chi Minh's popularity in the south had already led Dulles' CIA to sabotage national elections required by the Geneva Accords, which had ended France's colonial rule, and to prop up Diem's crooked puppet government, which was tenuously hanging on to power against the Communists. Back at home, Republican militarists were charging JFK with "losing Laos" and badgering him to ramp up our military commitment.

    In JFK's first months in office, the Pentagon asked him to deploy ground troops into Vietnam. JFK agreed to send another 500 advisers, under the assumption that South Vietnam had a large army and would be able to defend itself against communist aggression. He refused to send ground troops but would eventually commit 16,500 advisers – fewer troops than he sent to Mississippi to integrate Ole Miss – who were technically forbidden from engaging in combat missions. He told New York Times columnist Arthur Krock in 1961 that the United States should not involve itself "in civil disturbances created by guerrillas."

    For three years, that refusal to send combat troops earned him the antipathy of both liberals and conservatives who rebuked him for "throwing in the towel" in the Cold War. His critics included not just the traditionally bellicose Joint Chiefs and the CIA, but also trusted advisers and friends, including Gen. Maxwell Taylor; Defense Secretary Robert McNamara; McNamara's deputy, Roswell Gilpatric; and Secretary of State Rusk. JFK's ambassador to South Vietnam, Frederick Nolting Jr., reported a "virtually unanimous desire for the introduction of the U.S. forces into Vietnam" by the Vietnamese "in various walks of life." When Vice President Lyndon Johnson visited Vietnam in May 1961, he returned adamant that victory required U.S. combat troops. Virtually every one of JFK's senior staff concurred. Yet JFK resisted. Saigon, he said, would have to fight its own war.

    As a stalling tactic, he sent Gen. Taylor to Vietnam on a fact-finding mission in September 1961. Taylor was among my father's best friends. JFK was frank with Taylor – he needed a military man to advise him to get out of Vietnam. According to Taylor, "The last thing he wanted was to put in ground forces. And I knew that." Nevertheless, Taylor was persuaded by hysterical military and intelligence experts across the Pacific, and had angered JFK when he came back recommending U.S. intervention. To prevent the fall of South Vietnam, Taylor suggested sending 8,000 U.S. troops under the guise of "flood relief" – a number that McNamara said was a reasonable start but should be escalated to as many as "six divisions, or about 205,000 men." Later, Taylor would say, "I don't recall anyone who was strongly against [sending troops to Vietnam] except one man, and that was the president."

    Frustrated by Taylor's report, JFK then sent a confirmed pacifist, John Kenneth Galbraith, to Vietnam to make the case for nonintervention. But JFK confided his political weakness to Galbraith. "You have to realize," JFK said, "that I can only afford so many defeats in one year." He had the Bay of Pigs and the pulling out of Laos. He couldn't accept a third. Former Vice President Richard Nixon and the CIA's Dulles, whom JFK had fired, were loudly advocating U.S. military intervention in Vietnam, while Asian dominoes tumbled. Even The New York Times agreed. "The present situation," the paper had warned, "is one that brooks no further stalling." This was accepted wisdom among America's leading foreign-policy gurus. Public sympathies in the summer of 1963 were 2-to-1 for intervention.

    Despite the drumbeat from the left and right, JFK refused to send in combat troops. "They want a force of American troops," JFK told Schlesinger. "They say it's necessary in order to restore confidence and maintain morale. But it will be just like Berlin. The troops will march in, the bands will play, the crowds will cheer, and in four days everyone will have forgotten. Then we will be told we have to send in more troops. It's like taking a drink. The effect wears off and you have to have another."

    In 1967, Daniel Ellsberg interviewed my father. Ellsberg, a wavering war hawk and Marine veteran, was researching the history of the Vietnam War. He had seen the mountains of warmongering memos, advice and pressure. Ellsberg asked my father how JFK had managed to stand against the virtually unanimous tide of pro-war sentiment. My father explained that his brother did not want to follow France into a war of rich against poor, white versus Asian, on the side of imperialism and colonialism against nationalism and self-determination. Pressing my father, Ellsberg asked whether the president would have accepted a South Vietnamese defeat. "We would have handled it like Laos," my father told him. Intrigued, Ellsberg pressed further. "What made him so smart?" Three decades afterward, Ellsberg would vividly recall my father's reaction: "Whap! His hand slapped down on the desk. I jumped in my chair. 'Because we were there!' He slapped the desk again. 'We saw what was happening to the French. We saw it. We were determined never to let that happen to us.'"

    In 1951, JFK, then a young congressman, and my father visited Vietnam, where they marveled at the fearlessness of the French Legionnaires and the hopelessness of their cause. On that trip, American diplomat Edmund Gullion warned JFK to avoid the trap. Upon returning, JFK isolated himself with his outspoken opposition to American involvement in this "hopeless internecine struggle."

    Three years later, in April 1954, he made himself a pariah within his own party by condemning the Eisenhower administration for entertaining French requests for assistance in Indochina, predicting that fighting Ho Chi Minh would mire the U.S. in France's doomed colonial legacy. "No amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy that is everywhere and at the same time nowhere . . . [or an enemy] which has the sympathy and covert support of the people."

    By the summer of 1963, JFK was quietly telling trusted friends and advisers he intended to get out following the 1964 election. These included Rep. Tip O'Neill, McNamara, National Security adviser McGeorge Bundy, Sen. Wayne Morse, Washington columnist Charles Bartlett, Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson, confidant Larry Newman, Gen. Taylor and Marine Commandant Gen. David M. Shoup, who, besides Taylor, was the only other member of the Joint Chiefs that JFK trusted. Both McNamara and Bundy acknowledged in their respective memoirs that JFK meant to get out – which were jarring admissions against self-interest, since these two would remain in the Johnson administration and orchestrate the war's escalation.

    That spring, JFK had told Montana Sen. Mike Mansfield, who would become the Vietnam War's most outspoken Senate critic, "I can't do it until 1965, after I'm re-elected." Later that day, he explained to Kenneth O'Donnell, "If I tried to pull out completely from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy Red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I'm re-elected." Both Nelson Rockefeller and Sen. Barry Goldwater, who were vying to run against him in 1964, were uncompromising Cold Warriors who would have loved to tar JFK with the brush that he had lost not just Laos, but now Vietnam. Goldwater was campaigning on the platform of "bombing Vietnam back into the Stone Age," a lyrical and satisfying construct to the Joint Chiefs and the CIA. "So we had better make damned sure I am re-elected," JFK said.

    The Joint Chiefs, already in open revolt against JFK for failing to unleash the dogs of war in Cuba and Laos, were unanimous in urging a massive influx of ground troops and were incensed with talk of withdrawal. The mood in Langley was even uglier. Journalist Richard Starnes, filing from Vietnam, gave a stark assessment in The Washington Daily News of the CIA's unrestrained thirst for power in Vietnam. Starnes quoted high-level U.S. officials horrified by the CIA's role in escalating the conflict. They described an insubordinate, out-of-control agency, which one top official called a "malignancy." He doubted that "even the White House could control it any longer." Another warned, "If the United States ever experiences a [coup], it will come from the CIA and not from the Pentagon." Added another, "[Members of the CIA] represent tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone."

    Defying such pressures, JFK, in the spring of 1962, told McNamara to order the Joint Chiefs to begin planning for a phased withdrawal that would disengage the U.S. altogether. McNamara later told an assistant secretary of defense that the president intended to "close out Vietnam by '65 whether it was in good shape or bad."

    On May 8th, 1962, following JFK's orders, McNamara instructed a stunned Gen. Paul Harkins "to devise a plan for bringing full responsibility [for the Vietnam War] over to South Vietnam." Mutinous, the general ignored the order until July 23rd, 1962, when McNamara again commanded him to produce a plan for withdrawal. The brass returned May 6th, 1963, with a half-baked proposal that didn't complete withdrawal as quickly as JFK had wanted. McNamara ordered them back yet again.

    On September 2nd, 1963, in a televised interview, JFK told the American people he didn't want to get drawn into Vietnam. "In the final analysis, it is their war," he said. "They are the ones who have to win or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment. We can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam."

    Six weeks before his death, on October 11th, 1963, JFK bypassed his own National Security Council and had Bundy issue National Security Action Memorandum 263, making official policy the withdrawal from Vietnam of the bulk of U.S. military personnel by the end of 1965, beginning with "1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963." On November 14th, 1963, a week before Dallas, he announced at a press conference that he was ordering up a plan for "how we can bring Americans out of there." The morning of November 21st, as he prepared to leave for Texas, he reviewed a casualty list for Vietnam indicating that more than 100 Americans to date had died there. Shaken and angry, JFK told his assistant press secretary Malcolm Kilduff, "It's time for us to get out. The Vietnamese aren't fighting for themselves. We're the ones doing the fighting. After I come back from Texas, that's going to change. There's no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life."

    On November 24th, 1963, two days after JFK died, Lyndon Johnson met with South Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, whom JFK had been on the verge of firing. LBJ told Lodge, "I am not going to lose Vietnam. I am not going to be the president who saw Southeast Asia go the way China went." Over the next decade, nearly 3 million Americans, including many of my friends, would enter the paddies of Vietnam, and 58,000, including my cousin George Skakel, would never return.

    Dulles, fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs, returned to public service when LBJ appointed him to the Warren Commission, where he systematically concealed the agency's involvement in various assassination schemes and its ties to organized crime. To a young writer, he revealed his continued resentment against JFK: "That little Kennedy . . . he thought he was a god."

    On June 10th, 1963, at American University, Kennedy gave his greatest speech ever, calling for an end to the Cold War, painting the heretical vision of America living and competing peacefully with Soviet Communists. World peace, he proposed, would not be "a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war." He challenged Cold War fundamentalists who cast the world as a clash of civilizations in which one side must win and the other annihilated. He suggested instead that peaceful coexistence with the Soviets might be the most expedient path to ending totalitarianism.

    And he acknowledged that now, "above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either humiliating retreat or nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy – or a collective death wish for the world." In the nightmare reality of nuclear war, he said, "All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours."

    JFK went on to paint the picture of a world where different ideologies were allowed to flourish, supplanting the immoral and destructive Cold War with productive competition that, instead of "devoting massive sums to weapons," would divert them "to combat ignorance, poverty and disease." And, he added, "if we cannot now end our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity."

    He concluded by proposing a blueprint for bringing the Cold War to an end. "Our primary long-range interest," he said, was "general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms." He announced unilateral suspension of atmospheric nuclear weapons and proposed immediate disarmament talks with Moscow.

    It's hard to understand today how heretical JFK's proposal for coexistence with the Soviets sounded to America's right wing. It was Cold War boilerplate that any objective short of complete destruction was cowardice or treachery. In his bestselling 1962 diatribe Why Not Victory? Barry Goldwater proclaimed, "Our objective must be the destruction of the enemy as an ideological force. . . . Our effort calls for a basic commitment in the name of victory, which says we will never reconcile ourselves to the communist possession of power of any kind in any part of the world."

    Despite opposition to the treaty from the generals and Republican leaders, including liberals like Nelson Rockefeller, Kennedy's words electrified a world terrified by the prospect of nuclear exchange. JFK's recognition of the Soviet point of view had an immediate salving impact on U.S.-Soviet relations. Khrushchev, deeply moved, later told treaty negotiator Averell Harriman that the American University address was "the greatest speech by an American president since Roosevelt."

    Knowing that America's military-industrial complex would oppose him, JFK had kept the text of his speech secret from the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department. His call for a unilateral test-ban treaty shocked his own National Security and his military and diplomatic advisers.

    Worse, in the month leading up to the speech, he had secretly worked with British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to arrange test-ban negotiations in Moscow. Khrushchev embraced JFK's proposal, agreeing in principle to end nuclear testing in the atmosphere and water, and on land and in outer space, and proposed a non­aggression pact between NATO and the Soviet satellite countries of the Warsaw Pact. Kennedy supervised every detail of the negotiation, working at astounding speed to end-run his adversaries in the Pentagon. On July 25th, 1963, JFK approved the treaty. The next day, he went on TV, telling America, "This treaty can symbolize the end of one era and the beginning of another – if both sides can, by this treaty, gain confidence and experience in peaceful collaboration." Less than a month later, they both signed the treaty. It was the first arms-control agreement of the nuclear age. Historian Richard Reeves wrote, "By moving so swiftly on the Moscow negotiations, Kennedy politically outflanked his own military on the most important military question of the time."

    Caught off guard, the military-intelligence apparatus quickly mobilized to derail the treaty, which still needed to be ratified by the Senate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had announced months earlier that they were "opposed to a comprehensive ban under almost any terms," joined CIA director John McCone in lobbying against the agreement in the Senate. The Pentagon tried to sabotage its passage by hiding information about the ease of detecting underground tests.

    The right-wing propaganda machine found plenty of arable ground in the American national consciousness to fertilize with fear. Initially, congressional mail ran 15-1 against the treaty. JFK believed the chances for passage in the Senate was "about in the nature of a miracle." He ordered his staff to pull out every stop to mobilize the population, saying that he was determined to get the treaty passed, even if it cost him the 1964 election.

    By September, a monumental grassroots White House campaign had flipped public opinion to support the treaty by 80 percent. On September 24th, 1963, the Senate ratified the treaty 80-19. As Ted Sorensen noted, no other single accomplishment in the White House "gave the president greater satisfaction."

    On October 10th, after signing the atmospheric-test-ban treaty, Khrushchev sent JFK the last of his personal letters. In that missive, Khrushchev proposed the next steps for ending the Cold War. He recommended the conclusion of a nonaggression pact between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations, and a number of steps to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and prevent their use in surprise attacks. JFK would never see the letter. State Department officials hostile toward Khrushchev intercepted it.

    Khrushchev had already secretly proposed to his own government radical reductions in the Soviet military, including the conversion of missile plants to peaceful purposes. After JFK's death, Kremlin war hawks viewed Khrushchev's plan as a treasonous proposal for unilateral disarmament. Less than a year after Dallas, Khrushchev was removed from power.

    JFK, at the time of his death, was planning his own trip to the Soviet Union, knowing nothing would do more to end the Cold War. Forty years later, Khrushchev's son Sergei wrote that he was "convinced that if history had allowed them another six years, they would have brought the Cold War to a close before the end of the 1960s. . . . But fate decreed otherwise, and the window of opportunity, barely cracked open, closed at once. In 1963, President Kennedy was killed, and a year later, in October 1964, my father was removed from power. The Cold War continued for another quarter of a century."

    JFK's capacity to stand up against the national-security apparatus and imagine a different future for America has made him, despite his short presidency, one of the most popular presidents in history. Despite his abbreviated tenure, John F. Kennedy is the only one-term president consistently included in the list of top 10 presidents made by American historians. A 2009 poll of 65 historians ranked him sixth in overall presidential performance, just ahead of Jefferson. And today, JFK's great concerns seem more relevant than ever: the dangers of nuclear proliferation, the notion that empire is inconsistent with a republic and that corporate domination of our democracy at home is the partner of imperial policies abroad. He understood the perils to our Constitution from a national-security state and mistrusted zealots and ideologues. He thought other nations ought to fight their own civil wars and choose their own governments and not ask the U.S. to do it for them. Yet the world he imagined and fought for has receded so far below the horizon that it's no longer even part of the permissible narrative inside the Beltway or in the mainstream press. Critics who endeavor to debate the survival of American democracy within the national-security state risk marginalization as crackpots and kooks. His greatest, most heroic aspirations for a peaceful, demilitarized foreign policy are the forbidden­ debates of the modern political era.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace-20131120

  • Holder: International Law Trumps The Constitution!

    POSTED ON NOVEMBER 12 2013 BY CONSERVATIVE DAILY

    Every now and then, news breaks in the Obama administration that is so stereotypical, it is actually depressing. You might want to sit down for this.

    Attorney General Eric Holder, made infamous by Operation Fast and Furious, is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that United Nations treaties trump the United States Constitution.

    That’s right. The sitting Attorney General, charged with upholding and defending the Constitution, is arguing before the highest court that international law is in fact the law of the land.

    The case in question, Bond v. United States, is actually pretty ridiculous. The defendant is charged with using a toxic substance to harass a friend who was having an affair with her husband. Under the law, this case would normally be handled at the State-level. But Federal prosecutors instead charged Bond with violating the Chemical Weapons Convention. This would be like taking a perpetrator of a domestic hate crime and instead charging him or her with genocide.

    This case is basically a complex liberal experiment to see how far they can push the boundaries regarding the enforcement of international law. An Obama administration victory in this case could have huge ramifications for other contentious issues like abortion, citizenship, and even the Second Amendment.

    It’s no secret that the Obama administration is looking to enact gun control by any means necessary. That means exhausting all options. The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty would provide an excellent way to limit Americans’ access to firearms without dealing with Congress. The problem is, the treaty cannot become law without the Senate ratifying it (which won’t happen). If the Supreme Court rules in Obama’s favor, the U.N. Arms Treaty could become the law of the land anyway.

    The funny thing is that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty specifically prohibits the exportation of small arms to countries if there is a reasonable expectation that they would be used against civilians. If Holder wins this case and ushers in the implementation of the treaty, his involvement in Fast and Furious, leading to the death of countless Mexican civilians, would make him an international criminal.

    But since Holder would be in charge of investigating himself for international crimes, he’d likely be acquitted…

    All jokes aside, Bond v. United States represents a grave risk to the sovereignty of this great country and the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. Everyone always posits that the liberals want to replace the Constitution with U.N. law, but no one actually expected them to try to.

    If the Courts rule that international law is law of the land, and if the Executive branch is more than willing to implement this ruling, then only the Congress can stand against this rising tyranny.

    A lot of times, Congress’ power can be overstated. But the Constitution’s system of checks and balances exist for a reason. If one or two branches of government fall to tyranny, then a third branch would still remain to herald the cause of liberty. With the way the Supreme Court has been ruling lately, and Obama’s burning desire to shred the Constitution, the Congress is all that stands between state sovereignty and global governance.

    Unfortunately more often than not, Congressmen and Senators wouldn’t recognize creeping tyranny if it slapped them in the face.

    That’s where we come in. Believe it or not, we have reached a point in our history where we actually have to plead with our representatives to defend the Constitution from its domestic and foreign enemies.

    If the Supreme Court rules in the administration’s favor, you can say hello to universal weapons registration. You want to buy a firearm? Good luck explaining why you really need one. And good luck getting your hands on one of those imported World War II rifles you’ve had your eye on.

    Most of the time, slippery slope arguments are overblown. But there’s no exaggeration to this. Even when the Senate refused to ratify the U.N. Arms Treaty, Obama had Secretary of State John Kerry sign it anyway. Talk about defiance!

    The only thing that stands between Kerry’s signature and Obama’s gun control agenda is that pesky piece of parchment called the Constitution. And if the Supreme Court rules in Obama’s favor, you can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

    If you value your second amendment rights, or any of your rights for that matter, stand and fight. Urge Congress to honor its oath and reject Obama’s globalist ambitions.

    Sincerely,

    Joe Otto
    Conservative Daily

    http://www.conservative-daily.com/2013/11/12/holder-international-law-trumps-the-constitution/

  • Navy Commander: Obama Has a ‘Sinister’ Plan to Purge the Military

    By J.D. Gordon Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - WashingtonTimes.com

    “J.D. Gordon is a retired Navy commander and former Pentagon spokesman who served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2009.”

    The following, are Gordon’s own words summarizing the ongoing purge of military leadership:

    What in the world is happening to senior military officers under the Obama administration?

    It seems that every week since President Obama took office in 2009, we’ve been hearing that another top leader has been summarily fired, despite his decades of loyal service and valuable experience in protecting the nation. Statistically speaking, it’s actually closer to one every 8.8 days, a staggering 200 military brass shown the door in less than five years.

    The Pentagon has offered up a grab bag of reasons for these dismissals — from a simple “loss of confidence,” to more descriptive “insensitive remarks,” “sexual misconduct,” and even “counterfeit poker chips.”

    The latest two to fall from grace, Navy Vice Adm. Ted “Twig” Branch, director of naval intelligence, and Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless, director of intelligence operations, were stripped of their security clearances last week, effectively ending their careers. They allegedly engaged in “inappropriate conduct” over a Navy contracting scandal related to scheduling port visits in Southeast Asia during the past decade. According to Navy officials, the probe into Singapore-based Glenn Defense Marine Asia is expected to widen — meaning, we’ll likely see other senior officers terminated in the weeks ahead.

    Though firing senior military leaders was routine in different eras, including World War II and the Civil War, it was mostly related to lack of success on the battlefield. The battlefield has changed considerably since then, though, and those same metrics are harder to measure today.

    What’s going on now? Is this really the most incompetent and corrupt military we’ve ever seen? Or is it just easier these days to get hammered for real or perceived bad behavior and poor performance?

    Some of our most revered and successful Army leaders during World War II, Gens. Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower and George Patton, all had mistresses — yet in those days, such indiscretions were not public issues like today. Patton even reportedly boasted about an affair with his wife’s half-niece. It’s doubtful that would remain under wraps today, nor should it.

    Personal indiscretions past and present notwithstanding, perhaps something even more sinister is going on today.

    With massive defense-budget cuts amounting to $1 trillion planned over the next decade including sequestration, a shrinking military that includes axing 10 percent of flag and general officer positions worldwide, and 20 percent of headquarters positions at the Pentagon and top operational combatant commands, it seems entirely plausible that the steady stream of firings plays into the Obama administration strategy of military attrition.

    Rather than giving these officers the benefit of the doubt, let alone having their back, there appears to be a rush and a push to get rid of them.

    Senior officers must be extremely careful these days, in both their professional and personal lives. They must understand that they are under the microscope, and their careers have never been more vulnerable. If admirals, generals, colonels, captains and commanders feel like they must act like saints and walk on eggshells, well, that is today’s reality. It’s not quite 1692 Salem, Mass. — the operative word being “quite.”

    Danger signs appear everywhere: disgruntled subordinates unafraid to blow the whistle on real or perceived mistakes; increased ways to get in trouble with email, social media, cameras and video recorders; heightened sensitivity to workplace behavior; political correctness run amok; ever-present investigative journalists, and now bloggers; and a presidential national security team bent on cutting down the ranks. Everyone who wears the uniform should realize they’ve been converted into de facto political pawns. They’re mostly targeted by the left, which is never shy about taking American power down a notch or two — or three.

    Bad behavior and poor performance are never acceptable. Perhaps President Obama should apply the same tough standards to his political appointees at the White House and State Department over incidents such as the Benghazi terrorist attack; at the Justice Department over Operation Fast and Furious; and at the Treasury Department for the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative nonprofit groups.

    Not surprisingly, while the president circles the wagons when it comes to his ideological allies, he is quick to throw a couple of hundred top military officers under the bus. Apparently, Mr. Obama and his team have no problem marginalizing the U.S. armed forces — and it shows. Maybe his top aide Valerie Jarrett said it best when addressing a four-star general, Army Vice Chief of Staff Peter Chiarelli, at Washington’s Alfalfa Club dinner in 2011. Mistaking him for a waiter, she asked him, “Could I please get another glass of wine?” Yeah, that about sums it up.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/12/gordon-transforming-the-us-military/#.UoNxWW36Geg.facebook