America The Real Evil Empire


By Stephen Lendman March 30, 2014 Subject: Police State None in human history compare to America. It’s by far the most lawless. It’s the world’s most egregious civil and human rights abuser. It’s done more harm to more people for longer than any combination of other nations. None match its ruthlessness. It’s genocidal legacy is longstanding. It began in pre-colonial days. Expanding America from sea to shining sea claimed tens of millions of lives. Mass extermination became policy. Centuries of slaughter reduced America’s indigenous population to a tiny fraction of its original numbers. Ward Churchill’s chilling quote bears repeating. He minced no words, saying: Millions were “hacked apart with axes and swords, burned alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases.” Five centuries of slavery were horrific. Black Africans were captured, branded, chained, force-marched, beaten, encaged, and stripped of their humanity. Around 100 million were sold like cattle. Millions perished during the Middle Passage. Imagine packing human beings like cargo. Imagine them under deplorable conditions. Imagine them in coffin-sized spaces. Imagine practically one atop others in extreme discomfort. Imagine poor ventilation, dysentery, smallpox, ophthalmia, and other epidemic-level diseases. Imagine dark, filthy, slimy, bloody, vomity conditions below deck. Imagine it filled with human excrement. Imagine women beaten and raped. Imagine claustrophobia driving some victims insane. Imagine floggings and clubbings to death. Imagine anyone thought diseased dumped overboard like garbage. Imagine 50 million or more lost lives. Imagine slave traders calling it a cost of doing business. Genocidal US policy continues in new forms. Mass murder proceeds efficiently. Technological advances facilitate it. America’s killing machine knows no limits. One genocide follows others. Countries are ravaged and destroyed. Neither world war should have been waged. Tens of millions died needlessly. Making the world safe for democracy is a convenient illusion. America tolerates it nowhere. Achieving unchallenged raw power drives US policy. Mass slaughtering human beings doesn’t matter. Imperial Japan was defeated many months before WW II ended. In February and March 1945, Tokyo was gratuitously firebombed twice. So were many other Japanese cities. Hundreds of thousands of civilians perished. Millions were left homeless. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of history’s great crimes. Imaging incinerating civilians gratuitously. Imagine horrific radiation poisoning. Imagine disfigurations and birth defects. Imagine the effects of what happened still being felt. Imagine no apologies for generations of crimes. Imagine turning North Korea into rubble. Imagine running out of targets to bomb. Imagine an uneasy armistice persisting. Imagine possible nuclear war erupting. Imagine East Asia caught in the fallout. Imagine crazed US policymakers bearing full responsibility. Imagine Washington’s unparalleled killing machine power. Imagine ruthlessness writ large. Imagine horrendous suffering beyond human comprehension. Imagine all humanity threatened. America’s post-WW II ravaging repeats with disturbing regularity. Southeast Asia was laid waste. Proxy wars killed millions worldwide. All US direct, indirect and supported wars have no rules. Laws of war are ignored. Rampaging goes unchecked. America was complicit in Rwandan massacres. Desert Storm was a well-planned criminal attack. Essential to life facilities were destroyed. Tens of thousands were gratuitously slaughtered. Twelve years of genocidal sanctions followed. Children under age five suffered most. Bush II killed millions more. Afghanistan remains America’s longest war. No end in sight looms. The cradle of civilization was destroyed. Free market plunder replaced it. Inside the bubble is paradise. Outside reflects dystopian hell. Balkan wars destroyed the former Yugoslavia. They culminated in US-led NATO terror-bombing Serbia/Kosovo. Thousands of sorties ravaged and destroyed them. Imagine considering schools, churches, hospitals and cultural landmarks strategic targets. Imagine a gratuitous humanitarian disaster. Imagine it against one nonthreatening country after another. Libya remains a cauldron of violence. No one is safe anywhere. Obama’s war on Syria continues. Iran’s turn awaits. Expect other targeted countries to be attacked. Expect no safe place to hide. Imagine the supreme crime of aggression. Imagine it ongoing in multiple theaters. Imagine America’s dirty handiwork. Imagine crimes too grim to ignore. Imagine genocide as official policy. Imagine new victims following earlier ones. Imagine dead bodies piling up. Imagine young boys and girls. Imagine the elderly, infirm and disabled. Imagine America bearing full responsibility for devastated landscapes. Imagine what desperately needs ending continued. Imagine humanity threatened. Imagine media scoundrels cheerleading what demands condemnation. Imagine supporting Israel’s killing machine. Imagine billions of annual aid dollars supporting it. Imagine ongoing subjugating talks called peace ones. Imagine longstanding occupation turning Palestine into a virtual open-air prison. Imagine being denied all rights. Imagine world leaders turning a blind eye. Imagine dying for many being their only escape. Imagine what no human being should tolerate being done to another. Imagine Washington and Israel partnering in each other’s crimes. Imagine both nations being lawless warrior states. Imagine them using weapons causing injuries, disfigurements and other effects never seen before. Imagine unparalleled barbarism. Imagine crimes against humanity without end. Imagine weapons able to end life on earth. Imagine possibly using them. Imagine hubris writ large threatening everyone. Imagine overreach risking armageddon. Washington’s Ukrainian agenda reflects its latest imperial adventurism. Protests didn’t erupt by chance. They were well-planned in advance. At issue is weakening and isolating Russia. It’s turning Kiev West, not East. It’s plundering its resources. It’s exploiting its people. It’s incorporating all former Soviet republics and Warsaw pact countries into NATO. It’s establishing US bases on Russia’s borders. It’s having nuclear-armed missiles targeting its heartland. Including Ukraine in NATO risks WW III. America, Israel and key EU partners comprise the real axis of evil. They’re out-of-control rogue states. Former French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau (1841 – 1929) once said “America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization.” Oscar Wilde (1854 – 1900) said the same thing. He called patriotism “the virtue of the vicious.” George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950) called democracy “a form of government that substitutes elections by the incompetent many for the appointment of the corrupt few.” Perhaps he had America in mind. Obama’s rap sheet reflects the worst of its policies. He’s in charge until January 2017. He’s got lots more warmaking in mind. He plans hardening America’s police state apparatus. He wants dissent silenced. He wants opposition crushed. He wants freedom destroyed. It hangs by a thread. So does world peace. Neocon infested Washington wages war on humanity. Obama risks extinguishing it altogether. Stopping him matters most. Resistance is crucial. It’s our only defense. Solidarity unites us. We’re all in this together. We’re on our own to survive. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.” Visit his blog site at Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. Send Letter to Editor


It’s after reading articles like this that I would give all I own for the ability to write as clearly as Jefferson’s Voice, Stephen Lendman, Brandon Smith, Brandon Turbeville, and so many other great word smiths. Not to make money or fame, but to create a hole in the hearts of many readers and fill it with elucidations they would never forget. Please forgive my uneducated word fumbles as I try to explain the agony of discovering how complicit I have been in the past with this excruciatingly false patriotism that makes us convinced we were doing good by killing and other atrocities to our fellow human beings. Now that I know the real circumstances surrounding Americas’ wars, and how I, and so many others ate it up like feeding a starving man, my shame is an unbearable stench in my mind. What makes it even worse is there are still men I love like brothers should, who would reject me forever without even considering why I have changed, if they read this. Since I am not a silver tongued gymnast, I feel challenged to express my hatred of the people who created an education, and media industry that would turn normal human beings into brutal murders of other humans while glorying in a sense of rightist superiority. The past history of the United States of America is no doubt why there are so few interested in studying history. Once you learn the truth, it’s damn hard to look in a mirror. I pray my brothers will take the time to learn why I can no longer praise my country. All it took was a hand full of genius Bankers, and we became stupid brain washed monsters. At this point in our history, we must redeem our selves by sending these Bankers and their elite lackeys to an agonizing extermination. We must never again let our country become A Nation Beguiled. This is not a denial of responsibility for our atrocities, but an acknowledgement of how we were made to feel justified by being loyal to a piece of cloth. Being free from government tyranny (the Bankers Pawns) means being constantly informed and alert to subversive politicians as they attempt to follow orders from above. Never think for a moment that we are choosing the lesser of two evils, as elections are the most polluted of all their tools. The statist mentality is an admission of being totally uninformed. Only weak minded people need leaders, as the laws of nature are imprinted on an informed mind. Never believe you need a collage degree to know right from wrong. It’s written on your heart. If we continue to believe the lies of the politicians we will be eliminated.

3-8-2012 8-51-13 AM

10 13 11 flagbar

Directed History of the City’s Alliance with China


“No earthly government has jurisdiction over your God Given Rights.”

 By Staff Report – March 28, 2014  Bank of England agrees Chinese London currency clearing hub … The deal is part of a plan to make London a key offshore Chinese currency clearing centre … The Bank of England has agreed a deal with the People’s Bank of China to make London a hub for Chinese currency dealing. The memorandum of understanding, to be signed on Monday, sets out settlement and clearing arrangements for the renminbi, or yuan, in London. – BBC  Dominant Social Theme: This is great for London’s City … and so surprising, too. Free-Market Analysis: At the very top of the globalist enterprise is a power elite that is more closely aligned with each other than with their countrymen. This is hard for people to grasp, though. For instance, the European Union is part of a larger elite gambit to create political and economic regions that can then be further consolidated. This sort of effort is ongoing. There are “unions” being built in South America, Africa and even Asia. And, of course, there is the much denied North American Union. Under Putin, Russia is advancing the idea of a union with various countries that used to be its “satellites.” This might seem confusing to some because the impression is that Putin and the West are at odds. But centralizing and consolidating near-Asia obviously makes sense to Putin. That’s how it works. Even when the Anglosphere power elite is not directly influencing the sociopolitical and economic direction of a given country or region, the elites of that area – at the very top anyway – will make common cause with the West. And so it goes with China. Chinese officials are often portrayed at being at odds with the West and specifically with the US. It is superpower versus superpower in a battle for prestige, wealth and influence. But is this really the case? Just the other day, we reported on a courageous young journalist who quit Bloomberg over an article the publisher would not post. The article explored the linkages between a very wealthy individual and top Chinese officials. Bloomberg Writer Quits Over China Coverage Bloomberg apparently declined to publish the article because of its sensitivity. What that means is that Bloomberg feared the article would be so incendiary that it would jeopardize Bloomberg’s business objectives in China. In fact, Bloomberg’s self-censorship extends far beyond China and applies around the world and especially to the West. You will find few if any articles among the mainstream media concerning what we call “mercantilism” the use of state power to fulfill individual business objectives. But at this juncture in the 21st century, mercantilism is a main aspect of industrialism and one that is endlessly corrosive because those who employ it are using Leviathan‘s power to fulfill their personal objectives. As this uneven playing field continues and expands, those who experience it become increasingly disenchanted with the larger system. Mercantilism is a danger to civil society – in fact, an extreme one – as it chips away at people’s trust in their sociopolitical and economic environment. What is even more corrosive than mercantilism is the masking effects used by the power elite to deny its existence or justify it. The overwhelming dominance that the City of London has regarding the yuan is a very good example of this. We are led to believe that the City has achieved its extraordinary feat simply by seizing the opportunity – by seeing what is at stake more quickly than the others. The article itself enforces this view as follows: The signing is expected to be followed by the appointment of a London clearing bank for yuan. 62% of yuan payments outside of China already take place in London. Following an agreement with Beijing last year London asset managers are the only ones in the West able to invest directly in Chinese stocks and shares in yuan. London hub Last year the UK and Chinese central banks signed a three-year currency swap arrangement worth 200bn yuan which allows them to swap currencies and can be used by firms to settle trade in local currencies rather than in US dollars The International Finance Corporation, the private sector arm of the World Bank, this month issued a 1bn yuan bond in London, the first by an international financial institution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, said: “Connecting Britain to the fastest growing parts of the world is central to our economic plan. “It’s why I’ve put such government effort over the last three years into making sure we’re the leading western centre for trading in the Chinese currency.” When Mr Osborne visited China in October, he signed deals to allow direct renminbi-sterling trading and to allow Chinese banks to set up UK branches rather than subsidiaries, effectively entailing lighter-touch regulation by the UK authorities. From our point of view, this is so much “directed history.” England – the Anglosphere – virtually ran China for several hundred years. There are even reports that Mao was a “Yale man” – a member of the Yale divinity school in China. The globalists cultivated Mao, it seems. The idea was perhaps to create a dialectic in China that would mimic the one in the USSR that had developed into the Cold War. Thesis, antithesis … synthesis. Note, please: China is still positioned as a great challenger to Western power and eventually, we are told, the Chinese system may permanently weaken the dollar. Even the City of London is rushing to be part of the coming Chinese century. But what if this were simply a pretense? The dollar (the petrodollar) is surely being weakened via fracking, overspending and overprinting. But all of these evolutions are deliberate, in our view. The idea is to take the dollar down while gradually substituting other currencies preparatory to creating perhaps a single basket of currencies that will function as a worldwide money. The City of London has not merely seized the opportunity to clear the yuan, nor are the City’s bankers merely bowing to the inevitable. Is it premeditated? These trends may become apparent when one utilizes an analysis that includes Austrian economics and dominant social themes. It is the reason we predicted a Wall Street Party and why we have also maintained all along that the weakening of the dollar was a deliberate gambit to substitute something else. Conclusion Don’t be fooled by these elaborate machinations of directed history. Keep your eye on the globalist trends and you will gradually begin to understand the entire paradigm – and even to predict its evolution … OLDDOGS COMMENTS The Investment Bankers have been controlling the history of money since the Days of Christ on earth! The money Changers were scumbags then and nothing has changed since Jesus ran them out of the Temple. The reader would do well to convert their assets into some tradable commodity that hold value, as one day soon you will find your dollars are worthless . “No earthly government has jurisdiction over your God Given Rights.”

10 13 11 flagbar



3-27-2014 8-04-37 AM

Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook Model Statues for Planning and the Management of Change was funded by grants from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (the lead federal agency); Federal Highway Administration (US Department of Transportation); US Environmental Protection Agency; the Federal Transit Administration (DOT); the Rural Economic and Community Development Administration (US Department of Agriculture).  All of these agencies were members of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development which ran from 1993-1999.

Private funders included the Siemens Corporation; Henry M. Jackson Foundation; Annie E. Casey Foundation; and the American Planning Association.  These private organizations promote smart growth.

Siemens, for instance, benefits from the development of the ‘smart grid’ and is a key private for-profit corporation for solar, biomass, and other subsidized power generation. This huge multi-national corporation is involved in health care,  building systems, financing, communications and more. Siemens USA has revenue of over $20 Billion.  They also just appointed Michael Kruklinski Head of Siemens Real Estate for the Americas. In this role he’ll oversee all operations for Siemens Real Estate in the U.S. He also is on the NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION BOARD. Siemens is a German company that was nearly bankrupt until Hitler generously supplied free slave labor and money for technological development.

The Henry M. ‘Scoop’ Jackson (he sponsored the legislation to create the EPA) Foundation is a major grant funder.  Their involvement on an international scale is detailed here:
The Foundation seeks to leverage its influence and effectiveness by convening and participating actively in groups of like-minded funders to discuss topics of mutual interest. Examples of funder partners or networks follow:

International Human Rights Funders Group
The Jackson Foundation is a founding member and former steering committee member of the International Human Rights Funders Group (IHRFG), an association of grantmakers dedicated to supporting efforts to protect human rights on both  national and international scales. Members meet at least twice yearly to discuss issues of common concern in human rights philanthropy and reach out to potential funders to attract greater dollars to the human rights field. IHRFG also seeks to inform public policy on a national level. 
(text in italics is directly from the Jackson Foundation website–take a look at the funders)

The Funders’ Network for Smart Growth
The Jackson Foundation is a founding member of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, a coalition that seeks to strengthen and expand philanthropic leadership and grantmaking that improves communities through better development decisions and growth policies. It brings together foundations, nonprofit organizations and other partners to address a range of environmental, social, and economic problems. (Text in italics is from The Funders’ Network for Smart Growth website)

The Funders Network membership list is vast.  Annie E. Casey Foundation is just one of many members. Read the membership list here:

We suggest that you look carefully at the members of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities to see where the UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development money trail leads.  Money and power flow back and forth along these channels.  Enterprise Community Development and LISC, for example, are on the list.  They are for-profit affordable housing developers who benefit hugely from subsidies in smart growth and redevelopment (urban renewal) zones.  Wal-Mart is a partner.  The Orton Family Foundation is a partner.  You’ll find over 100 foundations and corporations on the list.  Take a look.  and look at this too, as an example of who funds the Smart Growth conferences.

On the issue of devaluation of property through regulatory means, we find it reprehensible that counties and cities recognize that development rights have value when they’re being purchased in conservation easements, but they have no value when they’re being taken away through regulations.  You won’t find many General or Comprehensive Plans that don’t embed sustainable communities strategies in their elements.  Most states require it by law through their legislation.   These policies fund and support UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.

More and more non-profit organizations are being created, fragmenting from others, spinning off and creating more non-profits.  Funding comes from state and federal grants, from your taxes and fees, private grants, donations (tax write-offs), and from lawsuits.  You’ll find the League of Women Voters advocating for Smart Growth.  The Lung Association lobbies for Smart Growth.  The National Association of Realtors advocates for Smart Growth. The Chamber of Commerce does too.  So does the AFL-CIO.  Are your dues or professional fees paying for UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.  Are you volunteering for a group supporting UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development?


Here’s a light rail train made by ….Siemens.  Trains to nowhere that take decades longer than planned to build.  You vote for a 1/2 cent sales tax and then you pay and pay and pay.


What do HUD, EPA, and DOT have in common besides being federal agencies?  They were all on the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.  What else?  They form the Partnership for Sustainable Communities and give grants for ‘sustainability planning.’  HUD gave out $100 million in Sustainable Communities Planning Grants in 2010.  These grants are for planning only.  This money doesn’t build anything or help anyone in your city but the planners and consultants.  The money goes for visioning meetings–for propaganda and indoctrination.  Support your city council and board of supervisor members who vote against taking these grants.



Generous Giving. Sustained Growth

ICLEI is able to provide best-in-class service to our members and elevate local climate action and sustainability to remarkable levels only through the generous support of the following private foundations, federal agencies and other entities:

  • Boone Family Foundation
  • ESRI
  • Houston Endowment
  • Meadows Foundation
  • Oak Hill Fund
  • Rauch Foundation
  • Seattle Foundation
  • Siemens
  • The Cadmus Group Incorporated-Arlington
  • The Energy Foundation
  • The Kaiser Foundation
  • The Kendeda Fund
  • The Kresge Foundation
  • The Overbrook Foundation
  • The San Diego Foundation
  • The Summit Foundation
  • The Surdna Foundation
  • The Turner Foundation
  • The University of Michigan, School of Public Health (Ann Arbor)
  • U.S. Department of State  (this IS a federal agency)
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (this IS a federal agency)
  • U.S. Green Building Council (this is NOT a government agency)
  • Waste Management

Who funds America 2050, the plan for regionalization of the United States (with Canada and Mexico)?  This is a project of the Lincoln Land Institute through the Regional Plan Association (NY, NJ,CT) .





Ray C. Anderson, Chairman, President and CEO, Interface, Inc. 
Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute 
John H. Adams, Executive Director, Natural Resources Defense Council 
Aida Alvarez, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration 
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior 
Scott Bernstein, President, Center for Neighborhood Technology 
Carol M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
David T. Buzzelli, Director and Senior Consultant, The Dow Chemical Company 
Andrew Cuomo, Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
William Daley, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce 
Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Executive Director, Women’s Environment and Development Organization 
E. Linn Draper, Jr., Chairman, American Electric Power 
Randall Franke, Commissioner, Marion County, Oregon 
Dan Glickman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Samuel C. Johnson, Chairman, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. 
Fred D. Krupp, Executive Director, Environmental Defense Fund 
Kenneth L. Lay, Chairman and CEO, Enron Corporation 
Harry J. Pearce, Vice Chairman, General Motors Corporation 
Steve Percy, Chairman, CEO, BP Amoco Inc. 
Michelle Perrault, International Vice President, Sierra Club 
Bill Richardson, Secretary U.S. Department of Energy 
Richard W. Riley, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education 
Susan Savage, Mayor, City of Tulsa, Oklahoma 
John C. Sawhill, President, The Nature Conservancy 
Rodney Slater, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation 
Theodore Strong, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

D. James Baker, Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce 
Sherri Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security),U.S. Department of Defense 
Richard E. Rominger, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Richard Barth, President, Chairman, and CEO (retired), Ciba-Geigy Corp. 
Richard Clarke, Chairman and CEO (retired), Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
Jay D. Hair, President, World Conservation Union 
George Frampton, Acting Chair, Council on Environmental Quality
Martin Spitzer


Regional Smart Growth Organizations (from the EPA website–CLICK HERE FOR MORE)

EPA is one of the founding partners of the Smart Growth Network. The full list of partners includes:



Well shiver me timbers, there really are some Democrats with brains!

All would do well to read every word on this site.

The esoteric information obtained from the left side column is priceless, and only obtained by hard work! Great site!  

10 13 11 flagbar

The History and Science of Color Revolutions Part 2


3-7-2014 3-24-30 PM

 Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

In my previous article dealing with destabilization mechanisms and color revolutions entitled “The History and Science of Color Revolutions, Part 1,” I briefly discussed the history of the theory behind such mass movements and the related mobilizations of “swarming adolescents” as well as the purposes for which color revolutions are generally deployed.

Whenever one discusses color revolutions, however, it is important to understand that this tactic is not merely a recent invention on the part of the ruling elite. In fact, this particular method of destabilization has quite a long history, having been perfected in the late 1960s and refined into an art form as time has progressed.

It is also extremely important to understand how color revolutions work, as well as how these methods are successfully deployed. Such an understanding is particularly relevant if one wishes to combat or, at the very least, avoid the tragic results of color revolutions in their own country or the propaganda narrative surrounding those revolutions in another part of the world.

Because color revolutions, destabilizations, and coups require much more than propaganda inside or outside the country, it is necessary to organize, train, indoctrinate, and mobilize with “boots on the ground” inside the target nation. Since the movement will not be an organic one, the “swarming adolescents” must be organized by the agents directing the destabilization.

With this in mind, Jonathan Mowat’s excellent article, “The New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents,’” which I cited at length in my last article, goes into the recent history of color revolution tactics along with a brief discussion regarding the history of some of its individual and organizational players, most notably Gene Sharp, Bob Helvey, and The Albert Einstein Institution.

Still, it is important to understand that these individuals and organizations are by no means the pinnacle of international destabilizations and color revolutions nor are they the sole facilitators of it.

Regardless, Mowat explains,

The creation and deployment of coups of any kind requires agents on the ground. The main handler of these coups on the “street side” has been the Albert Einstein Institution, which was formed in 1983 as an offshoot of Harvard University under the impetus of Dr. Gene Sharp, and which specializes in “nonviolence as a form of warfare.” Dr. Sharp had been the executive secretary of A.J. Muste, the famous U.S. Trotskyite labor organizer and peacenik. The group is funded by Soros and the NED. Albert Einstein’s president [2006] is Col. Robert Helvey, a former US Army officer with 30 years of experience in Southeast Asia. He has served as the case officer for youth groups active in the Balkans and Eastern Europe since at least 1999.

Mowat then goes on to briefly describe Robert Helvey’s background in relation to the color revolution industry. He writes,

Col. Helvey reports, in a January 29, 2001, interview with film producer Steve York in Belgrade, that he first got involved in “strategic nonviolence” upon seeing the failure of military approaches to toppling dictators—especially in Myanmar, where he had been stationed as military attaché—and seeing the potential of Sharp’s alternative approach. According to B. Raman, the former director of India’s foreign intelligence agency, RAW, in a December 2001 paper published by his institute entitled, “The USA’s National Endowment For Democracy (NED): An Update,” Helvey “was an officer of the Defence Intelligence Agency of the Pentagon, who had served in Vietnam and, subsequently, as the US Defence Attache in Yangon, Myanmar (1983 to 85), during which he clandestinely organised the Myanmar students to work behind Aung San Suu Kyi and in collaboration with Bo Mya’s Karen insurgent group. . . . He also trained in Hong Kong the student leaders from Beijing in mass demonstration techniques which they were to subsequently use in the Tiananmen Square incident of June 1989” and “is now believed to be acting as an adviser to the Falun Gong, the religious sect of China, in similar civil disobedience techniques.” Col. Helvey nominally retired from the army in 1991, but had been working with Albert Einstein and Soros long before then.

Yet, as Mowat demonstrates, Helvey was by no means the backbone of the Albert Einstein Institute, despite his heavy involvement. Indeed, AEI relies heavily on the work of one of the leading figures of color revolutionary theory, Dr. Gene Sharp. Mowat states,

Reflecting Albert Einstein’s patronage, one of its first books was Dr. Sharp’s “Making Europe Unconquerable: The Potential of Civilian-Based Deterrence and Defense,” published in 1985 with a forward by George Kennan, the famous “Mr. X” 1940’s architect of the Cold War who was also a founder of the CIA’s Operations division. There, Sharp reports that “civilian-based defense” could counter the Soviet threat through its ability “to deter and defeat attacks by making a society ungovernable by would be oppressors” and “by maintaining a capacity for orderly self-rule even in the face of extreme threats and actual aggression.” He illustrates its feasibility by discussing the examples of the Algerian independence in 1961 and the Czechoslovakian resistance to Soviet invasion in 1968-9. In his forward, Kennan praises Sharp for showing the “possibilities of deterrence and resistance by civilians” as a “partial alternative to the traditional, purely military concepts of national defense.” The book was promptly translated into German, Norwegian, Italian, Danish, and other NATO country languages. See the link to the Italian translation of the book (Verso un’Europa Inconquistabile. 190 pp. 1989 Introduction by Gianfranco Pasquino) that sports a series of fashionable sociologists and “politologists” prefacing the book and calling for a civil resistance to a possible Soviet invasion of Italy.

Such formulations suggest that Albert Einstein activities were, ironically, coherent (or, possibly updating) the infamous NATO’s “Gladio” stay-behind network, whose purpose was to combat possible Soviet occupation through a panoply of military and nonmilitary means. The investigations into Gladio, and those following the 1978 assassination of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro, also shed some light (immediately switched off) on a professional apparatus of destabilization that had been invisible for several decades to the public.

It is noteworthy that the former deputy chief of intelligence for the US Army in Europe, Major General Edward Atkeson, first “suggested the name ‘civilian based defense’ to Sharp,” John M. Mecartney, Coordinator of the Nonviolent Action for National Defense Institute, reports in his group’s CBD News and Opinion of March 1991. By 1985, Gen. Atkeson, then retired from the US Army, was giving seminars at Harvard entitled “Civilian-based Defense and the Art of War.”

The Albert Einstein Institution reports, in its “1994-99 Report on Activities,” that Gen. Atkeson also served on Einstein’s advisory board in those years. Following his posting as the head of US Army intelligence in Europe, and possibly concurrently with his position at the Albert Einstein Institution, the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reports that Gen. Atkeson, who also advised CSIS on “international security,” served as “national intelligence officer for general purpose forces on the staff of the director of Central Intelligence.”

A 1990 variant of Sharp’s book, “Civilian-Based Defense: A Post-Military Weapons System,” the Albert Einstein Institution reports, “was used in 1991 and 1992 by the new independent governments of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in planning their defense against Soviet efforts to regain control.”

As we shall see below, with such backing, Col. Helvey and his colleagues have created a series of youth movements including Otpor! in Serbia, Kmara! in Georgia, Pora! in Ukraine, and the like, which are already virally replicating other sects throughout the former Soviet Union, achieving in civilian form what had not been possible militarily in the 1980s. The groups are also spreading to Africa and South America.[2]

Achieving in civilian form what had not been possible militarily is the whole purpose of the color revolution, despite the fact that military involvement may follow the initial destabilization campaign.
Learning the ins and outs of the color revolution technique, however, will provide a much needed service in terms of preventing that goal from being met.


[1] Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action.” Online Journal. Reposted Accessed on July 3, 2013.

See also,
Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.

[2] Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action.” Online Journal. Reposted Accessed on July 3, 2013.

See also,
Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 248-250.

10 13 11 flagbar

The Most Popular Show In America Is Basically NSA Propaganda


“No earthly government has jurisdiction over your God Given Rights.”
Without GOD you have nothing but Liars

3-25-2014 6-31-51 AM


CBS, NCIS and its sibling NCIS: Los Angeles are the top-rated dramas on television, a distinction they have held for several years.
Next season there will be a third iteration, which ones hopes will be titled NCIS: Spinoff. As Quartz’s Jason Lynch notes, viewers love these formulaic procedurals—while critics ignore them.
But what exactly are so many Americans watching—and rooting for—when they tune in for these TV shows? A closer look reveals that both series are uncomfortably akin to a cheering section for the NSA: The shows depict a world in which terrorists planning mass slaughter are under every bed, in which viewers root for the good-looking, wisecracking agents to smash down doors without warrants; in which super-advanced electronic surveillance is used exclusively to protect the public. In the NCIS version of reality, we’ll all die unless powerful government agencies treat the United States Constitution like a big joke.
Of course primetime TV is rich in galimatias: Wacky sitcoms are hardly realism, and virtually all action programming overstates the frequency of violent crime. That crime is in steady decline simply isn’t mentioned on procedurals like Hawaii Five-0 and the Law & Order franchise, which depict homicide at runaway levels. Primetime dramas also exaggerate the use of firearms. In the actual NYPD, 1 officer in 800 fired at a suspect in 2012; on TV, the streets of New York City are as bullet-ridden as the Wild West. Procedurals further overstate the chance of criminals being caught: A disturbing number of real crimes never are solved, while in primetime, as the top of the hour approaches, the cell door slams behind the villain. Viewers long have clicked on the tube to entertainment in which crime is rampant, gunfire echoes down the mean streets, and bad guys always get what’s coming to them.
But the subliminals are shifting. A generation ago, network crime dramas featured private detectives who were lone outsiders, like The Rockford Files’ Rockford, or For Hire’s Spenser. Post 9/11, audiences seem to prefer heroes with government authority. Federal agents based in secret facilities, elite crime-fighting units with extralegal powers, fantastical technology, and commando-team backup are everywhere on primetime.
The NCIS siblings take this one step further by placing the entire nation in jeopardy on a regular basis. The two shows have offered numerous plots involving weapons of mass destruction in the hands of lavishly financed Iranian, Pakistani, or Russian evildoers. (Odd that the shows don’t roll out Saudi evildoers, given most of the 9-11 mass murderers were Saudi nationals; though, in the NCIS universe, Romania is often depicted as a fountainhead of maniacal terrorists.) NCIS Los Angeles had an arc in which well-dressed bad guys with generic foreign accents seized three atomic bombs left over from the Cold War; another in which the deranged were racing through L.A. with a bio-weapon that could “kill everyone west of the Mississippi in 48 hours.”
On ‘NCIS,’ info often comes from a tech staffer who can tap into any cell phone or video feed in mere seconds, never needing a password or a judge’s permission.
How are these calamities prevented? Electronic surveillance. A sinister Pakistani terrorist has an accomplice in Washington, D.C. A super-advanced surveillance device takes mere seconds to locate the accomplice and determine he is on the way to the Norfolk airport. (When he arrives, Washington-based NCIS agents are already present, disguised as airline employees—how they could get there first is never explained, but that’s a standard plot hole.) The well-dressed guys with the atomic bombs are tracked across Los Angeles by technology that apparently can detect fake accents from outer space. The woman with the bio-weapon passes a closed-circuit security camera, and instantly the agents know her location.
On NCIS, info often comes from a particular tech staffer who can tap into any cell phone or video feed in mere seconds, never needing a password and never pausing for a judge’s permission. (She dresses Goth; she’s no Oliver North!)NCIS Los Angeles features two cool young techies who operate a never-explained super-computer that requires mere seconds to pinpoint any vaguely Middle Eastern-seeming person anywhere in the Golden State. Then the agents declare that if they have to stop to get a search warrant, the innocent will die.
In the setup of the shows, viewers have seen the bad guys doing something malicious, and so know they are guilty. Who cares about the rights of the guilty! But in reality, law-enforcement officers rarely are sure about guilt; nobody can be certain until a judge or jury speaks. By first showing the primetime audience an awful terrorist scheming to slaughter the innocent, then showing valorous agents who can stop the terrorist only by trampling the Bill of Rights, audiences are induced to think, “Listen in without a warrant! Break down the door! That’s justice!”
In this respect, it’s somewhat spooky that NCIS Los Angeles is sponsored by Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest military manufacturer. As the credits roll, “Promotional consideration furnished by Lockheed Martin” appears in tiny type. Lockheed Martin does not market any consumer products—watching NCIS Los Angeles cannot inspire anyone to log onto Amazon and purchase an F-35 strike fighter. Yet the firm underwrites the show, which makes itself seem hip with references to NPR and gay rights, then offers plotlines in which advanced wiretap technology is good for the public. For car companies to have product placements in detective drama is one thing; for military contractors to underwrite programming that lauds Big Brother tactics is another.
The NCIS twins aren’t the only primetime shows that glamorize electronic surveillance. Person of Interest, often in the Nielsen top 10, concerns an imaginary super-computer that fuses all data from all the world’s devices, then directs the heroes to places where the innocent are imperiled. “The machine sees everything,” the intro intones. And is used solely for good! Intelligence, a new primetime series, concerns a secret agent with an imaginary chip planted in his head. The chip fuses all data from all the world’s devices, allowing the agent to stop terrorist attacks. And, similarly, it’s used solely for good! As the credits roll after Intelligence, a message appears onscreen: PROMOTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT.
Of course television studios have an unceasing need to pump out programming; what would really be scary is if bad guys from an NCIS episode got their hands on a MacGuffin generator. And plots in which imaginary technology saves the day have been on the tube since The Man From UNCLE half a century ago. But in today’s political climate, why does Hollywood seem so enthusiastic about promoting the notion that the innocent have nothing to fear from Fourth Amendment violations and ubiquitous electronic surveillance?


I suggest the reader spends a few minutes contemplating how many things they have accepted as true, are really surreptitious propaganda implanted in your mind from your habits, entertainment, and associations. The conclusion could startle you. The fool will conclude they only believe what is proven true.  The truth is, you cannot even prove you exist.

10 13 11 flagbar

Thousands Sign White House Petition for Alaska to Secede and Join Russia


1-2-2014 12-27-03 PM

 Melissa Melton

Activist Post

“We the People,” the White House’s online petition website that claims it is “giving all Americans a way to engage their government on the issues that matter to them,” is currently hosting a petition for Alaska to leave the United States and join Russia.

3-24-2014 12-39-03 PM

The petition, written by S. V. of Anchorage, simply reads:

Groups Siberian Russians crossed the Isthmus (now the Bering Strait) 16-10 thousand years ago.

Russian began to settle on the Arctic coast, Aleuts inhabited the Aleutian Archipelago.

First visited Alaska August 21, 1732, members of the team boat “St. Gabriel »under the surveyor Gvozdev and assistant navigator I. Fedorov during the expedition Shestakov and DI Pavlutski 1729-1735 years.

Vote for secession of Alaska from the United States and joining Russia.

The more than 100,000 people who signed a petition for Texas to secede over a year ago — the threshold that forces the White House to respond on its petition website — were basically told no. A White House official claimed that the reason was because our founding fathers established the United States as a “perpetual union” — and the White House has of course overwhelmingly proven how much they respect and care about what the founding fathers thought about how the country should be run, so…

The Alaska petition was just created yesterday. At the time of writing this, 6,198 people have already signed it, which is 15 more people than when I decided to put this up here about ten minutes ago.

(Hat Tip: Sandy Bone)

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media. Wake the flock up!


Why bother to secede when Russia has already adopted Agenda 21 goals; is in the process of implementing Smart Grid technology in partnership with the US and Europe; has used false flags; has serious issues with civil liberties violations of peaceful protesters; experienced the disappearance and murder of whistleblowers; and Putin is publicly behind world wide regionalization efforts (ending nation state sovereignty) to become cemented as “bricks” in the new international economic order. Didn’t Putin recently join the globalist chorus in the call for the IMF to intercede in the Ukraine? That looks very much like a high level move of “problem, reaction, solution”, synthesis out of “conflict” – classic Hegelian dialectic.

It was the brilliant and intrepid work of Antony Sutton who showed us the apex globalists financed and logistically supported the rise of the USSR (and Hitler too, of course), this financing and support even continued when the USSR was supplying weapons to Vietnam to be used against American soldiers. Given that kind of history and modus operandi, it would be naive to think Russia is not already under some form of globalist deep capture.

If we don’t learn from the patterns of history, we will get suckered into one psy op after another until we wake up one day in our Technocratic prison hell with our biometric tracking devices and 27/4 surveillance and try to remember what it was to have any kind of real dignity as a human being with some modicum of freedom and access to the truth.

BY OLDDOG   War is a Racket by general Smedley Butler

Give Alaska to Russia, over my dead ass!!!!! LET’S GIVE OBUMA TO RUSSIA INSTEAD.

10 13 11 flagbar

Take These 11 Steps To Survive An International Crisis


12-2-2013 8-50-22 AM Brandon Smith

Activist Post

With the Crimea referendum passed and Russia ready to annex the region, the United States and the European Union have threatened sanctions. The full extent of these sanctions is not yet known, and announcements are pending for the end of March. If these measures are concrete, they will of course be followed inevitably by economic warfare, including a reduction of natural gas exports to the EU and the eventually full dump of the U.S. dollar by Russia and China. As I have discussed in recent articles, the result of these actions will be disastrous.

For those of us in the liberty movement, it is now impossible to ignore the potential threat to our economy. No longer can people claim that “perhaps” there will be a crisis someday, that perhaps “five or 10 years” down the road we will have to face the music. No, the threat is here now, and it is very real.

The loss of the dollar’s world reserve status will destroy the only thread holding up its value, namely, investor faith. There are only two possible outcomes from that point onward:

A) The U.S. will be forced to default because no nation will purchase our Treasury bonds and support our debt spending, causing the dollar’s value to implode.

B) The Fed will choose to restart and expand quantitative easing measures, confiscate pension funds, raid bank accounts or issue new taxes in order to keep the system afloat; this will also end in the eventual collapse of dollar value and hyperinflation.

The consequences will lead to an explosion in prices — first in commodities and necessities like petroleum, imported raw materials, food, electricity, etc. and then in all other goods and services. Austerity measures will be instituted by Federal and State governments. Cuts to social welfare programs, including food stamps, are probable. Civil infrastructure will suffer. The cost effectiveness of maintaining public utilities could become unrealistic. Anyone relying on such services may find themselves cut off for days, weeks or indefinitely. Public suffering will invariably rise, along with public crime.

If events like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans are any indication, the Federal government’s response will be inadequate, to say the least. The Federal Emergency Management Agency clearly cannot be relied upon to provide food, shelter, medical care or protection for communities. In fact, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Feds did far more harm than good, corralling people into camps where death was rampant and disarming outlying neighborhoods so that they could not defend themselves. Tens of millions of dollars in donated and Federally purchased necessities were never delivered to aid survivors. Trucks were turned away, and help from civilian sources was denied.

The point is, if you find yourself in the midst of a national or international catastrophe, you should assume that you will be on your own with whatever preparations you made beforehand. To assume otherwise would be foolish, given our government’s track record.

There are some people who will argue that during an international crisis, such as an economic war or a world war, there is no purpose to preparedness. They will argue that there is nothing an individual or family can do to weather the storm or fight back, because the scale of the threat would be “too great.” There is no place for such defeatism in the life of the liberty-minded. The scale of the threat is irrelevant, and only cowards give up a fight before it even begins. Survival and freedom require an unwavering conviction. Nihilists will fulfill their own prophecies, suffering a fate exactly as they imagine for the rest of us; living in fear, slavery, and obscurity.

That said, it is also important to acknowledge the truth that the majority of Americans today are utterly unready for a minor localized disaster, let alone a national or global crisis. This problem, though, could be easily remedied with a few simple beginning steps. I find that most people are not averse to the idea of preparedness, but many have trouble taking the first steps in the right direction. For longtime preparedness champions, the information listed here might seem like old-hat. However, I challenge each liberty movement member to approach at least one friend or family member who could benefit from the steps below. Prepping appears daunting to the uninitiated; show them how simple it can actually be.

Below is a list of goals that every liberty movement member and American can easily achieve starting today and continuing over the course of the next month. If enough citizens were to take the initiative to do these things, all threats — no matter how imposing — could be overcome.

1. Buy Three Months Of Food Stock

3-4-2014 10-44-14 PMFood supply is the greatest Achilles’ heel of the American populace. Most homes store less than one week’s worth of food items at any given time. The average person needs between 2,000 and 3,000 calories per day to maintain sufficient energy for survival. It takes around four to six weeks for a person to die of starvation and malnutrition. In a collapse scenario, most deaths will likely occur within the first few months, either by weakness and illness, or by looting and violence. The idea is to at least get through this first catastrophic phase without becoming a villain, or falling victim to one. One person removed from starvation is one possible threat removed from the equation.

Three months of supply is not ideal by any means, but it will buy you precious time. Start with 2,000 calories per day per person. Bulk foods can be purchased cheaply (for now) and can at the very least provide sustenance during emergencies. A 20-pound bag of rice, for instance, can be had for less than $15 and provides about 30,000 calories, or 2,000 calories per day for 15 days for one person. Supplement with beans, canned vegetables and meats, honey for sugar, or freeze-dried goods, and you will be living more comfortably than 90 percent of the population.

Food stockpiling is one of the easiest and most vital measures a person could take. Yet, sadly, it is one of the last preparations on people’s minds.

2. Buy A Water Filter

Do not count on city water to remain functional. Even during a drawn-out economic downturn rather than an immediate crisis, there is a good chance that some utilities will be sporadic and unreliable. This means you will have to focus on rainwater collection, as well as water from unclean sources.

Boiling the water will kill any bacteria, but it will not kill the taste of sediments and other materials floating around. A high-grade survival filter is the best way to get clean water that tastes good.

The average person needs about a gallon of water per day to remain healthy and hydrated. I highly recommend the Sawyer Mini Water Filter, which is a compact washable filter that can cleanse up to 100,000 gallons of water. It uses no moving parts, making it harder to break; and it costs only $20.

3. Buy A Small Solar Kit

Try going a week or two without electricity, and you may find how dismal life can truly be. The very absence of light at night reduces one’s productivity time drastically, and using fuel for lanterns is not practical in the long term. Solar power is truly the way to go for a grid-collapse scenario.

I’ve heard much whining about the cost of solar power, but small systems that will serve most electrical needs can be set up for less than $1,000. Two 100-watt panels, a power inverter, charge controller and four to six 12-volt deep-cycle batteries are enough to deal with most electrical needs in a survival situation; and all these items can be contained in a portable foot locker for minimal cost. New solar panels are much more effective in low-light conditions and winter weather as well, making solar a must-have prep item.

4. Store A Fuel Source

Twenty gallons of gasoline treated with fuel saver is not expensive to purchase today, but in the midst of hyperinflation, it may be impossible to obtain tomorrow. Kerosene is useful for heating and cooking. Propane can be stored for decades and runs numerous appliances. If you live in a forested area, dried wood can be had for free, and can keep you warm throughout the winter months (keep in mind the your local danger factor when using fire). It is vital to have a means to stay warm and fed during the most difficult seasonal changes, especially during a grid-down scenario.

5. Find Alternative Shelter

There are no guarantees during a full-spectrum disaster. Having all your eggs in one basket is not only stupid, but unnecessary. Always have a plan B. That means scouting an alternative location for you and your family in the event that your current shelter comes under threat. This location should be far enough away from large population centers but still within a practical range for you to reach them. It should also have a nearby water source, and be defensible. Establishing supply caches near this site is imperative. Do not assume that you will be able to take all of your survival supplies with you from your home. Expect that surprises of a frightening variety will arise.

6. Buy One Semi-Automatic Rifle

3-22-2014 8-53-38 AMAt this point I really don’t care what model of rifle people purchase, as long as they have one, preferably in high capacity and semi-automatic. AR-15, AK-47, Saiga, SKS, M1A: just get one! Every American should be armed with a military-grade rifle. If you are not, you are not only negligent in your duty as a free citizen, but you are also at a distinct disadvantage against the kind of opponents you are likely to face in a collapse situation.

7. Buy 1,000 Rounds Of Ammunition

Again, this is by no means an ideal stockpile, but it is enough to get you through a couple rough patches if you train furiously. Cheap AK-47 ammo can be had for $5 for a box of 20 rounds. Get what you can while you can, because the prices are only going to skyrocket in the near term.

8. Approach One Friend Or Neighbor

Community is what will make the difference between life and death during a SHTF collapse. I challenge everyone in the liberty movement to find at least ONE other person to work with in the event of disaster. Lone-wolf operations may be strategically practical for short periods of time; but everyone needs rest, and everyone needs someone else to watch his back. Do not fall into the delusion that you will be able to handle everything on your own.

9. Learn One Barter Skill

Learn how to fix one vital thing or provide one vital service. Try emergency medical training, gunsmithing or metal working, as long as it is an ability that people will value. You have to be able to produce something that people want in order to sustain yourself beyond the point at which your survival stockpile runs out. Be sure that you are seen as indispensable to those around you.

10. Grow A Garden

Spring is upon us, and now is the perfect opportunity to grow your own food supply. If you have even a small yard, use that space to grow produce. Focus on high-protein and high-vitamin foods. Buy a dehydrator or canning supplies and save everything. Use heirloom seeds so that you can collect new seed from each crop to replant in the future. If every American had a garden in his backyard, I wouldn’t be half as worried about our survival as I am today.

11. Prepare Your Mind For Calamity

The most valuable resource you will ever have is your own mind. The information held within it and the speed at which you adapt will determine your survival, whether you have massive preparations or minimal preparations. Most people are not trained psychologically to handle severe stress, and this is why they die. Panic equals extinction. Calm readiness equals greater success.

The state of our financial system is one of perpetual tension. The structure is so weak that any catalyst or trigger event could send it tumbling into the abyss. Make no mistake; time is running out. We may witness a terrifying breakdown tomorrow, in a year, or if we are lucky, a little longer. The path, though, has been set and there is no turning back. All of the items above can be undertaken with minimal cash flow. If you receive a regular paycheck, you can establish a survival supply for yourself and your family. There are no excuses.

Take the steps above seriously. Set your goals for the next four weeks and see how many of them you can accomplish. Do what you can today, or curse yourself tomorrow. What’s it going to be?

You can contact Brandon Smith at: Alt-Market, where this first appeared, is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.

10 13 11 flagbar

Is the NSA manipulating the stock market?


By Jon Rappoport

March 20, 2014

Trevor Timm of the Electronic Freedom Frontier dug up a very interesting nugget. It was embedded in the heralded December 2013 White House task force report on spying and snooping.

Under Recommendations, #31, section 2, he found this:

“Governments should not use their offensive cyber capabilities to change the amounts held in financial accounts or otherwise manipulate financial systems.”

Timm quite rightly wondered: why were these warnings in the report?

Were the authors just anticipating a possible crime? Or were they reflecting the fact that the NSA had already been engaging in the crime?

If this was just a bit of anticipation, why leave it naked in the report? Why not say there was no current evidence the NSA had been manipulating financial systems?

Those systems would, of course, include the stock market, and all trading markets around the world.

Well, there is definite evidence of other NSA financial snooping. From Spiegel Online, 9/15/13:

“The National Security Agency (NSA) widely monitors international payments, banking and credit card transactions, according to documents seen by SPIEGEL.”

“The NSA’s Tracfin data bank also contained data from the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a network used by thousands of banks to send transaction information securely…the NSA spied on the organization on several levels, involving, among others, the [NSA] agency’s ‘tailored access operations’ division…”

The NSA’s “tailored access operations” division uses roughly 1000 hackers and analysts in its spying efforts.

The next step in all this spying would naturally involve penetrating trading markets and, using the deep data obtained, manipulate the markets to the advantage of the NSA and preferred clients.

The amount of money siphoned off in such an ongoing operation would be enormous.

“Looking over the shoulder” of Wall St. insiders would be child’s play for NSA.

Ditto for predicting political events that would temporarily drive markets down and provide golden opportunities for highly profitable short selling.

Like drug traffickers and other mobsters, the NSA could invest their ill-gotten gains in legitimate enterprises and reap additional rewards.

And if the Pentagon, under which the NSA is organized, requires heavy amounts of money for off-the-books black budget ops, what better place to go than their own NSA?

All in all, when you operate the biggest spying and data-gathering operation in the world, the opportunities abound. Yes, knowledge is power, when the distinctions between legal and illegal are brushed off like like a few gnats on a summer day.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at

Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections:


10 13 11 flagbar



By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
April 26, 2003

Concerning all of the subjects mentioned in this book, one of the most important elements in considering any of them is to what extent can the government be believed. In that regard, Scott Peterson, staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, in the article, “In war, some facts less factual” (September 6, 2002), revealed that “shortly before U.S. strikes began in the [1991] Gulf War, the St. Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite images of the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990, a month and a half after the Iraqi invasion. ‘That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist,’ Ms. [Jean] Heller [St. Petersburg Times] says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney [now vice president] for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: ‘Trust us.’ To this day, the Pentagon’s photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified…. John MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine and author of Second FrontCensorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, says that considering the number of senior officials shared by both Bush administrations, the American public should bear in mind the lessons of Gulf War propaganda. ‘These are all the same people who were running it more than 10 years ago,’ Mr. MacArthur says. ‘They’ll make up just about anything… to get their way.’ …In the fall of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah. In the girl’s testimony before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur’s book Second Front and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave 312 babies ‘on the cold floor to die.’ Seven U.S. Senators later referred to this story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such ‘ghastly atrocities’ were like ‘Hitler revisited.’ …Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwaiti hospital. She had been coached – along with a handful of others who would ‘corroborate’ the story – by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.”

Another question concerning the American government’s credibility is its recent assertion that Saddam Hussein had not accounted for very large amounts of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The BBC News story, “Blix: ‘U.S. undermined inspectors’,” (April 22, 2003) begins with the words: “American officials tried to discredit the work of inspectors in Iraq to further their own case for war, the chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has charged…. He also reiterated his disquiet at how documents the International Atomic Energy Agency ‘had no great difficulty finding out were fake’ managed to get through U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysis. Also disturbing, he said, was the question of who was responsible for the falsification.”

If WMD are eventually found, the question then is why didn’t Saddam use them, since coalition forces were trying to kill him and he had nothing to lose by using WMD? And if he didn’t have WMD, isn’t the government’s justification for attacking Iraq lost? On the NBC evening news for April 15, 2003, Jim Miklaszewski reported that “there’s growing concern here [at the Pentagon] they won’t find the massive quantities of [WMD] that were the major justification for the war.”

It may be that some WMD are found, but it is important as to whether they are currently functional. Everyone knows that Saddam had WMD. The question is whether he had destroyed them, or whether they were in a currently useable form against our attacking soldiers or to give to terrorists in the future. Judith Miller in the April 21, 2003New York Times reported what the American military was describing as a major discovery. She indicated they had information from an Iraqi scientist as to where chemical weapons precursors, documents, and research materials were buried. However, if they do not find currently useable WMD, so what? All they will have found is material that could have been made into WMD, but wasn’t for whatever reason, or material that was destroyed and buried, which was the goal!

All of this raises the question of whether WMD were the real reason for attacking Iraq. On ABC’s World News Tonight (April 12, 2003), Terry Moran asked Richard Clarke (National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism of the National Security Council under President Clinton, and Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security under President Bush) about the lack of discovery of WMD in Iraq, and Clarke replied that it didn’t make any difference if we didn’t discover any because we got rid of Saddam Hussein. However, there are a number of problems with this attitude that it’s unimportant whether we find WMD. First, if the U.S. says in the future there’s a problem requiring immediate action, will people believe us? Secondly, could a future president be tempted to say some action was taken because of a perceived threat, expecting the American public to forget about it if the threat later turns out not to have been real? Thirdly, if the principle upon which our attack was based is really that military action is justified to remove dictators, are we not now obligated to remove other dictators or be accused of hypocrisy or a selectivity that creates uncertainty among other nations? Lastly, should it be the policy of the U.S. to attack another nation if it is not posing a threat (WMD) to our country? On ABC’s Nightline (April 16, 2003), Joseph Cirincione (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Associate and director of its Non-proliferation Project) commented: “The American public came to believe two things that the administration made as central points: (1) that there were large stockpiles of WMD, and (2) that Saddam Hussein had operational links to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and that he might transfer some of these weapons. If the President is unable to demonstrate that these are true, first the rest of the world and then eventually the American public are going to feel that this war was unjustified. We all can be glad that we’ve removed this repressive regime, helped liberate the Iraqi people. But that was not the main point of the war. It will seriously damage the President’s credibility and United States credibility abroad if we can’t prove that the reason we went to war was a valid and true reason.”

On April 22, some Bush administration officials began to be more candid. On ABC’s Nightline, reporter John Cochran said that when he asked administration officials what if they don’t find WMD, they replied: “It would be unfortunate, but this was not the primary reason we went to war. We emphasized the dangers of Saddam’s weapons in order to gain legal justification for war from the United Nations and to emphasize the danger here at home to our own people.” Cochran then reported: “We were not lying,” said one official, who added, “It was just a matter of emphasis.”

Concerning the war with Iraq, Americans have received a very sanitized view of it. For example, how many have read about “the bridge of death”? Probably very few. Writing from Nasiriya, Mark Franchetti of The [London] Sunday Times wrote “U.S. Marines Turn Fire on Civilians at the Bridge of Death” (March 30, 2003), saying: “I counted 12 dead civilians, lying on the road or in nearby ditches…. Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the coalition’s supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young American Marines with orders to shoot anything that moved. One man’s body was still in flames. It gave out a hissing sound…. Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who may have been her father. Half his head was missing.” Franchetti then relates that a Lieutenant Matt Martin was distressed by what he saw, but “Martin’s distress was in contrast to the bitter satisfaction of some of his fellow Marines as they surveyed the scene. ‘The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy,’ said Corporal Ryan Dupre. ‘I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin’ Iraqi. No, I won’t get hold of one. I’ll just kill him.'” Did you see this reported by any of the major U.S. media?

At this point, you may be saying that while this killing of civilians at Nasiriya was tragic, it was an isolated incident. Guess again! According to Michel Guerrin in “I Saw Marines Kill Civilians” (LeMonde, April 12, 2003), Laurent Van der Stockt was a photographer under contract for The New York Times Magazine, accompanying that magazine’s editor Peter Maas with a Marines regiment on the outskirts of Baghdad on April 6. They were at a strategic bridge, and “American snipers got the order to kill anything coming in their direction. That night a teenager who was crossing the bridge was killed…. [Later] a small blue van was moving toward the convoy…. The Marines opened fire…. Two men and a woman had just been riddled with bullets…. A second vehicle drove up. The same scenario was repeated. Its passengers were killed on the spot. A grandfather was walking slowly with a cane on the sidewalk. They killed him too [see photo in LeMonde]. As with the old man, the Marines fired on a SUV driving along the river bank that was getting too close to them. Riddled with bullets, the vehicle rolled over. Two women and a child got out, miraculously still alive. They sought refuge in the wreckage. A few seconds later, it flew into bits as a tank lobbed a terse shot into it…. These hardened troops… were shooting on local inhabitants who understood absolutely nothing of what was going on. With my own eyes I [Van der Stockt] saw about fifteen civilians killed in two days. I’ve gone through enough wars to know that it’s always dirty, that civilians are always the first victims. But the way it as happening here, it was insane…. I drove away a girl who had had her humerus pierced by a bullet…. In the rear, the girl’s father was protecting his young son, wounded in the torso and losing consciousness. The man spoke in gestures to the doctor at the back of the lines, pleading: ‘I don’t understand, I was walking and holding my child’s hands. Why didn’t you shoot in the air? Or at least shoot me?'” What do you think the odds are that any of the soldiers responsible for this slaughter will ever be held accountable?

We also need to end our hypocrisy. Americans watching television were troubled at the sight of American prisoners being questioned by Iraqis, and the Bush administration found it objectionable as well. However, neither the Bush administration nor the American people have seemed overly concerned about Afghan prisoners being kept by the American military at Guantanamo Bay while the prisoners have had their hands and legs shackled, their eyes are blinded by opaque goggles, their ears are covered by earphones preventing them from hearing anything at all, and they have been shown forced to kneel. A second element of our hypocrisy is our concern for Iraqi civilian casualties. If an American pilot drops a bomb on an Iraqi military target and accidentally kills civilians who happened to have been there, that’s one thing. However, several weeks into the war against Iraq, several large bombs were dropped on a bunker where coalition forces suspected Saddam Hussein to be. The bunker was attached to the rear of a restaurant where there was reason to believe Iraqi civilians might be. The restaurant was greatly damaged, and soon recovered were the bodies of a man, woman and child (a teddy bear was shown in the rubble). Saddam was not found there, but American leaders apparently using an “ends justify means” morality justified the attack. The problem is that this type of morality is not Biblical, as Romans 3:8 states: “…Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.” But it gets even worse than bombing a restaurant. You may recall that a few years ago, the Israeli military restrained themselves from attacking a Christian church when Palestinian terrorists were inside. Well, on the front page of The New York Times (April 11, 2003) was an article titled “Hunting Top Iraqis, U.S. Attacks Mosque.” The article describes how even though officials in Washington said they had received no reports that Saddam Hussein was in the Imam al-Adham mosque in Baghdad, “American forces searching for Saddam Hussein attacked [this] mosque in Baghdad and later bombed it.” How do you think Muslims not only in Baghdad, but around the world, will feel about that?

Regarding the war with Iraq, it is important to look at who was pushing for it. In Ben Wattenberg’s “More feck, less hoc” (Jewish World Review, April 16, 2001), he asked: “So what might be the basis of an American foreign policy?” He then described a 1992 Department of Defense “Defense Planning Guidance” classified document written by then department Undersecretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby advocating a policy “that at its core was to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China. Such regional vigilance, they believed, would prevent the rise of a hostile global superpower.” This article was written almost 5 months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Paul Wolfowitz is now Deputy Defense Secretary, and on February 1, 2003, The New York Times published “The Brains Behind Bush’s War Policy” by Todd Purdum describing “a group that history may remember for the concept of the pre-emptive attack.” The article begins with these words: “Any history of the Bush administration’s march toward war with Iraq will have to take account of long years of determined advocacy by a circle of defense policy intellectuals whose view that Saddam Hussein can no longer be tolerated or contained is now ascendant…. At the center of this group are longtime Iraq hawks, Republicans like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; Richard Pearle, a former Reagan administration defense official who now heads the Defense Policy Board, the Pentagon’s advisory panel; and William Kristol, who was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle and now edits the conservative Weekly Standard.” The article later refers to “Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, [as] the co-author of a December 1, 1997 editorial with Mr. Kristol in The Weekly Standard, to which Mr. Wolfowitz contributed an article. The cover headline: ‘Saddam Must Go.'” On pages 176-177 of my book, The GlobalistsThe Power Elite Exposed, I show how the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace set the stage for our military action in Kosovo. You may recall that in the 1950s (after Alger Hiss was head of the Carnegie Endowment), Congressional investigator Norman Dodd revealed that the Carnegie Endowment had also set the stage for American involvement in World War I.

Toward the end of Todd Purdum’s article mentioned above, he indicated that Mr. Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan are the authors of a new book, The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission. Proponents of the war with Iraq have denied that it is an “imperialist” venture. However, according to Bruce Murphy in “Neoconservative clout seen in U.S. Iraq policy” (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 6, 2003), Lawrence Kaplan revealed: “The real question is not whether the American military can topple Hussein’s regime, but whether the American public has the stomach for imperial involvement of a kind we have not known since the United States occupied Germany and Japan.”

Todd Purdum in his article also referred to Mr. Kristol’s Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was begun in 1997. The next year, PNAC wrote a letter on January 26, 1998 to President Clinton urging him “to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.” The letter was signed by future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, as well as others who would hold senior positions in the upcoming Bush administration. It was also signed by CFR members Richard Perle, James Woolsey (Rhodes Scholar and former CIA director) and Zalmay Khalilzad (former Taliban lobbyist, UNOCAL adviser, and current Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan and Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein), among many others. In addition to stating that President Clinton’s strategy “should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,” it also indicated that “if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction,… the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.”

The Project for the New American Century is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, with William Kristol as chairman, and CFR members Robert Kagan, Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce P. Jackson, and John R. Bolton as directors, and Paul Wolfowitz among the Project participants. Robert Kagan is the author of the new book, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. In September 2000, the Project issued a report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” co-chaired by Donald Kagan (CFR member) and Gary Schmitt. And in the report one reads that “the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein…. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor…. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself.” Would not a war with Iraq afford the U.S. “a more permanent role in Gulf regional security” even after the “regime of Saddam Hussein” is gone? And wasn’t the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 “a catastrophic and catalyzing event” compared by many to “Pearl Harbor”? And did not President George W. Bush begin calling North Korea, Iran and Iraq “the axis of evil” and saying that we need “homeland security”?

Shortly after September 11, 2001, the Project for the New American Century wrote a letter to President Bush dated September 20. The letter was signed by, among others, CFR member Jeane Kirkpatrick (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.), Martin Peretz (Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic), and Midge Dector (a former vice-president of the League for Industrial Democracy, formerly called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society). It stated that “any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.” And in case anyone thought that action against Iraq would be all there was, the letter went on to say that “we believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.”

This September 20, 2001 letter was followed by one to President Bush dated April 3, 2002 and signed by, among others, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan and James Woolsey. Concerning Israel, it stated that “only the United States has the power and influence to provide meaningful assistance to our besieged ally…. No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an ‘Axis of Evil.’ …Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq…. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel…. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors…. Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.” It is important to remember here that in my Cover-up: Government Spin or Truth? book, I explained that according to a Washington Post article by Glenn Kessler, it was at this time (April 2002) that President Bush “approached [Condoleezza] Rice,” saying it was time to figure out “what we are doing about Iraq,” and telling a British reporter at the time that “I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go.”

On January 23, 2003, the Project for the New American Century again wrote a letter to President Bush, signed by, among others, CFR member Frank Carlucci (former Secretary of Defense, now with the Carlyle Group, a private global investment firm with defense contracts, global communications, etc.), CFR member Max Boot (Editorial Features Editor of The Wall Street Journal), and Gary Bauer (former head of the Family Research Council). The letter professed that “American strength is key to building the new world you have envisioned.” The phrase “the new world” sounds very close to the term “new world order” used by the previous President Bush, and it is useful here to remember that on September 14, 2001, at a CFR meeting in Washington, D.C., former U.S. Senator Gary Hart (co-chairman of the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century) announced: “There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out… a phrase his father used,… and that is a new world order.”

Finally, regarding the Project for the New American Century, on ABC’s Nightline (March 5, 2003), Ted Koppel, referring to the Project, began the program: “Tonight. ‘The Plan,’ how one group and its blueprint have brought us to the brink of war…. They were pushing for the elimination of Saddam Hussein, and proposing the establishment of a strong U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, linked to a willingness to use force to protect vital American interests in the Gulf. All of that might be of purely academic interest were it not for the fact that among the men behind that campaign were such names as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.” Professor Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania later on the program made the following startling statement: “Before 9/11, this group [Project for the New American Century] was in the position it is in but could not win over the President to the extravagant image of what foreign policy required. After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the President. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House.”

A second group setting the stage for a war against Iraq has been the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century (including CFR president Leslie Gelb and co-chaired by CFR member and former U.S. Senator Warren Rudman), which on September 15, 1999 issued a report titled “New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century.” In this report, one reads that “disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and mass disruption, and some will use them. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers…. Global forces, especially economic ones, will continue to batter the concept of national sovereignty. The state, as we know it, will also face challenges to its sovereignty under the mandate of evolving international law and by disaffected groups, including terrorists and criminals.” Then on April 15, 2000, the same Commission issued another report, “Seeking a National Strategy: A Concert for Preserving Security and Promoting Freedom,” in which one reads about terrorists and those possessing weapons of mass destruction that “the magnitude of the danger posed by weapons of mass destruction compels this nation to consider carefully the means and circumstances of preemption…. The United States must be willing to lead in assembling ad hoc coalitions outside of U.N. auspices if necessary…. The United States has a continuing critical interest in keeping the Persian Gulf secure, and… it must be a high priority to prevent either Iraq or Iran from deploying deliverable weapons of mass destruction.” Didn’t a large number of Americans die on American soil due to terrorist attacks? Hasn’t the economic impact of the World Trade Organization battered the concept of national sovereignty? And didn’t President George W. Bush talk about taking pre-emptive action against Iraq because of its weapons of mass destruction?

A third group setting the stage for a war against Iraq was an independent task force sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In addition to Enron chairman Kenneth Lay, the task force included many oil executives such as John Manzoni (British Petroleum), Steven Miller (Shell Oil), David O’Reilly (ChevronTexaco), and Jefferson Seabright (Texaco). Thomas McLarty of Kissinger McLarty Associates was also a member, and Stephen Oxman (Rhodes Scholar) who was an Assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton administration was an observer. CFR president Leslie Gelb thanked the task force for 3 “complicated video conferences and teleconferences” (almost a year before the attacks of September 11, 2001), which resulted in the report, “Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century.” Relevant to the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the report indicated that, “the exports from some oil discoveries in the Caspian Basin could be hastened if a secure, economical export route could be identified swiftly…. The option exists to downplay diplomatic activities that dictate certain geopolitical goals for specific transportation routes for Caspian oil in favor of immediate commercial solutions that may be sought by individual oil companies for short-term exports of ‘early’ oil, including exports through Iran.”

And relevant to the war with Iraq, the task force report stated: “Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a ‘Pan Arab’ leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to re-state the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. …Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade….” For a look at oil as a factor in making war, see Michael Klare’s Resource Wars (2003).

After the war with Iraq commenced, ABC News on March 22, 2003 related that “weeks before the first bombs dropped in Iraq, the Bush administration began rebuilding plans.” Referring to “Secret Bids,” ABC News indicated that it had “obtained a copy of a 99-page contract worth $600 million… Among the companies believed to be bidding are Bechtel… and Halliburton, Vice-President Cheney’s old firm. All are experienced. But in addition, all are generous political donors – principally to Republicans.” On the front page of The New York Times (April 18, 2003), Elizabeth Becker and Richard A. Oppel, Jr. reported that on April 17, “the Bush administration awarded the Bechtel Group the first major contract today in a vast reconstruction plan for Iraq…. The award will initially pay Bechtel $34.6 million and could go up to $680 million over 18 months…. The American taxpayer will pay the initial contract costs, but Iraqi oil revenue is supposed to eventually pay for much of the reconstruction.” Former Secretary of State George Shultz is on the board of directors of Bechtel, and was a leader of the group known as the “Vulcans,” who prepared George W. Bush for the presidential campaign of the year A.D. 2000.

On April 5, 2003 Reuters reported on the fourth meeting of the oil and energy working group of the U.S. State Department’s Future of Iraq project run by Thomas Warrick, special adviser to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. One finds in the story that “briefing papers to the meeting obtained by Reuters showed a clear consensus among expert opinion favoring production-sharing agreements to attract the major oil companies…. That is likely to thrill oil companies harboring hopes of lucrative contracts to develop Iraqi oil reserves…. Short-term rehabilitation of southern Iraqi oil fields already is under way, with oil well fires being extinguished by U.S. contractor Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton…. Long-term contracts are expected to see U.S. companies ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips compete with Anglo-Dutch Shell, Britain’s BP, Total Fina Elf of France, Russia’s LUKOIL and Chinese state companies…. Phillip Carroll, the former head of Shell in the United States, is said to be a candidate to oversee oil policy with Iraqi economist Muhammed-Ali Zainy in line to become his second in command.”

That President Bush is pursuing a New World Order just as his father was is verified by the PBS Frontline program “Blair’s War” (April 3, 2003), in which the announcer remarked: “Nine months after September 11 the President went to West Point to reveal his vision for a New World Order.” The policy would no longer be containment, but rather pre-emptive military strikes against perceived threats such as Saddam Hussein. The dialectic is the means by which the power elite is pursuing the New World Order. Relevant to Iraq, the thesis is that the U.N. should be the deciding authority. The antithesis is that the Anglo-American alliance (envisioned by Cecil Rhodes to “take the government of the whole world”) should decide what action to take. And the dialectical synthesis is that the Anglo-American alliance plus other members of the “coalition of the willing” (about 50 members, but far less than a majority of members of the U.N.) should decide what action to take. This synthesis, of course, is what transpired.

In case there’s any doubt that President Bush is pursuing the “New World Order” via the Anglo-American alliance with an ad hoc “coalition of the willing” mentioned above, note the words used by Michael Glennon in his article, “Why the Security Council Failed,” in the May/June edition of the CFR’s Foreign Affairs: “Architects of an authentic new world order must move beyond castles in the air – beyond imaginary truths that transcend politics – such as, for example, just war theory and the notion of the sovereign equality of states…. As the world moves into a new, transitional era, the old moralist vocabulary should be cleared away so that decision-makers can focus pragmatically on what is really at stake…. Getting to a consensus will be accelerated by dropping abstractions, moving beyond the polemical rhetoric of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.” Writing before the end of the war with Iraq, Glennon asserts that “however the war turns out, the United States will likely confront pressures to curb its use of force. These it must resist.” And he says that “if the war is swift and successful,… and if nation-building in Iraq goes well, there likely will be little impulse to revive the [U.N. Security] Council. In that event, the Council will have gone the way of the League of Nations…. Ad hoc coalitions of the willing will effectively succeed it.”

On a global scale, the synthesis will be western capitalism synthesized with eastern communism to form a world socialist government. Percy Corbett (a follower of Cecil Rhodes) in Post-War Worlds (1942) explained how the world government would be achieved by bringing together regional arrangements (Zbigniew Brzezinski at Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1995 State of the World Forum at the Presidio in San Francisco would similarly explain the movement toward world government). Relevant to Iraq today, the U.S. has repeatedly said that it wants to bring “democracy” to that nation, and the hope is that it will spread to other nations in the region. It is not coincidental that a Rhodes Scholar, Clarence Streit, over 60 years ago formed Association to Unite the Democracies (to which Henry Kissinger has contributed). According to the plan, once the nations of the Mideast region have become “democracies,” then this region can be united with other regions to form the ultimate goal, a synthesized world socialist government. For this all to happen, any criticism of Bush administration policies will have to be kept to a minimum (criticism of the war against Iraq has been branded as unpatriotic and harming our troops). This same tactic regarding President Franklin Roosevelt and the Second World War was described in Harry Elmer Barnes’ Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (1953). Interestingly, Bush administration officials have indicated the war on terrorism could be for an indefinitely long period (perpetual), with the goal of eventually accomplishing perpetual world peace. In Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace (1795), he described a process to achieve a federated “world republic” with “world citizenship.” And the Bush administration goal in Iraq is to have a federated republican form of government, which will then spread to other nations in the Mideast region.

In my book, Cover-up: Government Spin or Truth?, I mentioned that if certain logical things didn’t happen in a war with Iraq, then the reader should seriously consider whether the war was “staged.” It was logical that Saddam would flood southeastern Iraq with oil and set the desert ablaze, but he didn’t (only about 9 of 500 oil fields were torched). It was logical that Saddam would have destroyed the critically important H-2 and H-3 large air bases in western Iraq so U.S. forces couldn’t use them, but he didn’t. It was logical that Saddam would destroy the Safwan Highway leading from Kuwait to Baghdad, but he didn’t. It was logical that Saddam would clog the Euphrates River to hamper the advance of coalition forces, but he didn’t. It was logical that Saddam would destroy the many critical bridges over waterways from Kuwait to Baghdad, but he didn’t. It was logical that Saddam would try to hit Israel with scud or Al-Samoud missiles, but he didn’t. Since the coalition’s Patriot missile system cannot detect low-flying silkworm missiles, it is logical that Saddam would use a lot of them, but he only used one late at night against an empty mall in Kuwait. And it is logical that some Iraqi agent or sympathetic terrorist in the U.S. would have committed some belligerent act, but they haven’t. There are many more examples of things one would logically expect Saddam to have done, but that haven’t occurred. Even Rush Limbaugh on his April 1, 2003 national radio talk-show referred to Saddam’s call for terrorists to join him in Iraq to fight coalition forces by saying: “He’s now, or whoever is doing this, inadvertently arranging it so that as many terrorists as he can arrange are going to get into Iraq and be in our crosshairs. What a way this is playing out. You have to love this. Somebody’s going to eventually begin to wonder if we haven’t infiltrated the Iraqi government and are, in effect, in charge of their so-called military operations.” Though Rush was joking, he did nevertheless say what he said.

Could it be that Shakespeare was right in As You Like It when he said “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players”? And could it be that President Franklin Roosevelt was right when he said, “Nothing just happens in politics. If something happens, you can be sure it was planned that way”? Remember, if Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are found in Iraq, Saddam Hussein could have used them against coalition forces – but he deliberately did not! Interestingly, UPI Intelligence Correspondent Richard Sale on April 10, 2003 wrote “Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot,” in which it was learned that Saddam Hussein’s first contacts with U.S. officials “date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim…. [Later] while Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam’s apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.” The article went on to reveal that the CIA later provided Saddam’s Baath Party with a list of communists in Iraq, who were killed outright in large numbers, and that Saddam presided over the mass killings. Then Sale wrote that “the CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980.”

In the aftermath of the 2003 war with Iraq, the expectation has been that Iraqis would welcome American soldiers as liberators. While that may be true for many Iraqis, one should not mistake their hatred for Saddam as translating into a love for us. For example, even after Saddam had been toppled, John Kifner and Craig S. Smith in “Sunnis and Shiites Unite to Protest U.S. and Hussein” (The New York Times, April 19, 2003) wrote that “at overflow Friday prayer services in Baghdad, the huge Sunni mosque of Abu Hanafi opened its doors to members of the rival Shiite sect in a rare demonstration of solidarity. Hostility toward the Americans and the desire for an Islamic Iraq were on open display.” The article went on to say that the prayer leader said of the Americans: “I warn you against thinking of staying. Get out before we kick you out.” And, according to Kifner and Smith, “the prayer service ended with a demonstration filled with banners denouncing the United States and Israel.”

It should also be remembered that during the Gulf War in 1991, there were at least 100,000 casualties among Iraqi soldiers and 35,000 casualties among Iraqi civilians. Each of these 135,000 Iraqis may have had a living mother, father, wife or husband, son, daughter, brother, and sister. That would amount to about 1 million Iraqis who wouldn’t like us. And if each of those 135,000 Iraqi casualties had about 15 friends, that could amount to another 2 million who wouldn’t like us. In total, that could amount to about one-eighth of the population of Iraq who would probably greatly dislike us, and that feeling will not soon go away.

Furthermore, on ABC’s Nightline(April 7, 2003), John Donvan reported on widespread looting in Basra, as coalition (British) forces were not initially interested in “policing” the city. And on April 9, CBS’s John Roberts reported widespread looting in southeastern Iraq as American forces likewise were not interested in “policing” the area. This raises the question of how some Iraqis will feel about their liberators if their liberation means their possessions are stolen. This is especially the case regarding the Iraqi National Museum, as ABC News on April 12 reported that American forces had not prevented its ancient and extremely valuable treasures from being looted (obviously they were more concerned about protecting the Iraqi oil fields). The looters obviously didn’t take the rare artifacts to display in their homes, but rather to sell, probably mostly to rich westerners. The result is that the West not only gets Iraqi oil, but also many treasured artifacts it would not have gotten if American soldiers had guarded the museum. The insensitivity of many Americans concerning the looting of the Iraqi National Museum is reflected in the following statement by the extremely egotistical Rush Limbaugh on his April 14, 2003 national radio program, in which he sarcastically referred to this incident by saying: “Priceless Iraqi treasures of art! Priceless examples of the centuries old Iraqi culture! What Iraqi culture? I mean, exactly what culture is there? What automobile is produced there? What Nobel Prize winners are there?… The fact of the matter is – what great culture?” In contrast to this, ABC News reported on April 17 that a third member of the President’s advisory board on cultural property had resigned in protest over the U.S. failure to prevent the pillage of the Iraqi National Museum. And on ABC’s Nightline the same day, former U.S. Ambassador (now at the National War College) Peter Galbraith commented: “Talking to the Iraqis, they remember President Bush talking about their rich heritage, how much he admired it. So they were really left wondering how could he have talked that way and yet allowed this to happen. This is an event that’s going to shape the psyche of the Iraqis for a long time to come.”

On April 15, 2003, the American government brought together leaders from various parts of Iraqi society to begin the formation of an interim government. But NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell reporting on the meeting that day said “a man many think the U.S. wants to see step in as new leader of Iraq [is] Ahmad Chalabi, head of Iraqi National Congress. The U.S. airlifted him with 600 of his aides during the war.” What kind of message does this send, when it is widely known that Chalabi is a fugitive from Jordanian justice since he was convicted there of fraud and embezzlement? Think about it. The U.S. invaded Panama and seized its ruler, Manuel Noriega, because he had violated American domestic law. But now, we provide a military escort for Ahmad Chalabi to contest for a leadership position in Iraq, when he is a fugitive from Jordanian domestic law!

We should pray for the safety of our American and other coalition soldiers and representatives in Iraq for some time to come. And we should also pray that God will comfort the families of those who have lost their lives during this conflict.

It is somewhat risky to predict what will transpire in Iraq, but it is important nevertheless to do so. Currently, there are two opposing forces at work. On the one hand, there are strong religious and secular factions vying for control and not prone to compromise. American policy analysts also indicate that it will take some time to educate the Iraqi people regarding the many aspects and requirements of self-government. On the other hand, however, Bush administration officials are emphasizing that they want an interim government, followed by a Constitution, followed by a final government in place as soon as possible, so that military forces can be withdrawn as soon as possible. The result of these two opposing forces will probably be that a much publicized withdrawal of a large portion of coalition military personnel will occur rather quickly. A sizeable number of soldiers and “political advisers,” though, will remain. There will then be pressure from the Iraqis for even these people to leave, but the coalition response will be that they will be glad to leave as soon as the various Iraqi factions all agree on the provisions of a Constitution and form of government. This will create pressure upon the factions to compromise in a manner and with leaders that the U.S. and Britain believe will coincide with their strategic interests (e.g., treaties allowing American military bases in Iraq, along with oil production rights, etc.). These factional compromises will be brought about via sophisticated methods of manipulation with which most Iraqis are unfamiliar. The Anglo-American alliance will utilize British T-Group (perhaps Tavistock) methods along with American Delphi techniques using Socratic questions by trained facilitators (perhaps from the National Training Laboratories) to bring about a pre-determined consensus to our liking without most Iraqis even knowing what has happened to them.

There is also important symbolism regarding Biblical “End Times” prophecy regarding the system of “compromise” we’re trying to insert into Iraq, which could be characterized as “a return to Babylon.” While it’s a stretch to say Americans “worship” the Statue of Liberty, it is held in very high regard. But “liberty” in the U.S. today has come to mean “don’t impose morality,” which is exactly what the term “liberté” meant as a slogan of the French Revolution. Why is this important? It’s because the Statue of Liberty (sculpted by Frederic Bartholdi and engineered by Gustave Eiffel, both of France) was a gift from the French people for “the ideal of liberty shared by both peoples.” And the Statue of Liberty looks exactly like Semiramis (see pictures of both), even including the 7 rays coming from their heads.

“Seven rays” is an occultic concept, as the leading occultist of the first half of the 20th century, Alice Bailey, authored books such as The Seven Rays of Life and The Seventh Ray: Revealer of the New Age. Bailey’s works were first published by Lucifer Publishing, and she often wrote of the need for a “New World Order” and “points of light” connected to “service.” Semiramis was reportedly the founder of Babylon (Iraq) and known for her sexual excesses (“don’t impose morality”). Voltaire, a guiding light of the French Revolution and proponent of “don’t impose morality,” even wrote a play called Semiramis. The “liberté” of the French Revolution is actually “license” to fornicate, look at pornography, have abortions, etc. The Illuminati were an important force behind the French Revolution and its “license,” using symbols that go back at least to Atlantis. And Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis referred to America. “Fundamentalist” is a term increasingly used derisively by more and more Americans as referring to someone who wants “to impose morality.” And “fundamentalist” refers not only to Christians but also to Muslims like the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq (Babylon) who have strict moral codes. The U.S. today wants to bring its values to Iraq, including the compromise of “religious (moral) tolerance,” which would disallow the imposition of a particular morality (e.g., Shiite) via a theocratic state. Thus, we could be witnessing the “return to Babylon,” in which Semiramis ruled!

Why is this important for the New World Order? Sir Francis Bacon was a leading Rosicrucian (as were Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson), and in the June 1941Rosicrucian Digest, the goals for the future world government were stated. In the article titled, “The Thought of the Month: Make Your Own Prophecies,” the Rosicrucian Imperator proclaimed, “We predict a mystical-pantheism as the religion of tomorrow…. There will not be churches, but a church. There will not be sects, but degrees and grades of comprehension…. The multiplicity of social states, countries, or nations will cease to be…. The world population will be permitted to freely migrate…. Politically, wherever they reside, they will be taken and accepted as equal citizens of the United World State…. The World State will provide and maintain community hospitals, sanitariums, and clinics for the care of the sick and injured…. Taxation will be adequate to meet the expense. Physicians… will be paid by the state and their entire professional services will be absorbed by the state…. Every citizen will enjoy these health benefits and guarantees…. No individual will be permitted to study for a profession, who is not intellectually or temperamentally suited to it” (School-to-Work today)…. Quotas will be placed upon all professions, in each of the zones, of the World State…. Men will not be huddled behind nationalistic barriers or frontiers as now” (portable skill credentials today). Are these goals coming to fruition today?

On May 1, 2003, President Bush declared that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” but that the war on terrorism still goes on. We will now have to wait and see what the next stage in the movement toward the New World Order will be, but it will be managed by the power elite. As Planetary Citizens co-founder and World Federalist Association board of directors member Donald Keys (speechwriter for foreign ministers, ambassadors and U.N. Secretary-General U Thant) stated in a speech titled, “Toward a Global Society,” at a symposium: “We’re at a stage now of pulling it all together. It’s a new religion called ‘networking.’ …When it comes to running a world or taking people into a New Age,… don’t anyone think for a moment that you can run a planet without a head…. This planet has to be managed….”

Most pages of history have turned slowly, but in recent years plans and actions leading us toward a world socialist government have speeded up. Thus, for freedom’s sake, people everywhere need to be constantly informed and vigilant as to where we are being led, so that hopefully the power elite’s efforts in this regard might be effectively resisted. And remember the advice given in the final paragraph of the “Conclusion” to Cover-up: Government Spin or Truth? that “we should pray daily and with sincere hearts to God, our only real and Eternal Hope.”

© 2003 Dennis L. Cuddy – All Rights Reserved

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education. He has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited seventeen books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS’s Nightwatch.

10 13 11 flagbar


Meet the New Boss….. Same as the Old Boss


By Antonius Aquinas

As expected, the new Federal Reserve Chairwoman, Janet Yellen, is continuing the same destructive polices of her infamous predecessor, the counterfeiter-in-chief, Benjamin Bernanke. While Bernanke and now Yellen’s polices have, so far, been devastating for the vast majority of Americans (especially savers), their actions have been a boon for the banking, governmental, and financial establishments not only in America, but around the globe.

Like “Helicopter Ben,” Yellen has been masterful in obfuscating, distorting, and lying about the actual reality of the U.S. economy. Of course, this is why she was, in part, chosen as Fed chair to provide “intellectual cover” and “spin” of the facts in order that the real manipulators of the economy – the mega banks and financial houses – continue to receive a goodly amount of the Fed’s monthly “stimulus” program.

In Congressional “testimony,” Yellen considers “inflation” to have been kept in check, “Inflation is running well below our 2% target. . . . ” Yet, as everyone knows prices for nearly every commodity have gone up significantly since the beginning of the crisis in 2007. And, Ms. Yellen failed to mention, nor did any of the gullible politicians who questioned her know, that the Fed’s “measurement” of prices no longer includes energy or food prices! Gasoline prices have nearly doubled since Obummer has taken office while food prices have soared over the same period.

Ms. Yellen surpassed her doozie on inflation with her statement on unemployment or, more accurately, the lack of meaningful employment throughout the economy. While she acknowledges that the economy has not achieved “maximum employment” (whatever that means), she amazingly added: “there has been substantial job creation.” One wonders what piece of data Ms. Yellen is using to substantiate such a ridiculous claim. Maybe she should ask some recent college graduates about “job creation” where most have either moved back home with their parents or are working at jobs, which do not require overpriced “higher education.”

Perhaps, no group has been more negatively affected by the Fed’s monetary policy than retirees. Yet, to Yellen, and Bernanke before her, the lack of interest on saving for those who have to rely on it for their independence and survival is not thought of as dire by our financial masters, but as if one’s favorite sports team lost a championship game. “A low-interest-rate environment is a tough one for retirees” was the response when the subject was posed to the Madam chairwoman. She compounded her lack of concern with a nonsensical explanation for the abnormally low rates: “There’s an excess of saving relative to the demand for those savings for investment purposes.”

If Yellen were honest, she would explain that the Fed’s “zero interest rate policy” is deliberate so that the Federal government can borrow money at virtually no cost in order to sustain its massive deficit spending and to provide “liquidity” to the insolvent banking system in order that it does not collapse. Period!

What Americans have to realize is that the primary purpose of the Fed from its surreptitious founding until the present day has been to protect the “solvency” of the banking system. Unemployment, the “price level,” trade imbalances, or the overall health of the economy are secondary concerns for the Fed. While Yellen and her predecessors may fret about the level of employment or inflationary “targets,” it is simply theatre to placate the clueless in Congress and among the financial press where not a few reside.

Until the Federal Reserve is liquidated and replaced with a monetary order of sound money – gold/silver – the chance of any real sustainable economic growth is nil. Sadly, the likelihood of a return to a system of sound money will not take place until there is a general economic collapse or a severe financial crisis. The ruling power structure will not relinquish a primary source of their dominance.

While there will, in all likelihood, be a financial collapse, it is not a given that there will be a return to sound money in the aftermath of such an event. The power elite will more than likely impose severer financial controls. Sound money and its corollary – economic growth – will only come about when there is an “intellectual turnabout” where central banking is discredited and shown as an engine for the betterment of the financial and political elite at the expense and misery of everyone else. Until that glorious day when the scourge of central banking is eradicated, Americans and all those living under its suzerainty will continue to face economic and social decay.

Antonius Aquinas


As long as the central fiat currency Banking system is in power, the entire world will exist in chaos, tyranny, poverty, and debt slavery.

Of course their elite managers will live like kings, and their underlings will have all they need to stay loyal. The rest are shit out of luck!

10 13 11 flagbar

Crimeans Vote to Leave Ukraine, Join Russia



Just two weeks after Russian troops seized their peninsula, Crimeans voted Sunday to leave Ukraine and join Russia, overwhelmingly approving a referendum that sought to unite the strategically important Black Sea region with the country it was part of for some 250 years.

The vote was widely condemned by Western leaders, who planned to move swiftly to punish Russia with economic sanctions.

As the votes were counted, a jubilant crowd gathered around a statue of Vladimir Lenin in the center of Simferopol to celebrate with song and dance. Many held Russian flags, and some unfurled a handwritten banner reading “We’re Russian and proud of it.” Fireworks exploded in the skies above.

“We want to go back home, and today we are going back home,” said Viktoria Chernyshova, a 38-year-old businesswoman. “We needed to save ourselves from those unprincipled clowns who have taken power in Kiev.”

Ukraine’s new government in Kiev called the referendum a “circus” directed at gunpoint by Moscow, referring to the thousands of troops that now occupy the peninsula, which has traded hands repeatedly since ancient times.

The referendum offered voters the choice of seeking annexation by Russia or remaining in Ukraine with greater autonomy. After 50 percent of the ballots were counted, more than 95 percent of voters had approved splitting off and joining Russia, according to Mikhail Malishev, head of the referendum committee.

Final results were not expected until Monday.

Opponents of secession appeared to have stayed away Sunday, denouncing the vote as a cynical power play and land grab by Russia.

Putin insisted the referendum was conducted in “full accordance with international law and the U.N. charter.”

Russia was expected to face strong sanctions Monday from the U.S. and Europe for going forward with the vote, which could also encourage rising pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine’s east and lead to further divisions in this nation of 46 million. Residents in western Ukraine and the capital, Kiev, are strongly pro-West and Ukrainian nationalist.

Andrew Weiss, vice president for Russian and East European studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggested the confrontation could intensify.

Russia “is really turning its back on the outside world and is basically going to say to the West, ‘Now, go ahead. Show us how tough you are.’ And the West, I think, is struggling to come with an adequate response.”

The Crimean parliament planned to meet Monday to formally ask Moscow to be annexed, and Crimean lawmakers were to fly to Moscow later in the day for talks, Crimea’s pro-Russia prime minister said on Twitter.

Russian lawmaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky said the annexation could take “from three days to three months,” according to the Interfax news agency.

Some residents in Crimea said they feared the new Ukrainian government that took over when President Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia last month would oppress them.

“It’s like they’re crazy Texans in western Ukraine. Imagine if the Texans suddenly took over power (in Washington) and told everyone they should speak Texan,” said Ilya Khlebanov, a voter in Simferopol.

Ukraine’s new prime minister insisted that neither Ukraine nor the West would recognize the vote.

“Under the stage direction of the Russian Federation, a circus performance is underway: the so-called referendum,” Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Sunday. “Also taking part in the performance are 21,000 Russian troops, who with their guns are trying to prove the legality of the referendum.”

As soon as the polls closed, the White House again denounced the vote.

“The international community will not recognize the results of a poll administered under threats of violence,” it said in a statement. “Russia’s actions are dangerous and destabilizing.”

Russia raised the stakes Saturday when its forces, backed by helicopter gunships and armored vehicles, took control of the Ukrainian village of Strilkove and a key natural gas distribution plant nearby — the first Russian military move into Ukraine beyond the Crimean peninsula of 2 million people.

The Russian forces later returned the village but kept control of the gas plant. On Sunday, Ukrainian soldiers were digging trenches and erecting barricades between the village and the gas plant.

“We will not let them advance further into Ukrainian territory,” said Serhiy Kuz, commander of a Ukrainian paratrooper battalion.

Despite the threat of sanctions, Putin has vigorously resisted calls to pull back in Crimea. At the United Nations on Saturday, Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution declaring the referendum illegal.

However, Putin spoke with President Barack Obama and supported a proposal from Germany to expand an international observer mission in Ukraine, the Kremlin said Sunday in a statement after the vote.

“The heads of state noted that despite the differences in their assessments, it was necessary to work together to find a way to stabilize the situation in Ukraine,” the statement said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who also spoke with Putin on Sunday, wants more observers sent to tense areas, particularly in eastern Ukraine, her spokesman said. Putin told Obama that such a mission would be welcome but would need to be extended to all regions in Ukraine, the Kremlin said.

In Donetsk, one of the main cities in eastern Ukraine, pro-Russia demonstrators called Sunday for a referendum similar to the one in Crimea.

In the streets of Sevastopol, the Crimean port where Russia now leases a major naval base from Ukraine for $98 million a year, speakers blared the city anthem, but the military threat was not far away — a Russian naval warship still blocked the port’s outlet to the Black Sea, trapping Ukrainian boats.

At a polling station inside a historic school, tears came to Vladimir Lozovoy, a 75-year-old retired Soviet naval officer, as he talked about his vote.

“I want to cry. I have finally returned to my motherland. It is an incredible feeling. This is the thing I have been waiting for for 23 years,” he said.

But Crimea’s large Muslim Tatar minority — whose families had been forcibly removed from their homeland and sent to Central Asia during Soviet times — remained defiant.

The Crimea referendum “is a clown show, a circus,” Tatar activist Refat Chubarov said on Crimea’s Tatar television station. “This is a tragedy, an illegitimate government with armed forces from another country.”

The fate of Ukrainian soldiers trapped in their Crimean bases by pro-Russian forces was still uncertain. But Ukraine’s acting defense minister, Igor Tenyuk, was quoted as saying Sunday that an agreement had been reached with Russia not to block Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea through Friday. It was not clear exactly what that meant.

Ethnic Ukrainians interviewed outside the Ukrainian Orthodox cathedral of Vladimir and Olga said they refused to take part in the referendum, calling it an illegal charade stage-managed by Moscow. Some said they were scared of the potential for widespread harassment.

Vasyl Ovcharuk, a retired gas pipe layer, predicted dark days ahead for Crimea.

“This will end up in military action, in which peaceful people will suffer. And that means everybody,” he said. “Shells and bullets are blind.”

 Associated Press writers Dalton Bennett in Sevastopol, Yuras Karmanau in Strilkove, Jim Heintz and Maria Danilova in Kiev and David Melendy in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.


Perhaps my readers should consider the results of Obama turning us over to the regional dictators planned to govern us after he joins the North American Union, composed of Canada, Mexico, and the former United States of America. If you do not believe this is possible, then you have not been paying attention to the Bankers long term plans. You still believe you elected our Government, and have control of our future by that process, but history proves you wrong. Just like Russia, China, and the EU members, we have been ruled by the elite employees of the International Investment Banking Cartel for over a hundred years. Their human resources are limitless across the globe and totally committed to the Cartel and their one world Government. You can read all about it in the archives of my web sites. /

The global elite are fueling both sides of the conflict.  Typical playbook.  Worse, the conflict is not just for profit and control over the region.  The psychopath vision of western intelligence trained terrorist cells intending to eventually attack countries around the globe is a powerful theme and likely a real threat with cutouts and operatives attacking innocents used to create cover for the creation of a global military and global police state with no restraint. OD & JV

10 13 11 flagbar

Final Goal: of the Surveillance State


3-12-2014 1-50-30 PM

 Jon Rappoport

Surveillance is coming at us from all angles. Chips, drones, TSA checkpoints, smart meters, back-doored electronic products, video cameras, spying home appliances; our phone calls and emails and keystrokes and product purchases are recorded.

The government and its allied corporations will know whatever they want to know about us.

What then?

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans have no logistical chance of operating unless every citizen is assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to: placing every individual under systems of control. It isn’t just “we’re watching you” or “we’re stamping out dissent.” It’s “we’re directing your participation in life.”

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, “When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It’s irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?”
Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by the bankers Central Planners. When it’s an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, “for the common good.”

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportation—they all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world, while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs “the wise ones” to rescue it and us.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that “the great good for the greatest number” is the only humane and acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of life—managed with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

This is the vision.

It isn’t ours. It never was. But we are not consulted.

Instead we are made witness to watershed events: the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; the 2001 assault on the Trade Center and the Pentagon. These ops paralleled the unleashing of better and more far-ranging methods of surveillance.

We are profiled down to the threads on our clothing and DNA in our cells. But what is our profile of the technocrats and their bosses?

They are divorced from human life. They live in a vacuum. They take pleasure from that vacuum.

In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who had just left his job as PR chief at Lawrence Livermore Labs, where scientists design nuclear weapons. Perry had been given the kind of job PR people long for. But one day, when he passed the desk of a researcher and listened to his complaints about budget limitations, Perry said, “Listen, America already has the means to blow up the whole planet eight times. What more do you need?”

The researcher looked up at him with a genuinely puzzled expression. He said, “You don’t understand, Bill. This is a problem in physics.”

In the same detached sense, the technocrats who want to calculate and direct our future, move by move, minute by minute, see us as components of a complex and very interesting problem.

Yes, they indeed expect to exercise power and control. But they also live in an abstraction. They deal their answers from that realm. They exercise cool passion. They see, for example, that not every single twitch of thought of every person on earth is yet mapped, so they want to finish constructing the means by which they can chart those “missing elements.” They want to complete the formula.

They view their research as a wholly natural implication of the mathematics they can manipulate. They swim in technology and they want to extend its architecture. To abandon the program would be tantamount to denying their own intelligence. They climb the mountain because it is there.

They do perceive that one factor does not fit their algorithms: the free individual. It’s the wild card. Therefore, they are compelled to analyze freedom and break it down into DNA functions and brain processes. They assume, because they must, that the free individual is an illusory idea that flows from some older configuration of synaptic transmission, at a time in our evolution when we needed it. But now, they suppose, the engineering of human activity and thought has superseded such quaint notions. Now we all can be tracked, traced, and studied on a different and wider scale. Now we can be seen for what we really are: a hive.

Therefore, we must be instructed, within tight limits, about our various functions.

Today’s technocrats flourish with great optimism as they design the future world and its single society. If they run out of pieces of their puzzle to study, they’ll try to track the motion of every atom and electron and quark in the universe. They’ll delight in it.

Knowing all this, we know the terms of the war we are in.

The Central Planners have an equation: “free=uncontrolled=dangerous.”

By the gross terms of that equation, they lump us in with thugs and murderers and terrorists. They even see the normal functioning of the brain as a threat, as an intrinsically defective process, and they have long since decided that organ must be corrected with drugs.

We, on the other hand, must assert, in every way possible, that freedom is real and inviolable, and we must back that up with our actions.

Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at

10 13 11 flagbar

Ruling Class Continues to Play Both Sides of Political Conflicts


3-12-2014 1-49-46 PM

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post
By now, it should be clear to all informed observers that there are only two options regarding the true motivation behind the decisions being taken by the American ruling class, particularly in terms of foreign policy – a truly hidden agenda aimed at moving geopolitical chess pieces into place for the purposes of initiating a world conflict and the establishment of a hegemonic world order or, simply put, absolute mental insanity.
From seemingly irrational decisions such as the support of Fascism in Ukraine to the support of Al-Qaeda and other Muslim Fundamentalist terrorists in Syria, the apparent (at least at first glance) bungling of good relations with Egypt, and the destruction of Libya, the U.S. foreign policy is either bent on the arrangement of battle lines between thermonuclear powers, or it is simply incapable of making rational decisions to avoid such a confrontation.
Personally, I tend to believe the former.
While it is true that insanity does not preclude the presence of intelligence, even high intelligence, it is also true that the ruling class in the United States and the rest of the world, regardless of seemingly insane and self-destructive decisions, has also managed to maintain a firm grip on its power. Thus, the extent to which they which the ruling class is willing to diminish their power on the basis of nationalism or nationally-based political decisions, is virtually nonexistent.

Clearly, those afflicted with various forms of psychopathy will tend to vie for power and fight amongst one another on occasion. However, such internal squabbles should not be reduced to mean an entirely divided opposition. In fact, the world ruling elites have manipulated geopolitical decisions and outcomes since time immemorial. These same ruling elites have initiated world wars in the past, complete with the requisite devastating effects on the little people down below. Yet the ruling class has always managed to survive as well as to hold on to their positions of power.

Thus, it is important to remember that, as we continue to watch the development of international concerns and as geopolitical tensions arise, there are much higher levels of coordination than those in elected positions in Washington, D.C., London, Moscow, or Beijing.

What appears at first glance to be total insanity, poor political decision-makers, and counter-productive foreign policy positions, most often is an entirely planned and coordinated set of events set in motion a long time ago.

From the negotiation of atrocious trade deals that ship domestic jobs overseas to the reduction of one nation’s military power while its alleged enemies continue to arm, or even the undying support for a settler state in the face of all morality, law, and common sense; if the engineers of such decisions were merely irrational lunatics, they would have destroyed themselves long ago.

Thus, as the United States, once an undeniable world superpower, seemingly does everything it can to throw away all of its power and influence in certain regions, allowing the Russians and the Chinese to swoop in and take the spoils, it is an absolute must to remember that those in true control of such decisions are marching forward on a plan created a long time ago and are not merely reacting to the development of random and unplanned geopolitical events.

Of course, the above comments should not be interpreted as fatalistic or suggesting that nothing can be done about the state of the world. In fact, the point of this article is quite to the contrary.

In the end, if we are to divert the world from the collision course it is now set upon, we must do so with the full realization that official agreements and geopolitical power grabs are most often, though not always, already a planned part of a much bigger agenda.

The world’s ruling elites have already written a script that they demand be followed from beginning to end.

But that script can be re-written.

It is up to us to rewrite it.

Recently by Brandon Turbeville:

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 275 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) 

10 13 11 flagbar

This World Bank Insider Will Blow You Away: There Is A “Huge Global Conspiracy”


Mac Slavo

Former Senior Counselor at the World Bank Karen Hudes has spent the last several years of her life working closely with whistle blowers from around the world to shed light on what she calls a “global conspiracy.”

While working for the World Bank as a member of their legal team Hudes uncovered so much corruption that she could no longer keep quiet. She followed the proper channels to report her findings, going first to the organization’s Evaluation Department and country directors, and then to the U.S. Treasury Department and even the United States Congress. All of her requests were ignored, and in some cases, completely covered up. So she did what any honest person would do. She went public. Suffice it to say, she received the typical treatment you’d expect for a whistle blower.

Hudes is no longer with the World Bank, but that didn’t stop her from continuing her investigation by joining an organization of other whistle blowers.

What she found once she started connecting the dots will blow you away. The corruption, as most of us know, isn’t just at the World Bank, but is woven throughout the fabric of the entirety of the global financial and political systems.

Her interview with Future Money Trends will absolutely blow you away.

We have solved the mystery as to why humanity has had nothing but wars and terrible problems… why we’re always at each other’s throats.

This group is part of a huge conspiracy…

We suggest you buckle up for this one:
(Watch at Youtube)

Covering everything from the current economic crisis all the way back to the reasons behind the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, Hudes will leave you with a totally different view of how the upper echelons of the global power structure work and how far the elite will go to maintain total control.

Interweaving through topics that include financial collapse, high level banking machinations, Snowden, false flags, JFK, Lincoln, and even the Vatican, Karen Hudes is no holds barred.

I have gone to something called the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions and I have been collaborating with all the whistle blowers of the world… and we’re bound and determined that we’re going to get this corruption taken care of.

A very accurate… it’s called the power transition model… it uses political science and computer modelings… that model is 90% to 95% accurate… and it is predicting that the corruption that has been plaguing the world, it turns out for millennia, is coming down… a lot of people call that the Matrix, a lot of people call that the banksters… it’s actually much, much more.

Here are just some of the topics covered – listen to the entire interview for a better understanding of how it all fits together:

The fact that he [NSA Whistle Blower Edward Snowden] is getting coverage on the mainstream media should be letting people know that he is part of the Matrix, because the mainstream media is owned and controlled by the same group that are the owners of the Bank for International Settlement… that is a scam.

People are supposed to have currency that’s issued by their governments directly which doesn’t carry interest. That is what John F. Kennedy was trying to do and the reason why he was assassinated. That’s what Lincoln was doing with the Greenbacks… that’s why Lincoln was assassinated…

The banks that are Too-Big-To-Fail… that’s really one banking cartel… and that group is going around buying up politicians… there are secret societies like the Knights of Malta and they’re promoting people and making sure that those people become the gatekeepers.

Many people do not know, for example, that in Charleston, South Carolina there was supposed to be a nuclear device detonated… instead two heroes made sure that the nuclear device went off off the coast… The Russians told people about that because they intercepted the Naval communications.

If that [a loss of confidence in the US dollar] is allowed to happen we will enter something very similar to the dark ages. We won’t be able to pay for international trade… We will have pestilence… We will have mass starvation.

What we have found out, and this sounds implausible, but it is absolutely correct… the fact that is has been held in secret doesn’t mean that it’s not true… it is true… there’s a second species on this planet… they’re not extraterrestrials… remnants of their civilizations are all over the place… this group has large brains… they’re very distinct from homo sapiens… We know this because their DNA was just tested… they have skulls all over the place, because they have been on earth with us.

Just because this group likes to hide and likes to accuse people of having conspiracy theories doesn’t make these facts wrong. They’re facts.

Many of us have long suspected there are cartels that include leading financiers, politicians, business conglomerates, and secret societies working together to achieve their goals of maintaining power, control and stability over the citizens of every country in the world. They will do so by whatever means necessary.

The investigations conducted by Karen Hudes and her colleagues have shed a lot more light on the conspiracy. It turns out that it’s not just theory. It’s fact.

10 13 11 flagbar

8 Events That Prove Your Money Is Not Safe In Europe, Or Anywhere


3-8-2014 9-40-31 AM Jeff Berwick

Activist Post

As I write this, the European Union has just announced a possible $15b aid package to Ukraine (including 8 billion euros in fresh credit). Everybody has read the headlines about Europe: record unemployment, no end in sight, and so on.

So you might be wondering just where the European Union, and its constituent nations, scraped together the money to propose aid for Ukraine.

Well, wonder no more, because the following eight events might give you an idea of where governments go to get a little extra cash.

1. In March, 2009, Ireland seized €4bn from its Pension Reserve fund in order to rescue its banks. In November 2010, the remaining savings of €2.5bn was seized to support the bailout of the rest of the country.

2. In December, 2010, Hungary told its citizens that they could either remit their private pension money to the state or lose their state pension funds (but still have to pay for it nonetheless).

3. In November, 2010, the French parliament decided to earmark €33bn from the national reserve pension fund FRR to reduce the short-term pension scheme deficit.

4. In early January 2011, $60 million in private retirement funds were transferred to the state’s pension scheme in Bulgaria.  They wanted to transfer $300 million, but were denied on their first attempt

5. In the Spring of 2013 Cyprus took it a step further and outright confiscated up to 50% of the funds from bank account holders in that country.6. In the Fall of 2013 the Polish government announced it would transfer to the state (aka. confiscate) the bulk of assets owned by the country’s private pension funds (many of them owned by such foreign firms as PIMCO parent Allianz, AXA, Generali, ING and Aviva), without offering any compensation.7.  In February 2014, Italian banks were ordered by the Italian government to withhold a 20% tax on all inbound wire transfers. Il Sole reported, “the deductions will be automatic (unless prior request for exclusion), and then it will be up to the taxpayer to prove that the money is not in the nature of compensation ‘income.'”

8. The savings of all 500 million Europeans can be stolenby the European Union. Why? Because the financial crisis is not over, according to an EU document. The Commission is looking to ask the bloc’s insurance watchdog in the second half of 2014 for advice on how to draft a law “to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing,” the document said.

So you see, European governments and institutions have already begun seizing private pension funds, slapping 20% taxes on all incoming wire transfers, confiscating up to 50% from private bank accounts and even stating all the savings of Europe are fair game.  As we’ve said before, this phenomenom of wealth confiscation won’t stay confined to Europe. The US has also taken measures to ensure ease of access to the funds of everyday Americans.

We’ve said for many years now that the US government and almost all Western governments are bankrupt. This means they will try to confiscate as much wealth as possible from people who don’t carefully save before the collapse. Mark our words: US 401ks and IRAs will be nationalized in the next four years as well—maybe as soon as the next one or two years.

If you’ve stayed in tune with the Dollar Vigilante blog, you probably already understood this. If you haven’t already, be sure to check into our subscription services to gain access to the intelligence you need to stay ahead of the pack.

Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.


A modest amount of currency, and as much ammo as you can afford is wise to keep in a safe at home, provided it is a good and heavy one. But the bulk of your investments and other assets must be protected from these thieves in our government and their employers, by converting it into commodities that are needed for survival in a post martial law environment. If you are a city dweller I recommend getting out asap, and by now you should know it is past time to start preparing for self defense in a more controllable residence than you may be presently in. I will not suggest which commodities are best for everyone because I really don’t know how other people think. I for one intend to be as independent from dependence on the existing infrastructure as possible. There are thousands of ways of accomplishing this and each person has a different opinion on how it’s accomplished. Do your own research. But, don’t depend on the existing system to continue much longer.

3-4-2014 10-44-14 PM

10 13 11 flagbar

The History and Science of Color Revolutions Part 1


3-7-2014 3-24-30 PM

By Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

In my last article, “Color Revolutions 101: The Making Of A Controlled Revolution,” I discussed the basic setup of various State agencies, intelligence apparatus, Non-Governmental Organizations, and Foundations that enable and engineer color revolutions across the world. In that article, I attempted to show the different manifestations of the color revolution as well as the methodology used to coordinate such movements in their various locations.

Although more recent movements were the focus of that discussion, it is important to understand, however, that the color revolution is not merely a recent invention on the part of the ruling elite. In fact, this particular method of destabilization has quite a long history, having been perfected in the late 1960s and refined into an art form as time has progressed.

Indeed, Jonathan Mowat adds to the recent historical understanding of the controlled-coup and color revolutions in his article, “The New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents,’” also focusing on the players and the methods of deployment. Mowat writes,

Much of the coup apparatus is the same that was used in the overthrow of President Fernando Marcos of the Philippines in 1986, the Tiananmen Square destabilization in 1989, and Vaclav Havel’s “Velvet revolution” in Czechoslovakia in 1989. As in these early operations, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and its primary arms, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI), played a central role. The NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983, to do overtly what the CIA had done covertly, in the words of one its legislative drafters, Allen Weinstein. The Cold War propaganda and operations center, Freedom House, now chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey, has also been involved, as were billionaire George Soros’ foundations, whose donations always dovetail those of the NED.

What made the color revolution grow more successful, of course, is the predominance of the technology that now exists in today’s society. With the advent of cell phones, the Internet, social media and other forms of electronic communication, the ability of the color revolution to act in a more coordinated and effective fashion has been multiplied exponentially. Mowat addresses this issue when he states,

What is new about the template bears on the use of the Internet (in particular chat rooms, instant messaging, and blogs) and cell phones (including text-messaging), to rapidly steer angry and suggestible “Generation X” youth into and out of mass demonstrations and the like—a capability that only emerged in the mid-1990s. “With the crushing ubiquity of cell phones, satellite phones, PCs, modems and the Internet,” Laura Rosen emphasized in Salon Magazine on February 3, 2001,”the information age is shifting the advantage from authoritarian leaders to civic groups.” She might have mentioned the video games that helped create the deranged mindset of these “civic groups.” The repeatedly emphasized role played by so-called “Discoshaman” and his girlfriend “Tulipgirl,” in assisting the “Orange Revolution” through their aptly named blog, “Le Sabot Post-Modern,” is indicative of the technical and sociological components involved.

The emphasis on the use of new communication technologies to rapidly deploy small groups, suggests what we are seeing is civilian application of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s “Revolution in Military Affairs” doctrine, which depends on highly mobile small group deployments “enabled” by “real time” intelligence and communications. Squads of soldiers taking over city blocks with the aid of “intelligence helmet” video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their environment, constitute the military side. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell phones constitute the doctrine’s civilian application.

This parallel should not be surprising since the US military and National Security Agency subsidized the development of the Internet, cellular phones, and software platforms. From their inception, these technologies were studied and experimented with in order to find the optimal use in a new kind of warfare. The “revolution” in warfare that such new instruments permit has been pushed to the extreme by several specialists in psychological warfare. . . . .

The new techniques of warfare include the use of both lethal (violent) and nonlethal (nonviolent) tactics. Both ways are conducted using the same philosophy, infrastructure, and modus operandi. It is what is known as Cyberwar. For example, the tactic of swarming is a fundamental element in both violent and nonviolent forms of warfare. This new philosophy of war, which is supposed to replicate the strategy of Genghis Khan as enhanced by modern technologies, is intended to aid both military and non-military assaults against targeted states through what are, in effect, “high tech” hordes. In that sense there is no difference, from the standpoint of the plotters, between Iraq or Ukraine, if only that many think the Ukraine-like coup is more effective and easier.[1]

Mowat then goes on to demonstrate how this theory of destabilization fits with that endorsed by military-industrial theoreticians like Dr. Peter Ackerman who wrote the aptly-named book Strategic Nonviolent Conflict. For instance, when Ackerman spoke at the “Secretary’s Open Forum” at the State Department in June 29, 2004, Ackerman did not quibble with the imperialist goals of the Bush administration, only the methods used to achieve them.

In his speech, “Between Hard and Soft Power: The Rise of Civilian-Based Struggle and Democratic Change,” Ackerman suggested that youth movements, not American military might, could be used to bring down North Korea and Iran and that they could have been used to bring down Iraq. Ackerman also stated in his speech that he was working with Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, the U.S. weapons designer, for the purpose of creating new communications technologies that might be used by these “youth insurgencies.”[2]

As Mowat points out, Ackerman is the founding Chairman of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflicts of Washington, D.C. where Jack Duvall, a former U.S. Air Force officer, is President. Ackerman is also co-director with former CIA Director James Woolsey of the Arlington Institute (AI) of Washington, D.C. The AI was created by John L. Peterson, in 1989 who is the former Chief of Naval Operations, for the stated purpose of helping “redefine the concept of national security in much larger, comprehensive terms” by introducing “social value shifts into the traditional national defense equation.”[3]

Yet the theory of “youth insurgencies” in no way began with Ackerman. As far back as 1967, the Tavistock Institute, the major psychological experimentation wing of the military industrial complex, was studying the effects of using “swarming adolescents” as an instrument of governmental disruption and regime change. As Jonathan Mowat summarizes,

As in the case of the new communication technologies, the potential effectiveness of angry youth in postmodern coups has long been under study. As far back as 1967, Dr. Fred Emery, then director of the Tavistock Institute, and an expert on the “hypnotic effects” of television, specified that the then new phenomenon of “swarming adolescents” found at rock concerts could be effectively used to bring down the nation-state by the end of the 1990s. This was particularly the case, as Dr. Emery reported in “The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipations,” in the group’s “Human Relations,” because the phenomena was associated with “rebellious hysteria.” The British military created the Tavistock Institute as its psychological warfare arm following World War I; it has been the forerunner of such strategic planning ever since. Dr. Emery’s concept saw immediate application in NATO’s use of “swarming adolescents” in toppling French President Charles De Gaulle in 1967.[4]

Of course, the publicly acknowledged and published studies and theoretical applications of using “swarming adolescents” for the purposes of destabilizing one’s enemy continued on through the years becoming more and more refined as it moved forward in both theory and practice. As mentioned in my article “Color Revolutions 101: The Making Of A Controlled Revolution,” the use of death squads and mass movements against the nation state or rival movements is nothing new. This much is evidenced by the work T.E. Lawrence many years ago. However, the details and techniques of the manipulation of mass numbers of people have only continued to become more and more advanced and sophisticated. Mowat further describes the research and theory behind color revolutions:

In November 1989, Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, Ohio, under the aegis of that university’s “Program for Social Innovations in Global Management,” began a series of conferences to review progress towards that strategic objective, which was reported on in “Human Relations” in 1991. There, Dr. Howard Perlmutter, a professor of “Social Architecture” at the Wharton School, and a follower of Dr. Emery, stressed that “rock video in Kathmandu,” was an appropriate image of how states with traditional cultures could be destabilized, thereby creating the possibility of a “global civilization.” There are two requirements for such a transformation, he added, “building internationally committed networks of international and locally committed organizations,” and “creating global events” through “the transformation of a local event into one having virtually instantaneous international implications through mass-media.”

Mowat goes on to describe what he deems to be the “final” aspect of color revolutions and destabilizations – the implementation of polling operations providing false “exit poll” data, confidence in government, satisfaction with the current regime, support for the opposition, etc. This method serves to create the perception both inside and outside the target country that conditions were abominable before the “revolution” (which may or may not be true), that the overwhelming majority of the citizens within the target country support the coup, and that the regime is failing. In short, the goal is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of governmental collapse.

After a short propaganda blitz citing these “poll watchers,” “freedom and democracy organizations,” and “human rights organizations,” the door is opened to the implementation of international pressure against the target governments, covert action inside and outside of the nation, and the defection of pre-planned agents planted within the governmental and military structure.

Mowat writes,

This brings us to the final ingredient of these new coups—the deployment of polling agencies’ “exit polls” broadcast on international television to give the false (or sometimes accurate) impression of massive vote-fraud by the ruling party, to put targeted states on the defensive. Polling operations in the recent coups have been overseen by such outfits as Penn, Schoen and Berland, top advisers to Microsoft and Bill Clinton. Praising their role in subverting Serbia, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (and later Chairman of NDI) , in an October 2000 letter to the firm quoted on its website, stated: “Your work with the National Democratic Institute and the Yugoslav opposition contributed directly and decisively to the recent breakthrough for democracy in that country . . . This may be one of the first instances where polling has played such an important role in setting and securing foreign policy objectives.” Penn, Schoen, together with the OSCE, also ran the widely televised “exit poll” operations in the Ukrainian elections.

In the aftermath of such youth deployments and media operations, more traditional elements come to the fore. That is, the forceful, if covert, intervention by international institutions and governments threatening the targeted regime, and using well placed operatives within the targeted regime’s military and intelligence services to ensure no countermeasures can be effectively deployed. Without these traditional elements, of course, no postmodern coup could ever work. Or, as Jack DuVall put it in Jesse Walker’s “Carnival and conspiracy in Ukraine,” in Reason Online, November 30, 2004, “You can’t simply parachute Karl Rove into a country and manufacture a revolution.”[5]

Because color revolutions, destabilizations, and coups require much more than propaganda inside or outside the country, it is necessary to organize, train, indoctrinate, and mobilize with “boots on the ground” inside the target nation. Since the movement will not be an organic one, the “swarming adolescents” must be organized by the agents directing the destabilization.

Regardless, the propaganda that is used both inside and outside of the target nation is traditionally very effective in garnering domestic support for whatever additional measures are then taken against the victim state. Americans have typically fallen for every color revolution enacted overseas (and domestically) just as much as Eastern Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Africans have done.

The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions, destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all.


[1] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[2] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[3] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[4] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[5] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 247-248.

Recently by Brandon Turbeville:

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 275 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) 

10 13 11 flagbar

The Powers and Abuses of Americas Mega Corporations


By Dr. Gary G. Kohls

“Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.” –– Anonymous

In 2010 the Neo-Conservative, pro-corporate, anti-democratic Roberts’ 5/4 Supreme Court’s decided in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling to grant personhood to corporations by allowing unlimited, anonymous monetary contributions to political campaigns and candidates. This ruling, called by many to be the worst Supreme Court decision of the past century, has emboldened the already powerful and corruptible multinational corporations (that now have achieved dominion over US politics as well as the economy) to “buy” any number of politicians and brain-wash voters by multi-million dollar ad campaigns that the rest of us can’t afford to counter in state and national elections.

The US Supreme Court has thus made legal the absurd notion that inanimate corporations like Poly-Met and GTac (potential despoilers of northern Minnesota and northern Wisconsin’s irreplaceable wetlands, aquifers and aboriginal land and water rights) deserve the same privileges (but not the same responsibilities) as living humans.

After the ruling came down, there was only a brief bit of outrage from the so-called national leadership of our essentially “one-party system” (one-party, that is, when it comes to the GOP and Democratic Party’s corporate and militarist agendas). What outrage was expressed was quickly drowned out by a well-timed, mainstream media-orchestrated “tempest in a teapot”, namely Toyota’s recall of tens of thousands of accelerator pedals (that had only infrequently been the cause of significant accidents).

What Should be the Punishment for Corporate Entities That Plunder and Pillage?

The following question about the consequences of the Supreme Court’s democracy-threatening decision must be asked:

If corporations are given the privileges of personhood, shouldn’t they also bear the same responsibilities and incur the same punishments as individuals when they commit crimes, poison the water and air or rape the land?

Peace and justice activists applauded when the citizens of Shapleigh, Maine protected their water rights last year from the insatiable water-extracting corporate giant Nestle. (See video and more information on this episode at: (

Nestle, one of the many multinational corporate exploiters, has no allegiance to Maine, Minnesota or Wisconsin or any other state where this foreign entity tries to extract water or minerals that never were theirs to begin with. But when the minerals have been depleted and the water has been polluted or drained, Nestle, PolyMet and GTac will be gone, and so will Exxon/Mobil, British Petroleum, Halliburton, Deep Water Horizon, British Petroleum, Coca-Cola, Perrier or whatever other corporate intruder that ruthlessly extracts or poisons the people’s resources — all for the economic benefit of their faceless investors, shareholders and CEOs at their out-of-state corporate headquarters, none of whom will have to live with the poisoned environment that they have left behind.

The good citizens of Shapleigh recognized the foxes that tried to get inside their henhouse, and they did the right thing by vigorously resisting; and another underdog David — with a lot of justice, a lot of pluck and a little luck on his side — won a rare victory against another evil giant.

Move to Amend: Overturning Citizens United

That small victory against injustice should illustrate what must be done if American democracy is ever to thrive again. The outrageous Citizens United decision must be overturned with a constitutional amendment. (See for more.) The future of the nation, our children, the planet, our drinking water, natural habitat and aboriginal rights are all at stake. And exploitative corporations, just like other sociopathic entities, don’t seem to care.

It is important to understand that the allegiance of big corporations is to its investors, shareholders, executives and management teams, and not to the people whose lives and health depend on the sustainability of the land, water, air and food supplies. Most corporate shareholders and executives from multinational corporations that are part of Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Agribusiness, Big Oil, Big Finance, etc are motivated by profits and not the common good, and therefore they are not concerned when local resources are used up and the struggling, degraded communities are left behind to fend for themselves (after being fooled into trusting non-human corporations that are inherently untrustworthy [see below]).

”Trust us: We’re the Experts; Toxic Sludge is Good for You; We’ll Clean up After Ourselves” — and Other Corporate Lies

Conscienceless mega-corporations that swoop down on unsuspecting people and naïve governmental bodies, usually ask them to “trust us” and that — at some time in the uncertain future – they will un-poison the often permanently-toxified environment that they secretly intend to just leave behind. The people, understandably desperate for jobs, are usually fooled into believing well-crafted disinformation that is cunningly delivered — until it is too late and the mess that is left behind is no longer the sneaky corporation’s problem. It’s an old con.

Promises made during the courtship phase are likely to be broken with impunity when these foreign corporations are forced to pull-out, merge with other entities or file for bankruptcy. Silver-tongued experts from out of state are very good at getting us rubes up north all starry-eyed over temporary jobs, jobs, jobs while discounting the huge risks of permanent dead and dying zones being created because of their poisonous chemicals.

Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Union Carbide/Dow Chemical and Henry Kissinger

A good example of the many tax-avoiding American mega-corporations is Wal-Mart. A large portion of its profits go to a handful of Walton family billionaires in Arkansas. Wal-Mart successfully — and legally — avoids paying for healthcare insurance and other benefits for most of their exploited, underpaid, part-time employees, who are also victims of the corporation’s notorious union-busting policies.

US taxpayers are left holding the bag while Wal-Mart legally avoids what should ethically be their corporate responsibility: to be fair to their employees. Wal-Mart’s notorious below-subsistence level wages forces many of their workers to work a second or third job and also seek welfare benefits — a cunning cost-shifting tactic that places economic burdens on the tax-paying public.

Another example is Coca-Cola. Coke depends on water that it extracts from any water source or aquifer from which the corporation can economically extract it, including, as a particularly egregious example, the aquifers that are situated beneath thirsty, struggling, starving (and then suicidal) farmers who are losing their farms in newly drought-stricken India.

Millions of gallons of water, that have traditionally been used for farmland irrigation systems, are being depleted by Coca-Cola in order to meet the artificial demand that has been created for the sweet, sugary, caffeinated (and therefore addictive), nutritionally useless, obesity-inducing and diabetes-producing soft drink that contains a few cents worth of ingredients and then is sold to poor people everywhere for as much as the market will bear.

Coke’s predation of poor people in India and elsewhere brings to mind another corporate crime that has never been brought to justice. The infamous 1984 Union Carbide cyanide catastrophe in Bhopal, India that killed 25,000 slum-dwellers, left 100,000 permanently poisoned victims whose lives were ruined, and has left uncounted numbers of people living on poisoned soil, drinking poisoned water and breathing poisoned air.

Every person that has been exposed to the Union Carbide cyanide plant environs is chronically ill, and Indian mothers are still delivering malformed babies and dead fetuses because of the pesticide residues that cannot be detoxified. Union Carbide, the American corporation responsible for the disaster, has consistently shirked, just like most criminal entities, its moral responsibilities to the suffering victims. Carbide eventually sold itself to the equally infamous Dow Chemical, the company that brought us Agent Orange, immune-destroying silicone breast implants and a multitude of other highly profitable but very poisonous products.

Carbide’s corporate executives have been repeatedly subpoenaed to appear in Indian courts for their crimes. But the US has not honored the extradition treaties it has with India. These executives have repeatedly refused to appear and are therefore in contempt of court. There are warrants out for their arrests in India, just as there are warrants out for the arrest of Citizen Henry Kissinger for his part in international war crimes and crimes against humanity in Chile, East Timor, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc. All of these accused criminals remain at large, harbored by America’s Big Business-friendly, corporate-controlled nation.

Sociopathy and the DSM: The Common Denominator Linking Human and Corporate Criminals

There are a number of common denominators that link human criminals and the multinational corporations that populate the Fortune 500 and/or Dow 30 Industrial Average lists (like Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Dow, Chevron, Exxon/Mobil, du Pont, British Petroleum, Halliburton Monsanto, Merck, Pfizer, Proctor and Gamble, Nestle, Perrier, Nike, Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan Chase, Enron, etc, etc). For one, the corporations, being just as afraid of facing the music as were Henry Kissinger, Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay and the other multibillionaires of their ilk (that are rich enough to employ rafts of cunning defense lawyers). Be certain that they will use any means necessary to evade or delay justice. Similarly, none of them can be expected to show any genuine remorse for the human suffering that their actions have caused.

There are checklist diagnoses for various personality disorders in the billing and diagnostic manual for psychiatrists (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel [DSM] which, by the way, contains no statistics – go figure). One of the 374 disorders that are listed in the 4th edition of the DSM is antisocial personality disorder (code number 301.7), which identifies chronic pathological liars, cheaters, extortionists, abusers, thieves and killers whose lack of morals, ethics or consciences commonly enables them to avoid being caught or punished for crimes and misdeeds.

These “sociopaths” (aka psychopaths) typically refuse to accept blame or responsibility for their actions. In the case of sociopathic mega-corporations that are occasionally successfully sued in court, business-friendly judges will often allow a gag rule to be imposed against the plaintiff and may also allow the corporation to deny any wrong-doing even as it accepts the penalty!

Those supposedly “human” corporate entities can easily meet the criteria of antisocial personality disorder, and thus they seem to be incapable of showing genuine remorse if or when they are caught or convicted for their crimes. (Learn more about corporate sociopathy at or by watching the 2003 Canadian documentary titled The Corporation at

Below are seven diagnostic criteria that are used to diagnose antisocial (aka, sociopathic or psychopathic) personality disorder in humans (be mindful that only three of the seven are needed for a positive diagnosis):

1) callous disregard for the feelings of other people

2) the incapacity to maintain human relationships

3) reckless disregard for the safety of others

4) aggressiveness

5) deceitfulness (repeated lying and conning others for profit)

6) incapacity to experience guilt and

7) the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.

Other common traits manifested by sociopaths include:

Lack of conscience

Lack of remorse for evils done to others

Indifference to the suffering of its victims

Rationalizes (makes excuses for) having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others

Willingness to exploit, seduce or manipulate others

No sign of delusional or irrational thinking

Cunning, clever

Usually above average intelligence

Always looking for ways to make money or achieve fame or notoriety

Willing to cause or contribute to the financial ruin of others


Cannot be trusted to adhere to conventional standards of morality.

We are talking about criminality in individuals that are not considered mentally ill. Sadly, sociopaths are, for all intents and purposes, totally sane but are also incurable of their personality disorder. These individuals make up at least 4% of the US population, although certain professions, such as the killing professions, tend to attract larger percentages of them (read The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us, by Martha Stout, PhD – buy it at:

Actually the exact number of sociopaths — humans or their corporate counterparts — is not precisely known, but, lacking a conscience, neither truly feels guilty about their misdeeds. And therefore they never truly try to change. Believing that there is nothing wrong with them, human sociopaths rarely ask for help, and corporations are no different, especially when the law and the markets are on their side.

If and when human sociopaths are court-ordered to submit to evaluation and “treatment”, they typically only pretend to change until the pressure is off and their unethical or criminal activities look doable again. Academic psychologists tell us that attempts to rehabilitate full-fledged sociopaths are useless, although the often charming, charismatic, silver-tongued sociopath will commonly fool the treatment team into thinking progress is being made.

And sociopathic corporations don’t seem to have much trouble seducing regulatory agencies, local governmental entities and desperate underemployed workers by promising jobs and a secret un-tested plan to prevent environmental catastrophes. Only when it’s too late and the mega-corporation has skipped the country with the loot will all the painful truths come out.

What Should be the Punishment for Sociopathic Corporations When They Lie, Cheat, Advertise Falsely, Act Unethically, Poison or Rape the Environment or Commit Crimes?

Experienced psychologists tell us that sociopathic individuals that have committed crimes have to be locked away to protect society from them.

So a number of questions need to be asked, “what needs to be done with corporate entities that meet three of the seven criteria above? What needs to be done with corporations that have a history of deceiving, lying, cheating, raping the land, poisoning the water, fouling the air or otherwise acting unethically?

Given the anti-constitutional 2010 Roberts’ Supreme Court ruling granting personhood to corporations (Citizens United), shouldn’t sociopathic corporations be dealt with just like their human counterparts when they act criminally? Shouldn’t long prison sentences be given to the CEOs, Boards of Directors and management teams? Shouldn’t there be confiscation of property or even capital punishment in the case of egregious cases including mass deaths as in the cases of Union Carbide, Coca-Cola and Merck (examples: the Vioxx and Gardisil deaths)?

I hasten to add that I am against capital punishment for humans, but any person with a conscience and more than a double digit IQ knows that corporations are not really human. Corporations don’t bleed and don’t cry out in pain during the execution process, although they may plead for mercy while shedding insincere crocodile tears. Capital punishment for corporations, contrary to the data on capital punishment for humans, would prevent a lot of future sociopathic behaviors.

What about the crime of rape as applied to corporations? Rape has several definitions, including the following ones that are in my dictionary:

1) Any violent seizure or hostile action against a weaker opponent;

2) to rob or plunder;

3) the act of seizing and carrying off by force;

4) the crime of having forcible sexual intercourse without consent.

Corporations that plunder, pollute or poison Mother Earth (or do hostile mergers and acquisitions of weaker companies) meet most of the above definitions for rape. Shouldn’t our society punish corporate rapists/plunderers as severely as we punish human rapists?

And what about the serial corporate predators, poisoners and killers of the earth and the creatures that should have every right to co-exist on our threatened planet?

What about the known lethal poisons that thousands of unregulated chemical corporations knowingly discharge into the water, air, soil and food? Should their acts of desecration be regarded as premeditated murder? Their homicidal or ecocidal actions have already caused a multitude of die-offs of thousands of species (eventually, perhaps even humans), in the increasing numbers of dead zones in aquifers, wetlands, rivers, lakes, rivers and oceans.

What about the extractive mining companies that, with their poisonous explosives, blow the tops off mountains in Appalachia or the Philippines (and are now planned by GTac for the Penokee Mountain range of northern Wisconsin) in order to more economically extract the non-renewable mineral resources beneath? Does it make any sense whatsoever to believe them when they then claim innocence when living things downwind and downstream are sickened or die off from the poisoned water, air and toxic sludge that contaminates the previously pristine streams and aquifers that once provided safe drinking water and a healthy natural environment for fish, wildlife and humans (especially the aboriginal First Nation brothers and sisters that had their lands and livelihoods stolen from them a century or two ago)?

Zero Tolerance for Corporate Predators; Stop Them Before They do it Again!

How many strikes should any out-of-state corporate predator be allowed before they are called out and thrown off the land and out of the game? Shouldn’t exploitive intruders be stopped before they despoil even one more aquifer, one more stream, one more lake, one more mountain or this one planet? Shouldn’t cunning, politically-connected corporate exploiters be banned, arrested, tried and punished just like the human predators that normal civilized people need to stay away from? And shouldn’t there be generous monetary restitution to the victims of past corporate crimes?

Shouldn’t corporate thieves, liars, rapists and killers be treated the same as human thieves, liars, rapists and killers? Shouldn’t we refuse to trust untrustworthy corporations that have lied in the past, even if they have spent millions of dollars on powerful, multicolored Power Point presentations, feel-good commercials, “green-washed” billboards or highly-paid lobbyists that bribe politicians and the media to be on their side?

What about corporate junkies, those executives that are addicted to their wealth, profits, prestige, corporate jets, vacation homes and quarterly bonuses? We regularly intervene for society’s human addicts who need help overcoming their gambling or drug addictions who are a danger to themselves and others. Shouldn’t there be interventions planned for these wealth addicts before they do any more damage to us or their families?

The answer, in a fair society, should be yes to all these questions, no matter how often the smiley-faced, well-dressed corporate executives — in their most cunning damage-control mode — try to convince us that their companies are “responsible citizens”. We star-struck celebrity-worshippers of high profile corporations and CEOs seem to sucker for that line again and again. But the stakes are higher this time. The survival and sustainability of the planet and its creatures is at stake.

Perhaps Corporations Should be Judged Guilty Until Proven Innocent

One wonders what should be the best approach for dealing with cold-blooded, criminal, corporate entities. Rather than applying the standard American constitutional guarantee for human citizens to be judged innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t we be judging dangerous non-human entities as guilty until proven innocent?

I like that notion. I have often advised my psychologically traumatized patients (falsely diagnosed, by the way, of having a mental illnesses of unknown etiology) who were physically, sexually, emotionally or spiritually abused in childhood by parent figures to only give respect and forgiveness to those abusive adults when they have truly earned it, have sincerely and contritely asked to be forgiven and therefore deserve to be respected and forgiven. Psychologically speaking, not obeying — and also not respecting — one’s victimizers (even if they were parents) should be the norm in interpersonal relationships. Psychologically speaking, the existence of significant parental neglect or abuse in a family should be one of the exceptions to the 4th commandment rule (that commands children to unconditionally honor their father and their mother). Likewise, we should only do business with companies that have earned and truly deserve our respect.

Being suspicious of sociopathic entities is an important strategy to follow if one is to protect oneself from getting cheated or abused. Staying out of a sociopath’s grasp is the proper thing to do, even if the person or corporation appears on the surface to be charming or honorable, for both traits can be easily faked. Staying clear of anybody or anything that one suspects has no conscience makes tremendous sense, since conscienceless entities are also likely to be liars and thieves and are thus fully capable of rape, pillage and even murder if they can get away with such crimes.

Staying away from (boycotting) corporations that have behaved unethically in the past is one thing a person can do to combat corporate sociopathy. Guilty corporations hate it when the nonviolent tactic of economic boycott is used, but in our largely brainwashed, advertised-into-submission culture, only small minorities of people recognize — until it is too late — that they are being chumped.

Has the Corporate Coup d’etat Been Completed?

The concept of corporate power and privilege has massively benefited Big Businesses at the expense of the “consuming” public, but the reality is that it has been going on for generations. Multinational corporations and multibillionaires are increasingly in control of the White House, the US Congress and the court system, especially since Citizens United. Both political parties have been seduced by corporate campaign money/bribes.

And now, sadly, it appears that a majority of the judicial branch of the federal government has been bought off — and it appears that they are staying bought. It is not just the politicians that are controlled by corporate money anymore.

Actually, the mythical “unbiased”, “non-politicized” US Supreme Court has always been heavily influenced by corporate power. Throughout US history, it has always been wealthy corporations, wealthy businessmen, wealthy politicians, wealthy judges and wealthy attorneys that have been installed in federal judgeships by equally wealthy presidents — many of whom have been members of the same bipartisan “old boy’s clubs” such as Yale University’s elite, secretive Skull and Bones. America’s courts have always had judges that were in bed with capitalist, racist and union-busting ruling class folks who have never held the common good as a high priority.

Say Hello to Friendly American Fascism

The Italian dictator Benito Mussolini is often quoted as having said that “fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power:” He should know, he invented the term and the concept. Italy’s anti-worker, union-busting corporations loved him as much as most 1930s German corporations loved and supported Hitler.

Fascism is a right-wing, nationalistic, authoritarian political ideology that rules the people with military and police state power, backed up by a secretive national security apparatus, aggressive propaganda, control of the media and by suppression of trade unions. Therefore Big Businesses, notably the weapons industries and other war-related or police state industries thrive in fascist nations.

Fascist nations commonly violate the human rights of their own citizens (not to mention the rights of the nations that they invade and colonize). Fascists leaders try to unify the people by creating enemies, scapegoating those enemies and then, usually via false flag operations, going to war against them. Dissent is not tolerated in fascist nations and often elections are fraudulent. Oftentimes there is some sort of a merger of church and state and the fostering of anti-intellectual/anti-scientific attitudes. And there is always an obsession with law and order (police state tactics).

Sadly, there has been a slow, rolling corporate coup d’etat that has gradually overthrown America’s one person/one vote republic. America has all the marks of a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy privileged class).

Wealthy corporations and their plutocratic billionaires appear to be in charge of both major political parties, the economy and even foreign and domestic policy. And now they have their privatizing eyes on our water, our land, our breathable air and even our food (as Bob Dylan sang in Union Sundown, “I can see the day comin’ when even your home garden is gonna be against the law”.).

Elections will continue, although the choice of candidates, the orchestrated “debates” (that excludes minor party candidates), the speechifying and the value of small monetary donations will be increasingly meaningless. There will be fewer viable, courageously anti-establishment candidates like Paul Wellstone (or a Green Party or a Democratic Socialist Party candidate) for whom to cast votes. The American dream (that “you have to be asleep to believe in”, as George Carlin told us) appears to have vanished. And we sheep were asleep at the wheel when it disappeared.

Corporate Rights vs. Corporate Responsibilities

It is the greedy, non-human, conscienceless, under-regulated corporations (and NOT “man”) that have poisoned the planet’s ecosystems. It has been nonhuman corporations that have caused the economic and environmental crises — including the global weather changes. And, because they rarely get indicted, much less punished for their misdeeds, they are continuing to try to get away with planetary murder — and they don’t seem to care. Their motto seems to be: “grab everything you can steal by any means necessary; enrich your CEOs, your boards of directors, your shareholders, spokespersons, lawyers, lobbyists, legislators and judges; don’t get caught; hunker down in your gated communities with your chauffeurs and your bodyguards; hope nobody revolts; and let the devil take the hindmost.”

Wrist slaps seem to be the norm for corporations and the superrich when they are eventually “brought to justice” for their crimes. If there are any consequences for reckless or destructive business practices at all, the company usually gets assessed a relatively small, very affordable fine. For large corporations, fines are now just an affordable part of doing business. Sometimes though, a corporation about to be brought to justice will threaten to move its headquarters or its operations to another state, leaving their smelly and toxic messes to be cleaned up by somebody else, just as one would expect of a conscienceless sociopath.

The brazen action of the Roberts’ court in Citizens United might be one of the final nails in the coffin of America’s mortally wounded democracy. Given the fact that the myth of corporate personhood is now the law, it is past time that the 99% and its representatives in Congress insist that the 1% be punished as severely as are human criminals. The 99% needs to exercise its duty to preserve and defend the constitution (and the planet) from all enemies, foreign or domestic, human or corporate, even if the corporate criminals are hiding behind boardroom walls during the day or living the celebrity high life at night.

We must identify and courageously name America’s domestic enemies even if they are members of the executive, legislative or judicial branches of our federal and state governments. Naming the evil-doers (and naming the evil that they do) must be done in order to effectively confront them. Simultaneously, we need to demand that our basic human right to have access to uncontaminated water, food, soil and air (and access to affordable health care) be safe-guarded from the greedy exploiters and predators in the plutocratic classes who want to extract the wealth and resources from whomever they can. The fate of our children, grandchildren and planet Earth depends on those safe-guards.

Among the first of the many steps that must be taken if we are to reverse the multinational corporate takeover/privatization of the planet is to demand that our local, state and federal legislators reverse the Citizens United ruling and correct the damage done. (See for more information.)

Dr Kohls is involved in peace, nonviolence and justice issues and therefore writes about fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, imperialism, totalitarianism, economic oppression, anti-environmentalism and other violent, unsustainable, anti-democratic movements.

Copyright © 2014 Global Research


Kudos for Dr. Kohl’s, as there are few who can elucidate this tragedy any clearer. But let us not rest with just giving praise to one man, for there are many who are equally equipped to publish the truth on other subjects of equal importance, such as National Governments, and especially ours. It is apparent that our government is as populated with psychopathic scumbags as are the profit driven corporations, and there are few who have the courage to oppose them, as they consistently tyrannize our country. Freedom of expression, of the press, from false arrest, from seizure of personal property, and all the rest of the Bill of Rights, have met the same fate as the air, water, and other resources. Where are the people who will oppose this tyranny and reconstruct our once great Nation? How is it possible to resist legally when the Law its self is polluted with the enemy, which leaves only physical force as an offensive action? How is it possible for a patriotic group to communicate and construct a plan of action, when every fart is listened to and recorded? America, will you accept a life where every component in your home and vehicle is a recording device, and the skies are full of armed drones watching your every move. When you have sex, take a bath or shower, relieve yourself, and are constantly afraid of making a spastic comment that will land you in the gulag, will you stand up then? AND IF YOU DO, WILL YOU BE ALONE?

Land of the free, and the home of the brave, MY ASS!

10 13 11 flagbar

Color Revolutions 101 The Making Of A Controlled Revolution


 3-4-2014 10-46-15 PM Ukrainian Revolution

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

With the recent destabilization having taken place inside Ukraine and the ongoing destabilization of Venezuela currently playing out in South America, it is important to discuss, in a relatively detailed fashion, the manner in which the destinies of seemingly independent nations are controlled by a world oligarchy.

The precise techniques of regime change, balkanization, and the weakening of nation-states for political and/or geopolitical purposes are too lengthy to enter into a detailed expose’ in the course of this series of articles. However, it is important to understand the basics of these controlled social movements and how they work so that some guard may be erected against their continued occurrence and, at the very least, provide a mechanism for understanding a contrived revolution when it appears.

The destruction of the modern nation-state or the implementation of regime change can take a variety of forms.

The open war method, a favorite of the Neo-Con factions of the ruling elite, usually relies on the manipulation of death squads, dupes, fanatics, or mentally handicapped and criminally insane into committing or attempting to commit (acting as a patsy will suffice) a terrorist act of violence, thus justifying a response from the victim nation.

The Brzezinski method, a favorite of the more neo-liberal, leftist factions, may often involve the outright organization, arming, funding, and direction of death squads such as the method employed in Libya and Syria in order to stir up as much tension and stress as possible within the country, weaken the national government, and even allowing these death squads to directly seize power.

Lastly, there is the strategy of the “color revolution” which is largely nonviolent in terms of organized assaults but is massive in scale, politically motivated, and is often made up of largely genuine participants; although the movement itself is directed by the most disingenuous agents of powerful interests.

In dividing up the three methods of destabilization, it should not be assumed that these are the only three available methods of eviscerating the self-determination of a people or sovereign nations or that these methods are mutually exclusive. Indeed, these methods often bleed over into one another, blending aspects of two or even all three.

The agenda of destruction aimed at Afghanistan and Iraq used only the first method (direct military aggression) initially. Iraq subsequently required the invocation of the second method (death squads) in order to divide the Iraqi opposition to American occupation. The efforts against Tunisia and Egypt largely involved the third method (color revolution) with a sprinkling of the second (death squad).

Likewise, the failed destabilization of Iran involved both the color revolution and the death squad motive. Libya was attacked by the death squad method but eventually required direct military intervention. Being a special case where the national government is much stronger and the civilian population stalwart against foreign invasion, the Syrian situation called for a combination of both color revolution and death squads as well as, quite possibly, in the near future, direct military invasion.

While color revolutions have tended to be vastly more successful in the Baltic states and Eastern Europe than in the Middle East, what is important to understand, whether color revolution or death squad organization, is that the NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), Foundations, and “Human Rights” organizations are always acting as on-the-ground trainers, manipulators, and propagandists of and for the “revolutionaries.”

As Eric Pottenger and Jeff Frieson of Color Revolutions and Geopolitics describe the color revolution process,

Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. . . . . .

It’s a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and “channel” local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.

Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks.

Yet the color revolution is not merely some communique’ presented to a small group of people than organically gains a life of its own. There is an entire science behind the application of a movement of destabilization. As Pottenger and Frieson write,

Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences’ intellect, the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.

Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.

It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations.

Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.

Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.

3-4-2014 10-44-14 PM

Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.

With this explanation in mind, consider the description provided by Ian Traynor of the Guardian regarding the “revolutions” and “mass movements” which was taking place in Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus, and Georgia in 2004 and the time of the writing of his article. Traynor writes,

With their websites and stickers, their pranks and slogans aimed at banishing widespread fear of a corrupt regime, the democracy guerrillas of the Ukrainian Pora youth movement have already notched up a famous victory – whatever the outcome of the dangerous stand-off in Kiev.

Ukraine, traditionally passive in its politics, has been mobilised by the young democracy activists and will never be the same again.

But while the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.

Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.

Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.

Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko.

That one failed. “There will be no Kostunica in Belarus,” the Belarus president declared, referring to the victory in Belgrade.

But experience gained in Serbia, Georgia and Belarus has been invaluable in plotting to beat the regime of Leonid Kuchma in Kiev.

The operation – engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience – is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people’s elections.

Traynor’s article represents a rare moment of candor allowed to seep through the iron curtain of the mainstream Western media regarding the nature of the Eastern European protests in 2004. Even so, Traynor’s depiction of the methodology used by the Foundations, NGOs, and government agencies stirring up dissent and popular revolt is equally illuminating. He writes,

In the centre of Belgrade, there is a dingy office staffed by computer-literate youngsters who call themselves the Centre for Non-violent Resistance. If you want to know how to beat a regime that controls the mass media, the judges, the courts, the security apparatus and the voting stations, the young Belgrade activists are for hire.

They emerged from the anti-Milosevic student movement, Otpor, meaning resistance. The catchy, single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Khmara. In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora, meaning high time. Otpor also had a potent, simple slogan that appeared everywhere in Serbia in 2000 – the two words “gotov je”, meaning “he’s finished”, a reference to Milosevic. A logo of a black-and-white clenched fist completed the masterful marketing.

In Ukraine, the equivalent is a ticking clock, also signalling that the Kuchma regime’s days are numbered.

Stickers, spray paint and websites are the young activists’ weapons. Irony and street comedy mocking the regime have been hugely successful in puncturing public fear and enraging the powerful.

These slogans and symbols are the product of mass marketers employed by State Departments and intelligence agencies for the sole purpose of destabilizing and/or overthrowing a democratically elected or unfavorable (to the oligarchy)government.

Still, Traynor sheds even more light on the mechanism and methodology used to create and implement a color revolution when he mentions the regional players such as the various agencies, Foundations, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that are involved in movements such as the ones mentioned above. Traynor continues,

The Democratic party’s National Democratic Institute, the Republican party’s International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaig

US pollsters and professional consultants are hired to organise focus groups and use psephological data to plot strategy.

The usually fractious oppositions have to be united behind a single candidate if there is to be any chance of unseating the regime. That leader is selected on pragmatic and objective grounds, even if he or she is anti-American.

In Serbia, US pollsters Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates discovered that the assassinated pro-western opposition leader, Zoran Djindjic, was reviled at home and had no chance of beating Milosevic fairly in an election. He was persuaded to take a back seat to the anti-western Vojislav Kostunica, who is now Serbian prime minister.

In Belarus, US officials ordered opposition parties to unite behind the dour, elderly trade unionist, Vladimir Goncharik, because he appealed to much of the Lukashenko constituency.

Officially, the US government spent $41m (£21.7m) organising and funding the year-long operation to get rid of Milosevic from October 1999. In Ukraine, the figure is said to be around $14m.

Another essential ingredient for a successful color revolution is the dispatch of fake polling data rolled out to convince both the populations being targeted as well as the population of the nation initializing the destabilization that the target population has no confidence in the current regime, is steadfastly against the ruling government, and that the fall of the regime is inevitable. Although Traynor buttresses his statement with the caveat that vote rigging is a favorite trick of corrupt and authoritarian governments, he does draw attention to the process by which fake polling data is used to invoke a coup. Traynor writes,

Apart from the student movement and the united opposition, the other key element in the democracy template is what is known as the “parallel vote tabulation”, a counter to the election-rigging tricks beloved of disreputable regimes.

There are professional outside election monitors from bodies such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but the Ukrainian poll, like its predecessors, also featured thousands of local election monitors trained and paid by western groups.

Freedom House and the Democratic party’s NDI helped fund and organise the “largest civil regional election monitoring effort” in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They also organised exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what has followed.

The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle with the regime, invariably appearing first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on the authorities to respond.

The final stage in the US template concerns how to react when the incumbent tries to steal a lost election.

In Belarus, President Lukashenko won, so the response was minimal. In Belgrade, Tbilisi, and now Kiev, where the authorities initially tried to cling to power, the advice was to stay cool but determined and to organise mass displays of civil disobedience, which must remain peaceful but risk provoking the regime into violent suppression.

If the events in Kiev vindicate the US in its strategies for helping other people win elections and take power from anti-democratic regimes, it is certain to try to repeat the exercise elsewhere in the post-Soviet world.

One wonders whether or not Mr. Traynor sees his words in 2004 as prophetic in 2014 since, only ten years after his writing this article, Kiev is once again the center of a Western-backed coup.

In the end, it is important to remember that geopolitics is not a mere game played by only one actor. The Western world, particularly the United States, is courting war with the East which could potentially take the form of thermonuclear confrontation.

The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions, destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all.

Recently from Brandon Turbeville: 

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 275 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

10 13 11 flagbar

Free Speech RIP: A Relic of the American Past


By John W. Whitehead

“The First Amendment was intended to secure something more than an exercise in futility.”—Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting in Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight (1984)

Living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right, whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign. That’s what the First Amendment is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, as I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American  Police State, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials. In fact, if the court rulings handed down in the last week of February 2014 are anything to go by, the First Amendment has, for all intents and purposes, become an exercise in futility.

On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling, held that anti-nuclear activist John Denis Apel could be prosecuted for staging a protest on a public road at an Air Force base, free speech claims notwithstanding, because the public road is technically government property.

Insisting that it’s not safe to display an American flag in an American public school, on February 27, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school officials were justified when they ordered three students at a California public high school to cover up their patriotic apparel emblazoned with American flags or be sent home on the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo, allegedly out of a concern that it might offend Hispanic students.

On February 28, a federal court dismissed Marine veteran Brandon Raub’s case. Despite the fact that Raub was interrogated by Secret Service agents, handcuffed, arrested, subjected to a kangaroo court, and locked up in a mental facility for posting song lyrics and statements on Facebook critical of the government—a clear violation of his free speech rights—the court ruled that Raub’s concerns about the government were far-fetched and merited such treatment.

There you have it: three rulings in three days, from three different levels of the American judicial system, and all of them aimed at suppressing free speech. Yet what most people fail to understand is that these cases are not merely about the citizenry’s right to freely express themselves. Rather, these cases speak to the citizenry’s right to express their concerns about their government to their government, in a time, place and manner best suited to ensuring that those concerns are heard.

The First Amendment gives every American the right to “petition his government for a redress of grievances.” This amounts to so much more than filing a lawsuit against the government. It works hand in hand with free speech to ensure, as Adam Newton and Ronald K.L. Collins report for the Five Freedoms Project, “that our leaders hear, even if they don’t listen to, the electorate. Though public officials may be indifferent, contrary, or silent participants in democratic discourse, at least the First Amendment commands their audience.”

The challenge we face today, however, is that government officials have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents, making it increasingly difficult for average Americans to make themselves seen or heard by those who most need to hear what “we the people” have to say. Indeed, while lobbyists mill in and out of the White House and the homes and offices of Congressmen, the American people are kept at a distance through free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, and security barriers. And those who dare to breach the gap—even through silent forms of protest—are arrested for making their voices heard.

This right to speak freely, assemble, protest and petition one’s government officials for a redress of grievances is front and center right now, with the U.S. Supreme Court set to decide five free speech cases this term, the first of which, U.S. v. Apel, was just handed down. The case was based upon claims brought by John Denis Apel, an anti-war activist who holds monthly protests at Vandenburg Air Force Base near Lompoc, California. While the Court did not uphold his conviction for trespassing on military property, they doubled down on the notion that the public is subject to the whims of military commanders in matters relating to use military property, even when it intersects with public property. The Court refused to rule on Apel’s First Amendment claims.

The Supreme Court is also set to decide McCullen v. Coakley, which will determine whether or not a Massachusetts law which restricts protests on public sidewalks near the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics in the state is constitutional. The facts of the case indicate that the law does not abide by a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, and places an undue burden on protestors. However, it’s unclear which way the Court will rule, especially with their refusal to clarify matters in Apel.

Free speech can certainly not be considered “free” when expressive activities across the nation are being increasingly limited, restricted to so-called free speech zones, or altogether blocked, including in front of the Supreme Court’s own plaza. If citizens cannot stand out in the open on a public road and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies, without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window—pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.

The case of Harold Hodge is a particularly telling illustration of the way in which the political elite in America have sheltered themselves from all correspondence and criticism.

On a snowy morning in January 2011, Harold Hodge quietly and peacefully stood in the plaza area near the steps leading to the United States Supreme Court Building, wearing a 3’ X 2’ sign around his neck that proclaimed: “The U.S. Gov. Allows Police To Illegally Murder And Brutalize African Americans And Hispanic People.” There weren’t many passersby, and he wasn’t blocking anyone’s way. However, after a few minutes, a police officer informed Hodge that he was violating a federal law that makes it unlawful to display any flag, banner or device designed to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement while on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court and issued him three warnings to leave the plaza. Hodge refused, was handcuffed, placed under arrest, moved to a holding cell, and then was transported to U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters where he was booked and given a citation.

According to the federal law Hodge is accused of violating, “It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.” The penalty for violating this law is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 60 days in jail.

With the help of The Rutherford Institute, in January 2012, Hodge challenged the constitutionality of the statute barring silent expressive activity in front of the Supreme Court. A year later, in a strongly worded opinion, District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell struck down the federal law, declaring that the “the absolute prohibition on expressive activity [on the Supreme Court plaza] in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment.”

Incredibly, one day later, the marshal for the Supreme Court—with the approval of Chief Justice John Roberts—issued even more strident regulations outlawing expressive activity on the grounds of the high court, including the plaza. Hodge’s case, along with a companion case challenging the new regulations on behalf of a broad coalition of protesters, is now making its way through the appeals process. Ironically, it will be the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who will eventually be asked to decide the constitutionality of their own statute, yet they have already made their views on the subject quite clear.

This desire to insulate government officials from those exercising their First Amendment rights stems from an elitist mindset which views “we the people” as different, set apart somehow, from the citizens they have been appointed to serve and represent. It is nothing new. In fact, the law under which Harold Hodge was prosecuted was enacted by Congress in 1949. In the decades since, interactions with politicians have become increasingly manufactured and distant. Press conferences, ticketed luncheons, televised speeches and one-sided town hall meetings held over the phone now largely take the place of face-to-face interaction with constituents.

Additionally, there has been an increased use of so-called “free speech zones,” designated areas for expressive activity used to corral and block protestors at political events from interacting with public officials. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have used these “free speech zones,” some located within chain-link cages, at various conventions to mute any and all criticism of their policies.

Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say. Yet if Americans are not able to peacefully assemble for expressive activity outside of the halls of government or on public roads on which government officials must pass, the First Amendment has lost all meaning. If we cannot stand silently outside of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties that we cherish as Americans. And if we cannot proclaim our feelings about the government, no matter how controversial, on our clothing, or to passersby, or to the users of the world wide web, then the First Amendment really has become an exercise in futility.

George Orwell, always relevant to our present age, warned against this intolerance for free speech in 1945. As he noted:

The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them… The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favor of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecuted.

This commentary is also
available at

10 13 11 flagbar