Skip to content

CIA Use of Nazi Designed Torture – Undercover Cops Attempt to Incite Looting – Torture Effective in Getting False Confessions – Thomas Sowell: Culture Matters – Warnings Grow Over Communism and Genocide in South Africa – Skimboarders at the Wedge

December 16, 2014

Spain Criminalizes Protest Against EU Central Bankster Austerity

Siege Terrorist Known To Authorities: Has Committed 40 Sexual Offences

“F*ck the police” Arrest Leads County to Award Woman $100k Settlement

FOX News’ Pro-Torture Propaganda (Note: KT McFarland is in the CFR)

Undercover Cops Attempt to Incite Looting, Pull Gun On #ICan’tBreathe Protesters

Rand Paul Introduces Bill to Counter Obama Executive Amnesty

#ICantBreathe: Thousands march against police brutality across US (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

US Government Officials Admit: We’ll Torture Again, Unless You Prosecute Us

Trans-Pacific Partnership To Facilitate U.S.-China Merger

—————————————————————

—————————————————————–

Language warning

—————————————————————

————————————————————–

—————————————————————

Nazi Designed Torture Instrumental for Maintenance of CIA’s Terror War Charade

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

CIA adopted Nazi and communist torture techniques.

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
December 10, 2014

Nazi Designed Torture Instrumental for Maintenance of CIA’s Terror War Charade botero

Washington’s Blog notes how the CIA’s torture techniques resemble those used by the Nazis.

The Nazis called it “Verschärfte Vernehmung,” German for “enhanced interrogation.”

“It’s a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court. The methods, as you can see above, are indistinguishable from those described as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ by the president,” The Atlantic wrote in 2007.

Considering the early history of the CIA and its post-war collaboration with Nazi party members, including Gestapo butchers, this similarity should not be surprising.

According to author and researcher Annie Jacobsen, former Nazis were at the forefront of developing torture techniques for the United States government.

“The work took place inside a clandestine facility in the American zone of occupied Germany, called Camp King. The facility’s chief medical doctor was Operation Paperclip’s Dr. Walter Schreiber, the former Surgeon General of the Third Reich… The activities that went on at Camp King between 1946 and the late 1950s have never been fully accounted for by either the Department of Defense or the CIA,” Jacobsen writes.

While early CIA torture concentrated on extracting information from Soviet spies, it was later used to create a propaganda narrative.

Former CIA boss George Tenet: We don’t torture.

Washington’s Blog notes that “the specific type of torture used by the U.S. last decade is even worse … it was a systematic program of torture specially designed in order to intentionally create false confessions.”

This was admitted by Sen. Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

“In SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions,” Levin remarked. “The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean War for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes.”

The technique was used extensively as the Bush neocons cobbled together fabrications used to rationalize the war on terror and provide a pretext for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“Despite what you’ve seen on TV, torture is really only good at one thing: eliciting false confessions,” Dan Froomkin wrote for The Washington Post. “Indeed, Bush-era torture techniques, we now know, were cold-bloodedly modeled after methods used by Chinese Communists to extract confessions from captured U.S. servicemen that they could then use for propaganda during the Korean War.”

Liberals are miffed Obama will not prosecute those responsible for violating the law. “So the question is why Obama decided to spare the torturers,” Eric Posner writes for Slate, the liberal website owned by Graham Holdings, a conglomerate named after CIA operative Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, and point man for Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s “Mighty Wurlitzer” conversion of a free press into a massive government propaganda machine.

This reveals what on the surface appears to be political naiveté. It isn’t, though. It is another rabbit hole designed to deceive a habitually deceived American public.

Torture, as a propaganda tool, is a required asset for the state. Otherwise the bottom would fall out of the manufactured war on terror, the latest scam perpetuated by the financial elite and the military-industrial complex.

Warnings Grow Over Communism and Genocide in South Africa

Written by 

As South Africa descends into what its radical rulers refer to as the “Second Phase” of their communist revolution, warnings about an approaching genocide and full-blown communist tyranny are growing progressively louder. In a statement released last week, the organization Genocide Watch again sounded the alarm surrounding the ongoing, regime-linked preparations to exterminate minority Afrikaner farmers. South Africa’s credit rating, meanwhile, was downgraded again last month to barely above “junk” status. Parliament recently descended into a brawl after a politician called the president a “criminal and a thief.” As the warning signs become increasingly obvious, however, the establishment media around the world continues to look the other way.

Even the head of the F.W. De Klerk Foundation, named after the South African president who voluntarily surrendered power to Communist Party bigwig Nelson Mandela’s Soviet-backed African National Congress (ANC), is sounding the alarm about the communist threat. And as if to highlight the looming danger, the Communist Party of China will be financing and building a “political leadership school” to train future ANC bosses in communist doctrine and strategy. The ANC, of course, rules South Africa in an alliance with the brutal South African Communist Party (SACP) and a self-styled Marxist-Leninist umbrella group for labor unions known as COSATU.

As The New American has been reporting for years, anti-Apartheid activist Dr. Gregory Stanton, perhaps the most respected expert on genocide in the world, has long been warning about the specter of Marxist tyranny and the extermination of Afrikaner farmers (Boers) in South Africa. In recent years, South Africa was moved to stage six on a genocide scale that the group developed to identify the phases of genocide. When the move happened, stage six was the preparation and planning phase. Step seven was extermination. The eighth and final stage: denial after the fact.

In 2012, Dr. Stanton sounded the alarm loudly and clearly after a fact-finding trip to the “Rainbow Nation.” In a December 5 announcement this year, though, Stanton said he found that attacks against Afrikaner farmers had not declined since then. “The murder rate of the whole South African population remains at over 31 per 100,000,” Genocide Watch explained. “The murder rate of farmers, including Afrikaner farmers, is four times as high.” For perspective, the murder rate in the United States in 2012 was less than five per 100,000.

“Since 2007, the South African government has denied and covered up the crisis by not releasing any breakdown of how murders are distributed among ethnic groups in South Africa,” the anti-genocide organization continued, adding that American and European governments have remained silent, thereby reinforcing the campaign of denial. While the world ignores the looming catastrophe, though, it is hardly for lack of evidence.

In its recent announcement, Genocide Watch pointed out that former ANC Youth Leader Julius Malema, a “Marxist racist,” revived the “Shoot the Farmer, Kill the Boer” song advocating the extermination of white farmers. Not long after that, current South African President and ANC boss Jacob Zuma began singing the genocidal song in public, too. Stanton noted that incitement to commit genocide is a crime, meaning Malema should be put on trial and Zuma should be impeached.

“Once in power, corrupt governments cling to power because of the enormous wealth their officials amass,” Genocide Watch added. “They then persecute, torture, and murder anyone who challenges their grip on power.  That downward spiral has begun in South Africa, just as it did in Zimbabwe.”

The first step to halting the unimaginably savage “farm murders,” Genocide Watch said, “is for the South African government to admit that farm murders are a serious threat not just to Afrikaner and white farmers, but to all South Africans, and make stopping these crimes a priority.” Then, corrupt political leaders must be impeached, arrested, and convicted. “The most important step is for South Africans of all ethnic groups to recognize that we are all members of the same race, the human race,” the organization concluded.

In addition to those warnings, Freedom Front Plus, a right-of-center South African political party that represents Afrikaners, announced in November that it would be seeking to raise international awareness of the problems. Party leader Pieter Mulder said they would make presentations on the theme: “Preventing and addressing violence and atrocities targeted against minorities.” Among other concerns, he said the party would highlight the farm attacks that amount to “genocide,” land claims seeking to expropriate the private property of minorities, and the “dismantling of Afrikaans.”

“The ideological political propaganda which seeks to bolster emotional support relies on the misleading myth that based on Histo-Geo-Political facts that white farmers stole the land from black people, which is vehemently rejected with the contempt it deserves,” explained Mulder. He also highlighted attempts by the ANC-SACP-COSATU government to “absolutely exclude Afrikaners in South Africa from freely participating in economic activities in the country since 1994. Government efforts to dilute and eventually eradicate the Afrikaans language, a derivative of Dutch spoken by the Afrikaners, were also blasted.

Separately, the month before Genocide Watch unveiled its latest warnings about the situation in South Africa, Executive Director Dave Steward of the F.W. de Klerk Foundation sounded the alarm about looming communist tyranny. “During the last century communism brought economic devastation and totalitarian dictatorship wherever it was implemented and resulted in the deaths of over 50 million people,” he said in a speech. “Never in the history of mankind has any political system failed so dismally and brought such suffering to so many people in such a relatively short time.”

“And yet, unbelievably, the specter of communism has returned to haunt us here in South Africa,” Steward added, noting that in 1928, the Soviet-led Comintern ordered the SACP to “transform” the ANC and develop “systematically the leadership of the workers and the Communist Party in the organization.” As the ANC and the SACP both revealed last year, that plot was such a success that even Nelson Mandela, former chief of the ANC and its terrorist wing, was actually on the Communist Party’s Central Committee.

While cautioning against “paranoia” over the threat of total communist domination, Steward also warned against ignoring the growing danger. “We would be foolish not to take seriously what the SACP says and writes about its political intentions,” he explained in a speech. “It openly plans to hegemonize state power and to establish a socialist and then, ultimately, a communist state.” And it has been very successful thus far.

Meanwhile, as the world turns its eyes away, Beijing is rapidly increasing its grip on South Africa. In fact, the Communist Party of China is now openly financing and building an ANC “leadership school” to raise up future communist zealots to rule South Africa in what Time magazine downplayed as “a burgeoning partnership of ruling parties on different continents.” The CPC has also worked closely on similar projects with the regime of mass-murdering Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, whose brutal autocracy stands accused of genocide and mass atrocities and is a close ally of the SACP-ANC regime in South Africa.

Afrikaner author Harry Booyens, Ph.D., who wrote a massive book shattering myths and lies about the history of his homeland and people entitled AmaBhulu — The Birth and Death of the Second America, told The New American that South Africa is “coming apart.” However, even more troubling for Americans, perhaps, is that South Africa’s plight “really is what is waiting for the U.S.A. if it does not wake up in time.”

“Take a good hard look, because this is the future of the West waiting for all of us,” he said in an e-mail when asked for comment on the latest warnings about communism and genocide. “South Africa is the Canary in the Coal Mine for the West. This is what it looks like when the majority feels entitled to freebies and handouts and a minority delivers the economy and most of the taxes, even as they are being murdered.”

If the world continues refusing to acknowledge the looming and escalating horrors facing South Africa — genocide, communism, mass-murder, and more — that troubled nation will almost certainly continue its ongoing descent into ruin. As countless analysts such as Booyens have pointed out, though, while it may begin there, the carnage will hardly be limited to South Africa. Indeed, the entire Western world may be next in line.

Photo of Nelson Mandela (right) and F.W. de Klerk: World Economic Forum

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at

 

Related articles:

Genocide and Communism Threaten South Africa

South African Communists’ Friends in High Places

South Africa Enters “Second Phase” of Communist Revolution

Original Mandela Autobiography Advocates Violence, Communism

South African Communist Party Admits Mandela’s Leadership Role

“Saint” Mandela? Not So Fast!

New Evidence Shows Mandela Was Senior Communist Party Member

In Death, as in Life, Truth About Mandela Overlooked

Socialist International Congress Hosted by ANC Amid Genocide Alert

Silk-tie Revolutionaries

South Africa: The Questions That Need to Be Asked

A Meeting of Minds

The Comrades’ Necklace

———————————————————————-

 

John Stossel: Misconduct of Federal Prosecutors – Pearl Harbor: FDR Was Not Surprised – Stingray Warrantless Wiretap on Activists – Sue Long: Questions Over a Constitutional Convention

December 8, 2014

Police Department Mocks Garner With #WeCanBreathe Tweet

Globalists Exploit ISIS Threat to Empower UN

Why The Obama Administration Is So Determined To Start A Race War

Another Fabricated Jobs Report

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

Rubber bullets, tear gas in Berkeley as police disperse #EricGarner, #Ferguson rally

Man dies after being shot by police in Hollywood near Walk of Fame

—————————————————————-

————————————————————–

—————————————————————-

—————————————————————

————————————————————–

 

Questions Over a Constitutional Convention

What if Congress were to call an Article V convention to amend our U.S. Constitution? Since it is within Congress’ authority to decide how the delegates are chosen, what if they select themselves — politicians like John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi, or as the Assembly of States advocates, a bipartisan group.?

What if they let the states chose the delegates, the number to be determined by the Electoral College system giving California 55 delegates to Virginia’s 13? Who would be chosen from Virginia — Speaker Bill Howell or Gov. Terry McAuliffe? And whom they appoint — legislators who are just as guilty of overreach as those at the federal level?

What if the convention were to meet and the delegates didn’t like a proposal? Suppose the chair were to say, “All in favor say ‘Aye,’ opposed ‘No.’ The Ayes have it. Next?”

What if the convention changes the rules for ratification and makes the number of states needed to ratify only half of the states, or none? What if the convention gives us a constitution that gives us rights rather than protecting our God-given inherent rights? Any government that gives rights can take them away.

What if there is a good result from the convention? Will legislators who fail to honor their oaths of office mysteriously overnight choose to do so? What if the convention becomes a runaway, where anything could result? What then?

Sue M. Long

—————————————————————

5 U.S. Banks Each Have More Than 40 Trillion Dollars In Exposure To Derivatives

     

Roulette Wheel - Public DomainWhen is the U.S. banking system going to crash?  I can sum it up in three words.  Watch the derivatives.  It used to be only four, but now there are five “too big to fail” banks in the United States that each have more than 40 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives.  Today, the U.S. national debt is sitting at a grand total of about 17.7 trillion dollars, so when we are talking about 40 trillion dollars we are talking about an amount of money that is almost unimaginable.  And unlike stocks and bonds, these derivatives do not represent “investments” in anything.  They can be incredibly complex, but essentially they are just paper wagers about what will happen in the future.  The truth is that derivatives trading is not too different from betting on baseball or football games.  Trading in derivatives is basically just a form of legalized gambling, and the “too big to fail” banks have transformed Wall Street into the largest casino in the history of the planet.  When this derivatives bubble bursts (and as surely as I am writing this it will), the pain that it will cause the global economy will be greater than words can describe.

If derivatives trading is so risky, then why do our big banks do it?

The answer to that question comes down to just one thing.

Greed.

The “too big to fail” banks run up enormous profits from their derivatives trading.  According to the New York Times, U.S. banks “have nearly $280 trillion of derivatives on their books” even though the financial crisis of 2008 demonstrated how dangerous they could be…

American banks have nearly $280 trillion of derivatives on their books, and they earn some of their biggest profits from trading in them. But the 2008 crisis revealed how flaws in the market had allowed for dangerous buildups of risk at large Wall Street firms and worsened the run on the banking system.

The big banks have sophisticated computer models which are supposed to keep the system stable and help them manage these risks.

But all computer models are based on assumptions.

And all of those assumptions were originally made by flesh and blood people.

When a “black swan event” comes along such as a war, a major pandemic, an apocalyptic natural disaster or a collapse of a very large financial institution, these models can often break down very rapidly.

For example, the following is a brief excerpt from a Forbes article that describes what happened to the derivatives market when Lehman Brothers collapsed back in 2008…

Fast forward to the financial meltdown of 2008 and what do we see? America again was celebrating. The economy was booming. Everyone seemed to be getting wealthier, even though the warning signs were everywhere: too much borrowing, foolish investments, greedy banks, regulators asleep at the wheel, politicians eager to promote home-ownership for those who couldn’t afford it, and distinguished analysts openly predicting this could only end badly. And then, when Lehman Bros fell, the financial system froze and world economy almost collapsed. Why?

The root cause wasn’t just the reckless lending and the excessive risk taking. The problem at the core was a lack of transparency. After Lehman’s collapse, no one could understand any particular bank’s risks from derivative trading and so no bank wanted to lend to or trade with any other bank. Because all the big banks’ had been involved to an unknown degree in risky derivative trading, no one could tell whether any particular financial institution might suddenly implode.

After the last financial crisis, we were promised that this would be fixed.

But instead the problem has become much larger.

When the housing bubble burst back in 2007, the total notional value of derivatives contracts around the world had risen to about 500 trillion dollars.

According to the Bank for International Settlements, today the total notional value of derivatives contracts around the world has ballooned to a staggering 710 trillion dollars ($710,000,000,000,000).

And of course the heart of this derivatives bubble can be found on Wall Street.

What I am about to share with you is very troubling information.

I have shared similar numbers in the past, but for this article I went and got the very latest numbers from the OCC’s most recent quarterly report.  As I mentioned above, there are now five “too big to fail” banks that each have more than 40 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives…

JPMorgan Chase

Total Assets: $2,476,986,000,000 (about 2.5 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $67,951,190,000,000 (more than 67 trillion dollars)

Citibank

Total Assets: $1,894,736,000,000 (almost 1.9 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $59,944,502,000,000 (nearly 60 trillion dollars)

Goldman Sachs

Total Assets: $915,705,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $54,564,516,000,000 (more than 54 trillion dollars)

Bank Of America

Total Assets: $2,152,533,000,000 (a bit more than 2.1 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $54,457,605,000,000 (more than 54 trillion dollars)

Morgan Stanley

Total Assets: $831,381,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $44,946,153,000,000 (more than 44 trillion dollars)

And it isn’t just U.S. banks that are engaged in this type of behavior.

As Zero Hedge recently detailed, German banking giant Deutsche Bank has more exposure to derivatives than any of the American banks listed above…

Deutsche has a total derivative exposure that amounts to €55 trillion or just about $75 trillion. That’s a trillion with a T, and is about 100 times greater than the €522 billion in deposits the bank has. It is also 5x greater than the GDP of Europe and more or less the same as the GDP of… the world.

For those looking forward to the day when these mammoth banks will collapse, you need to keep in mind that when they do go down the entire system is going to utterly fall apart.

At this point our economic system is so completely dependent on these banks that there is no way that it can function without them.

It is like a patient with an extremely advanced case of cancer.

Doctors can try to kill the cancer, but it is almost inevitable that the patient will die in the process.

The same thing could be said about our relationship with the “too big to fail” banks.  If they fail, so do the rest of us.

We were told that something would be done about the “too big to fail” problem after the last crisis, but it never happened.

In fact, as I have written about previously, the “too big to fail” banks have collectively gotten 37 percent larger since the last recession.

At this point, the five largest banks in the country account for 42 percent of all loans in the United States, and the six largest banks control 67 percent of all banking assets.

If those banks were to disappear tomorrow, we would not have much of an economy left.

But as you have just read about in this article, they are being more reckless than ever before.

We are steamrolling toward the greatest financial disaster in world history, and nobody is doing much of anything to stop it.

Things could have turned out very differently, but now we will reap the consequences for the very foolish decisions that we have made.

———————————————————————-

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

Written by  James Perloff

Pearl Harbor

On Sunday, December 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, shattering the peace of a beautiful Hawaiian morning and leaving much of the fleet broken and burning. The destruction and death that the Japanese military visited upon Pearl Harbor that day — 18 naval vessels (including eight battleships) sunk or heavily damaged, 188 planes destroyed, over 2,000 servicemen killed — were exacerbated by the fact that American commanders in Hawaii were caught by surprise. But that was not the case in Washington.

Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: “Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war.”

Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: “The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power.” William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under “utmost secrecy,” which, he clarified, “meant preventing disclosure to the American public.” Even Robert Sherwood, the president’s friendly biographer, said: “If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land.”

Background to Betrayal

Roosevelt’s intentions were nearly exposed in 1940 when Tyler Kent, a code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London, discovered secret dispatches between Roosevelt and Churchill. These revealed that FDR — despite contrary campaign promises — was determined to engage America in the war. Kent smuggled some of the documents out of the embassy, hoping to alert the American public — but was caught. With U.S. government approval, he was tried in a secret British court and confined to a British prison until the war’s end.

During World War II’s early days, the president offered numerous provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; shipping 50 destroyers to Britain; and depth-charging U-boats. The Germans did not retaliate, however. They knew America’s entry into World War I had shifted the balance of power against them, and they shunned a repeat of that scenario. FDR therefore switched his focus to Japan. Japan had signed a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy (the Tripartite Treaty). Roosevelt knew that if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.”

Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the recent work of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran. Stinnett has obtained numerous relevant documents through the Freedom of Information Act. In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000), the book so brusquely dismissed by director Bruckheimer, Stinnett reveals that Roosevelt’s plan to provoke Japan began with a memorandum from Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States. McCollum wrote: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.” FDR enacted all eight of McCollum’s provocative steps — and more.

While no one can excuse Japan’s belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.

After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: “We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move.” On November 25, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan’s ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot….”

The bait offered Japan was our Pacific Fleet. In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet’s commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR’s decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: “I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected.”

Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor’s deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.

Prior Knowledge

One of the most important elements in America’s foreknowledge of Japan’s intentions was our government’s success in cracking Japan’s secret diplomatic code known as “Purple.” Tokyo used it to communicate to its embassies and consulates, including those in Washington and Hawaii. The code was so complex that it was enciphered and deciphered by machine. A talented group of American cryptoanalysts broke the code in 1940 and devised a facsimile of the Japanese machine. These, utilized by the intelligence sections of both the War and Navy departments, swiftly revealed Japan’s diplomatic messages. The deciphered texts were nicknamed “Magic.”

Copies of Magic were always promptly delivered in locked pouches to President Roosevelt, and the secretaries of State, War, and Navy. They also went to Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall and to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark. However, although three Purple decoding machines were allotted to Britain, none was sent to Pearl Harbor. Intercepts of ciphered messages radioed between Tokyo and its Honolulu consulate had to be forwarded to Washington for decrypting. Thus Kimmel and Short, the Hawaiian commanders, were at the mercy of Washington for feedback. A request for their own decoding machine was rebuffed on the grounds that diplomatic traffic was of insufficient interest to soldiers.

How untrue that was! On October 9, 1941, the War Department decoded a Tokyo-to-Honolulu dispatch instructing the Consul General to divide Pearl Harbor into five specified areas and to report the exact locations of American ships therein.

There is nothing unusual about spies watching ship movements — but reporting precise whereabouts of ships in dock has only one implication. Charles Willoughby, Douglas MacArthur’s chief of intelligence, later wrote that the “reports were on a grid system of the inner harbor with coordinate locations of American men of war … coordinate grid is the classical method for pinpoint target designation; our battleships had suddenly become targets.” This information was never sent to Kimmel or Short.

Additional intercepts were decoded by Washington, all within one day of their original transmission:

• November 5th: Tokyo notified its Washington ambassadors that November 25th was the deadline for an agreement with the U.S.

• November 11th: They were warned, “The situation is nearing a climax, and the time is getting short.”

• November 16th: The deadline was pushed up to November 29th. “The deadline absolutely cannot be changed,” the dispatch said. “After that, things are automatically going to happen.”

• November 29th (the U.S. ultimatum had now been received): The ambassadors were told a rupture in negotiations was “inevitable,” but that Japan’s leaders “do not wish you to give the impression that negotiations are broken off.”

• November 30th: Tokyo ordered its Berlin embassy to inform the Germans that “the breaking out of war may come quicker than anyone dreams.”

• December 1st: The deadline was again moved ahead. “[T]o prevent the United States from becoming unduly suspicious, we have been advising the press and others that … the negotiations are continuing.”

• December 1st-2nd: The Japanese embassies in non-Axis nations around the world were directed to dispose of their secret documents and all but one copy of their codes. (This was for a reason easy to fathom — when war breaks out, the diplomatic offices of a hostile state lose their immunity and are normally overtaken. One copy of code was retained so that final instructions could be received, after which the last code copy would be destroyed.)

An additional warning came via the so-called “winds” message. A November 18th intercept indicated that, if a break in U.S. relations were forthcoming, Tokyo would issue a special radio warning. This would not be in the Purple code, as it was intended to reach consulates and lesser agencies of Japan not equipped with the code or one of its machines. The message, to be repeated three times during a weather report, was “Higashi no kaze ame,” meaning “East wind, rain.” “East wind” signified the United States; “rain” signified diplomatic split — in effect, war.

This prospective message was deemed so significant that U.S. radio monitors were constantly watching for it, and the Navy Department typed it up on special reminder cards. On December 4th, “Higashi no kaze ame” was indeed broadcast and picked up by Washington intelligence.

On three different occasions since 1894, Japan had made surprise attacks coinciding with breaks in diplomatic relations. This history was not lost on President Roosevelt. Secretary Stimson, describing FDR’s White House conference of November 25th, noted: “The President said the Japanese were notorious for making an attack without warning and stated that we might be attacked, say next Monday, for example.” Nor was it lost on Washington’s senior military officers, all of them War College graduates.

As Robert Stinnett has revealed, Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches as well. President Roosevelt had access to these intercepts via his routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had authored the original eight-point plan of provocation to Japan. So much secrecy has surrounded these naval dispatches that their existence was not revealed during any of the ten Pearl Harbor investigations, even the mini-probe Congress conducted in 1995. Most of Stinnett’s requests for documents concerning Pearl Harbor have been denied as still classified, even under the Freedom of Information Act.

It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 26, 1941:

The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.

So much official secrecy continues to surround the translations of the intercepted Japanese naval dispatches that it is not known if the foregoing message was sent to McCollum or seen by FDR. It is not even known who originally translated the intercept. One thing, however, is certain: The message’s significance could not have been lost on the translator.

1941 also witnessed the following:

On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, sent a message to Washington stating: “The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength….”

On November 3rd, still relying on informants, Grew notified Secretary of State Cordell Hull: “War with the United States may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness.” He sent an even stronger warning on November 17th.

Congressman Martin Dies would write:

Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. As soon as I received the document I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services…. I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.

Dusko Popov was a Yugoslav who worked as a double agent for both Germany and Britain. His true allegiance was to the Allies. In the summer of 1941, the Nazis ordered Popov to Hawaii to make a detailed study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. The agent deduced that the mission betokened a surprise attack by the Japanese. In August, he fully reported this to the FBI in New York. J. Edgar Hoover later bitterly recalled that he had provided warnings to FDR about Pearl Harbor, but that Roosevelt told him not to pass the information any further and to just leave it in his (the president’s) hands.

Kilsoo Haan, of the Sino-Korean People’s League, received definite word from the Korean underground that the Japanese were planning to assault Hawaii “before Christmas.” In November, after getting nowhere with the State Department, Haan convinced Iowa Senator Guy Gillette of his claim’s merit. Gillette briefed the president, who laconically thanked him and said it would be looked into.

In Java, in early December, the Dutch Army decoded a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting attacks on four sites including Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe sent Washington a total of four warnings. The last went to General Marshall’s intelligence chief. Thorpe was ordered to send no further messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.

Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America, recorded revealing details in his diary. On December 2nd, he visited the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, “This is the Japanese Task Force proceeding East.” It was a spot midway between Japan and Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: “I ask what is the meaning of these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American action…. I myself do not think about it because I believe that everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone here at O.N.I.”

On November 29th, Secretary of State Cordell Hull secretly met with freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib. Leib had formerly held several posts in the Roosevelt administration. Hull knew him and felt he was one newsman he could trust. The secretary of state handed him copies of some of the Tokyo intercepts concerning Pearl Harbor. He said the Japanese were planning to strike the base and that FDR planned to let it happen. Hull made Leib pledge to keep his name out of it, but hoped he could blow the story sky-high in the newspapers.

Leib ran to the office of his friend Lyle Wilson, the Washington bureau chief of United Press. While keeping his pledge to Hull, he told Wilson the details and showed him the intercepts. Wilson replied that the story was ludicrous and refused to run it. Through connections, Leib managed to get a hurried version onto UP’s foreign cable, but only one newspaper carried any part of it.

After Pearl Harbor, Lyle Wilson called Leib to his office. He handed him a copy of FDR’s just-released “day of infamy” speech. The two men wept. Leib recounted his story in the History Channel documentary, “Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor.”

The foregoing represents just a sampling of evidence that Washington knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack. For additional evidences, see Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland, and Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.* So certain was the data that, at a private press briefing in November 1941, General George Marshall confidently predicted that a Japanese-American war would break out during the “first ten days of December.”

However, none of this information was passed to our commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, with the exception of Ambassador Grew’s January warning, a copy of which reached Kimmel on February 1st. To allay any concerns, Lieutenant Commander McCollum — who originated the plan to incite Japan to war — wrote Kimmel: “Naval Intelligence places no credence in these rumors. Furthermore, based on known data regarding the present disposition and deployment of Japanese naval and army forces, no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for in the foreseeable future.”

Sitting Ducks

To ensure a successful Japanese attack — one that would enrage America into joining the war — it was vital to keep Kimmel and Short out of the intelligence loop. However, Washington did far more than this to facilitate the Japanese assault.

On November 25th, approximately one hour after the Japanese attack force left port for Hawaii, the U.S. Navy issued an order forbidding U.S. and Allied shipping to travel via the North Pacific. All transpacific shipping was rerouted through the South Pacific. This order was even applied to Russian ships docked on the American west coast. The purpose is easy to fathom. If any commercial ship accidentally stumbled on the Japanese task force, it might alert Pearl Harbor. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner, the Navy’s War Plans officer in 1941, frankly stated: “We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic.”

The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.

Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders’ repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in his book And I Was There: “There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts.”

The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.

When the White House learned of Kimmel’s move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel’s action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.

Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his carrier chief, Vice Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, issued plans for a 25-ship task force to guard against an “enemy air and submarine attack” on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th, Admiral Stark, Washington’s Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands — further depleting Pearl Harbor’s air defenses.

It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous “war warning” to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.

Indeed, the message began conspicuously: “This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.” But it went on to state: “The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo.” None of these areas was closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: “Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage.” The message further stated that “measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population.” Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the “war warning” was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall’s adjutant general to Short warned only: “Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage.”

Thus things stood as Japan prepared to strike. Using the Purple code, Tokyo sent a formal statement to its Washington ambassadors. It was to be conveyed to the American Secretary of State on Sunday, December 7th. The statement terminated relations and was tantamount to a declaration of war. On December 6th, in Washington, the War and Navy departments had already decrypted the first 13 parts of this 14-part message. Although the final passage officially severing ties had not yet come through, the fiery wording made its meaning obvious. Later that day, when Lieutenant Lester Schulz delivered to President Roosevelt his copy of the intercept, Schulz heard FDR say to his advisor, Harry Hopkins, “This means war.”

During subsequent Pearl Harbor investigations, both General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, denied any recollection of where they had been on the evening of December 6th — despite Marshall’s reputation for a photographic memory. But James G. Stahlman, a close friend of Navy Secretary Frank Knox, said Knox told him FDR convened a high-level meeting at the White House that evening. Knox, Marshall, Stark, and War Secretary Stimson attended. Indeed, with the nation on war’s threshold, such a conference only made sense. That same evening, the Navy Department received a request from Stimson for a list of the whereabouts of all ships in the Pacific.

On the morning of December 7th, the final portion of Japan’s lengthy message to the U.S. government was decoded. Tokyo added two special directives to its ambassadors. The first directive, which the message called “very important,” was to deliver the statement at 1 p.m. The second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was immediately recognized in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations; Sunday was an abnormal day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 p.m. in Washington was shortly after dawn in Hawaii!

Admiral Stark arrived at his office at 9:25 a.m. He was shown the message and the important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor because all his actions had been dictated by a “higher authority.” As Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority: Roosevelt.

In the War Department, where the 14-part statement had also been decoded, Colonel Rufus Bratton, head of the Army’s Far Eastern section, discerned the message’s significance. But the chief of intelligence told him nothing could be done until Marshall arrived. Bratton tried reaching Marshall at home, but was repeatedly told the general was out horseback riding. The horseback ride turned out to be a long one. When Bratton finally reached Marshall by phone and told him of the emergency, Marshall said he would come to the War Department. Marshall took 75 minutes to make the 10-minute drive. He didn’t come to his office until 11:25 a.m. — an extremely late hour with the nation on the brink of war. He perused the Japanese message and was shown the delivery time. Every officer in Marshall’s office agreed these indicated an attack in the Pacific at about 1 p.m. EST. The general finally agreed that Hawaii should be alerted, but time was running out.

Marshall had only to pick up his desk phone to reach Pearl Harbor on the transpacific line. Doing so would not have averted the attack, but at least our men would have been at their battle stations. Instead, the general wrote a dispatch. After it was encoded it went to the Washington office of Western Union. From there it was relayed to San Francisco. From San Francisco it was transmitted via RCA commercial radio to Honolulu. General Short received it six hours after the attack. Two hours later it reached Kimmel. One can imagine their exasperation on reading it.

Despite all the evidence accrued through Magic and other sources during the previous months, Marshall had never warned Hawaii. To historians — ignorant of that classified evidence — it would appear the general had tried to save Pearl Harbor, “but alas, too late.” Similarly, FDR sent a last-minute plea for peace to Emperor Hirohito. Although written a week earlier, he did not send it until the evening of December 6th. It was to be delivered by Ambassador Grew, who would be unable to receive an audience with the emperor before December 8th. Thus the message could not conceivably have forestalled the attack — but posterity would think that FDR, too, had made “a valiant, last effort.”

The Roberts Commission, assigned to investigate the Japanese attack, consisted of personal cronies of Roosevelt and Marshall. The Commission fully absolved Washington and declared that America was caught off guard due to “dereliction of duty” by Kimmel and Short. The wrath of America for these two was exceeded only by its wrath for Tokyo. To this day, many believe it was negligence by the Hawaii commanders that made the Pearl Harbor disaster possible.

* Though a major exposer of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Robert Stinnett is sympathetic regarding FDR’s motives. He writes in his book: “As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom.” In our view, a government that is allowed to operate in such fashion is a government that has embarked on a dangerous, slippery slope toward dictatorship. Nonetheless, Stinnett’s position on FDR’s motives makes his exposé of FDR’s actions all the more compelling.

This article, slightly revised, originally appeared under the title “Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction” in the June 4, 2001 issue of The New American.

Related articles:Pearl Harbor: Motives Behind the Betrayal

Pearl Harbor: Scapegoating Kimmel and Short

—————————————————————–

House Passes Defense Authorization Bill Funding Aggression – Ron Paul Comments on Propaganda Bill Passed Against Russia

December 5, 2014

Reckless Congress ‘Declares War’ on Russia

Today the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever
Reckless Congress 'Declares War' on Russia

by Ron Paul | Infowars | December 5, 2014


Today the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. H. Res. 758 was billed as a resolution “strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.”

In fact, the bill was 16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush, if they were capable of such a thing.

These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.

That is why I can hardly believe they are getting away with it again, and this time with even higher stakes: provoking a war with Russia that could result in total destruction!

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating about how bad this resolution really is, let me just offer a few examples from the legislation itself:

The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine and condemns Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The statement is offered without any proof of such a thing. Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion. None have been offered. As to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February? We have all heard the tapes of State Department officials plotting with the US Ambassador in Ukraine to overthrow the government. We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?

The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of holding “fraudulent and illegal elections” in November. Why is it that every time elections do not produce the results desired by the US government they are called “illegal” and “fraudulent”? Aren’t the people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn’t that a basic human right?

The resolution (paragraph 13) demands a withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine even though the US government has provided no evidence the Russian army was ever in Ukraine. This paragraph also urges the government in Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence.

The resolution (paragraph 14) states with certainty that the Malaysia Airlines flight 17 that crashed in Ukraine was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.” This is simply incorrect, as the final report on the investigation of this tragedy will not even be released until next year and the preliminary report did not state that a missile brought down the plane. Neither did the preliminary report – conducted with the participation of all countries involved – assign blame to any side.

Paragraph 16 of the resolution condemns Russia for selling arms to the Assad government in Syria. It does not mention, of course, that those weapons are going to fight ISIS – which we claim is the enemy — while the US weapons supplied to the rebels in Syria have actually found their way into the hands of ISIS!

Paragraph 17 of the resolution condemns Russia for what the US claims are economic sanctions (“coercive economic measures”) against Ukraine. This even though the US has repeatedly hit Russia with economic sanctions and is considering even more!

The resolution (paragraph 22) states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is simply untrue. Even the European Union – no friend of Russia – concluded in its investigation of the events in 2008 that it was Georgia that “started an unjustified war” against Russia not the other way around! How does Congress get away with such blatant falsehoods? Do Members not even bother to read these resolutions before voting?

In paragraph 34 the resolution begins to even become comical, condemning the Russians for what it claims are attacks on computer networks of the United States and “illicitly acquiring information” about the US government. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations about the level of US spying on the rest of the world, how can the US claim the moral authority to condemn such actions in others?

Chillingly, the resolution singles out Russian state-funded media outlets for attack, claiming that they “distort public opinion.” The US government, of course, spends billions of dollars worldwide to finance and sponsor media outlets including Voice of America and RFE/RL, as well as to subsidize “independent” media in countless counties overseas. How long before alternative information sources like RT are banned in the United States? This legislation brings us closer to that unhappy day when the government decides the kind of programming we can and cannot consume – and calls such a violation “freedom.”

The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging the “disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine.” Such a move will mean many more thousands of dead civilians.

To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on the US president to “provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?

There are too many more ridiculous and horrific statements in this legislation to completely discuss. Probably the single most troubling part of this resolution, however, is the statement that “military intervention” by the Russian Federation in Ukraine “poses a threat to international peace and security.” Such terminology is not an accident: this phrase is the poison pill planted in this legislation from which future, more aggressive resolutions will follow. After all, if we accept that Russia is posing a “threat” to international peace how can such a thing be ignored? These are the slippery slopes that lead to war.

This dangerous legislation passed today, December 4, with only ten (!) votes against! Only ten legislators are concerned over the use of blatant propaganda and falsehoods to push such reckless saber-rattling toward Russia.

Here are the Members who voted “NO” on this legislation. If you do not see your own Representative on this list call and ask why they are voting to bring us closer to war with Russia! If you do see your Representative on the below list, call and thank him or her for standing up to the warmongers.

Voting “NO” on H. Res. 758:

1) Justin Amash (R-MI)
2) John Duncan (R-TN)
3) Alan Grayson, (D-FL)
4) Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
5) Walter Jones (R-NC)
6) Thomas Massie (R-KY)
7) Jim McDermott (D-WA)
8 George Miller (D-CA)
9) Beto O’Rourke (D-TX)
10 Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)

—————————————————————-

Suggestion: Call your senators and strongly suggest they kill this bill.

House Passes Bloated Defense Policy Bill

Republicans vote to continue wars and fund murder in Ukraine and Syria

by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | December 5, 2014


Despite its rhetoric that Obama has violated the Constitution and waged war in Syria without a congressional declaration of war, the Republican controlled House on Thursday approved a $585 billion defense policy bill giving Obama the authority to expand the U.S. military campaign against the Islamic State.

House Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer: No need to read the bill, just pass it.

The legislation earmarks $5 billion for largely useless airstrikes and will provide funding for boots on the ground in Syria.

In addition to Syria, the legislation designates $63.7 billion for “overseas contingency operations” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It will also provide $24 million to expand the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay Obama promised to close.

$75 million will go to the coup government of Ukraine which is waging a fight against folks in the eastern part of the country who want nothing to do with a U.S. State Department installed government in Kiev that includes fascists and rabid nationalists. So far, more than 4,500 people have died in the conflict, most of them civilians.

Israel, as usual, is included in the pork barrel handout. It will receive $351 million from beleaguered American taxpayers to pay for its “Iron Dome” missile defense system. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered on the system that has a dismal track record against crude homemade Hamas rockets.

The bill now heads over to the Democrat dominated Senate where it is expected to be passed without significant opposition. A handful of Republicans are irked that the defense bill contains unrelated provisions to expand government controlled wilderness areas.

——————————————————————–

.

Warrantless Blood Samples Ruled Unconstitutional – Healing Miracles Break Out at a Football Game – Oathkeepers at Ferguson – Palestinians Know Who Runs ISIS – How Israel Uses Skunk to Disperse Protesters

December 2, 2014

Warrantless Taking of Drivers’ Blood Samples Ruled Unconstitutional

Human Rights Group Report: US Drone Strikes Killed 28 Civilians For Each Targeted Terrorist

Sight Method of Teaching Reading Causes Dyslexia

Feds Enable Arsonists, Target Oath Keepers Protecting Ferguson Businesses

Thankful For Inflation? Turkey Day Dinner Is Up 6,000% Since 1909

LifeNews: 981 Missouri Black Babies Aborted Since Michael Brown’s Death, No Riots

Police Violence Continues While Nation Fixated on Mike Brown

Rand Paul Slams Benghazi Report

—————————————————————

—————————————————————

————————————————————–

—————————————————————-

—————————————————————-

Why the Grand Jury Didn’t Indict Darren Wilson

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Lethal force used in self defense

Prison Planet.com
November 25, 2014

Photos released to the media reveal why the grand jury in Missouri did not indict police officer Darren Wilson.

 View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

“No probable cause exists to file any charges against Darren Wilson,” St. Louis County prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch said during a news conference.

“The duty of the grand jury is to separate fact and fiction. No probable cause exists to file any charges against Darren Wilson.”

From The New York Times:

The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots, the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night as he sought to explain why a grand jury had not found probable cause to indict the officer.

From The Washington Post:

Things then happened very quickly. Wilson said Brown was at his car window, enraged. Wilson said Brown hit him in the face, grabbing for his gun. Two shots fired. Brown bolted down the street. Wilson pursued. As Wilson told it, Brown charged the officer, reaching into his pants. Wilson raised his .40-caliber Sig Sauer and aimed for a lethal shot.

——————————————————————

10 Signs That Communists Are Infiltrating The Ferguson Protests

     

Ferguson Protesters Communist Revolution - Posted to Twitter by Breaking911The far left is rising in America, and radical communists are being drawn to Ferguson protests all over the nation like moths to a flame.  So could Ferguson be the spark that sets off a significant communist movement in America?  Certainly I am not saying that everyone involved in the Ferguson protests is a communist.  That is not true at all.  In fact, communists and other far left groups only make up a minority of the protesters.  But they have repeatedly been at the forefront of the violence, and they are taking advantage of the anger and frustration caused by the death of Michael Brown to promote their far left radical ideologies.  Sadly, they are finding a receptive audience – especially among young people in our poor and disadvantaged communities.  Even though Republicans did very well in the last election, survey after survey has shown that our young adults continue to move to the left.  For example, one survey taken a few years ago found that 49 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age range have a positive reaction to the word “socialism”.  The same forces that fueled Occupy Wall Street are now finding fertile ground in these new protests.  So what does all of this mean for the future of our nation?  The following are 10 signs that communists are infiltrating the Ferguson protests…

#1 Communist protest banners have been prominently displayed at protests in Ferguson, in New York City and elsewhere around the nation.

#2 Flyers declaring that Darren Wilson is wanted “for racist murder” are being distributed by communist groups in Ferguson.  In fact, the website address for the “Revolutionary Communist Progressive Labor Party” is right on the flyers.

#3 There were reports that violent communist activists from Chicago were brought into Ferguson by bus last August with the intention of stirring up as much trouble as possible…

Here’s the inside scoop on the latest violence in St. Louis. There’s a lot of buzz on the ground about a communist group that was bussed into Ferguson from Chicago. They provoked the police with Molotov cocktails the night of August 13th while the local protesters peacefully protested. That’s when police responded with gas and flash grenades. Their reported goal is to make the protests go super-violent, spread across the region, and spark a revolution. They are said to visibly stand out from the local protesters in how they respond to police and intimidate reporters when photos and video are taken of them. Expect to hear more about this in the coming days.

#4 During the past week, communists from Chicago have once again descended on Ferguson in large numbers.  In the video posted below, communists from Chicago proudly display a banner as they verbally provoke the police in Ferguson…

#5 After Thanksgiving, communists were spotted protesting in front of a Wal-Mart store in Ferguson

On Friday, the Wal-Mart store opened as scheduled at 8 a.m., but there were relatively few shoppers. As they entered, they were told there were “no sale items,” and many then turned away. An assistant manager said that since the store was not open Thursday, staff could not set up sale items, so sales were redeployed to other stores. Police patrolled the parking lot and private security guards were posted inside the store. A handful of protesters, including members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, were told to leave the parking lot. They stood at the entrance to the parking lot with signs that said “No Shopping As Usual Black Lives Matter Friday.”

#6 Outside the courthouse in Ferguson on Friday, a crowd of protesters was overheard chanting this phrase over and over: “The only solution is a communist revolution“.

#7 In this next video, a communist interrupts a nationally televised press conference in Ferguson…

#8 It is one thing to protest perceived injustice.  It is another thing to publicly burn the American flag.  This is something that communist groups love to do, and it is symbol of deep hatred for this country.

#9 The mainstream media has actually been noting the appearance of communist groups at Ferguson protests all over the nation.  For instance, CBS Seattle recently reported that “communists” and “Palestinian groups” have joined the protests in Portland, Oregon.

#10 WND has documented that a top Occupy Wall Street organizer has been training Ferguson protesters how to “simulate chaos”…

In a development that may portend extended disruptions, veteran street organizer Lisa Fithian, previously dubbed “Professor Occupy,” recently trained Ferguson protesters how to “simulate chaos.”

Fithian is a legendary organizer who once announced she seeks to “create crisis, because crisis is that edge where change is possible.”

Once again, it must be noted that I am not saying that all Ferguson protesters are communists.  Only a minority of them are.  But the communists and other radical leftist organizations are tapping into all of the racial strife and discord to promote their radical philosophies.

And the groundwork has already been laid well in advance.  Minority voters have been extremely loyal to the Democrats for decades, and at this point the agenda of the Democratic Party compares very favorably to the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Not that the Republicans are much different.  In fact, many “Republicans” are essentially raging socialists at this point.  But that is a topic for another article.

America has been steadily moving to the left, and the far left has been looking for a spark.

Ferguson may have finally provided that spark for them, and this country might not ever be the same as a result.

So watch carefully what is going on in Ferguson right now.

The fire of revolution is burning on the streets of Ferguson today, but a few years from now major cities all over the nation may be ablaze.

—————————————————————–

US Never Intended to Defeat ISIS – Ron Paul: Defeat of Freedom Act a Victory for Freedom – Sat. Night Live Skewers Obama Executive Orders – Lester Sumrall: Deliverance Testimony of Clarita Villanueava

November 24, 2014

Court Rules Violent Raid Against Homeschoolers Unconstitutional

 “I’m Just a Bill”: Sat. Night Live Skewers Obama Exec. Orders

Defeat of USA FREEDOM Act is a Victory for Freedom

Opening the Gates to World War III

Police In Ferguson Violate Court Order By Arresting Journalist

China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism

Special Report: FBI Attacks Black Panther For NOT Being Racist!

Shocker: Up to 30,000 Lois Lerner Emails “Recovered”

Florida Man, 90, and Pastors Vow to Feed Poor Despite Ban

Buchanan: “Rogue” Obama’s Amnesty Is “Impeachable Act”

Guccifer: Pennsylvania City to be Nuked Next Year

——————————————————————————-

——————————————————————————

——————————————————————————

—————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————

US Never Intended to Defeat ISIS

 November 22, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – Land Destroyer Report)

November 20, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – A torrent of “foiled” terror plots have recently undulated headlines across the Western World. In Rochester New York, the FBI netted a man they claimed was plotting a shooting spree targeting US service members. In Australia, over 800 security agents swooped in on 15 ISIS suspects whom the Australian government claimed were plotting to randomly behead a member of the public. In the UK, 4 suspects allegedly linked to ISIS were arrested before carrying out a plot Scotland Yards claims was aimed at the Queen of England herself.

According to Western security agencies, in addition to ISIS’ regional campaign of brutality stretching from Lebanon, across Syria, and into Iraq, it is also working ceaselessly to carry out attacks against targets within the US, across Europe, and even in the Pacific.

US Policymakers Claim ISIS is Neither a Threat Nor Necessary to Defeat

Considering the hysteria generated by ISIS’ alleged global exploits, it should then be infinitely curious to readers who happen across US policymakers claiming that ISIS may pose a threat, but constitutes by far a lesser threat than Iran or Syria – the two principle nations leading the real fight against ISIS and its international sponsors. Furthermore, US policymakers claim there is no urgency to defeat ISIS, and it should instead be “contained.” Of course, this “containment” will be within states targeted by US-backed regime change – serving as a convenient agent of destruction, destabilization, and perhaps even regime change itself.

Image: A growing chorus among US policymakers and the Western media are claiming that ISIS poses a minimal threat even amid simaltaneous efforts to ratchet up public hysteria. The West also claims it is no longer necessary to “defeat” ISIS and it should instead be “contained” – inside nations targeted for regime change by the US, allowed to continue fighting America’s enemies by proxy … or in other words, ISIS should continue serving as the West’s private mercenary army. 


More troubling still, such policymakers hail from the US-based Brookings Institution, a prominent corporate-financier funded policy think-tank that has helped direct American foreign policy for decades. Brookings “Federal Executive Fellow” Robert Hein, a career US Navy officer, has presented analysis under an article titled, “The Big Questions on ISIS.” After diminishing the threat ISIS actually poses to the US and suggesting that the battle against the terrorist organization will be perpetual – without qualification he claims:

There are other hard questions for even bigger threats in the Middle East, such as how to ensure a nuclear free Iran and how to deal with the Assad regime in Syria. For ISIS, though, we may have it right.

It would have been interesting if Hein did qualify that final statement – explaining how an extraterritorial terrorist army armed and funded by some of the largest, most influential nation-states on Earth, currently ravaging three nations while allegedly plotting against the rest of the planet is somehow a lesser threat than Iran and Syria – both of which have not threatened the United States, and in fact, according to the Brookings Institution itself, have expressed a specific desire to avoid a confrontation with the West.

ISIS is a Lesser Threat – But a Lesser Threat to Whom? 

As bizarre as Hein’s analysis may seem, it strikes at a troubling but undeniable truth. If by “US” Hein meant the American people, America’s service members, and victims of various staged attacks aimed at justifying foreign wars, then ISIS is a threat. For the many millions living in the Middle East or North Africa, ISIS is undoubtedly a threat. For corporate-financiers on Wall Street, the many corrupt politicians in Wall Street’s pocket in Washington, or corporate-financier funded policymakers like Hein himself, ISIS is not only not a threat, but an indispensable asset.

As such, prioritizing ISIS’ destruction is not part of Wall Street or Washington’s agenda – rather – perpetuating this threat for as long as possible is. Hein is unabashed about this notion, claiming:

Should we defeat ISIS? Rather than defeat, containing their activities within failed or near-failing states is the best option for the foreseeable future. The United States has no desire to build nations, and without a stable Middle East, terror groups will continue to find safe haven; if not in western Iraq or Afghanistan, then in Yemen or Somalia. The Middle East and Africa have no shortage of ungoverned or poorly governed territories. The current strategy of prolonged engagement, development and training of local militias, logistic support and air strikes against real targets may be the best solution after all.

Hein’s strategy also works exceedingly well if ISIS was intentionally created as a proxy mercenary force, deployed by the West against its enemies. Such a notion, while dismissed out of hand by many as a “conspiracy theory” is not only plausible, but in fact a documented fact. The use of terrorists and sectarian extremists is a reoccurring feature in Western foreign policy – including its most notorious use in the mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980’s where the US created Al Qaeda to begin with. As recently as 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh documented a conspiracy to once again use sectarian extremists aligned with Al Qaeda to target, undermine, and overthrow the government of Syria and wage a proxy war against Iran.

His report titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” stated (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda

It would be difficult to read Hersh’s 2007 report and attempt to deny that is not precisely what has unfolded, verbatim, beginning under the cover of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” up to and including the creation of “ISIS” and its growing fighting capabilities possible only through an immense, coordinated multinational effort.

The creation of ISIS and what appears to be concerted attempts to justify the slow burn prescribed to “stop it” are echoed in Hein’s proposal of “not stopping ISIS to stop it.”

Why Syria and Iran are Bigger “Threats” 

Ironically, it was an extensive policy paper produced by the very think tank Hein belongs to – Brookings Institution – that noted Iran (and therefore Syria) not only did not want war with the West, but was willing to weather endless covert provocations to avoid giving the West an excuse to wage hegemonic war against the nations. Within the pages of Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report published in 2009, it was stated:

With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight.

Thus it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion and it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.

The report would also state:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

The entire report is a documented conspiracy to justify and provoke war with a nation actively seeking to avoid war even at the cost of suffering innumerable humiliations, covert attacks, assassinations, decades-spanning sanctions, and other forms of terroristic provocations.  When Hein and other US policymakers refer to Iran and Syria as a “greater threat” than ISIS, they do not mean a threat to the national security of the American people or the territory of the United States itself – but rather a threat to their own hegemonic interests well beyond America’s borders and even interests that lie within the borders of Iran and Syria themselves.

Deciphering the deceptive, criminal language used by US policymakers illuminates the ongoing conspiracy in which ISIS plays a central part. ISIS is considered not a threat – not because the US can manage what they claim is an inherently “anti-Western” terrorist organization – but rather because the US itself created and controls it. Syria and Iran, while not actual threats to the West, are considered instead “threats” to US interests – more specifically – the interests of the corporate-financier elite on Wall Street and their lobbyists in Washington D.C.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

————————————————————————–

CNBC Gagged Melissa Francis’ Mathematical Analysis of Obamacare – Hagin Sr: 5 Rules for a Successful Prayer Life – Global House of Cards – Undercover Feds Surge in Numbers

November 17, 2014

School Teaches Kids “The Government Gives Us Rights”

Gallup: ObamaCare approval hits new low

A Global House Of Cards

Outrage builds over NY town’s plan to confiscate legally owned guns

Always watching: Undercover feds surge in numbers, infiltrate protests – report

THIRD Gruber Video Reveals How Administration Sought to Hide Obamacare Tax

“We Are Now In The Longest Continuous Period of War In American History”

India mass sterilisation: women were ‘forced’ into camps, say relatives

————————————————————–

—————————————————————

—————————————————————–

—————————————————————-

The United Nations Grabs for Internet Control (Video)

Written by 

“Big Brother is Watching You!”

Most of us are familiar with that chilling message of unceasing police state surveillance from George Orwell’s famous novel 1984. In the terrifying Orwellian state, no one can escape the all-seeing eye of Big Brother. Privacy does not exist, not even inside one’s own home — or even inside one’s own mind. All of one’s words, actions, facial expressions — even thoughts — are constantly monitored through electronic surveillance.

Revelations over the past several years regarding government “data mining,” and widespread warrantless searches of email, cell phones, social media, and Internet traffic by the NSA, FBI, and other federal agencies have shown that this Orwellian feature of totalitarian repression is already a very real and imminent danger to our liberty.

Now, imagine if we were to kick this abuse up a few notches by turning over control of the Internet to the United Nations. This is an outfit, remember, that has none of the checks and balances or mechanisms of accountability that are built into our U.S. Constitution. Many of the member nations of the UN are totalitarian regimes that already employ Orwellian surveillance, censorship, and repression to the limits of their technological capabilities.

The United Nations’ Grab for Internet Control

Yet, as insane as it may seem, the ruling powers here in the United States are preparing to turn over the Internet — which was invented and built here in the United States— to the UN.

The United Nations convened the 9th Internet Governance Forum on September 5, 2014, in Istanbul, Turkey. The Government of Turkey hosted the conference. The Turkish government, according to the liberal-left human rights organization Freedom House, is “the world’s leading jailer of journalists” and is infamous for censoring the Internet, as well as numerous other human rights violations.

Opportunely, the person who oversaw the Istanbul meeting was Wu Hongbo, under-secretary-general of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Comrade Hongbo, besides representing the UN, ultimately answers to his real bosses in Beijing, the leaders of the Communist Party of China. The communist Beijing regime, of course, is notorious for brutal repression of all human rights, including rigid censorship and aggressive policing of the Internet. Under-Secretary-General Hongbo issued the UN’s official invitation for the Istanbul confab “on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Ban Ki-moon.

Hongbo was in Istanbul, joined by fellow Communist Party comrades, who attended as “official participants” as well as members of the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. China’s representation included: Professor Liang Guo of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Lee Xiaodong, CEO of CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Center, an agency of China’s Ministry of Information); and Chen Hongbing, China’s permanent representative to the UN office in Geneva, Switzerland. These are the folks that have helped build and maintain China’s shameful “Great Firewall,” that the Communist regime uses to spy on, censor, restrict, and police Internet usage.

Among those representing Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin at the IGF/Istanbul were Robert Aleksandrovich Schlegel, a member of Russia’s parliament, the State Duma. He is also a spokesman for the Russian Internet Governance Forum, where his official bio boldly admits (or perhaps boasts) that Schlegel was press director of the “Nashi” movement, Putin’s version of the Hitler Youth.

These are but a few of the repellent individuals who were in charge at the UN’s IGF/Istanbul.

In the past two decades the Internet has provided a platform that has allowed a flowering of independent, alternative media that now challenge the so-called mainstream media and provide a range of news and opinion not previously available. This is absolutely vital to freedom. Do we really want to see control of the Internet turned over to Wu Hongbo, Aleksandrovich Schlegel and others of their kind?

The Obama administration apparently thinks so, and has been giving its blessings to move in that direction. No surprise there. As we have reported, it is also being promoted by the usual cast of globalist, world-government-promoting organizations, led by the Council on Foreign Relations and its British sister organization, Chatham House.  No surprise there either. Former Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff is a member of the Global Commission on Internet Governance launched by Chatham House earlier this year.

The Obama administration has already begun the phased transfer of Internet control to a vague and uncertain governance structure that has been set up as an innocent-appearing transition platform that, ultimately, is set for transfer to UN control.

Do you value your freedom? Do you want censorship or Big Brother watching your every move?

Have you contacted your congressman and senators to let them know that you want them to oppose “global governance” of the Internet by the United Nations?

—————————————————————–

A Global House Of Cards

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Paul Craig Roberts
Prison Planet.com
November 15, 2014

As most Americans, if not the financial media, are aware, Quantitative Easing (a euphemism for printing money) has failed to bring back the US economy.

So why has Japan adopted the policy? Since the heavy duty money printing began in 2013, the Japanese yen has fallen 35% against the US dollar, a big cost for a country dependent on energy imports. Moreover, the Japanese economy has shown no growth in response to the QE stimulus to justify the rising price of imports.

Despite the economy’s lack of response to the stimulus, last month the Bank of Japan announced a 60% increase in quantitative easing–from 50 to 80 trillion yen annually. Albert Edwards, a strategist at Societe Generale, predicts that the Japanese printing press will drive the yen down from 115 yen to the dollar to 145.

This is a prediction, but why risk the reality? What does Japan have to gain from currency depreciation? What is the thinking behind the policy?

An easy explanation is that Japan is being ordered to destroy its currency in order to protect the over-printed US dollar. As a vassal state, Japan suffers under US political and financial hegemony and is powerless to resist Washington’s pressure.

The official explanation is that, like the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan professes to believe in the Phillips Curve, which associates economic growth with inflation. The supply-side economic policy implemented by the Reagan administration disproved the Phillips Curve belief that economic growth was inconsistent with a declining or a stable rate of inflation. However, establishment economists refuse to take note and continue with the dogmas with which they are comfortable.

In the US QE caused inflation in stock and bond prices as most of the liquidity provided went into financial markets instead of into consumers’ pockets. There is more consumer price inflation than the official inflation measures report, as the measures are designed to under-report inflation, thereby saving money on COLA adjustments, but the main effect of QE has been unrealistic stock and bond prices.

The Bank of Japan’s hopes are that raw material and energy import prices will rise as the exchange value of yen falls, and that these higher costs will be passed along in consumer prices, pushing up inflation and stimulating economic growth. Japan is betting its economy on a discredited theory.

The interesting question is why financial strategists expect the yen to collapse under QE, but did not expect the dollar to collapse under QE. Japan is the world’s third largest economy, and until about a decade ago was going gangbusters despite the yen rising in value. Why should QE affect the yen differently from the dollar?

Perhaps the answer lies in the very powerful alliance between the US government and the banking/financial sector and on the obligation that Washington imposes on its vassal states to support the dollar as world reserve currency. Japan lacks the capability to neutralize normal economic forces. Washington’s ability to rig markets has allowed Washington to keep its economic house of cards standing.

The Federal Reserve’s announcement that QE is terminated has improved the outlook for the US dollar. However, as Nomi Prins makes clear, QE has not ended, merely morphed.http://www.nomiprins.com/thoughts/2014/11/10/qe-isnt-dying-its-morphing.html

The Fed’s bond purchases have left the big banks with $2.6 trillion in excess cash reserves on deposit with the Fed. The banks will now use this money to buy bonds in place of the Fed’s purchases. When this money runs out, the Fed will find a reason to restart QE. Moreover, the Fed has announced that it intends to reinvest the interest and returning principle from its $4.5 trillion in holdings of mortgage backed instruments and Treasuries to continue purchasing bonds. Possibly also, interest rate swaps can be manipulated to keep rates down. So, despite the announced end of QE, purchases will continue to support high bond prices, and the high bond prices will continue to encourage purchases of stocks, thus perpetuating the house of cards.

As Dave Kranzler and I (and no doubt others) have pointed out, a stable or rising dollar exchange value is the necessary foundation to the house of cards. Until three years ago, the dollar was losing ground rapidly with respect to gold. Since that time massive sales of uncovered shorts in the gold futures market have been used to drive down the gold price.

That gold and silver bullion prices are rigged is obvious. Demand is high, and supply is constrained; yet prices are falling. The US mint cannot keep up with the demand for silver eagles and has suspended sales. The Canadian mint is rationing the supply of silver maple leafs. Asian demand for gold, especially from China, is at record levels.

The third quarter, 2014, was the 15th consecutive quarter of net purchases of gold by central banks. Dave Kranzler reports that in the past eight months, 101 tonnes have been drained from GLD, an indication that there is a gold shortage for delivery to physical purchasers. The declining futures price, which is established in a paper market where contracts are settled in cash, not in gold, is inconsistent with rising demand and constrained supply and is a clear indication of price rigging by US authorities.

The extent of financial corruption involving collusion between the mega-banks and the financial authorities is unfathomable. The Western financial system is a house of cards resting on corruption.

The house of cards has stood longer than I thought possible. Can it stand forever or are there so many rotted joints that some simultaneous collection of failures overwhelms the manipulation and brings on a massive crash? Time will tell.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

Doctors: UN Vaccines in Kenya Used for Sterilization – Immumologist: 1st Year Vaccinations Only for “Training Parents” – Ron Paul: What the Mid-Term Elections Mean for Liberty – Border Patrol Thugs – ISIS is America’s Dream Army

November 11, 2014

Immunologist Admits Babies Only Vaccinated to ‘Train Parents’

Food Scientists: New GMO Potatoes ‘Extremely Worrisome’

Prediction: Economic Collapse, Civil Unrest in America by 2016

ISIS is America’s Dream Rebel Army

Obama’s Mental Health Screening in Schools Will ‘Disarm’ Gun Rights: “Databases to Follow Academic Career and Beyond”

What The Mid-Term Elections Really Mean For Peace and Liberty

Judge Approves Detroit’s “Grand Bargain” to End Bankruptcy

Video: Border Patrol Smashes Their Way Into Vehicle As Man Refuses To Comply With Internal Checkpoint

—————————————————————————-

GRUBER: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”

—————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————

——————————————————————————

Doctors: UN Vaccines in Kenya Used to Sterilize Women

Written by 

Less than a year after the United Nations unveiled a sweeping population-control plot aimed at reducing the number of people in Kenya, a supposed UN “vaccine program” is under fire by doctors and Catholic bishops for deliberately sterilizing millions of women. The explosive revelations were released after medical researchers and the Catholic Church found a sterilization agent in tetanus inoculations being foisted on Kenyan women by two UN agencies in cooperation with the national government. Incredibly, it is not the first time that international vaccine campaigns by the UN targeting Third World populations have been exposed as covert sterilization and eugenics programs. Some critics have even referred to the latest plot as race-based genocide.

In a statement released last week by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the medical organization said it had ordered laboratory tests of tetanus vaccines being administered in Kenya by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF). “The unfortunate truth is that the vaccine was laced with [sterilizing agent Human Chorionic Gonadotropin] HCG just like the one used in the South American cases,” Dr. Wahome Ngare said in a statement for the Catholic doctors group that helped expose the scheme after the test results came back positive. “Further, none of the girls and women given the vaccination were informed of its contraceptive effect.”

According to the organization and other medical experts, the hCG found in the UN tetanus vaccines causes women’s bodies to develop an immune response to attack the hormone, which is essential to pregnancy. So, when a woman who has received the UN shots gets pregnant, her body fights the crucial hCG — resulting in the death of the unborn child in the womb. Eventually, the supposed inoculations — pushed on Kenyan women by the UN under the guise of “preventing neo-natal tetanus” — result in permanent sterility after multiple doses. All six UN vaccine samples collected from around Kenya tested positive for the hCG antigen at independent laboratories, researchers said.

“This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine,” explained Dr. Ngare, the spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, which supports and administers vaccinations — as long as they are not laced with sterilization agents. “This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.”

On November 6, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement signed by all 27 bishops confirming the findings. “The Catholic Church struggled and acquired several vials of the vaccine, which we sent to four unrelated Government and private laboratories in Kenya and abroad,” the conference said. “We want to announce here, that all the tests showed that the vaccine used in Kenya in March and October 2014 was indeed laced with the Beta-HCG hormone.” The bishops raised concerns about the secretive UN eugenics program masquerading as a vaccination scheme as early as March of this year, but received no cooperation from authorities.

Based on the information and findings, the Catholic Bishops of Kenya said they were “shocked at the level of dishonesty and casual manner in which such a serious issue is being handled by the Government.” The bishops said a report by the Health Ministry claiming the vaccines were free of hCG was a “false” and “deliberate attempt to distort the truth and mislead 42 million Kenyans.” The Catholic leaders also noted that they were dismayed by attempts to “blackmail and intimidate” medical professionals who corroborated the facts about the dangerous vaccine.

“We commend and support all professionals who have stood by the truth,” the bishops added in the statement. “We shall not waver in calling upon all Kenyans to avoid the tetanus vaccination campaign laced with Beta-HCG, because we are convinced that it is indeed a disguised population control programme.” The Catholic Church in Kenya is not opposed to vaccines and, in fact, operates a massive public-health network across the country that provides clean vaccines to Kenyans who request them.

Dr. Ngare, a gynecologist and obstetrician, asked that Kenyans become educated and activated in response to the ongoing atrocities. “Though the Bishops are medically lay people, they have technical advisory teams of competent specialists from every discipline, including medicine,” he said in the statement. “These teams are both local and international as the Catholic Church is global. The Catholic based and run health institutions form the largest private health network in the country and have been rendering medical services to Kenyans for over 100 years! Thus, when the Bishops speak on topical issue like the tetanus vaccination, they are talking from a point of knowledge and authority. It would be foolhardy to disregard their advice.”

“We have performed our moral and civic duty of speaking the truth and alerting the government and the people of Kenya,” Dr. Ngare concluded. “It is now up to each individual Kenyan to make an informed choice.” Multiple critics said Americans must do more to rein in the dangerous and barbaric UN eugenics scheming as well. Other organizations also confirmed that the UN vaccines were indeed being used to sterilize Kenyan women without informing them.

The U.S.-based Center for Family and Human Rights, among other groups, blasted the UN program, calling for congressional investigations in the United States into the plot. It is especially relevant to Americans because U.S. taxpayers fund the UN agencies involved, and because “partners” of the organization include the federal government’s U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and population-control zealot Bill Gates, who openly talked about how vaccines could be used to reduce the population.

“The U.S. funds UNICEF and WHO programs with hundreds of millions of dollars annually. A congressional investigation should be launched to discover the origination of these manipulated vaccines,” explained Lisa Correnti at C-Fam, adding that any “tetanus” campaign featuring involvement of population-control agencies and “philanthropists” should always draw oversight. “Did USAIDs Population and Reproductive Health personnel have knowledge of the program? Unethical and deceptive practices such as this bring further distrust from the vulnerable women and children that desperately need holistic medical care.”

Unfortunately, the explosive findings about UN population-control schemes are not new. The UN’s self-styled global “health” agency, the WHO, discovered the sterilization-via-vaccine method more than two decades ago. Essentially, it added hCG to vaccines, which resulted in abortion and sterilization among vaccinated women. The UN body fully understood the consequences. Yet, shortly after the discovery, the WHO unleashed a massive sterilization and eugenics program concealed behind a “vaccination” scheme targeting women of child-bearing age in the Philippines, Nicaragua, and Mexico. Now, in line with UN demands for less Africans on the planet, Kenya has become the latest victim.

The news is also not surprising. As The New American reported in January, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which has previously been exposed helping the Communist Chinese regime perpetrate forced abortions as part of its savage “one-child policy,” had recently released a report calling for massive population reduction in Kenya. While the UN report never specifically called for a secret forced sterilization campaign outright, it did outline a wide array of population-control plots aimed at reducing the fertility of Kenyan women to 2.6 children per woman by 2030.

Separately, the Catholic bishops, citing previous UN “vaccine” schemes to sterilize women, warned about the tetanus-inoculation plot as early as March. “Information in the public domain indicates that Tetanus Toxoid vaccine (TT) laced with Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) sub unit has been used in Philippines, Nicaragua and Mexico to vaccinate women against future pregnancy,” Kenya’s bishops said in a statement at the time. “Beta HCG sub unit is a hormone necessary for pregnancy.”

“When injected as a vaccine to a non-pregnant woman, this Beta HCG sub unit combined with tetanus toxoid develops antibodies against tetanus and HCG so that if a woman’s egg becomes fertilized, her own natural HCG will be destroyed rendering her permanently infertile,” the bishops continued. “In this situation tetanus vaccination has been used as a birth control method. The ongoing tetanus vaccination campaign bears the hallmarks of the programmes that were carried out in Philippines, Mexico and Nicaragua.” That statement was released before lab tests confirmed the plot.

Outside of Kenya, the establishment press has virtually ignored the Earth-shattering accusations leveled at the UN. On the other hand, the news sent shockwaves through the alternative media after a report in LifeSiteNews.com highlighted the findings. UNICEF and WHO in Kenya were not immediately available for comment.

The amount of suffering and horror unleashed by the UN in Kenya is impossible to calculate. Millions of families will be potentially affected for generations. Americans must demand that Congress stop funding the UN and especially its coercive population-reduction apparatus. Making the American people unwitting accomplices in the crimes of eugenics and mass involuntary sterilization campaigns is unconstitutional, horrifying, and deeply immoral.

——————————————————————————

The Devil’s Bargain: The Illusion of a Trouble-Free Existence in the American Police State

John W. Whitehead
Rutherford Institute
November 11, 2014

Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our great adversary remains the apparatus—the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers’ enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.
—Simone Weil, French philosopher and political activist

It’s no coincidence that during the same week in which the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Yates v. United States, a case in which a Florida fisherman is being threatened with 20 years’ jail time for throwing fish that were too small back into the water, Florida police arrested a 90-year-old man twice for violating an ordinance that prohibits feeding the homeless in public.

Both cases fall under the umbrella of overcriminalization, that phenomenon in which everything is rendered illegal and everyone becomes a lawbreaker. As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, this is what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.

John Yates, a commercial fisherman, was written up in 2007 by a state fish and wildlife officer who noticed that among Yates’ haul of red grouper, 72 were apparently under the 20-inch minimum legal minimum. Yates, ordered to bring the fish to shore as evidence of his violation of the federal statute on undersized catches, returned to shore with only 69 grouper in the crate designated for evidence. A crew member later confessed that, on orders from Yates, the crew had thrown the undersized grouper overboard and replaced them with larger fish. Unfortunately, they were three fish short. Sensing a bait-and-switch, prosecutors refused to let Yates off the hook quite so easily. Unfortunately, in prosecuting him for the undersized fish under a law aimed at financial crimes, government officials opened up a can of worms.

Arnold Abbott, 90 years old and the founder of a nonprofit that feeds the homeless, is facing a fine of $1000 and up to four months in jail for violating a city ordinance that makes it a crime to feed the homeless in public. Under the city’s ordinance, clearly aimed at discouraging the feeding of the homeless in public, organizations seeking to do so must provide portable toilets, be 500 feet away from each other, 500 feet from residential properties, and are limited to having only one group carry out such a function per city block.  Abbott has been feeding the homeless on a public beach in Ft. Lauderdale every Wednesday evening for the past 23 years. On November 2, 2014, moments after handing out his third meal of the day, police reportedly approached the nonagenarian and ordered him to “‘drop that plate right now,’ as if I were carrying a weapon,” recalls Abbott. Abbott was arrested and fined. Three days later, Abbott was at it again, and arrested again.

That both of these incidents occurred in Florida is no coincidence. Remember, this is the state that arrested Nicole Gainey for letting her 7-year-old son walk to the park alone, even though it was just a few blocks from their house. If convicted, Gainey could have been made to serve up to five years in jail.

This is also the state that a few years back authorized police raids on barber shops in minority communities, resulting in barbers being handcuffed in front of customers, and their shops searched without warrants. All of this was purportedly done in an effort to make sure that the barbers’ licensing paperwork was up to snuff.

As if criminalizing fishing, charity, parenting decisions, and haircuts wasn’t bad enough, you could also find yourself passing time in a Florida slammer for such inane activities as singing in a public place while wearing a swimsuit, breaking more than three dishes per day, farting in a public place after 6 pm on a Thursday, and skateboarding without a license.

Despite its pristine beaches and balmy temperatures, Florida is no less immune to the problems plaguing the rest of the nation in terms of overcriminalization, incarceration rates, bureaucracy, corruption, and police misconduct. In fact, the Sunshine State has become a poster child for how a seemingly idyllic place can be transformed into a police state with very little effort. As such, it is representative of what is happening in every state across the nation, where a steady diet of bread and circuses has given rise to an oblivious, inactive citizenry content to be ruled over by an inflexible and highly bureaucratic regime.

This transformation of the United States from being a beacon of freedom to a locked down nation illustrates perfectly what songwriter Joni Mitchell was referring to when she wrote:

Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Only in our case, sold on the idea that safety, security and material comforts are preferable to freedom, we’ve allowed the government to pave over the Constitution in order to erect a concentration camp. The problem with these devil’s bargains, however, is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions.

We’ve bartered away our right to self-governance, self-defense, privacy, autonomy and that most important right of all—the right to tell the government to “leave me the hell alone.” In exchange for the promise of safe streets, safe schools, blight-free neighborhoods, lower taxes, lower crime rates, and readily accessible technology, health care, water, food and power, we’ve opened the door to militarized police, government surveillance, asset forfeiture, school zero tolerance policies, license plate readers, red light cameras, SWAT team raids, health care mandates, overcriminalization and government corruption.

In the end, such bargains always turn sour.

We asked our lawmakers to be tough on crime, and we’ve been saddled with an abundance of laws that criminalize almost every aspect of our lives. So far, we’re up to 4500 criminal laws and 300,000 criminal regulations that result in average Americans unknowingly engaging in criminal acts at least three times a day. For instance, the family of an 11-year-old girl was issued a $535 fine for violating the Federal Migratory Bird Act after the young girl rescued a baby woodpecker from predatory cats.

We wanted criminals taken off the streets, and we didn’t want to have to pay for their incarceration. What we’ve gotten is a nation that boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world, with more than 2.3 million people locked up, many of them doing time for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes, and a private prison industry fueling the drive for more inmates, who are forced to provide corporations with cheap labor. A special report by CNBC breaks down the national numbers:

One out of 100 American adults is behind bars — while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison. This reliance on mass incarceration has created a thriving prison economy. The states and the federal government spend about $74 billion a year on corrections, and nearly 800,000 people work in the industry.

We wanted law enforcement agencies to have the necessary resources to fight the nation’s wars on terror, crime and drugs. What we got instead were militarized police decked out with M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers, battle tanks and hollow point bullets—gear designed for the battlefield, more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year (many for routine police tasks, resulting in losses of life and property), and profit-driven schemes that add to the government’s largesse such as asset forfeiture, where police seize property from “suspected criminals.”

Justice Department figures indicate that as much as $4.3 billion was seized in asset forfeiture cases in 2012, with the profits split between federal agencies and local police. According to the Washington Post, these funds have been used to buy guns, armored cars, electronic surveillance gear, “luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.” Police seminars advise officers to use their “department wish list when deciding which assets to seize” and, in particular, go after flat screen TVs, cash and nice cars. In Florida, where police are no strangers to asset forfeiture, Florida police have been carrying out “reverse” sting operations, where they pose as drug dealers to lure buyers with promises of cheap cocaine, then bust them, and seize their cash and cars. Over the course of a year, police in one small Florida town seized close to $6 million using these entrapment schemes.

We fell for the government’s promise of safer roads, only to find ourselves caught in a tangle of profit-driven red light cameras, which ticket unsuspecting drivers in the so-called name of road safety while ostensibly fattening the coffers of local and state governments. Despite widespread public opposition, corruption and systemic malfunctions, these cameras—used in 24 states and Washington, DC—are particularly popular with municipalities, which look to them as an easy means of extra cash. One small Florida town, population 8,000, generates a million dollars a year in fines from these cameras. Building on the profit-incentive schemes, the cameras’ manufacturers are also pushing speed cameras and school bus cameras, both of which result in heft fines for violators who speed or try to go around school buses.

This is just a small sampling of the many ways in which the American people continue to get duped, deceived, double-crossed, cheated, lied to, swindled and conned into believing that the government and its army of bureaucrats—the people we appointed to safeguard our freedoms—actually have our best interests at heart.

Yet when all is said and done, who is really to blame when the wool gets pulled over your eyes: you, for believing the con man, or the con man for being true to his nature?

It’s time for a bracing dose of reality, America. Wake up and take a good, hard look around you, and ask yourself if the gussied-up version of America being sold to you—crime free, worry free and devoid of responsibility—is really worth the ticket price: nothing less than your freedoms.

————————————————————————–

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers