Coming Soon A Global Central Bank, Global Currency and World Government



Following the 2009 G20 summit, plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated, “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250 billion into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.”

As the Telegraph reported, “the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global ‘quantitative easing’. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”1
The article continued in stating that, “there is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely to evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People’s Bank of China.” Further, “the creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator,” or, in other words, a global central bank.
It is important to take a closer look at these “solutions” being proposed and implemented in the midst of the current global financial crisis. These are not new suggestions, as they have been in the plans of the global elite for a long time. However, in the midst of the current crisis, the elite have fast-tracked their agenda of forging a New World Order in finance. It is important to address the background to these proposed and imposed “solutions” and what effects they will have on the International Monetary System (IMS) and the global political economy as a whole.

A New Bretton-Woods

In October of 2008, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK, said that we “must have a new Bretton Woods – building a new international financial architecture for the years ahead.” He continued in saying that, “we must now reform the international financial system,” and that he would want “to see the IMF reformed to become a ‘global central bank’ closely monitoring the international economy and financial system.”2
On October 17, 2008, Gordon Brown wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he said that this ‘new Bretton-Woods’ should work towards “global governance,” and implementing “shared global standards for accounting and regulation,” and “the renewal of our international institutions to make them effective early-warning systems for the world economy.”3
In early October 2008, it was reported that, “as the world’s central bankers gather this week in Washington DC for an IMF-World Bank conference to discuss the crisis, the big question they face is whether it is time to establish a global economic ‘policeman’ to ensure the crash of 2008 can never be repeated.” Further, “any organisation with the power to police the global economy would have to include representatives of every major country – a United Nations of economic regulation.” A former governor of the Bank of England suggested that, “the answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS),” however, “the problem is that it has no teeth. The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”4

Emergence of Regional Currencies

On January 1, 1999, the European Union established the Euro as its regional currency. The Euro has grown in prominence over the past several years. However, it is not to be the only regional currency in the world. There are moves and calls for other regional currencies throughout the world.
In 2007, Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, ran an article titled, ‘The End of National Currency’, in which it began by discussing the volatility of international currency markets, and that very few “real” solutions have been proposed to address successive currency crises.
The author poses the question, “Will restoring lost sovereignty to governments put an end to financial instability?” He answers by stating that, “this is a dangerous misdiagnosis,” and that, “the right course is not to return to a mythical past of monetary sovereignty, with governments controlling local interest and exchange rates in blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crises and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism. In order to globalise safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies, the source of much of today’s instability.”
The author explains that, “monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalisation. It has always been, even if this has only become apparent since the 1970s, when all the world’s governments rendered their currencies intrinsically worthless.” The author states that, “since economic development outside the process of globalisation is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area.” Essentially, according to the author, the solution lies in regional currencies.5
In October of 2008, “European Central Bank council member Ewald Nowotny said a ‘tri-polar’ global currency system is developing between Asia, Europe and the US and that he’s skeptical the US dollar’s centrality can be revived.”6
In South America, there are moves to create a regional currency and central bank under the Union of South American Nations, which was established in May of 2008.7,8The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a regional trade bloc of Arabic Gulf nations, has also been making moves towards creating a regional central bank and common currency for its member nations, following the example of Europe, and even being advised by the European Central Bank.9-12
From the time of the East Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, there have been calls for the creation of a regional currency for East Asia among the ten member nations of the ASEAN bloc, as well as China, Japan and South Korea. In 2008, ASEAN central bank officials and financial ministers met to discuss monetary integration in the region.13-19
Within Africa, there are already certain regional monetary unions, and within the framework of the African Union, there are moves being implemented to create an African currency under the control of an African Central Bank (ACB), which is to be located in Nigeria.20-24
In North America, there are moves, coinciding with the deepening economic and political integration of the continent under NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), to create a regional currency for North America, aptly given the current designation as the Amero, and even the then-Governor of the Central Bank of Canada, David Dodge, in 2007, said that a regional currency was “possible.”25-33

A Global Currency

In 1988, The Economist ran an article titled, ‘Get Ready for the Phoenix’, in which they wrote, “thirty years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the late twentieth century.”
The article stated that, “The market crash [of 1987] taught [governments] that the pretence of policy cooperation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (ie, until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.”
Amazingly the author of the article adds that, “Several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stockmarket crashes and probably a slump or two will be needed before politicians are willing to face squarely up to that choice. This points to a muddled sequence of emergency followed by patch-up followed by emergency, stretching out far beyond 2018 – except for two things. As time passes, the damage caused by currency instability is gradually going to mount; and the very trends that will make it mount are making the utopia of monetary union feasible.”
The article advocated the formation of a global central bank, perhaps through the IMF, and “this means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case.”
The article concludes in stating that, “The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.” The last sentence says, “Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.”34
Former US Federal Reserve Governor Paul Volcker has said that, “if we are to have a truly global economy, a single world currency makes sense.” A European Central Bank executive stated that, “we might one day have a single world currency,” in “a step towards the ideal situation of a fully integrated world.”35
The IMF held a conference in 2000 discussing how the world was segmenting into regional currency blocs and that a single world currency was possible, and that it is, in fact, preferable.36 Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Mundell has long advocated the creation of a global currency, and that it “would restore a needed coherence to the international monetary system, give the International Monetary Fund a function that would help it to promote stability, and be a catalyst for international harmony.”37 
In March 2009, Russia suggested that the G20 meeting in April should “consider the possibility of creating a supra-national reserve currency or a ‘super-reserve currency’,” and to consider the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) in this capacity.38 A week later, China’s central bank governor proposed the creation of a global currency controlled by the IMF, replacing the US dollar as the world reserve currency, also using the IMF’s SDRs as the reserve currency basket against which all other currencies would be fixed.39 
Days after this proposal, the US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, told the Council on Foreign Relations that, in response to a question about the Chinese proposal, “we’re actually quite open to that suggestion. But you should think of it as rather evolutionary, building on the current architectures, than – rather than – rather than moving us to global monetary union.”40 
In late March a UN panel of economists recommended the creation of a new global currency reserve that would replace the US dollar, and that it would be an “independently administered reserve currency.”41

Creating a World Central Bank

In 1998, Jeffrey Garten wrote an article for the New York Times advocating a “global Fed.” Garten was former Dean of the Yale School of Management, former Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, previously served on the White House Council on International Economic Policy under the Nixon administration and on the policy planning staffs of Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance of the Ford and Carter administrations, former Managing Director at Lehman Brothers, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In his article written in 1998, he stated that, “over time the United States set up crucial central institutions – the Securities and Exchange Commission (1933), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1934) and, most important, the Federal Reserve (1913). In so doing, America became a managed national economy. These organisations were created to make capitalism work, to prevent destructive business cycles and to moderate the harsh, invisible hand of Adam Smith.” He stated that, “this is what now must occur on a global scale. The world needs an institution that has a hand on the economic rudder when the seas become stormy. It needs a global central bank.”
Interestingly, Garten states that, “one thing that would not be acceptable would be for the bank to be at the mercy of short-term-oriented legislatures.” In essence, it is not to be accountable to the people of the world. So, he asks the question, “To whom would a global central bank be accountable? It would have too much power to be governed only by technocrats, although it must be led by the best of them. One possibility would be to link the new bank to an enlarged Group of Seven – perhaps a ‘G-15’ [or in today’s context, the G20] that would include the G-7 plus rotating members like Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Poland, India, China and South Korea.” He further states that, “There would have to be very close collaboration” between the global bank and the Fed.42
In September of 2008, Jeffrey Garten wrote an article for the Financial Times in which he stated that, “Even if the US’s massive financial rescue operation succeeds, it should be followed by something even more far-reaching – the establishment of a Global Monetary Authority to oversee markets that have become borderless.”
In late October of 2008, Garten wrote an article for Newsweek in which he stated that, “leaders should begin laying the groundwork for establishing a global central bank.” He explained that, “there was a time when the US Federal Reserve played this role [as governing financial authority of the world], as the prime financial institution of the world’s most powerful economy, overseeing the one global currency. But with the growth of capital markets, the rise of currencies like the euro and the emergence of powerful players such as China, the shift of wealth to Asia and the Persian Gulf and, of course, the deep-seated problems in the American economy itself, the Fed no longer has the capability to lead single-handedly.”43
In January of 2009, it was reported that, “one clear solution to avoid a repeat of the problems would be the establishment of a ‘global central bank’ – with the IMF and World Bank being unable to prevent the financial meltdown.” Dr. William Overholt, senior research fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School, formerly with the Rand Institute, gave a speech in Dubai in which he said that, “To avoid another crisis, we need an ability to manage global liquidity. Theoretically that could be achieved through some kind of global central bank, or through the creation of a global currency, or through global acceptance of a set of rules with sanctions and a dispute settlement mechanism.”44

A “New World Order” in Banking

In June of 2008, before he was Treasury Secretary in the Obama administration, Timothy Geithner, as head of the New York Federal Reserve, wrote an article for theFinancial Times following his attendance at the 2008 Bilderberg conference, in which he said that, “banks and investment banks whose health is crucial to the global financial system should operate under a unified regulatory framework,” and that, “the US Federal Reserve should play a ‘central role’ in the new regulatory framework, working closely with supervisors in the US and around the world.”45
In November of 2008, The National, a prominent United Arab Emirates newspaper, reported on Baron David de Rothschild accompanying UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown on a visit to the Middle East, although not as a “part of the official party” accompanying Brown. Following an interview with the Baron, it was reported that, “Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.”46
In February of 2009, the Times Online reported that a “new world order in banking [is] necessary,” and that, “it is increasingly evident that the world needs a new banking system and that it should not bear much resemblance to the one that has failed so spectacularly.”47
But of course, the elites that are shaping this new banking system are the champions of the previous banking system. The solutions that will follow are simply the extensions of the current system, only sped up through the necessity posed by the current crisis.

An Emerging Global Government

An April 3, 2009 article in the Toronto Star, reported that the G20 “confab constitutes the first great get-together of the new world order. This geopolitical order may follow a number of directions, by no means all of them pleasant. But its defining characteristic is already unchangeable.” Further, “An uncomfortable characteristic of the new world order may well turn out to be that global income gaps will widen because the rising powers, such as China, India and Brazil, regard those below them on the ladder as potential rivals.” The author further states that, “The new world order thus won’t necessarily be any better than the old one,” and that, “what is certain, though, is that global affairs are going to be considerably different from now on.”48
David Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, and former managing director of Kissinger and Associates, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote a book titled, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making, of which he is certainly a member. When discussing the role and agenda of the global “superclass,” he states that, “in a world of global movements and threats that don’t present their passports at national borders, it is no longer possible for a nation-state acting alone to fulfil its portion of the social contract.”49
He writes that “the international organisations and alliances we have today,” are evolving and achieving great things, despite certain flaws, and that he is “optimistic that progress will continue to be made,” but it will be difficult, because it “undercuts many national and local power structures and cultural concepts that have foundations deep in the bedrock of human civilisation, namely the notion of sovereignty.”50 He further notes that, “mechanisms of global governance are more achievable in today’s environment,” and that these mechanisms “are often creative with temporary solutions to urgent problems that cannot wait for the world to embrace a bigger and more controversial idea like real global government.”51
In December of 2008, the Financial Times ran an article written by Gideon Rachman, a past Bilderberg attendee, who wrote that, “for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” and that, “a ‘world government’ would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.” Asking if the European model could “go global,” he states that it can, and that this is made possible through an awakening “change in the political atmosphere,” as “the financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.”
He quoted an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying, “global governance is just a euphemism for global government,” and that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law.” However, Rachman states that any push towards a global government “will be a painful, slow process.” He then states that a key problem in this push can be explained with an example from the EU, which “has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for ‘ever closer union’ have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic. [Emphasis added]”52
In November of 2008, the United States National Intelligence Council (NIC), the US intelligence community’s “centre for midterm and long-term strategic thinking,” released a report that it produced in collaboration with numerous think tanks, consulting firms, academic institutions and hundreds of other experts, among them are the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Wilson Center, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Texas A&M University, the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House in London.53
The report, titled Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, outlines the current global political and economic trends that the world may be going through by the year 2025. In terms of the financial crisis, it states that solving this “will require long-term efforts to establish a new international system.”54 It suggests that as the “China-model” for development becomes increasingly attractive, there may be a “decline in democratisation” for emerging economies, authoritarian regimes, and “weak democracies frustrated by years of economic underperformance.” Further, the dollar will cease to be the global reserve currency, as there would likely be a “move away from the dollar.”55
It states that the dollar will become “something of a first among equals in a basket of currencies by 2025. This could occur suddenly in the wake of a crisis, or gradually with global rebalancing.”56 The report elaborates on the construction of a new international system, stating that, “by 2025, nation-states will no longer be the only – and often not the most important – actors on the world stage and the ‘international system’ will have morphed to accommodate the new reality. But the transformation will be incomplete and uneven.” It also notes that, “most of the pressing transnational problems – including climate change, regulation of globalised financial markets, migration, failing states, crime networks, etc. – are unlikely to be effectively resolved by the actions of individual nation-states. The need for effective global governance will increase faster than existing mechanisms can respond.”57
The report discusses the topic of regionalism, stating that, “Asian regionalism would have global implications, possibly sparking or reinforcing a trend toward three trade and financial clusters that could become quasi-blocs (North America, Europe, and East Asia).” These blocs “would have implications for the ability to achieve future global World Trade Organisation agreements and regional clusters could compete in the setting of trans-regional product standards for IT, biotech, nanotech, intellectual property rights, and other ‘new economy’ products.”58
Reflecting similar assumptions made by Rachman in his article advocating a world government is the topic of democratisation, on which the report says, “advances are likely to slow and globalisation will subject many recently democratised countries to increasing social and economic pressures that could undermine liberal institutions.” This is largely because “the better economic performance of many authoritarian governments could sow doubts among some about democracy as the best form of government. The surveys we consulted indicated that many East Asians put greater emphasis on good management, including increasing standards of livings, than democracy.” Further, “even in many well-established democracies, surveys show growing frustration with the current workings of democratic government and questioning among elites over the ability of democratic governments to take the bold actions necessary to deal rapidly and effectively with the growing number of transnational challenges.”59

The Creation of a New World Order

Ultimately, what this implies is that the future of the global political economy is one of increasing moves toward a global system of governance, or a world government, with a world central bank and global currency; and that, concurrently, these developments are likely to materialise in the face of and as a result of a decline in democracy around the world, and thus, a rise in authoritarianism. What we are witnessing is the creation of a New World Order, controlled by a totalitarian global government structure.
In fact, the very concept of a global currency and global central bank is authoritarian in its very nature, as it removes any vestiges of oversight and accountability away from the people of the world, and toward a small, increasingly interconnected group of international elites.
As Carroll Quigley explained in his monumental book, Tragedy and Hope, “[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”60
Indeed, the current “solutions” being proposed to the global financial crisis benefit those that caused the crisis over those that are poised to suffer the most as a result of the crisis: the disappearing middle classes, the world’s dispossessed, poor, indebted people. The proposed solutions to this crisis represent the manifestations and actualisation of the ultimate generational goals of the global elite; and thus, represent the least favourable conditions for the vast majority of the world’s people.
It is imperative that the world’s people throw their weight against these “solutions” and usher in a new era of world order, one of the People’s World Order; with the solution lying in local governance and local economies, so that the people have greater roles in determining the future and structure of their own political-economy, and thus, their own society. With this alternative of localised political economies, in conjunction with an unprecedented global population and international democratisation of communication through the internet, we have the means and possibility before us to forge the most diverse manifestation of cultures and societies that humanity has ever known.
The answer lies in the individual’s internalisation of human power and destination, and a rejection of the externalisation of power and human destiny to a global authority of which all but a select few people have access to. To internalise human power and destiny is to realise the gift of a human mind, which has the ability to engage in thought beyond the material, such as food and shelter, and venture into the realm of the conceptual. Each individual possesses – within themselves – the ability to think critically about themselves and their own life; now is the time to utilise this ability with the aim of internalising the concepts and questions of human power and destiny: Why are we here? Where are we going? Where should we be going? How do we get there?
The supposed answers to these questions are offered to us by a tiny global elite who fear the repercussions of what would take place if the people of the world were to begin to answer these questions themselves. I do not know the answers to these questions, but I do know that the answers lie in the human mind and spirit, that which has overcome and will continue to overcome the greatest of challenges to humanity, and will, without doubt, triumph over the New World Order.


  1. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, ‘The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency’, The Telegraph, April 3, 2009,
    2. Robert Winnett, ‘Financial Crisis: Gordon Brown calls for “new Bretton Woods”,’ The Telegraph, October 13, 2008,
    3. Gordon Brown, ‘Out of the Ashes’, The Washington Post, October 17, 2008,
    4. Gordon Rayner, ‘Global financial crisis: does the world need a new banking “policeman”?’, The Telegraph, October 8, 2008,
    5. Benn Steil, ‘The End of National Currency’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 86, Issue 3, May/June 2007, pp.83-96
    6. Jonathan Tirone, ‘ECB’s Nowotny Sees Global “Tri-Polar” Currency System Evolving’, Bloomberg, October 19, 2008,
    7. BBC, ‘South America nations found union’, BBC News, May 23, 2008,
    8. CNews, ‘South American nations to seek common currency’, China View, May 26, 2008,
    9. AME Info, ‘GCC: Full steam ahead to monetary union’, September 19, 2005,
    10. John Irish, ‘GCC Agrees on Monetary Union but Signals Delay in Common Currency’, Reuters, June 10, 2008,
    11. TIMELINE-Gulf single currency deadline delayed beyond 2010’, Forbes, March 23, 2009,
    12. Agencies, ‘GCC need not rush to form single currency’, Business 24/7, March 26, 2009,
    13. Barry Eichengreen, ‘International Monetary Arrangements: Is There a Monetary Union in Asia’s Future?’, The Brookings Institution, Spring 1997,
    14. ‘After European now Asian Monetary Union?’, Asia Times Online, September 8, 2001,
    15. ‘ASEAN Makes Moves for Asian Monetary Fund’, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, May 6, 2005,
    16. Reuven Glick, ‘Does Europe’s Path to Monetary Union Provide Lessons for East Asia?’, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, August 12, 2005,
    17. AFP, ‘Asian Monetary Fund may be needed to deal with future shocks’, Channel News Asia, July 2, 2007,
    18. AFX News Limited, ‘East Asia monetary union “feasible” but political will lacking – ADB’, Forbes, September 19, 2007,
    19. Lin Li, ‘ASEAN discusses financial, monetary integration’, China View, April 2, 2008,
    20. Paul De Grauwe, Economics of Monetary Union, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp.109-110
    21. Heather Milkiewicz & Paul R. Masson, ‘Africa’s Economic Morass—Will a Common Currency Help?’, The Brookings Institution, July 2003,
    22. John Gahamanyi, ‘Rwanda: African Central Bank Governors Discuss AU Financial Institutions’, The New Times, August 23, 2008,
    23. Eric Ombok, ‘African Union, Nigeria Plan Accord on Central Bank’, Bloomberg, March 2, 2009,
    24. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Africa in the Quest for a Common Currency’, Republic of Kenya, March 2009,
    25. Herbert Grubel, ‘The Case for the Amero’, The Fraser Institute, September 1, 1999, p.4,
    26. Ibid, p.17
    27. Thomas Courchene & Richard Harris, ‘From Fixing to Monetary Union: Options for North American Currency Integration’, C.D. Howe Institute, June 1999, p.22,
    28. Ibid, p.23
    29. Barrie McKenna, ‘Dodge Says Single Currency “Possible”‘, The Globe and Mail, May 21, 2007
    30. ‘Consider a Continental Currency, Jarislowsky Says’, The Globe and Mail, November 23, 2007,
    31. CNN, Larry King Live, Transcripts, October 8, 2007,
    32. Herbert Grubel, ‘Fix the Loonie’, The Financial Post, January 18, 2008,
    33. Todd Harrison, ‘How realistic is a North American currency?’, Market Watch, January 28, 2009,{D10536AF-F929-4AF9-AD10-250B4057A907}
    34. ‘Get ready for the phoenix’, The Economist, Vol. 306, January 9, 1988, pp.9-10
    35. ECB, ‘The euro and the dollar – new imperatives for policy co-ordination’, Speeches and Interviews, September 18, 2000,
    36. IMF, ‘One World, One Currency: Destination or Delusion?’, Economic Forums and International Seminars, November 8, 2000,
    37. Robert A. Mundell, ‘World Currency’, The Works of Robert A. Mundell,
    38. Itar-Tass, ‘Russia proposes creation of global super-reserve currency’, ITAR-TASS News Agency, March 16, 2009,
    39. Jamil Anderlini, ‘China calls for new reserve currency’, The Financial Times, March 23, 2009,
    40. CFR, A Conversation with Timothy F. Geithner, Council on Foreign Relations Transcripts, March 25, 2009,
    41. ‘UN backs new global currency reserve’, The Sunday Telegraph, March 29, 2009,,27753,25255091-462,00.html
    42. Jeffrey E. Garten, ‘Needed: A Fed for the World’, The New York Times, September 23, 1998,
    43. Jeffrey Garten, ‘We Need a Bank Of the World’, Newsweek, October 25, 2008,
    44. Sean Davidson, ‘Global central bank could prevent future crisis’, Business 24/7, January 10, 2009,
    45. James Politi & Gillian Tett, ‘NY Fed chief in push for global bank framework’, The Financial Times, June 8, 2008,
    46. Rupert Wright, ‘The first barons of banking’, The National, November 6, 2008,
    47. Michael Lafferty, ‘New world order in banking necessary after abject failure of present model’, The TimesOnline, February 24, 2009,
    48. Richard Gwyn, ‘Change not necessarily for the better’, The Toronto Star, April 3, 2009,
    49. David Rothkopf, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making, Toronto: Penguin Books, 2008, p.315
    50. Ibid, pp.315-316
    51. Ibid, p.316
    52. Gideon Rachman, ‘And now for a world government’, The Financial Times, December 8, 2008,
    53. NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project, November, 2008,
    54. Ibid, p.11
    55. Ibid, pp.11-12
    56. Ibid, p.94
    57. Ibid, p.81
    58. Ibid, p.83
    59. Ibid, p.87
    60. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, New York: Macmillan Company, 1966, p.324


ANDREW MARSHALL is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization based out of Montreal, Canada ( He has written extensively on issues imperialism in the Middle East and Africa, the environment, Homeland Security, war, terrorism and the global economy. He is currently studying Global Political Economy and the History of the Middle East and Africa at Simon Fraser University (Canada).

 2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Washington Has Destroyed Trust Between Nuclear Powers Thus Raising The Specter Of War


Paul Craig Roberts

February 25, 2015
Ambassador Jack Matlock made an important speech at the National Press Club on February 11. Matlock served as US ambassador to the Soviet Union during 1987-91. In his speech he describes how President Reagan won the trust of the Soviet leadership in order to bring to an end the Cold War and its risk of nuclear armageddon.

Reagan’s meeting with Gorbachev did not rely on position papers written by staff. It relied on a hand-written memo by Reagan himself that stressed respect for the Soviet leadership and a clear realization that negotiation must not expect the Soviet leaders to do something that is not in the true interest of their country. The way to end the conflict, Reagan wrote, is to cooperate toward a common goal. Matlock said that Reagan refused to personalize disagreements or to speak derogatorily of any Soviet leader.

Matlock makes the point that Reagan’s successors have done a thorough job of destroying this trust. In the last two years the destruction of trust has been total.

How can the Russian government trust Washington when Washington violates the word of President George H.W. Bush and takes NATO into Eastern Europe and places military bases on Russia’s border?

How can the Russian government trust Washington when Washington pulls out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and places Anti-Ballistic Missiles on Russia’s border?

How can the Russian government trust Washington when Washington overthrows in a coup the elected government of Ukraine and installs a puppet regime that immediately expresses hostility toward Russia and the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine and destroys Soviet war memorials commemorating the Red Army’s liberation of Ukraine from Nazi Germany?

How can the Russian government trust Washington when the President of Russia is called every name in the book, including “the new Hitler,” and gratuitously accused of every sort of crime and personal failing?

Washington and its neoconservative monsters have destroyed trust with demonization and blame of Russia for violence in Ukraine for which Washington is responsible.

Washington has forced Europe to impose economic sanctions on Russia that are based entirely on lies and false accusations. The Russians know this. They recognize the blatant hostility, the blatant lies, the never-ending crude propaganda, the hypocritical double-standards, the push toward war.

Simultaneously China is experiencing hostile encirclement with Washington’s “pivot to Asia.”

By destroying trust, Washington has resurrected the threat of nuclear armageddon. Washington’s destruction of trust between nuclear powers is the crime of the century.

On February 24, I held accountable Alexander J. Motyl and the Council on Foreign Relations for publishing on February 5 a large collection of blatant lies in order to create a false reality with which to demonize the Russian government. I observed that the publication of ignorant nonsense in what is supposed to be a respectable foreign policy journal indicated the degradation of the Western political and media elite.

I did not think things could get any worse, but one day later I came across Andrew S. Weiss’ article in the Wall Street Journal.

Weiss’ article is the most amazing collection of misrepresentations imaginable. It is impossible to believe that the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment could possible be so totally misinformed. The false reality that Weiss creates precludes any diplomatic resolution of the conflict that Washington has created with Russia.

What is the explanation for Weiss’ misrepresentations of Putin, the origin of the conflict and the cause of its continuation?

Recalling the confession of Udo Ulfkotte, an editor at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, that he published under his name articles handed to him by the CIA and that the entire European press does the same, was Weiss handed the disinformation by the CIA, or by Victoria Nuland, or is the answer simply that Weiss worked on Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs at the National Security Council, the State Department and the Defense Department and is one of Washington’s propaganda operatives currently operating out of a think-tank?

The more important question is: What is the purpose behind Washington’s cause and misrepresentation of the conflict? Was the destruction of trust between nuclear powers intentional or a consequence of other purposes? Is Washington simply using its ability to control explanations in order to cover up its involvement in the overthrow of a democratically elected government, an outcome that has gone bad? Or is the answer merely that Washington is peeved that it failed to get its hands on Russia’s Black Sea naval base in Crimea and has had to give up, at least for now, on getting Russia out of the Mediterranean and out of the Russian naval base at Tartus, Syria?

As I explained today to an international conference hosted by institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Institute of International Relations, the neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the prevention of “the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere” with sufficient resources and power to be able to serve as a check on unilateral action by Washington.

When Russian diplomacy blocked Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and planned bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that they had failed in their “first objective” and were now faced with a check on unilateral action. The attack on Russia instantly began. The $5 billion Washington had spent funding NGOs in Ukraine and cultivating Ukrainian politicians produced the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government. Washington imposed a puppet government that instantly employed violent words and deeds against the Russian population, resulting in the secession of Crimea and the formation of other break-away provinces.

With English as the world language and the compliant media or presstitutes in Washington’s service, Washington has been able to control the explanation, blame Putin for the crisis, and force Europe to breakup its economic and political relations with Russia by imposing economic sanctions.

In a vain and failed attempt to keep the US as the Uni-power capable of dictating to the world, the neoconservatives have recklessly and irresponsibly resurrected the threat of nuclear armageddon. The neoconservative dominance of US foreign policy makes impossible any restoration of trust. Washington’s propaganda is driving the situation toward war. As neither Washington nor the Russian/Chinese alliance can afford to lose the war, the war will be nuclear. Any survivors will be doomed by nuclear winter.

The entire world must quickly become aware of the danger and confront the evil regime that the neoconservatives–the Sauron of our world–have created in Washington. To do otherwise is to risk life on earth.

 2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Ptech and the 9/11 Software


2-25-2015 1-38-39 PM


All of you air heads that still believe 9/11 was done by 19 ignorant rag-heads, sit down, kick back and IF you have the self control to read more than one page, you just might learn something. Like, your government wants’ to kill you.

2-25-2015 7-24-24 AM

[Editor’s Note: Following is a transcription of Episode 045 of The Corbett Report podcast, Ptech and the 9/11 Software. To listen to the episode, and for links to all of the articles and documents mentioned in this episode please CLICK HERE.]

[Introduction and News]


James Corbett: Welcome, my friends. Welcome to Episode 45 of The Corbett Report: “PTech and the 9/11 Software.” Today’s episode features information that comes from corporate whistleblower, Indira Singh. Regular listeners to The Corbett Report might remember Indira Singh from Episode 31: Welcome to 9/11 Truth.

In that audio documentary, we featured a clip from Indira Singh’s presentation to the Citizens Commission on 9/11. If you want to refresh yourself with that information, please listen to Episode 31 of The Corbett Report, starting at [0:16:31] and ending at [0:27:36]. That clip, which we featured in that earlier episode of The Corbett Report, featured some of Indira Singh’s startling testimony about the information that she gleaned when she was working at J.P. Morgan-Chase.

Singh was hired as a consultant for J.P. Morgan-Chase to develop the next generation of business architecture enterprise software. The software she was seeking to implement at J.P. Morgan-Chase, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, was specialized, cutting-edge risk architecture software, that would essentially be artificially intelligent and capable of scanning through the millions of transactions taking place across the J.P. Morgan-Chase institution in real time, monitoring these transactions for suspicious activity such as rogue trading; and would then be able to alert the proper people within the J.P. Morgan institution to the problem; and potentially even stop the transactions from taking place.

The importance, sensitivity, and sophistication of any such software necessarily led Ms. Singh to seek out the true leaders in the enterprise architecture software industry. Her research and due diligence into the issue, led her to a company called PTech.

As the senior risk-management consultant for one of the largest financial institutions in the world, Ms. Singh knew to trust credible, proven sources of third-party software. That is why PTech’s roster of clients immediately put them in the top echelon of software providers.

PTech’s clients included some of the most sensitive organizations and agencies in the United States government, including NATO, The U.S. Armed Forces, Congress, The Department of Energy, The Department of Justice, The FBI, Customs, The FAA, The IRS, The Secret Service, and the White House.

This sterling roster of clients made Indira Singh very eager to take a look at PTech software. However, when the PTech representatives arrived at the J.P. Morgan-Chase offices to display and present their software, Ms. Singh knew there was something wrong right away.

Today, we are going to do something we have not done since Episode 20 ofThe Corbett Report, which featured a presentation by Webster Tarpley on the 9/11 drills.

Regular listeners to The Corbett Report will remember Webster Tarpley’s lecture from Episode 20, on the 26 war games and drills that Webster Tarpley has identified as taking place on, or around, 9/11 that directly affected the U.S. Air Force’s ability to counteract the hijackings that day

That was one of the key talks to get people into the deep research through which they can come to a more informed understanding of the operational aspects of 9/11 as an inside job.

Likewise, the interview that we are about to present with Indira Singh gives a more informed, more detailed, account of what was really taking place on 9/11, and the software that was used to help bring that about. This is an extremely important interview for anyone interested in the serious, deep research into 9/11, and is an excellent starting point from which to begin a deeper investigation of that day.

I heartily recommend that my listeners check out this interview in its entirety. And, again, please go to the Documentation list on for a link to the original source file of this audio interview, so you can listen to it in its entirety.

Today, I present an extended audio extract from this interview, conducted by Bonnie Faulkner of KPFA’s “Guns and Butter” in 2005. This extract begins with Indira Singh explaining what happened when PTech arrived in her office.

[begin audio: [0:12:37:5]]

Indira Singh: Well, they came a little late. Immediately there were some issues with how the day would proceed. For instance, they showed up without the agreed-on software in hand. The most important thing about it is that their chief scientist, Dr. Hussein Ibrahim, came. He is an Egyptian-American and he had a very good reputation in the field, very bright; someone you would like working with, very knowledgeable. But they had showed up without the software.

What I had done was I slated a work station to get off the net. After all, we were testing whether this software would meet our criteria, and if I had said it did, then that would be a big deal if it subsequently could not. So, I needed to start with an out-of-the-box version of PTech.

They did not bring that, and Dr. Ibrahim said that is not a problem. We can develop the demo on his laptop. If you know anything about these things, that is a No-no because at the end of the day he is walking out the door and I do not have anything; and he is walking away with enough of our thinking about doing operational risk.

Operational risk is about how to spot bad things that are going on in a financial institution; things like rogue trading, money laundering, and so on and so forth. It is very subtle. Our intellectual property, at least what J.P. Morgan was hiring me for, was to think, innovatively out-of-the-box in the next generation, how do you proactively design a blueprint to spot these things? That is pretty big.

These people are definitely smart enough to get an idea: “Oh, they are thinking of going down this road.” That is a big deal. I was your “risk” person so I am very aware of not to expose our intellectual property or that of the company I am consulting for. I am very protective of that.

So, they showed up without the software and that was a huge enough red flag that I began paying attention to them. A couple of the things went on and within half an hour I just walked over to the same people who had recommended them and began calling.

I said to one of them, I have the PTech people here, and the reaction was not the reaction I would have ever expected. It was, “What are they doing onsite?”

I said, you recommended them, and they said, “No, you should have come through an American distributor.”

I said, no, J.P. Morgan reserves the right to work directly with the company. And, besides which, they are a preferred vendor of IBM: their preferred vendor program. That is the way we work. We do not work for small distributors. If we are going to go with this software as a standard, we are going to go right to the source and make the agreements there.

So, I said, what is the problem? Basically, this person said, “Do not let them out of your sight.” That is when my stomach sank.

You have to understand how all of a sudden I am beginning to see these people in a different way, because when they said, “Do not let them out of your sight,” I have a Middle Eastern company there and we are taught not to discriminate and that was not something I was about to do – and to prove that they were there being evaluated, so that is never going to be a bone of contention. Although later, people made that an issue.

But if I had a problem working with a Middle Eastern company, they would have never been there in the first place, much less before Ground Zero closed. I had no problem whatsoever having them up there. I liked the idea.

Bonnie Faulkner: What do you mean PTech was a Middle Eastern company?

Indira: That is what, subsequently, was revealed in the phone call: that their financier, their funders, their investors were all Saudis. And I said, so what?

They said, “One Saudi has been placed on the U.S. terror list October 12, 2001.”

It got very quiet, and I said, you better have proof of that because having thrown that into my lap now, this is not something that I can ignore. I have to follow up on it. This is not something I can ignore, pretend would go away, or have someone else handle. This is risk management; the highest levels of one of the largest banks in the world. It is my responsibility to deal with this and I said, how can I get proof of this?

That is when they started saying, “You need to talk to a Jeff Goins,” who was one of the only three people in PTech who knew of this relationship, as he was that well-hidden within PTech. So I subsequently called Jeff Goins and I said if this is true, did you not report this? PTech is a private company so this relationship would have been privy only to those on the inside.

I said, did you report it anywhere, that someone who has been placed on the U.S. terror list is key funder – angel investor – to a company whose software is utilized at the highest levels of almost every government and military and defense organization in this country, including the Secret Service, the FBI, the Department of Defense, the House of Representatives, the Treasury Department, the IRS, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and last but not least, the Federal Aviation Administration?

Bonnie: Are you saying these were all PTech clients?

Indira: These were all PTech clients. When I was evaluating them I was pretty impressed. Why not PTech? Exactly. They are being used at the highest levels of all of these organizations. So I was very excited about using them, and having their software be able to be a part of what I wanted to develop.

I had no reason to believe that if they were in use everywhere at that caliber that I would have a problem. And they were also used in Enron. Perhaps I should have thought twice about that, but they were at use in IBM, of course, and the top accounting firms and even in the FBI. In MITRE. . .

Bonnie: What is MITRE?

Indira: MITRE is a large company that does specialized technology for defense and intelligent. You would not expect to have an exposure with the company that was so well entrenched and imbedded in these kinds of organizations.

Bonnie: So what about the meeting? Did they leave? What happened?

Indira: No, because, basically my position was until I had proof, I could not react. That would have been very unprofessional of me. I thought of a number of scenarios that could be going on at that point. I thought it might have been competitiveness out of control, distributors wanting the J.P. Morgan account. It could have been anything.

However, the one thing that was true is that the chief investor, Sheikh Yassin al-Qadi, was indeed placed on the U.S. terror list because while I was talking to them, while they were still there, I checked out a website that had a list of everyone who had been placed on the terror list.

The missing piece was, of course, proving that Sheikh Yassin al-Qadi was indeed affiliated with PTech, was an owner of PTech. Because it was a private company, you could say that anybody was an investor, any bad guy or good guy was an investor. Proving it was another thing, so I let everything ride but I kept an eye on things.

In fact, we did we have a presentation that went very, very well because in no way, shape, or form was I going to jeopardize that.

Bonnie: What happened next? Did you go on working with them, or did you start to investigate PTech?

Indira: I continued multi-tasking. I was working with them. I placed a few phone calls and people got back to me later that day while they were still on the premises. So, I was able to separate the concerns, accomplish the task, evaluate the software anyway, start the phone calls to start getting more information. Then my report would have been: This is the software. It is used everywhere. It can do what we want it to do, however we have this issue with the company. And present that to my superiors and let them decide.

Bonnie: Then did you start investigating the company?

Indira: Yes. What happened next was I spoke with Jeff Goins and he told me that, basically, not only was Yassin al-Qadi an investor, but that a Yaqub Mirzawas on the Board of Directors, and he had been the subject of Operation Green Quest. Many of his Herndon, Virginia vehicles and companies and financing companies had been raided in March 2002.

Again, that Mirza was on the Board of Directors. As we spoke, other names started to come out. My head was spinning at this point, and I said, have you reported any of this to the FBI? The answer came back, “Yes, I wrote a report to the FBI.”

I said, if the boss and FBI has been told, I need to speak with people there because it is not just my group that is evaluating them. There are so many other groups. But I could not believe that, if this was all true, PTech was still being used by the Department of Defense. There is something a little bizarre about all of this.

Really, I was beginning to understand, unwillingly, that the world was not the way we thought of it.

Bonnie: This person that you were discussing this with, Jeff Goins?

Indira: Goins. Yes.

Bonnie: Was he an employee of PTech?

Indira: Yes, he was. He was one of the key people at PTech. He held several important positions. He had traveled to Saudi Arabia. And he had met with Yassin al-Qadi and he had met with most of the investors. His last position was Vice President of Sales which, for a small company, is pretty significant.

He worked with PTech, helping build the company, for five years. He was the one that was based in Virginia, who was responsible for getting a lot of the government accounts with, of course, Oussama Ziadewho was the president. Oussama Ziadeis a Lebanese-American who, according to Jeff, got his citizenship under very questionable circumstances which involves the INS.

This is all according to Jeff, so at some point, later in the week I had decided to go down to Virginia and meet with not only Jeff, but a number of other PTech and ex-PTech employees because this was beginning to sound like a Tom Clancy novel and I needed proof.

I told them I needed emails, I needed documents, I needed hard evidence. But in the meantime, within a day or two, I had contacted my rep at IBM. I said I need to walk outside with you and talk to you about something. If you guys are thinking of getting seriously in bed with this company, I would suggest that you do some background investigation so that your clients like J.P. Morgan and myself do not end up in this situation. His name was Kyle Hiligoss.

Kyle told me that he “wrote a book report” and sent it to his legal department. He was told to just back off the whole thing. In fact, he did not even want to have anything to do with me as I continued investigating.

Jeff did get the agents at the Boston FBI office to call me back. And with Kyle listening in, so it was not just me reporting on what Jeff had said, we spoke to the FBI agent who had picked up the information that Jeff had reported on PTech when Yassin al-Qadi was placed on the terror list in October 2001. Remember, this is eight or nine months later.

My question to him is: If you have an investigation that is ongoing, that is fine. We do not want to get involved with it or impede it in anyway, but in the meantime, this country’s infrastructure is seriously exposed and I can not, if any of this is true, can not. I need some evidence, something that you can give me to hang my hat on when I report this, that this is true; that this is not just someone making a terrorism report; that you know that this is true.

Basically, what he said is, Indira you are in a better position, on the outside, to get the proof that’s needed than I am. I asked him to check with the supervisor. I said do you understand how serious this is, to have a company with this alleged terrorism connection in the highest levels of corporate America and the U.S. infrastructure? I said, if you do not know, we need to make you aware of this.

He apparently went to his supervisor. The supervisor said that the position would not change. The Boston FBI office, you can check this out, was rated as one of the worst in terms of corruption. I believe the Whitey Bolger incident – the connections between the FBI and the Mafia – has been (how should I put it?) extremely well-explored.

Anyway, this mob character, Whitey Bolger’s brother, was in a very high level political position in Boston, MA. In fact, if people were to read Peter Lance’s book, Cover Up, he explores it very well and backs up a lot of what I have found here: the interaction between organized crime and the FBI.

When they said they were not going to proceed, I. . .

Bonnie: And by “they” you are talking about the FBI?

Indira: The FBI. I said I need something to hang my hat on, so he sent me a video tape. The substance of the video tape, which I have here, was a news clip. It was a news clip of a CBS affiliate based in Boston, called WBZ-TV. Their investigative reporting team – the I-Team – which was led by investigative reporter, Joe Bergantino, had investigated a number of Middle Eastern men who were sought after 9/11. They were affiliated with Muslim-Islamic terrorism-financing charities.

He had created this clip to show the connection between the 9/11 terror attack and the financial vehicles that were supposedly used to fund it. What he did was very interesting. The I-Team connected Care International – not the big Care International, but something called Care International – that was based in Boston all the way back to al-Keefah which was the financing vehicle at the center of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993; all the way back to something calledMaktab al-qeedah-mad, which means “the office”, which was a financing vehicle that was set up by the CIA for the Pakistani ISI back in the days when Osama Bin Laden was America’s fair-haired boy and was on our side fighting with the Mujahidin, fighting the Soviet Union.

My goodness! The question to me, when I saw the video tape, was: What is Maktab al-qeedah-mad doing being run out of PTech on 9/11? And the reason I say “being run out of PTech “is that the faces in the video tape were the faces of core employees at PTech.

Now remember, this is a small company. There were only one or two people who had access to the source code in PTech. That is a very trusted position, and he was one of them. His name is Suheil Laher. The people who started Care International; some of them were actually on an FBI terror watch list prior to 9/11 in Boston.

Bonnie: What do you mean by “the source code”?

Indira: All software products have some group or organization or person write code that is then packaged up. For instance, the word processor in your desk, the spread sheet, the browser, and so on and so forth. It is all written in some sort of code. Those are the keys to it and if you wanted to improve it, add new functionality, you would change the original code and add new functionality, and then repackage it and send it out there.

Whoever had access to the source code of PTech, that was where the value was. If you lost the source code, you essentially lost product for all intents and purposes from a marketing point of view. So, only one or two people would have access to the source code. It would be like having the formula for Coca-Cola, basically.

Bonnie: Let’s go over that a little bit again. You were talking about Care International and some other funding groups that have been what? Funding international terrorism. . .?

Indira: That is correct.

Bonnie: . . .and also have been funded by what? The CIA . . .?

Indira: The roots of al-Keefah and Care International, if you look at it, were way back in the late 80s around the time of Iran Contra, for instance.Maktab al-qeedah-mad was set up so that monies could be passed to Osama Ben Laden and the Mujahidin when they were fighting the Soviet.

I will not go into a lot of detail, but it ended up that Osama Ben laden took that over and was running al-Qaeda through that. The connections to the Pakistani ISI still stood. The connections to the CIA still stood. Not in the way that was originally set up, but through a black or a gray operation. That had been later confirmed to me.

At the end of the day, when I was finished with certain parts of the investigation, it was clear to me that there was no way PTech could have done all of this without a lot of inside help. That is what I began focusing on: that it was a cutout, that it was a front. Was it a regular CIA front? Was it a clandestine front? What was it? There are walls within the FBI, walls within the CIA, behind which these operations take place. Who is behind those operations is a key question.

People might say, “Oh, this is all conspiracy theory,” but I would like to remind people that conspiracy is very much recognized by the United States Federal Code and it is called RICO Racketeering and Influence. It is very much recognized because there is so much power in these organizations that they have rules in place. For instance, the DCIA – the Director of CIA – cannot, after his term of DCIA, subsequently run for Vice President or President, which is what happened with George Herbert Walker Bush. That rule was bent for him. He went on from being the DCIA to running for Vice President. That is a No-no.

[music in background]

Bonnie: I am speaking with 9/11 whistleblower and risk technology architect, Indira Singh. Today’s show: Ground Zero 9/11: Blueprint for Terror, Part 2.

I am Bonnie Faulkner. This is “Guns and Butter”.

[music stops]

It sounds like you are describing an interlocking relationship, then, between this software company funded by Saudis and funded by whomever: the United States government, U.S. corporations, and then-known groups, globally, that are accused of staging terrorist attacks. This is all of a piece.

Indira: Yes. Absolutely. One of the things I want to say is, maybe those organizations do not fully know who their masters are. PTech is the one golden thread you pull on. All of this is unraveled because it goes into the corporations, it goes into these government entities, it goes into the terrorism financing entities. None of which have been, oh, by the way, taken to task.

There are just so many questions about what does this all mean? As we investigated further, we found that the origins of PTech were very interesting. Where did this company come from, obviously, is the first question. And how did they get to be so powerful? Who were the people or the organizations that brought them in? Who knew? Who gave them the power? Who, for instance, signed off Ziade’s U.S. citizenship without doing background checks? Who said that they had a bad feeling doing that?

I remember that PTech’s competitors, U.S. companies, were extremely annoyed at the fact that they could not get equal time. All the plum contracts were going to a foreign-owned company. I said, did you know they were foreign-owned, and if they are foreign owned, they could not get certain classified projects? And he said, “Indira , everyone knew some of them.”

Some of the competitors said everyone knew that they were Saudi-owned, and that meant that they got favorable treatment on Capitol Hill. I said, are you saying that they just got favor treatment or was there something more going on? They would not answer. Their lawyers instructed them not to answer. So, they knew a lot of what was going on.

Bonnie: Who were you talking to about this?

Indira: In one particular case, I was talking to one of their competitors, Popkin Software. I have no problem naming names because I think that in the memory of 3,000 U.S. and worldwide civilians who were murdered, if we are going to wage wars and spill blood around the world, we ought to take a look at this, and just have the truth come out, because the truth has not come out. There has been a lot of speculation. There has been a lot of innuendo, but there has not been hard proof.

PTech is the one situation where you can get hard proof. When we investigated PTech and the people behind it, where they came from, we found out that one of the founding members was a man by the name of Soliman Biheiri, who was one of the founding directors. He had put together a vehicle called BMI, which stands for bitol mal (?)[34:48:6].

BMI was identified as being involved with terror financing, but this is just not going to be “The Muslims hate America”. That is not what it is. There is something else going on here. They are being used as a tool, just as the good people of the United States are being used, are being misled and frightened and terrorized. And if we do not wage these horrific wars our way of life will be over. Who benefits from that?

Bonnie: What else did your investigation of PTech turn up? Didn’t you meet with several employees or former employees of PTech?

Indira: Yes. It goes back to when all of this was being revealed to me. This is the last week of May, 2002 – the last day, or June 1 or so of 2002 – and low and behold out of nowhere the Chicago FBI enters the picture. We have Agent Robert Wright, of the Chicago FBI, who was giving Congressional testimony. He stands on the steps of the Capitol and bursts into tears, apologizes to the 9/11 families’ victims that he did not do everything he could to prevent 9/11 from happening; that his investigations were repeatedly shut down.

I almost fell over because he announced that his investigation was investigation into Yassin al-Qadi, the same Sheikh Yassin all-Qadi who was the money-man behind PTech. You could not ask for a more direct connection to 9/11 than that. I will even discount the fact that some ex-PTech employees – when I went to see them, I presented all the terrorists’ faces – had indicated that they had seen some pass through PTech.

In fact, one or two had mentioned that they thought one of the hijackers had actually passed through PTech, and I said, did you report this to the FBI? Can you tell me when? Can you get evidence of that? Can you get litigation-quality evidence, something that would stand up? Whatever you can get, give it to me. Make copies. Give it to the FBI. I still thought they were on our side.

Bonnie: The FBI, you mean?

Indira: The FBI. In fact, and this has to be made very clear, there are some extraordinarily real patriotic Americans and good people in the FBI. As has been said by, I believe, Agent Colleen Rowley, one of the FBI whistleblower’s bosses, that there is a wall in the FBI. This has been validated to me by various attorneys in Houston who are very close to the power bases, and are pretty ticked off at what is happening to this country and they are speaking out. As are many CIA agents who are very concerned that it has gone too far. As are many NSA agents who are concerned that it has gone too far. And, FBI agents. So, we have a lot of people who are speaking out. They have kept quiet too long.

They are afraid. They are afraid of what is happening to this country. When I say the Third Reich, what is happening to this country, they say – and I will indentify “they” if pressed – we will make the Third Reich look like a tea party. I guess we have that many more billion people to control on this planet.

Bonnie: And when you say “they say” are you referring to people that you have spoken with in the FBI?

Indira: Absolutely, within the FBI, within the CIA. One of the things I did not want to have happen is that when PTech was finally raided in December 2002 – something that took all of six months- a tremendous amount of agony to have happen – the White House, AriFleischer, spun it to fine sugar that day. He said there’s nothing wrong; nothing here; not a thing to see here; everything is fine.

They did a token raid and that was basically it. Everything that I have done since that time has been for one reason and one reason only: that there may come a time that people will find the trail to PTech and it will not be hidden or buried. I have kept it alive. Whether they rename their company and move on, I want to keep the names, the details, everything alive, no matter what I have to do, so that should there come a time for justice and accounting for 9/11 and for what is happening in the world today, it makes it easier for other people to unravel the truth.

I have gone to the mainstream press. I have gone to people on the left, on the left of left, on the right, on the right of right, and I have talked to them face to face and said this is wrong. Whatever your political inclinations, this is wrong; this is criminal; this is murder; this is worldwide atrocity. And I have reached some very good people on the left and on the right who are willing to speak out about PTech.

I have contacted the alternative press. The alternative press, very much like the nine blind men and the elephant, touch a piece of PTech, they understand it and they say, “This fits my theory of how things went wrong.”

I have no problem with that because the facts are the facts. If someone wants to spin it to fit their particular viewpoint, for instance, From the Wilderness has said that this software that is in PTech is very much like PROMIS, the Prosecutor’s Management Information System, that has a whole cargo cult behind it of these legendary capabilities. Maybe back in the 80s and 90s it was legendary, but today you can do pretty amazing things with software. It is not a big deal.

Anyway, From the Wilderness and Mike Ruppert for instance, thesis was that Dick Cheney was running an alternate command and control center that day confusing everyone. And, in fact, there were four war games that were going on, on 9/11. Who knows why the fighters weren’t scrambled in time? Who knows all this?

In fact, the fighter to Pennsylvania was scrambled in time because we have first-hand proof – whistleblowers within the correct organizations – that that was shot down. It is just that “Let’s roll” was a better story; perhaps a story that the American people could handle. But, no, I was told at Ground Zero that day. We heard them go over and we knew they were shot down. We were told. It was just later that we were told the passengers brought it down.

If you are running a country and you are really under a terrorist attack that might be the way to go. Empower people by saying if this bad thing happens to you, get up and do something, and have a story. I really do not have such a big problem with that. But the fact of the matter is that it was shot down.

Bonnie: Oh, that is interesting. And you heard that on the day of September 11?

Indira: Yes, I did. And it was corroborated a couple of weeks ago by people who were in a particular situation room.

Bonnie: Did you want to say anything more about that?

Indira: It is possible that there was an alternate command and control system. Could you technically use PTech software to do surveillance and intervention? Well, gosh, yes. That is exactly what I was planning on using it for in one of the largest banks in the world. It is not a problem.

So, if someone wants to make it their thesis, I have no problem with that. However, I cannot say for sure that that was going on because I do not have direct first-hand knowledge of that and no one has told me and offered me proof of that. But could I state that it could happen? Absolutely, it could have happened.

Was it necessary for it to have happened in order for us to have a 9/11? I do not know. I do not think so. Maybe. Maybe not. That is not my point. The Towers came down. Three thousand people were killed. And what I know is the characters behind the funding of it were totally in bed with characters in the United States. Not only just for 9/11, but going on throughout our nation’s history. And the big question is why? What are they up to?

Bonnie: Could you describe the relationship of PTech with the FAA? PTech worked with the FAA for several years, didn’t they?

Indira: Yes. It was a joint project between PTech and MITRE. It is interesting. They were looking at, basically, holes in the FAA’s interoperability with responding with other agencies – law enforcement – in the case of an emergency such as a hijacking.

They were looking for the escalation process – what people would do, how they would respond in case of an emergency – and find the holes and make recommendations to fix it. Now if anyone was in a position to understand where the holes were, PTech was, and that is exactly the point: if anybody was in a position to write software to take advantage of those holes, it would have been PTech.

Bonnie: Was there a reference to PTech having operated in the basement out of the FAA?

Indira: Yes. Typically, because the scope of such projects are so over-arching and wide-ranging, when you are doing an enterprise architecture project, you have access to how anything in the organization is being done, where it is being done, on what systems, what the information is. You have carte blanche.

If it is a major project that spends several years, the team that comes in has, literally, access to almost anything that they want because you are operating on a blueprint level, on a massive scale. So, yes, they were everywhere, and I was told that they were in places that required clearances. I was told that they had log-on access to FAA flight control computers. I was told that they had passwords to many computers that you may not, on the surface, think has anything to do with finding out holes in the system, but let’s say you isolated part of a notification process that was mediated by computer and you wanted to investigate it further, then you would typically get log-on access to that computer. From that, back upstream or downstream. So, who knows?

From my own experience I could have access to almost anything I wanted to in J.P. Morgan-Chase. And, did not, for the reason that if anything went wrong, I did not want to have the access. But if you were up to no good as an enterprise architect with such a mandate, you typically could have access to anything.

Bonnie: What do you think of the claim by the so-called 9/11 Independent Commission and the testimony before it, in their report: intelligence agencies did not talk to each other? What did you think of their so-called report?

Indira: Completely flawed. Governor Kaine was the second choice for the head of the commission. I believe Henry Kissinger was the first. Governor Kaine had, oh, by the way, done business deals with BMI, Soliman Biheiri, PTech. None of which came out, which he should have volunteered and either recused himself as being had or have it out there in the open. There were three other members of the commission who had similar kinds of relationships in the past. They were all on the team.

But their findings were so flawed. They are using an excuse. Yes, there are interoperability communication issues in any organization. Yes, there are, but in a case of an emergency, it does not get that bollixed up.

Unless, of course, Roberta is right and Cheney was running interference somewhere. Or, someone was running interference. Or, whoever. We do not know.

There were four war games, four simulations, going on the morning of 9/11, and I just want people to remember that MITRE – they also develop software for intelligence, which includes the CIA – and PTech, if they were going to test whether they had fixed these holes, would have probably run a simulation. I do not know that they did, but that is how we do things. But there were four of them going on. So was there room for confusion? I do not think these people are stupid. I think they were deliberately confused, if anything.

Bonnie: We know very well that there was a simulation of the very event taking place during the event, right?

Indira: Yes, there was. I believe there is proof there was more than one just in case the first one did not confuse people enough. What does this say? I can be very objective about this and say the terrorists knew that there were war games scheduled for this day, and they took advantage of it and called 9/11 the particular day.

However, we do know that 9/11 had been selected prior. OK, so then maybe the war games were set many weeks prior for 9/11. You can play this game over and over and over. Yes, it was the perfect day. And, yes, you needed inside knowledge. And, yes, PTech, with all its myriad associations would have had the inside knowledge. And, yes, PTech was a CIA front. And, yes, PTech was protected.

So, was it an inside job? You do not have to look at this indirectly. This is direct. This requires direct investigation.

[end of audio: [0:48:06:0]]

James: Again, that is a stunning interview, jam packed with incredible information that goes to the very heart of 9/11, and I suggest that people who find this information important and find the controlled corporate media’s complete blackout on this information reprehensible, do their own part to get this word out by spreading the word about Indira Singh and this breakthrough interview.

Remarkably enough, considering the bombshell information provided by this corporate whistleblower, Indira Singh, about this company which actually operated in the basement of the FAA with complete and total access to every operational detail including their management of interoperability systems with NORAD, that could have directly affected the response of NORAD on 9/11. Absolutely nothing has resulted from the FBI investigation of this company and its links to terror.

One of the ridiculous PR pieces put out by the Mass High Tech Business Journal comes from Friday, August 22, 2003. It is entitled Ware-Withal: Wrongly Suspected Ptech CEO Bounce Back Slowly. The article reads in part:

“Oussama Ziade’s business has suffered millions in losses this year, none of which can be attributed to a limp economy. His lost millions can be attributed to his devastated professional reputation due to a bogus tip to Federal investigators and ensuing bad press. Really bad press.

“On December 4th, Ziade’s business, PTech, had been recognized as one of the top ten companies that matter by KMWorld for three years running, as well as one of the fastest growing tech companies in New England by Deloitte and Touch.

“PTech is a global supplier of software that helps clients visualize and analyze tech infrastructure and builds models for business planning. Clients include governmental agencies such as the FBI, the IRS, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Secret Service.

“Business was good until December 5th when PTech was visited by Federal investigators acting on a tip that a company investor had links to al-Qaeda, and that PTech may have designed a backdoor in its software allowing terrorists entry to the above named clients’ databases.

“Ziade cooperated, saying he had nothing to hide, while the government took measures to comelate at night in the hope that its visit would be stealthy. It wasn’t. The following day Ziade opened the newspaper and saw his photo next to a story describing a raid on PTech to investigate possible terrorist links. He became really scared.

“’It was a nightmare. I took my family out of the house immediately,’ he says. ‘I thought what if someone comes to my house. I was in a bad situation.’

“It would be 30 days before he would sleep through the night. In the meantime, he had to lay off a dozen employees because in the following two months business fell off by $3 million. It seemed many customers didn’t want to do business with a perceived terrorist sympathizer, while those who knew PTech and its founder extended kindness.

“By March, things started to get a little better. Word came directly from the White House, making official what the Feds thought all along, that there is no terrorist connection to PTech, nor was there ever any backdoor in the software.”

Again, that incredible mindless whitewash article, which provides no evidence whatsoever about the very real links of top PTech investors to terrorist organizations, was run in Mass High Tech Business Journal in 2003.

Just how ridiculous that whitewash is becomes clear in an excellent article from, called “The Business of Terror,” by Dr. Rachael Ehrenfeld. This article comes from June 17, 2005, and reads in part:

“On May 11, 2005 Muhamed Mubayyid was arrested and charged in Boston’s district court for filing false tax returns on behalf of Care International for which he acted as Treasurer. Mubayyid was also the Customer Services Manager of the company known as PTech, a privately owned technology company based in Quincy, MA.

“Ptech, which recently changed its name to Go Agile, developed a software also called PTech that was used primarily to develop enterprise blueprints that held every important functional, operational, and technical detail of the given enterprise. Mubayyid is only the latest of PTech’s top investors and managers to run afoul with the law. Mubiad personifies the interlinks of the complex infrastructure which were established by al-Qaeda and other Islamist organizations in the U.S.

“Mubayyid was not arrested for his connection with al-Qaeda. Rather [he] was charged for making false statements and conspiring to defraud the U.S. by misrepresenting Care’s activities which involved ‘the solicitation and expenditure of funds to support and promote the Mujahidin and Jihad, including the distribution of pro-Jihad publications.’

“Care International is the now-defunct Muslim charity that was originally the Boston branch office of the al-Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, N.Y., from which Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman funded and plotted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Care International was already publicly identified as supporting al-Qaeda back in 2002, yet it remained open, and several of its employees worked and/or were affiliated with Ptech. Ptech was raided by the FBI on December 6, 2002, following a tip from an employee who suspected that the company was connected to the 9/11 attacks.

“Indeed, on October 12, 2001, Yassin al-Qadi, Ptech’s top investor at that time, was listed by the US government as a specially designated global terrorist for his support of al-Qaeda. al-Qadi invested at least $18 million directly in Ptech, $5 million through the Isle of Man, and $9 million indirectly through BMI, a now-defunct New Jersey-based Islamic investment firm with connections to other members on Ptech’s management and investors. al-Qadi also transferred $2 million USD to Ptech from Switzerland between 1997 and 2000, according to Swiss investigators.. .

“al-Qadi’s businesses extend throughout the world, and included banking, diamonds, chemicals, construction, transportation, and real estate. It would be hard to find a more strategically placed individual to advance the agenda of al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization. al-Qadi is still at large, and according to recent media reports, expanding his business in Asia. The identities and connections of some other Ptech investors and managers should have also raised a red flag.

“Even Ptech removed from its website the names of several board members and/or their affiliations after a WSJ expose on December 6, 2002.”

All of that carefully researched article is backed up by another article, also incredibly well-researched and definitely worth looking into, from This article is from January 16, 2007, and is  headlined: “Ptech Owner’s Assets Confiscated in Albania.” It reads in part:

“The Albanian government has seized the assets of a wealthy Saudi that for several years reportedly maintained simultaneous connections to both al-Qaeda and the U.S. government while serving the interests of the CIA.

“’The Finance Ministry said it ordered authorities to block four apartments, a house, four bars and shops, and more than two hectares (about five acres) of land belonging to Yassin al-Qadi,’ the Associated Press reports, citing the Official Gazette.

“Yasin al-Qadi, the owner of the property, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, ‘heads the Saudi-based Muwafaq Foundation…an al-Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen.’ The Treasury has thus identified the prominent entrepreneur as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).

“Despite his alleged affiliations to terrorism, al-Qadi has maintained concurrent contacts within influential Washington circles.  In fact, prior to being publicly connected to money laundering and terrorist financing, al-Qadi regularly spoke of his relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney.

“al-Qadi, who has been identified as one of Osama bin Laden’s ‘chief money launderers,’ owned a prominent U.S. technology firm and alleged CIA front known as Ptech. He also escorted U.S. officials around during their visits to Saudi Arabia.

“As reported by the Associated Press, al-Qadi ‘allegedly worked with Osama bin Laden to provide support to terror networks in Albania,’ prompting the recent confiscation of his assets in that country.

“According to the Associated Press, al-Qadi used six different names for the recently seized assets, all of which were in the Tirana area, Albania’s capital city.

“One charity to allegedly launder money in Albania for the al-Qaeda network was Yasin al-Qadi’s Muwafaq Foundation.

“Khalid bin Mahfouz, an extremely influential and wealthy Saudi who ‘established and funded’ the Muwafaq Foundation, was once the principal shareholder and director of BCCI, a criminal enterprise used by the CIA during the 1980s to funnel cash to Osama bin Laden for the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan.

“As former DEA undercover agent Michael Levine explained to The New American in 1999, the U.S. armed and funded “the worst elements of the Mujahidin in Afghanistan — drug traffickers, arms smugglers, anti-American terrorists. We later paid the price when the World Trade Center was bombed [in 1993], and we learned that some of those responsible had been trained by us. Now we’re doing the same thing with the KLA.”

“’These guys,’ Levine said, referring to the KLA, ‘have a network that’s active on the streets of this country. … They’re the worst elements of society that you can imagine, and now, according to my sources in drug enforcement, they’re politically protected.’

“According to Yossef Bodansky, Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association, ‘The role of the Albanian Mafia, which is tightly connected to the KLA, is laundering money, providing technology, safe houses, and other support to terrorists within this country.’

“’In any case,’ Bodansky told The New American, ‘a serious investigation of the Albanian mob isn’t going to happen, because they’re ‘our boys’ — they’re protected.’

“This may help explain why, according to FBI whistleblower Robert Wright, his investigation into Yasin al-Qadi during the 1990s was “intentionally and repeatedly thwarted and obstructed” by higher ups at the FBI.

“According to Agent Wright, who seized $1.4 million directly linked to al-Qadi in 1998, ‘FBI intelligence agents lied and hid vital records from criminal agents for the purpose of obstructing his criminal investigation of the terrorists in order to protect their ‘subjects,’ and prolong their intelligence operations,’ as reported by the group representing Wright, Judicial Watch.

“”The supervisor who was there from headquarters was right straight across from me and started yelling at me: ‘You will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects,’” Agent Wright told ABC News in 2002.

“According to Agent Wright and other members of his former unit, the money trails of the 1998 African embassy bombings led back to al-Qadi, but even after the bombings, FBI headquarters wanted no arrests.

“According to Agent Wright, it is very likely that 9/11 would have been prevented if he had simply been allowed to do his job.”

Again, the importance of all of this information cannot be underestimated. Special Agent Robert Wright said he was investigating a company with 26 subsidiaries and when he was referring to that, he was referring to BMI, the large organization which had PTech as one the jewels in its crown. It later came out that the head of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Kaine, actually sold the piece of property in New Jersey through BMI, Inc.

What does it mean that Robert Wright’s investigation into BMI and PTech and the global terrorist financiers was “shut down”? And that the person who was appointed to head the 9/11 Commission, after Kissinger did not make the grade with the 9/11 victims’ family members, actually had dealings with that company?

For more information on that, please look into FBI agent Robert Wright, and the claims that he made in September 2002; that the FBI was continuing to protect terrorists from criminal investigations.

And for even more information on the cover-up, I suggest an article entitled “Michael Chertoff and the Sabotage of the PTech Investigation,” which details how Chertoff was involved in a turf-war with the FBI for control over Operation Green Quest, the special customs investigation force which Indira Singh cited in that interview with Bonnie Faulkner, that was charged with finding and tracking down international sources of funding for global terrorists.

Perhaps it is no surprise and no coincidence that after Chertoff gained control of Operation Green Quest, it became completely ineffectual, as evidenced by an article on the Counterterrorism Blog by Christopher Heffelfinger, called “Operation Green Quest Unresolved,” which notes that this massive multi-agency initiative has not yet yielded any convictions, and that was as of October 2007.

For those wondering what has happened to Indira Singh since 2005, you might want to join the club. She has gone underground in the last three years, presumably as a way of staying safe while she continues to research and write her book about the PTech investigation and the various links that she has uncovered through that investigation.

She has recently resurfaced, however, to write a memorial to Michael Corbin, a radio talk-show host, who has interviewed Indira Singh before, and who died under mysterious circumstances in March of this year.

I direct listeners, again, to the Documentation list for this episode from which they can find a link to Indira Singh’s memorial to Michael Corbin, and also to the interviews that Michael Corbin conducted with Indira Singh in which she goes even further into naming the names behind PTech, and her investigations into the global terrorist financing ring.

Again, this is the deep research which really will expose those people who had a hand in not only perpetrating, but in then covering up the attacks of 9/11, and this sophisticated enterprise architecture, the software, that they used to help bring those attacks about.

It is my hope that this episode of The Corbett Report does not present all of the answers to what happened on 9/11 in one neat little package, but I do hope that it presents enough information to get you thinking and get you started on your own research. It is only by the collective efforts of a community united in a common cause of exposing the real culprits of 9/11 that we can ever hope to achieve 9/11 justice.

Please get out there and use these articles and this interview as a basis for your own deep research. And please keep The Corbett Report updated on your research. Again, I invite all my listeners to submit articles to The Corbett Report through the Contact function of the Home page.

[music begins]

That is it for today. Thank you for joining me. And join me again next week for another edition ofThe Corbett Report.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Forced Blood Draws, DNA Collection and Biometric Scans: What Country Is This?


By John W. Whitehead
February 24, 2015

The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—are being choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases—these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.

Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Thus far, the courts have done little to preserve our Fourth Amendment rights, let alone what shreds of bodily integrity remain to us.

For example, David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found. During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, during which a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. Nothing illegal was found. Nevertheless, such searches have been sanctioned by the courts, especially if accompanied by a search warrant (which is easily procured), as justified in the government’s pursuit of drugs and weapons.

Close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath. These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. However, because they cannot be used as the basis for arrest, breathalyzer tests are still required. And for those who refuse to submit to a breathalyzer, there are forced blood draws. One such person is Michael Chorosky, who was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government.

Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now the police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone. That’s what is called an end-run around the law, and we’re seeing more and more of these take place under the rubric of “safety.”

The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns. When faced with a request for a DNA sample by police during a mandatory roadblock, most participants understandably fail to appreciate the “voluntary” nature of such a request. Unfortunately, in at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police In instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime. The remaining states collect DNA on conviction. All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government. Indeed, the United States has the largest DNA database in the world, CODIS, which is managed by the FBI and is growing at an alarming rate.

Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste.

Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan.

As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.”

As these police practices and data collections become more widespread and routine, there will be no one who is spared from the indignity of DNA sampling, blood draws, and roadside strip and/or rectal or vaginal searches, whether or not they’ve done anything wrong. We’re little more than economic units, branded like cattle, marked for easy identification, and then assured that it’s all for our “benefit,” to weed us out from the “real” criminals, and help the police keep our communities “safe” and secure.

What a bunch of hokum. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, these databases, forced extractions and searches are not for our benefit. They will not keep us safe. What they will do is keep us mapped, trapped, targeted and controlled.

Moreover, what if you don’t want to be forced to trust the government with your most intimate information? What if you don’t trust the government to look out for your best interests in the first place? How do you protect yourself against having your blood forcibly drawn, your DNA extracted, your biometrics scanned and the most intimate details of who you are—your biological footprint—uploaded into a government database?

What recourse do you have when that information, taken against your will, is shared, stolen, sold or compromised, as it inevitably will be in this age of hackers? We know that databases can be compromised. We’ve seen it happen to databases kept by health care companies, motor vehicle agencies, financial institutions, retailers and intelligence agencies such as the NSA. In fact, 2014 was dubbed the Year of the Hack in light of the fact that over a billion personal data records were breached, leaving those unlucky enough to have their data stolen vulnerable to identity theft, credit card fraud and all manner of criminal activities carried out in their names.

Banks now offer services —for a fee—to help you in the event that your credit card information is compromised and stolen. You can also pay for services to protect against identity theft in the likely event that your social security information is compromised and misused. But what happens when your DNA profile is compromised? And how do you defend yourself against charges of criminal wrongdoing in the face of erroneous technological evidence—DNA, biometrics, etc., are not infallible—that place you at the scene of a crime you didn’t commit? 

“Identity theft could lead to the opening of new fraudulent credit accounts, creating false identities for criminal enterprises, or a host of other serious crimes, ”said Jason Hart, vice president of cloud services, identity and data protection at the digital security company Gemalto. “As data breaches become more personal, we’re starting to see that the universe of risk exposure for the average person is expanding.”

It’s not just yourself you have to worry about, either. It’s also anyone related to you—who can be connected by DNA. These genetic fingerprints, as they’re called, do more than just single out a person. They also show who you’re related to and how. As the Associated Press reports, “DNA samples that can help solve robberies and murders could also, in theory, be used to track down our relatives, scan us for susceptibility to disease, or monitor our movements.”

Capitalizing on this, police in California, Colorado, Virginia and Texas use DNA found at crime scenes to identify and target family members for possible clues to a suspect’s whereabouts. Who will protect your family from being singled out for “special treatment” simply because they’re related to you? As biomedical researcher Yaniv Erlich warns, “If it’s not regulated and the police can do whatever they want … they can use your DNA to infer things about your health, your ancestry, whether your kids are your kids.”

These are just a few of the questions we should be asking before these technologies and programs become too entrenched and irreversible.

While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy on a cellular level. Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking.

Once again, technology has outdistanced both our understanding of it and our ability to adequately manage the consequences of unleashing it on an unsuspecting populace. As for all of those databases being sold to you for your safety and benefit, whether or not they’re actually effective in catching criminals, you can be assured that they will definitely be snatching up innocent citizens, as well.

In the end, what all of this amounts to is a carefully crafted campaign designed to give the government access to and control over what it really wants: you.


There is only one reason this situation exist in America, and that is the citizens don’t have the balls to stop it!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Congress faces five day deadline for funding Homeland Security


By Rebecca Shabad

Lawmakers will begin returning to Washington on Monday with only five days left to prevent a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Legislation funding the agency is at an impasse over provisions demanded by House Republicans that would overturn President Obama’s executive actions on immigration that shield millions from deportation.

recess, both sides dug in, with many Republicans arguing that there is no reason for their party to bend now that a federal court has ruled in their favor by blocking Obama’s most recent actions.

The Senate is scheduled to vote Monday evening for the fourth time on a motion to open debate on the House-passed DHS funding bill.

The motion will certainly fail, leaving a decision on what comes next to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

McConnell has publicly said that the House-approved bill cannot be passed by the Senate, but Boehner has shown no interest in moving away from legislation reversing Obama’s executive actions.

“The House passed a bill weeks ago to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Now, Senate Democrats need to stop filibustering to block debate on that bill,” Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) spokesman Michael Steel told The Hill late last week.

As a result, Senate Republicans are considering a strategy in which the immigration riders would be separated from the DHS funding bill, but it’s unclear whether conservatives would back that plan.

Boehner could lay out his next play when the House GOP conference meets on Wednesday morning, which would leave him just 72 hours to prevent a shutdown.

One option being floated is a short-term spending bill known as a continuing resolution (CR), but it is not clear whether this would pass muster.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has been lobbying Republicans and Democrats on the agency’s need for new funding, which he says would bring the kind of stability that a CR cannot provide.

“When you’re on a continuing resolution, it is a little like trying to drive cross-country with no more than five gallons of gas at a time, and you don’t know when the next gas station is,” Johnson said on Fox News last week. “You can’t plan except days and weeks at a time.”

Over the weekend, Johnson emphasized that a new threat by terrorist group al-Shabaab to attack shopping malls in the U.S. and United Kingdom demonstrates why the DHS needs a new budget.

“It’s absurd that we’re even having this conversation about Congress’s inability to fund Homeland Security in these challenging times,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Centrist Republicans have openly worried that their party could take a significant political hit by shutting down the DHS, while more conservative members have downplayed that threat. The Republican brand was badly damaged by the 16-day government shutdown in 2013, though the party had recovered by the 2014 midterm elections.

After last week’s court ruling, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued it could be best for the GOP to let the fight play out in the courts, where he said Republicans are winning.

“”We now have an exit sign,” he said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And that is the federal court decision saying that the president’s actions unilaterally are unconstitutional. And I think we’ve got a great argument to hand to the Supreme Court, where it will go.”

Other GOP senators, including Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), echoed McCain’s comment on the Sunday morning political talk shows about courts handling the constitutionality of Obama’s actions.

“I hope Republicans will come together and back the court case, file a friend of the court brief with the court and fund DHS. I am willing and ready to pass a DHS funding bill and let this play out in court,” Graham said on ABC News’s “This Week.”

Republican Tom Ridge, who served as the first secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, said Sunday on CNN that the GOP should send Obama a clean spending bill. Instead, the judicial branch can handle immigration, and Republicans can send immigration reform bills to the White House, Ridge added.

Johnson has warned a DHS shutdown would trigger the furlough of 30,000 employees and force 80 percent of the department’s workforce to come to work without pay.

Polls have indicated that voters would largely hold the GOP responsible for the DHS shuttering, just as Republicans were blamed in 2013.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) recently said a shutdown would reflect poorly on the GOP.

“It’s not livable. It’s not acceptable. When you’re in the majority, you have to govern. You have to govern responsibly. And shutdowns are not responsible.”

 2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

General Douglas MacArthur’s Prophetic Warning to the American People


By Timothy A. Pope

Love him or hate him, the indomitable General of the Army, Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964), an indelible military genius, was a great American—perhaps one of the greatest. He was a patriot, a warrior, a statesman, a rebel, a leader, a brilliant commander, and a poet who never minced words nor failed to accomplish the mission at hand. He excelled at everything he put his hand to, and set the bar high and lofty for all men and women who are desirous to be actively engaged in the animating contest of Freedom. MacArthur lived in tumultuous times and presided over great struggles and battles fought for reasons up to and including the preservation of Liberty in every clime and place.

“You couldn’t shrug your shoulders at Douglas MacArthur,” observed historian David McCullough. “There was nothing bland about him, nothing passive about him, nothing dull about him. There’s no question about his patriotism, there’s no question about his courage, and there’s no question, it seems to me, about his importance as one of the protagonists of the 20th century.”

Once again, our nation and world finds ourselves on the brink of regional and global war and conflict which defined MacArthur’s time—the pre-staging of a third global conflagration with its preceding economic sanctions, currency wars and monetary realignments. With that in mind, the words in his farewell memoir could have been written today, because if you study the cycles of human nature, sociology, economics, weather, solar activity, civil unrest and war, history not only repeats itself, but also rhymes.

“There is no present or future—only the past,” wrote Eugene O’Neill, in A Moon for the Misbegotten, (1952), “happening over and over again…” And so it is in our day likewise recurring, the age-old cycles of plenty-to-poverty, peace-to-war, of which King Solomon hinted at in Ecclesiastes 1:9, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

Written in his own hand and finished only weeks before his death, General Douglas MacArthur’s memoir, Reminiscences (1964), spans more than half a century of modern history. The following excerpt is, in my opinion, the most important words he ever penned and at the same time the greatest warning he ever recorded on behalf of the benefit of the American people and our posterity regarding what he came to acknowledge as the treacherous domestic threat infiltrating our American way of life—a warning which has all but fallen on deaf ears.

I’ll let his own words speak for themselves, and then enumerate my thoughts below.

Sourced from my own personal copy of Reminiscences by Douglas MacArthur, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, 1964), First Edition, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-22955, pp. 414-418:

Great changes have taken place in our military establishment, some good, some not so good. Materially the improvement has been spectacular, psychologically yet to be proven. The men in the ranks are largely citizen soldiers, sailors or airmen—men from the farm, the city, from school, from the college campus—men not dedicated to the profession of arms; men not primarily skilled in the art of war; men most amazingly like the men you know and see and meet each day of your life.

If hostilities come, these men will know the endless tramp of marching feet, the incessant whine of sniper bullets, the ceaseless rustle of sputtering machine guns, the sinister wail of air combat, the deafening blast of crashing bombs, the stealthy stroke of hidden torpedoes, the amphibious lurch over perilous waves, the dark majesty of fighting ships, the mad din of battle and all the tense and ghastly horror and savage destruction of a stricken area of war.

These men will suffer hunger and thirst, broiling suns and frozen reaches, but they must go on and on and on when everything within them seems to stop and die. They will grow old in youth burned out in searing minutes, even though life owes them many tranquil years. In these troubled times of confused and bewildered international sophistication, let no man misunderstand why they must do that which they must do. These men will fight, and, perchance die, for one reason only—for their country—for America. No complex philosophies of world intrigue and conspiracy dominate their thoughts. No exploitation or extravagance of propaganda dims their sensibilities. Just the simple fact, their country called.

But now strange voices are heard across the land, decrying this old and proven concept of patriotism. Seductive murmurs are arising that it is now outmoded by some more comprehensive and all-embracing philosophy, that we are provincial and immature or reactionary and stupid when we idealize our own country; that there is a higher destiny for us under another and more general flag [the United Nations]; that no longer when we send our sons and daughters to the battlefields must we see them through all the way to victory; that we can call upon them to fight and even to die in some halfhearted and indecisive war; that we can plunge them recklessly into war and then suddenly decide that it is a wrong war or in a wrong place or in a wrong time, or even that we can call it not a war at all by using some more euphemistic and gentler name [humanitarianism]; that we can treat them as expendable, although they are our own flesh and blood; that we, the strongest military nation in the world, have suddenly become dependent on others for our security and even our welfare.

Listen not to these voices, be they from the one political party or from the other. Be they from the high and the mighty or the lowly and forgotten. Heed them not. Visit upon them a righteous scorn, born of the past sacrifices of your fighting sons and daughters. Repudiate them in the market place, on platforms, from the pulpit. The highest encomium [praise] you can still receive is to be called a patriot, if it means you love your country above all else and will place your life, if need be, at the service of your Flag.

Great changes, even more comprehensive than in the military field, have taken place in industry. In its massive and almost limitless potential, the rugged determination of its leaders, the skill and energy of its workers, here has been welded an industrial supremacy such as the world has never before known. It comprises not only a power in being but a reserve power capable of being quickly mounted to meet and overcome any eventuality that might arise. This not only ensures a continuity of human progress but imposes an almost impassable barrier against any who would threaten the security of the American continent. It has thus become a leavening influence in a world where war and the threat and fear of war would otherwise so distort the minds of men as to threaten the progress of the human race.

It represents a condition of preparedness born of American enterprise and vision, nurtured upon American energy and incentive, and depending for its ultimate strength upon American will and determination. It is the result and fruition of the capitalistic system—a system embracing every segment of American society—the owners of industry, the workers in industry, the public served by industry. This free enterprise based upon the right to work and the right to possess the fruits of that work has created an economic freedom which is the basis of all other freedoms.

But this very success has created its own perils and harassments, both from without and from within. For from one end of the world to the other there is a titanic struggle to seize control of industry and of the economics. Whether this be in the masquerade of Communism or Socialism or Fascism the purpose is the same—to destroy a primary element of Freedom and preempt it for the State.

The capitalistic system has hence become the great target, although it has never failed to provide the resource for an ever increasing standard for human life, has never failed to maximize the fruits of human energy and creative enterprise, has never failed to provide the sinews for victory in war. It has built this nation far beyond the wildest dreams of its architects; it has through the scientific means of communication closed the international geographic gap to permit rapid and effective trade and commerce among the people of the world, has elevated the laborer, the farmer and the tradesmen to their rightful station of dignity and relative prosperity, and has established the pattern for modern industrialization and scientific development.

The first prominent component of capitalism was Karl Marx who shunned the use of violence and sought the voluntary acceptance of the principle of communal ownership of the sources and means of production. The innate common sense of the human race, however, rejected this principle and the element of force was injected by the Bolshevik after the close of the First World War Then was combined the theory of Karl Marx with the principle of Nihilism [anarchy; revolutionary insurgency] under which the control of public policy was sought through terrorism and violence. This combination known as Communism has had many successes. The minority, the Communist Party, in many sectors of the globe has been able to establish its rule over the majority. Only where the concept of human liberty was most deeply rooted and greatly advanced were such minority pressures decisively thrown back.

Such was the case in this nation where our economy, built upon the principle of private capitalism, became recognized as the great barrier to the universal enforcement of the theories of modern Communism. There followed repeated and diversified efforts to reduce and destroy it. Resort was had to the control of private profit by the Marxism-inspired device of confiscatory taxation and the levies upon privately accumulated resources.

It began in this country with the Federal Income Tax Law of 1914 which gave unlimited access to the people’s wealth, and the power for the first time to levy taxes not for revenue only but for social purposes. [The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, 1848, Chapter II, Proletarians and Communists, plank #2: “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”] Since then the sphere of government has increased with a kind of explosive force.

Karl Marx, while planning the destruction of all constitutional government, said: “The surest way to overturn the social order is to debauch the currency.” And the Russian dictator, Lenin, that implacable foe of the free enterprise system, predicted as early as 1920 that the United States would eventually spend itself into bankruptcy.

Karl Marx referred, of course, to the process of inflation, induced by extreme taxation; the process of “planned economy” [known today as social engineering]; the process of controlling economic conditions and thereby controlling the lives of individuals—a control of fiscal, monetary and general economic forces which produce higher prices and a gradual devitalizing of the purchasing power of money. The continuing rise in the cost of living is due to our drift deeper and deeper into inflation [the hidden tax] until today our whole economic, social and political system is infected by an inflationary mentality. “Taxation with its offspring inflation,” said Lenin, in support of the basic thesis of Karl Marx, “is the vital weapon to displace the system of free enterprise.”—the system on which our nation was founded—the system which has made us the most prosperous people of all history—the system which enabled us to produce over half of the world’s goods with less than one-seventeenth of the world’s area and population—the system which gave our people more liberty, privileges and opportunities than any other nation ever gave its people in the long history of the world. To destroy it is the sure road to Socialism. And by Socialism is meant the forcing of a centrally controlled economic life upon all persons in the nation under an authoritarian monopoly that is politically managed. Actually, there has been through the direction of our own public policy an incessant encroachment on the capitalistic system. Most officials of our government over the past years will deny, and justifiably, any intent to establish in this nation the basis for the emergence of a Socialistic, much less a Communistic State, but the course of fiscal policy has done just that. The fact is unmistakable and clear that if the capitalistic system—free enterprise—is to be preserved to the future generations of our people, the course of government must be oriented to foster and preserve adequate incentive to encourage the thrift, the industry and the adventure which brought our nation to its present pre-eminence among all of the other nations of the earth and which alone can carry it forward in peace and security and progress.

I realize full well that the restless spirit of the times seeks change. But change should not be made for the sake of change alone. It should be sought only to adapt time tested principles which have been proven in the crucible of human experience to the new requirements of an expanding society. To do otherwise is not true liberalism. The Constitution is not to be treated as an instrument of political expediency. Every move that is made to circumvent its spirit, every move that is made to over-centralize political power, every move that is made to curtail individual liberty is reaction in its most extreme form. For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the Charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought.

The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of governmental power. Through the ages the constantly expanding grasp of government has been liberty’s greatest threat. Daniel Webster once said on the floor of the Senate:

“Our security is our watchfulness of executive power. It was the Constitution of this department, which as infinitely the most difficult part in the great work of creating our present government; to give the executive department such power as should make it useful, and yet not such as should render it dangerous; to make it efficient, independent and strong, and yet to prevent it from sweeping away everything by its union of military and civil authority, by the influence of patronage, and office, and force. . . . I do not wish to impair the power of the President as it stands written down in the Constitution. But, I will not blindly confide, where all experience admonished me to be jealous; I will not trust executive power, vested in the hands of a single magistrate, to keep the vigils of liberty.”

He spoke those words 129 years ago; but they could as well have been spoken but yesterday.

There are many who have lost faith in this early American ideal and believe in a form of socialistic, totalitarian rule, a sort of big brother deity to run our lives for us. They no longer believe that free men can successfully manage their own affairs. Their thesis is that a handful of men, centered in government, largely bureaucratic not elected, can utilize the proceeds of our toil and labor to greater advantage than those who create it. Nowhere in the history of the human race is there justification for this reckless faith in political power. It is the oldest, most reactionary of all forms of social organization. It was tried out in ancient Babylon, ancient Greece and ancient Rome; in Mussolini’s Italy, in Hitler’s Germany, and in all communist countries. Wherever and whenever it has been attempted, it has failed utterly to provide economic security, and has generally ended in national disaster. It embraces an essential idiocy, that individuals who, as private citizens, are not to manage the disposition of their own earnings, become in public office supermen who can manage the affairs of the world.

The fundamental and ultimate issue at stake is liberty, itself—liberty verses the creeping socialization in every domestic field. Freedom to live under the minimum of restraint! A least common denominator of mediocrity against the proven progress of pioneering individualism! The free enterprise system or the cult of conformity! The result will determine the future of civilization. It will be felt on every human life. It will be etched in blazing rainbow colors on the very arch of the sky.

And here we are; the social engineering minority MacArthur spoke of, having been able to firmly establish its rule over the majority in this country and in most other countries throughout the world. At the time of the writing of this book, the U.S. federal government’s national debt was $312 billion, and in contrast stands today (at the time of this writing) at $18 trillion, with the future prosperity of our children replaced by indentured servitude and debt slavery.

How have they been able to accomplish this? If you think about it and critically analyze the players and the agenda, you will arrive at the answer of your own volition. If not, you need to turn the television off and stop going to the movies. Stop buying the newspapers and magazines of perception management, and watching the controlled mainstream news “programming” by pathologically lying “anchors” such as NBC’s CFR member, Brian Williams and others in the Communist News Networks.

Read your history and research the principles and ideals upon which this great nation was founded. Then you will know how it was possible for the minority to establish its rule over the majority, because those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, and those who George Orwell predicted were “without general ideas,” whose “activities were without importance” and would allow petty distractions to “fill up the horizon of their minds” are very easy to control.

English philosopher, John Locke, known as the “Father of Classical Liberalism,” espoused the view that government is morally obligated to serve the whole of the people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. John Adams wrote in A Defense of the American Constitutions (1787): “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” In Essay on Property (1792), James Madison wrote that the end of government was “to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals,” and “that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” And in his first inaugural address in 1801, Thomas Jefferson said: “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned—this is the sum of good government.”

What fools these mortals be who have forgotten the fundamental conventions of our forebears.

Regarding the perpetual war scenario, MacArthur’s nearly prophetic book was written shortly after the Truman-era Korean War and sandwiched between the botched Bay of Pigs invasion—co-sponsored by the CIA—which led directly to the Communist revolution in Cuba, the dissolving of Cuba’s capitalist system and persecution of Christians at the hands of Castro’s ruthless 26 July army. Then came the ensuing Kennedy-era missile crisis and that terrible decade of the second Indochina War.

A couple years after publication of MacArthur’s Reminiscences, in 1967, the USS Liberty was bombed in Israel, killing 34 and wounding more than 170 U.S. crew members. The book predates the bloody Nixon-era campaigns in Laos and Cambodia in 1968, the war in Vietnam from 1970-1975, Lebanon in 1976, and Zaire in 1978.

It predates the Carter-era Operation Eagle Claw in Iran and Operation Bright Star in Sinai in 1980, the El Salvadorian offensive and the Libyan incident in ’81.

It foreshadowed the Reagan-era Multinational Force on Lebanon from 1982-83, Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada in ’83, the indefinite Persian Gulf War beginning in ’84 and lasting until the present day.

It heralded the Bush-era siege of Panama from 1988-90, which resulted in the deaths of 2,000-3,000 unarmed civilians according to the Commission for the Defense of Human Rights in Central America (CODEHUCA); Operation Desert Shield beginning in 1990, and the ensuing oil wars in Iraq and Kuwait.

It portended the Clinton-era Bosnia invasion, the 1993 deployment of the U.S. military’s Combat Applications Group (known in certain circles as Delta Force) to a Seventh Day Adventist church near Waco Texas where 76 men, women and children were massacred; Liberia in ’96; Albania, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, the Congo and Gabon in ’97; Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Tanzania, Afghanistan, Sudan and Monrovia in ’98; Kissinger’s East Timor genocide and Serbia in ’99, and Nigeria and Yemen in 2000.

It anticipated the second Bush-era’s never-ending war in Afghanistan and the so-called “War on Terror” beginning in 2001, the Philippines and Côte d’Ivoire in ’02, the war in Iraq beginning in 2003 and helping the nation to fall to Islamic terrorist regimes by 2011, counterterrorism wars in Georgia and Djibouti in ’03, the Haitian coup d’état and U.S. intelligence anti-terror war underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen and Eritreain; and drone strikes in Pakistan in ’04, Lebanon again in 2006, and Mogadishu and Somalia in ’07.

It envisioned the Obama-era rise of the drones, Yemen again in 2010, Operation New Dawn in Iraq from 2010-11, Uganda and Libya and Somalia again in 2011; Jordan, Turkey, Chad and Benghazi in 2012; Mali, Somalia, Libya and Korea again in 2013; and Uganda and Iraq yet again in 2014.

And all of these foreign entanglements, invasions and incursions are that which account for involvement only by U.S. federal military forces, not including wars and aggressions initiated or lead by other nations.

The Gospel of Matthew chapter 24, verses 6-8 says: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom . . . All these are the beginning of sorrows.”

At present, considering the words of social critic, Randolph Bourne, that “War is the health of the State,” we have the staging of “humanitarian interventions” (crisis-initiations) in Syria, Iran, Ukraine, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan, the rising of the Islamic sword and the submission to the tyrannical Sharīʿah Law in countless nations, with players such as the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS), the Mossad, CIA and British MI6 pitting Sunni against Shia Muslim factions (ethos against ethos) along the way.

We have the Eastern bloc coalition of BRICS nations—which represent about 3 billion people, approximately 40% of world population and a combined GDP of 20% of gross world product—uniting to form a world reserve currency to replace the 100-year global monopoly of the Rothschild-owned Bank of England and its American Federal Reserve branch. We have the United States, Britain and Germany involved in war-time economic sanctions against Russia and its allies, and Russia’s many nuclear incursion threat responses into U.S. airspace heating up and increasing.

Remember that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor IN RESPONSE to economic sanctions the United States was inflicting upon them; keeping them from acquiring essential commodities such as oil and gas, which was an act of war.

Remember also as you see and read what is currently being done with the words “Patriot,” “Patriotism,” and “Nationalism”; the active corruption, dishonoring and psychopolitical re-branding of these terms to associate all Freedom-loving American citizens who understand the Creator-endowed founding principles and ideals this great nation was founded upon—who teach and inspire others as to the lawful precedent and essential role of the unorganized militias of the several states—with extremism and domestic terrorism.

Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, the most decorated U.S. Marine in history, said, “I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.” And, like General Butler, General MacArthur had also come to understand that he too was being used as the muscle for Marxist International Socialists who were employing the military might of the United States—through engineered wars and aggressions—for the subversion of our free enterprise capitalistic system, the overturning of our prosperous social order, the maintaining of authorized economic agreements and models, and the establishment of a global Socialistic planned economy to the benefit of its architects.

Today, “Democracy” is the code word for Socialism, and we often hear that term bandied about to describe our nation’s system of government. Whereas, the United States was from the very beginning guaranteed a Constitutional Republican form of government. James Madison wrote in the Federalist #10, 1787: “Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Vladimir Lenin, who MacArthur described as the “implacable foe of the free enterprise system,” gave form and function to the modern socialist doctrine, and said of the principle, “Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”

For a taste of what Socialism looks like in its purest form, recall the Nazi regime. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (in German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)—commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party—transformed the representative federal German Weimar Republic into a totalitarian social democracy from 1920-1945.

So, never again be deceived regarding what “democracy” means. It is the code word for socialism, was anathema to our founders and everyone from your local school teacher to the President of the United States of America is using it to refer to the socialist “planned economy” that is being erected upon the ashes of America’s once-free Republic.

It was for the uncooperativeness of these incremental anti-American transformations and the subversive actions of internationalism and socialism sanctioned by our own government which he was not willing to go along with anymore, and for other disagreements, that the “insubordinate” MacArthur was dubbed “The Most Dangerous Man In America“. This is why he was asked to resign by the 33rd President of the United States of America and 33rd degree Freemason and Grandmaster of the Grand Lodge of Missouri of the Scottish Rite of the Southern Jurisdiction of Freemasonry, Harry S. Truman, who unlawfully replaced the Constitution for the United States of America (on paper) with the Charter of the United Nations, the United Nations Treaty and the UN Participation Act, and who thanked the U.S. military for being an essential force of arms working not on behalf of American interests during the Korean War, but on behalf of the United Nations.

On April 19, 1951, General Douglas MacArthur gave his now famous farewell address before the U.S. Congress, which was rather unceremoniously but lovingly interrupted by fifty ovations. He closed his nostalgic and eloquent speech with the following:

I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly, “old soldiers never die; they just fade away.”

And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. 

Good Bye.

And like the old soldier of that ballad, this writer now closes this particular chapter of my online journal, a Marine who is likewise trying to do my duty as God gave me the will, the fortitude and the means; to keep this legacy of American patriotism alive to the preservation of Freedom for all people. Because as goes America, so goes the world.


Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on FacebookGoogle PlusTea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

About Timothy A. Pope


Timothy A. Pope is the author of, a thoroughly-documented online resource of suppressed information cited with extensive official government and military documentation, with analysis and correlation of the current domestic and foreign policy of the United States of America. The goal of America the Battlefield is to confirm that the agenda for the establishment of a new international order and a world totalitarian socialist government is not a “conspiracy theory,” but in fact a carefully-crafted long-term plan brought about by the people and organizations with the patience, purpose, vision and resources to see it to fruition. It is also this author’s attempt to shed light upon the conspiratorial nature of history, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that none of this plan was constructed in a vacuum or in secret, but is all documented in the law, the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, treaties, military training manuals, presidential decision directives, executive orders, NSC memorandums, and other classified and non-classified documentation. He is a former Sergeant of Marines, a husband, father, patriot, defender of Freedom, and follower of Jesus Christ. He lives in Florida and is currently writing a book compiling important research that all Americans need to know about.
TimothyAPope has written 12 articles so far, you can find them below.
Read more at Home » Archives for Timothy A. Pope

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Lenovo admits to putting tracking software on your PC



February 20, 2015
Los Angeles, California

File this under ‘you can’t make this stuff up.’

Lenovo Group, the largest computer manufacturer in the world, has made a rather stunning admission that they have been pre-installing tracking software on their PCs.

The tracking software is made by a company called Superfish, which apparently paid some “very minor compensation” to Lenovo for putting the software on people’s computers.

The Superfish program is a total disaster.

It has image recognition algorithms which essentially monitor what a user is looking at… then suggests relevant ads based on what it thinks you might like.

This is not only REALLY high up on the creepy scale, it also completely destroys Internet security.

Whether you’re buying something online or accessing Internet banking, the Superfish program essentially cuts the secure link between you and sensitive websites that you’re trying to access.

According to the first user who found the vulnerability a few weeks ago, “[Superfish] will hijack ALL your secure web connections (SSL/TLS) by using self-signed root certificate authority, making it look legitimate to the browser.”

This means that the tracking software basically fools a web browser into believing that a connection is secure when it’s not… all for the purpose of pushing more ads in your face.

This scheme is so powerful that even if users uninstall the Superfish software, the security breach still remains.

This is so flagrant I have to imagine that even the NSA is shocked.

After its initial approach of being completely unapologetic and dismissal, Lenovo is now groveling for forgiveness.

The company’s Chief Technology Officer now says, “We messed up badly here,” and “We made a mistake.”

Duh. But untold amounts of consumers out there have been totally violated.

There are a few interesting points to make here–

1) Privacy isn’t dead. But it’s extremely difficult to maintain. There are so many forces out there trying to pry whatever little privacy remains from us, one has to fight tooth and nail to preserve it.

2) There’s no transparency in the system; we never really know what’s going on behind the scenes with big institutions.

Governments and politicians will lie to our faces. They’ll tell us to be excited and that everything is fine; then behind the scenes they’ll plan for capital controls and huge tax increases.

No one has any idea what kind of toxic crap banks have on their balance sheets. They’ll post record profits and tell us how successful they are. But internally they know that it’s only a matter of time before they collapse (as we saw in 2008).

Even major tech brands are betraying the public in the dark of night with crazy spyware or selling us all out to government agencies.

There are very few, if any, big institutions out there that we can trust anymore.

And maybe that’s how it should be.

It’s a shark-filled world with bad people who do bad things. Perhaps it’s all the better that a trusted brand becomes the poster child for betrayal.

Because if Lenovo is doing this, are we supposed to be so naïve to presume that Google, Apple, AT&T, etc. are not?

Question everything.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM