The Great Barrington Declaration At Five Years

Jeffrey A. Tucker | Zero Hedge

It was 8:45 a.m. and the date was Aug. 23, 2020. We were five months into the pandemic panic. The isolation and strangeness had become unbearable not only to me personally but to vast numbers. The businesses and schools were closed. Anthony Fauci of NIAID and all his media cheerleaders seemed to be the only narrative around.

Everyone was waiting for something. One day rolled into the next, marked by unbearable repetition, each turn of the clock nearly indistinguishable from the last one and the next one. Everyone seemed to be waiting for something to happen but it was not clear what that was.

I had been writing about pandemic planning for 15 years and knew that what was going on was a grave error. Indeed, from January 2020 I had warned that some people imagined that the way to battle a virus was through an elaborate duck-and-cover ritual that contradicted the whole history of public health. By mid-March, 2020, the experiment was on, and the world economy was being strangled.

The usual proponents of free enterprise and civil liberties fell silent. This was mostly for reasons of career protection. It was obvious at the time what everyone was supposed to say: listen to the science, we are all in this together, wear your mask, don't do your own research, stop longing for your "freedumb." Most everyone in the professional classes went along, partially because so many people enjoyed working from home and receiving vast sums from the government dropped directly in their bank accounts.

Desperate for allies in this struggle, I happened to notice a professor at Harvard was posting some sensible things. Not sure why this particular post made it through the censors but it did and I read it. I was thrilled, and decided to try my luck. That early morning, I dropped him a note on Twitter direct messaging. I invited him for dinner. He accepted.

That was the beginning of a long friendship that continues to this day. But it was also the beginning of the hardest years of our lives. Martin Kulldorff and I visited each other and I learned from him: about public health principles, natural immunity, the normal course of respiratory infection waves, how to deal with the many features of such pathogens, and so on.

It was Martin's idea to broaden the discussion. What if we invite a group of top journalists in and offer some expert commentary? This would surely help improve their reporting. Maybe then they would stop simply echoing the crazy claims coming from the CDC and NIH. That struck me as a good idea, so I went to work on logistics. The deadline was tight: two weeks.

The problems began immediately. Not a single reporter responded to my invitation. I could not understand why. Three of the world's top epidemiologists — Martin plus Jay Bhattacharya (now directing the NIH) and Sunetra Gupta — were coming together for their benefit. Why were they not interested in learning more about the subject they were covering for TV and newspapers?

The gathering took place anyway.  

Read more

UK Rights Group’s Legal Challenge Shows MI5 Illegally Preserved Surveillance Data

Sputnik

The ongoing legal challenge of UK human rights group Liberty over data privacy breaches committed by MI5 has revealed new details about the violations, showing that the security service has been failing to remove collected bulk surveillance data on time and received surveillance warrants based on knowingly false information.

Under the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), MI5 has the authority to collect, upon authorization, personal data of a large number of innocent people and store it for potential future investigations. Security services, however, cannot store such data indefinitely: they are obliged to delete it within certain time limits.

Documents released during a court hearing on Tuesday showed that the MI5 legal team said, as quoted by the Liberty, that there is “a high likelihood [of material] being discovered when it should have been deleted, in a disclosure exercise leading to substantial legal or oversight failure.”

Moreover, a senior official from the intelligence service said that people’s personal data was being kept in “ungoverned spaces,” the rights group said in a statement, published on its official website.
“These shocking revelations expose how MI5 has been illegally mishandling our data for years, storing it when they have no legal basis to do so. This could include our most deeply sensitive information – our calls and messages, our location data, our web browsing history,” Liberty lawyer Megan Goulding said, as quoted by the rights group.

Investigatory Powers Commissioner and Lord Justice Adrian Fulford, who is responsible for verifying that the security services respect data privacy provisions laid out in the IPA, described MI5’s actions as “undoubtedly unlawful.” 

Read more

US airports will scan 97% of outbound flyers’ faces within 4 years

futurism

 

If you board a flight out of the United States four years from now, chances are the government is going to scan your face — an ambitious timeline that has privacy experts reeling.

That’s according to a recent Department of Homeland Security report, which says that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plans to dramatically expand its Biometric Exit program to cover 97 percent of outbound air passengers within four years.

Through this program, which was already in place in 15 U.S. airports at the end of 2018, passengers have their faces scanned by cameras before boarding flights out of the nation. If the AI-powered system determines that the photo doesn’t match one on file, CBP officials can look into it.

The goal of these airport face scans is purportedly to catch people who have overstayed their visas, but civil liberties expert Edward Hasbrouck sees them as potentially giving the government increased control over American citizens.

“This is opening the door to an extraordinarily more intrusive and granular level of government control, starting with where we can go and our ability to move freely about the country,” he told Buzzfeed News. “And then potentially, once the system is proved out in that way, it can literally extend to a vast number of controls in other parts of our lives.”

Read More

Immigration Crackdown Violating Rights of Millions of Innocent Citizens at 'Constitution-Free Zones'

Free Thought Project

Washington, D.C. – The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has brought increased attention to the little known “Constitution-Free Zone” that extends 100 miles inland around the entirety of the United States. While the practice of Border Patrol employing “citizen checkpoints” within this zone is not a new practice, it has drawn increased scrutiny from civil libertarians and they’re increasingly popping up.

Most people would be surprised to know that far away from the border between the U.S. and Mexico, on highways in Maine, New Hampshire, and numerous other states, U.S. Customs and Border Protection checkpoints are stopping vehicles without any reasonable suspicion and asking them if they are legal U.S. citizens.

Incredibly, nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population lives within the 100-mile border zone, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, and it includes many major cities and several entire states, including Florida, Michigan, Maine, and Hawaii.

“Immigration police in this country are emboldened,” Gilles Bissonette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in a statement after 17 people were arrested during a Memorial Day weekend operation. “We’re seeing it not only nationally, but right here in New Hampshire.”

Government agents’ arbitrary checking of a person’s personal papers directly contradicts the entire letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees that:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” 

Read more

Social Media Giants Choking Independent News Site Traffic to a Trickle

Whitney Webb

Mint Press News
 

Several prominent figures, including Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, warned the EU Parliament that its proposed censorship measure would begin transforming the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users.

 

For much of the year, independent media [including Global Research] has felt the sting of increased social media censorship, as the “revolving door” between U.S. intelligence agencies and social-media companies has manifested in a crackdown on news that challenges official government narratives. 

With many notable independent news websites having shut down since then as a result, those that remain afloat are being censored like never before, with social media traffic from Facebook and Twitter completely cut off in some cases. Among such websites, social media censorship by the most popular social networks is now widely regarded to be the worst it has ever been – a chilling reality for any who seek fact-based perspectives on major world events that differ from those to be found on well-known corporate-media outlets that consistently toe the government line.

Last August, MintPress reported that a new Google algorithm targeting “fake news” had quashed traffic to many independent news and advocacy sites, with sites such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Now, and WikiLeaks, seeing their returns from Google searches experience massive drops. The World Socialist Website, one of the affected pages, reported a 67 percent decrease in Google returns while MintPress   experienced an even larger decrease of 76 percent in Google search returns. The new algorithm targeted online publications on both sides of the political spectrum critical of U.S. imperialism, foreign wars, and other long-standing government policies.

Now, less than a year later, the situation has become even more dire. Several independent media pages have reported that their social media traffic has sharply declined since March and – in some cases – stopped almost entirely since June began. For instance, independent media website Antimedia – a page with over 2 million likes and follows – saw its traffic drop from around 150,000 page views per day earlier this month to around 12,000 as of this week. As a reference, this time last year Antimedia’s traffic stood at nearly 300,000 a day.

Other pages, particularly those that promote natural-health news along with political news, have seen their pages deleted without warning by Facebook as recently as earlier this week. One such page, Collectively Conscious, saw its Facebook page with over 900,000 likes and follows deleted without warning after Facebook said the page “violated its terms of use agreement” but did not state which terms had been violated. Other similar pages, such as Nikola Tesla and Earth We Are One, were likewise suddenly deleted without explanation. 

Read more

“Fake Scholarship” and the Future of America’s University

"Students –who unduly refer or quote independent or dissident scholars and scientist–  will not be allowed to graduate. In turn, the universities will not recruit professors and researchers who do not conform to establishment scholarship. Critical debate and plurality are gradually phased out. It’s a reproductive process which consists in eliminating dissident views within academia."

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


Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research

Harvard University has established a modern version of the Catholic Church’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a list of prohibited online publications which are tagged as “fake” and “false”, broadly following the politically tainted “List” of censored independent and alternative media. As we recall the Catholic Church’s Index was a list of books “deemed heretical, anti-clerical or lascivious”.1 

Ex Cathedra, Harvard has decided in one fell swoop that virtually the entire US based “Alternative Media” pertaining to tens of thousands of authors would be categorized not only as fake news, but fake science, knowledge and analysis.

The Harvard Index however goes far beyond the Catholic Church’s Index which selectively banned books after careful reading, review and evaluation within the Church’s hierarchy. This frivolous decision by Harvard constitutes a violation of the most fundamental principles of  university education which are debate, discussion, critique and analysis.

The Harvard Index acts as a Lynchpin. It establishes a “new normal”, a guideline to colleges and universities across the land, regarding what we can or cannot read, what we can or cannot write. 

Is it a conspiracy? Yes it is.  Harvard’s Index broadly undermines the foundation of University education. It instates academic mediocrity.

In turn, the targeted websites– including Global Research-  are the object of a “wiki-smear” campaign, which has become embedded in online search engines. The latter tend to be increasingly skewed against alternative media content.

The “alternative media” sites are thereby casually tagged as promoting “fake news” and “conspiracy theories”.

Harvard Library lists the “authoritative” “Fact-Checking” sites and Plugins required by both students and professors to detect ‘Fake news”.

Read more

Visualizing The Worrying Decline Of Freedom Around The World

Zero Hedge

 

The 20th century was a bull market for literacy, freedom, prosperity, health, and technology.

As a result of these gains, wealth has increased exponentially, and world poverty is now at all-time lows. Life expectancy continues to improve in most countries, global literacy is near 90%, and there are well over 100 democracies throughout the planet.

But, as VisualCapitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, not every positive trend can keep going forever. Sometimes things regress temporarily, only to be corrected later on. Other times things change more fundamentally – and that regression can be the beginning of a newer, long-term reality.

The Decline of Freedom: An 11-Year Trend

According to the Freedom in the World 2017 Report, which scores countries annually on various levels of freedom, there have been recent setbacks in political rights and civil liberties in a number of “Free” countries. These newest declines are partially the result of populist and nationalist forces making significant gains in democratic states.

But Freedom House, the international watchdog organization that produces the annual report, says that this is not an isolated occurrence. In fact, based on their data and methodology, freedom has actually declined on a global basis for the last 11 years.

Here are the aggregate gains and declines in freedom for each year – you can see that declines have been outweighing gains since 2006.

Read more

The Titanic Sails at Dawn: Warning Signs Point to Danger Ahead in 2017

John W. Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute

“When did the future switch from being a promise to being a threat?” ― Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters

Despite our best efforts, we in the American police state seem to be stuck on repeat, reliving the same set of circumstances over and over and over again: egregious surveillance, strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, government spying, censorship, retaliatory arrests, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, indefinite detentions, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, etc.

Unfortunately, as a nation we’ve become so desensitized to the government’s acts of violence, so accustomed to reports of government corruption, and so anesthetized to the sights and sounds of Corporate America marching in lockstep with the police state that few seem to pay heed to the warning signs blaring out the message: Danger Ahead.

Remember, the Titanic received at least four warnings from other ships about the presence of icebergs in its path, with the last warning issued an hour before disaster struck. All four warnings were ignored.

Like the Titanic, we’re plowing full steam ahead into a future riddled with hidden and not-so-hidden dangers. We too have been given ample warnings, only to have them drowned out by a carefully choreographed cacophony of political noise, cultural distractions and entertainment news—what the Romans termed “bread and circuses”—aimed at keeping the American people polarized, pacified and easily manipulated.

However, there is still danger ahead. The peril to our republic remains the same.

As long as a permanent, unelected bureaucracy—a.k.a. the shadow government— continues to call the shots in the halls of power and the reach of the police state continues to expand, the crisis has not been averted.

Here’s a glimpse of some of the nefarious government programs we’ll be encountering on our journey through the treacherous waters of 2017.

Read more
 

Police State Roundup: Cops assault, rape, and shoot civilians - lie about it - and get away with it

Brently Kopopolous
Sott.net

Shocking and horrific stories from around the USA this week as the police everywhere are becoming unhinged and violent. The above photograph comes from Memphis, TN, where 19-year-old Hannah Cohen was attempting to travel home through the airport when she was violently attacked by TSA and airport police. Hannah was returning home after successfully completely treatment for a brain tumor from St Jude's Hospital. After setting off a metal detector, she was pulled aside for further screening, which is where things went downhill. Being blind in one eye, partially deaf and somewhat paralyzed, Hannah was confused and scared as she had no idea what was happening to her. When her mother tried to explain, common sense was left by the wayside as protocol indicated Hannah was 'dangerous.'

Resisting their attempts at manhandling, Hannah was thrust to the ground when she hit her head. The above picture is the result. She was then arrested and spent a night in jail before being released without charges. This entire scene could have been avoided with just a little discretion and two-drops of common sense, but apparently that's not something Memphis TSA and airport police are trained in.

In Los Angeles, CA, it's potentially dangerous to visit the county fair. Christian Aguilar was beaten and tased after local police there arrested his parents and then attacked him for filming the arrest. Another man who recorded the incident was also arrested for filming, and that video is available here:  

Read more

Federal regulation of Internet coming, warn FCC, FEC commissioners

Washington Examiner

 

Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission. 

“Protecting freedom on the Internet is just one vote away,” said Lee E. Goodman, a commissioner on the FEC which is divided three Democrats to three Republicans. “There is a cloud over your free speech.” 

Freedom of speech on the Internet, added Ajit Pai, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, “is increasingly under threat.” 

Pai and Goodman cited political correctness campaigns by Democrats as a threat. Both also said their agencies are becoming politicized and the liberals are using their power to push regulations that impact business and conservative outlets and voices. 

Read more

Use of Government Watch Lists To Remove Rights is Unconstitutional and Dangerous

  Tenth Amendment Center | Michael Boldin

 

National Defense Authorization Act 2017 includes draft for women & indefinite detention of American citizens

Derrick Broze
Activist Post

The U.S. Congress has passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2017 with provisions that will force women to sign up for potential military draft and continues the practice of indefinite detention.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate approved a $602 billion annual defense budget that President Obama has promised to veto because the bill does not allow for the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Senate Bill 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, passed with a vote of 85 Senators in favor and 13 against.

Before the vote, Senator John McCain tweeted that "It's never been more urgent to give our troops the resources they need to succeed." The majority of Congress have no issue taking money from the American people and redistributing it to fund their empire. The conflict arises when lawmakers begin debating whose pet projects are going to get a boost. The major conflicts in passing the bill stemmed from various amendments dealing with how the military budget will be spent.

One issue the entire Congress seemed to agree on was voting against closing military bases around the world. While the Pentagon called for budget cuts stating that the military has more space than they need, Congress refused to go along with the cuts. "Besides, several lawmakers have argued that the Pentagon has cooked the books to justify its conclusions or at least didn't do the math completely," the Associated Press reports. The Senate also voted against an amendment to close the infamous military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Another contentious area of debate was the mandate to force women who turn 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018 to register for Selective Service. Males are already required register within 30 days of their 18th birthday. The United States has maintained a volunteer military force since 1973, but through Selective Service the military could reinstate a draft and call upon registered males and females. Those who do not register could face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, although the penalty has rarely been enforced.

Read more
  

Safety and Civil Liberties: Is Corporate Clout Calling the Shots?

Jim Carrey (the actor)
Activist Post

Let me be clear: I fully support the use of vaccines and believe they play a vital role in protecting the health of individuals and the public at large. That does not mean, however, that every vaccine is healthy, imperative, or right for every individual in every circumstance. Over the past few centuries, vaccinations have saved millions from deadly and disfiguring diseases that once ravaged the world - from whooping cough and diphtheria to smallpox and polio. There is no question that many of these vaccines have been among the greatest medical advancements in history. There is also no question that vaccines can and do injure people as the hundreds of millions of dollars awarded in vaccine court have proved.

Like any form of healthcare, vaccines come with potential benefits and potential risks. As Americans, we all have a basic right to weigh those pros and cons for ourselves — as we do with any form of preventative care or medical treatment — and make decisions that are appropriate for ourselves and our families. This is one of our nation’s most basic civil liberties. You don’t have to be a doctor or a scientist to know that.

It is simply unacceptable for the government to infringe on this right by forcing a mother or father to accept a one-size-fits-all approach to their child’s medical care. Such a requirement should never be tolerated, but is particularly troubling when questions still remain concerning the safety of certain chemicals used to produce some vaccines. So long as these substances carry any potential hazard, their use should be a parent’s decision — not the government’s. 

Read more

BREAKING: Cashless Society ushered in by new VISA partnership

See also: The London Meeting to End Cash

“Je Suis CIA”

Comment: Don't forget Mossad Larry...Their sticky fingers were all over the event.

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

Larry Chin
Global Research


Since 9/11, the imperial playbook has consisted of a favorite and time-tested tactic: the false flag operation.

Carry out or facilitate a spectacular atrocity. Blame it on the enemy of choice. Issue a lie-infested official narrative, and have the corporate media repeat the lie. Rile up ignorant militant crowds, stoke the hatred, and war-mongering imperial policy planners and their criminal functionaries get what they want: war with the public stamp of approval.

Here we are again.

The Charlie Hebdo incident is being sold as “the French 9/11”. It certainly is, in all of the most tragic ways: France, like the United States on 9/11, has been used. The masses of the world have been deceived, and march in lockstep to NATO’s drumbeat again.

All signs lead from French intelligence back to Washington—and Langley, Virginia—directly and indirectly. Red herrings and deceptions comprise the official narrative.

The Al-Qaeda narrative, the classic CIA deception, gets fresh facelift. The fact that Al-Qaeda is CIA-created Anglo-American military-intelligence is ignored. The agenda behind the ISIS war—a massive and elaborate regional CIA false flag operation—registers even less.

The Charlie Hebdo terrorists have ties to Anglo-American intelligence and the Pentagon that the masses do not bother to think about. They are also tied to the (conveniently dead) 9/11-connected Al-Qaeda mastermind/CIA military-intelligence asset Anwar Al-Awlaki.

These and other obvious connections to Washington and the CIA do not raise alarm bells among the ardent ones waving Je Suis Charlie signs (which “magically” appeared, and seem to have been mass-produced in advance).

Signs of an inside job and a still unfolding cover-up are significant, from pristine, undamaged passports found on scene to the convenient suicide of Helric Fredou, the Paris police commissioner in charge of the Hebdo investigation.

The Kouachi brothers and Amedy Coulibaly were not only well known by French authorities, French intelligence and the CIA. The Kouachis were tracked and monitored—guided—over the course of many years, arrested many times, yet were allowed to continue training and plotting with fellow Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, etc. These are telltale signs of a guided military-intelligence operation. A blatantly obvious terror cell, known to authorities, “drops out of sight”, and then set loose at an appropriate moment. And then executed.

None of these things, which alarm seasoned observers, registers among the emotional masses; the lemmings who willfully refuse to address its real source: the architects of Anglo-American war policy.

Only the NATO war agenda benefits from any of this.

“France’s 9/11” is more accurately France’s latest Operation Gladio. As noted by Paul Craig Roberts, there is a reason why the Charlie Hebdo attacks took place when it did:

France is suffering from the Washington-imposed sanctions against Russia. Shipyards are impacted from being unable to deliver Russian orders due to France’s vassalage status to Washington, and other aspects of the French economy are being adversely impacted by sanctions that Washington forced its NATO puppet states to apply to Russia.

This week the French president said that the sanctions against Russia should end (so did the German vice-chancellor).

This is too much foreign policy independence on France’s part for Washington. Has Washington resurrected “Operation Gladio,” which consisted of CIA bombing attacks against Europeans during the post-WW II era that Washington blamed on communists and used to destroy communist influence in European elections? Just as the world was led to believe that communists were behind Operation Gladio’s terrorist attacks, Muslims are blamed for the attacks on the French satirical magazine.

Now France is militarized, just as the US was in the wake of 9/11. And the French right-wing has newfound cache.

The hostile takeover of the public mind

Notice that the last two false flag operations in recent months—the false flagging of North Korea over Sony and the film The Interview, and the Charlie Hebdo deception—both revolve around the ideas of “free speech” and “free expression”.

This is a phantom battle, choreographed by those who could not care less for “freedoms”. In fact, the masses are being manipulated towards supporting war and mass murder, and police state agendas that specifically curtail freedoms.

What more creative way to take away freedoms than to make people give them up voluntarily?

The hordes of American citizens that supported the “war on terrorism” to “defend freedom” got the Patriot Act, which gutted what liberties they had; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will not be restored. This process continues all over the world. Ask the average uninformed French citizen today suffering from post-traumatic stress, and they will gladly give up their rights, anything so that “terrorists” are stopped.

Note how the powers that be have taken to inserting their pro-war messages even more forcefully where the ignorant public spends the majority of its time: in popular entertainment. In Hollywood products, in their cartoons, in their magazines, in their celebrities.

Let George Clooney, Seth Rogen and James Franco transmit the messages of war for the CIA and the Pentagon.

Weaponize stupid movies like The Interview and crude magazines like Charlie Hebdo, and watch people become bloodthirsty, vengeful, unthinking and war-loving.

It is the CIA’s ongoing mission to plant its assets and its propaganda into the media and the arts, controlling the perception of culture as well as framing all debate. It is making a huge push at the moment, relishing the speed and effectiveness of technology and social media.

Hundreds and thousands of innocent lives have been lost in this endless, brutal and criminal war. Yet its architects and functionaries remain untouched.

Je Suis Langley

No Anglo-American war of conquest, no Charlie Hebdo massacre.
No CIA, no Militant Islam, no Al-Qaeda, no ISIS, no Charlie Hebdo massacre.
No 9/11, no “war on terrorism”, no ISIS deception, no Charlie Hebdo massacre.
No war against Russia, no Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Je Suis Charlie? No.

To the naïve ones who believe the lies and march on the streets carrying the signs, you are the victims, the gullible, the dupes, the pawns.

Tu es CIA.

Tu es NATO.

Pentagon War Plans in 2001: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, & Iran

Comment: Just in case we forget the reasons for the current chaos...

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

Police State USA

U.S. General Wesley Clark (ret.) revealed that he was informed, in the days following 9/11/2001, that the Department of Defense was planning wars with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,  Iran.

Clark was regarded as an esteemed commander during his service from 1966 to 2000, and obtained the rank of 4-star general. He discussed the matter in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now on March 2, 2007.

Here is the transcript of Gen. Clark’s account:

CLARK: About 10 days after 9/11, I went to the Pentagon, and I saw [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary [Paul] Wolfowitz. I went downstairs to say hello to some of the people on the joint staff that used to work for me.

One of the generals called me in and said, “Sir, you gotta come in and talk to me.” I said, “Sir, you’re too busy.” And he said, “No, no! We’ve made the decision — we’re going to war with Iraq!” This is on or about the 28th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why!?” He said, “I don’t know!” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Did they find some information connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?” He said, “No, no, there’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess its like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time, we were bombing in Afghanistan. And I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, its worse than that.” He said– he reached over on his desk and he picked up a piece of paper, and he said, “I just got this from upstairs,” meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office. And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years. Starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.”

What can be made of this?

One explanation, as some suggest, is that it is not unexpected for the Pentagon to maintain ongoing contingency plans; keeping ready to pursue various far-fetched wars at all times. But even if that much is true, why would this seven-country invasion plan be put into official memos in the weeks following the 9/11/2001 attack? Those countries had nothing to do with the hijackings — yet American generals were being briefed about serious plans to attack. Why?

The proposed plan obviously did not pan out exactly as written, but it may have very well given us a look at the agenda of some very bloodthirsty policy-makers, as they tried to exploit the anguish felt following the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Disturbingly, we cannot even be sure that “the plan” is not still being pursued. The Pentagon has maintained a steady course of aggressive foreign interventionism throughout both the Bush and Obama administrations. As we have witnessed, much of what General Clark revealed has ultimately moved forward, albeit with a modified timeline.

Iraq’s government was toppled by the U.S. during the bloody full-scale invasion in 2003. U.S. commandos have been operating clandestinely in Sudan since at least 2005. The U.S. has been operating Somalia since 2007, clandestinely and through missile strikes. Libya’s government was toppled with the help of U.S. missile support in 2009. The U.S. began its bombing campaign in Syria in 2014. Iran’s fate remains yet to be determined, but was a frequent target of pro-war rhetoric in the ’12 election cycle.

If one subscribes to the idea that it is the U.S. military’s proper role (and the U.S. taxpayers’ economic burden) to clean up every undemocratic cesspool on the planet, then this brand of foreign policy might make sense or seem appealing. But even if that much is accepted, one must acknowledge that the leaders and policymakers clamoring for war are the same folks who gave us the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the ACA, the TSA, mass domestic spying, giant bailouts, exponential debt growth, and so many other harmful policies.

Americans’ patriotism and support of democracy have long been exploited by leaders with a far less altruistic foreign policy agenda. The country is not being kept in a state of perpetual conflict because it is good for the USA, good for the world, or destined to promote freedom.

Could it be that the purpose of pursuing war is to be at war? War is the perfect tool to centralize and expand government, degrade civilian liberties, suppress dissenting voices, maintain high levels of state secrecy, unaccountably disperse large sums of taxpayer money, militarize law enforcement, spy on the people, among other things. As Randolph Bourne famously wrote, “War is the health of the state.”

{ Support Police State USA }

If You Really Think It Matters Which Party Controls the Senate, Answer These Questions

Zero Hedge
Charles Hugh-Smith 


Please don't claim anything changes if one party or the other is in the majority. Anyone clinging to that fantasy is delusional.

If you really think it matters which political party controls the U.S. Senate, please answer these questions. Don't worry, they're not that difficult:

1. Will U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast change from being an incoherent pastiche of endless war and Imperial meddling? Please answer with a straight face. We all know the answer is that it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.

2. Will basic civil liberties be returned to the citizenry? You know, like the cops are no longer allowed to steal your cash when they stop you for a broken tail light and claim the cash was going to be used for a drug deal.

Or some limits on domestic spying by Central State agencies. You know, basic civil liberties as defined by the Bill of Rights and the U.S. constitution.

Don't make me laugh--you know darned well that it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.

3. Will the predatory, parasitic policies of the Federal Reserve that virtually everyone from the Wall Street Journal to what little remains of the authentic Left understands has greatly increased income and wealth inequality be reined in? Please don't claim either party has any will or interest in limiting the Fed's rapacious financialization. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim--it is pure wishful thinking.

4. Will the steaming pile of profiteering, corruption, waste, fraud and ineptitude that is Sickcare in the U.S. be truly reformed so its costs drop by 50% to match what every other developed democracy spends per person on universal healthcare? It doesn't matter if ObamaCare is repealed or not; that monstrosity was simply another layer of bureaucratic waste on an already hopelessly dysfunctional system.

If you answer "yes," please run a body scan on yourself to detect the biochips that were implanted while you voted Demopublican.

5. Will the influence of Big Money be well and truly banned from politics? If you answer yes, please pick up your tin-foil hat at the door.

6. Will the incentives in the Status Quo be reset to punish rapacious financialization and gaming the system and reward productive investment and labor? Before you answer, check out who's buttering the Senators' bread. Hint: Wall Street does not qualify as productive unless we're talking about the production of life-draining parasites. Virtually none of the vast armies of skimmers and scammers, from those pursuing bogus disability claims to lobbyist leeches, will suffer any consequence.

Moral hazard is the Status Quo's Prime Directive.

7. Will anything be done to dismantle the Neofeudal Debt-Serfdom known as student loans? You are delusional if you think either party has any interest in limiting the predation of an academic Upper Caste that came to do good and stayed to do well.

8. Will any prudent assessment be made of unaffordable weapons systems like the F-35 Lightning--$1.5 trillion and counting for aircraft that will soon be matched by drones that cost a fraction of the F-35's $200 million a piece price tag? No way--parts of those insanely costly jets are made in dozens of states, so the pork is well-distributed. Never mind the plane is lemon, built to fight the wars of the past. It's jobs, Baby--that's all that counts. Never mind the $1.5 trillion--we can always borrow another couple trillion--the Fed promised us.

Do you really think the Senate controlled by either party will ask why the F-35's price tag dropped to $120 million from $200 million? That's easy--the revised estimate left out the engine and avionics. They'll be added back in after the Senate approves open-ended funding.

If none of these key dynamics will change, you got nothing. Please don't claim anything changes if one party or the other is in the majority. Anyone clinging to that fantasy is delusional.
 

If you doubt this, please take the above quiz again.

Dieudonné's lawyer reacts to UK entry ban (English subtitles)

San Francisco police beat up and detain Good Samaritans who call 911 and perform first aid on accident victim

Boing Boing

Peretz Partensky and her his friend had just had a dinner at a restaurant in San Francisco's SOMA district when they happened on an injured woman who had fallen off her bicycle. They called 911 and performed first aid while they waited for emergency services. When the police got there, they beat up Partensky's friend and detained him, and when Partensky objected, they cuffed, brutalized and arrested him. Injured and in an holding cell, she asked to see a doctor, and the SFPD deputies on duty at the jail stripped him naked and threw him in solitary confinement and marked him as a candidate for psychiatric evaluation. 

Partensky complained to the SF Office of Citizen Complaints, documenting him plight in eye-watering detail (Partensky works for a company that supplies software to the restaurant on whose doorstep the entire incident took place, and they were happy to hand him CCTV footage of the incident). The entire procedure then went dark, because in San Francisco, you aren't allowed to know what happens to police officers who beat you up, thanks to the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights. 

One of the officers who harassed, beat, and wrongfully arrested Partensky, Paramjit Kaur, is already the subject of a civil rights suit. The other SFPD personnel who attacked and arrested the Good Samaritans are Officers Gerrans and Andreott. 

For Partensky, the take-away message is clear: if you see someone who needs medical assistance, don't call 911, because the police might come and beat you up. Instead, help that person get to the hospital in a taxi. 

Read more

Obama’s War on Freedom

Comment: Stephen telling it exactly as it is. Whether you are on the right on the left or you have begun to wean yourself off the pantomime that is Establishment politics of today, you will see that Obama is much worse than Bush. (Yes, that's right). Bush was clearly an idiot placed in power to the bidding of the Bush dynasty and to pave the way for someone like Obama who could carry through the groundwork of Neo-Conservatism. For those who accuse this man of being a covert socialist, and others who claim he is a fascist - both are wrong. He is puppet for his handlers who comprise of both ideologies. A perfect hybrid of international collectivism/Fabianism and inverted totalitarianism/fascism in vitro. A puppet maybe - but a very dangerous one. 

Stephen Lendman

Perhaps no president in US history disappointed supporters more than Obama. He pledged "change you can believe it." He promised hope.

He did Lincoln one better. He fooled most people enough times to matter. He never cared about rule of law principles. He trashed them in office. He deplores democratic values.

He's beholden to monied interests. "Yes we can" conceals his dark side duplicity. He made America look increasingly like Guatemala. Nothing ahead suggests change.

International, constitutional and US statute laws don't matter. Bush declared them null and void. So did Obama.

He presides over a ruthless police state apparatus. No one is free and safe. Big Brother watches everyone. Mass surveillance is official US policy.

On Friday, Obama will announce so-called new guidelines. He'll ask Congress for help. Expect business as usual to continue. Expect worse than ever ahead. Expect lies claiming otherwise.

Ending the fake war on terror matters. So does halting mass surveillance entirely. Restoring rule of law freedoms matters most.

Expect Obama's war to destroy them to continue. When Bush signed the Patriot Act into law, Center for Constitutional Rights senior litigation attorney Nancy Chang asked: "What's so patriotic about trampling on the Bill of Rights?"

In March 2006, Congress renewed most Patriot Act powers. In May 2011, Congress and Obama extended key ones for another four years.

They include mass surveillance. Domestic spying increased markedly under Obama. Anything goes more than ever became policy. It remains so.

Expect the worst of what's ongoing to continue. Expect another Obama pledge to be broken.

Expect the worst of mass surveillance to remain official US policy. Expect fake national security threats given as reasons.

Expect hyped fear to continue. Expect freedom to keep eroding en route to disappearing altogether.

Spying in America is institutionalized. Big Brother is no longer fiction. State-of-the-art technology permits the worst of what's ongoing.

Decades earlier spying was crude compared to today's. Modern capability is unprecedented. Virtually everyone can be monitored everywhere at all times.

Nothing too secret or personal can escape scrutiny. NSA technology permits monitoring offline computers. It's done through radio waves.

At least 100,000 computers worldwide include software enabling it. Perhaps they all will eventually.

NSA can penetrate computers covertly. It can alter data without Internet access. It can create a digital highway for cyberattacks.

Its program is code-named "Quantum." According to cybersecurity expert James Andrew Lewis:

"What's new here is the scale and sophistication of (NSA's) ability to get into computers and networks to which no one had ever had access before."

"Some of these capabilities have been around for a while, but the combination of learning how to penetrate systems to insert software and learning how to do that using radio frequencies has given the US a window it's never had before."

Expect NSA to take full advantage. Perhaps everyone connected online will be monitored this way eventually.

Perhaps targeted individuals will be attacked this way. Expect greater than ever harm committed.

Expect Obama and Congress to do nothing to stop it. Manufactured threats permit the worst of what's ongoing. Domestic spying more than ever is institutionalized.

In August 2007, candidate Obama addressed the Woodrow Wilson Center. He lied like he always does. He does it shamelessly. It's part of his DNA.

He addressed many issues. He lied about every one. He promised real change if elected president. He exceeds the worst of George Bush.

We lost our "basic values," he said. We got "color-coded politics of fear" instead.

He argued against waging one war after another. He promised to close Guantanamo straightaway in office.

It's "time to turn a page," he said. We'll "restore our values." We'll "secure a more resilient homeland."

We'll end wars that shouldn't be waged, he said. "The solution in Afghanistan is not just military. (It's) political and economic."

"(T)he days of compromising our values are over."

Obama promised to "adhere to the Geneva Conventions." He trashed them straightaway in office. He systematically violates rule of law principles. Nothing impedes his ruthlessness.

No promise is too sacred not to break. He pledged "no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens."

"No more national security letters (NSLs) to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime."

Most people never heard of them. Many are victims without knowing it. Others are gagged from discussing them.

They involve abusive police state intrusions. Patriot Act authority gives FBI operatives access to whatever personal information they want.

No court approval is needed. Most targeted individuals committed no crimes. They planned none. It doesn't matter.

NSL use is unconstitutional. Obama continues the worst of Bush administration abuses. Another promise made. Another broken.

"No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war," he said. "No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient."

"That is not who we are...We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

Obama pledged to end violating civil liberties. He called doing so unacceptable. He exceeded the worst of Bush administration policies.

He lies claiming otherwise. He trashed rule of law principles. He mocks democratic values.

He declared cyberwar on ordinary Americans. He supports draconian cybersecurity legislation.

Cyber-preemption increases police state power. Homeland repression is worse than ever.

Administration policies are the most secretive in US history. They're the most lawless and out-of-control.

On January 15, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked: "Will Obama Hit the Mark on Real NSA Reform?"

He'll announce so-called changes. He'll claim he supports reform. "What can we expect," asked EFF?

"Many people are (justifiably) skeptical...Instead of actually stopping the spying, Obama could just make a pronouncement calling for more transparency or additional layers of bureaucratic oversight."

"(H)e could duck the most important thing (needed) to show leadership: rein in government surveillance."

EFF offered "common-sense fixes." They address key issues. Don't expect Obama to change anything meaningful. Expect worse than ever practices ahead. EFF reforms include:

(1) "Stop mass surveillance of digital communications and communication records." Stop using legislative or Executive Order cover to justify the unjustifiable.

(2) "Protect the privacy rights of foreigners." Calling them fair game doesn't wash.

(3) "Don't turn communications companies into the new Big Brother: no data retention mandate." End NSA's telecommunications collection program.

(4) Require judicial authorization for National Security Letters. End gag order authority. Rein in lawless FBI practices. Restore rule of law principles.

(5) "Stop undermining Internet security, weakening encryption, and infiltrating companies." Abolish these practices once and for all.

(6) "Oppose the FISA Improvements Act (FIA)." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D. CA) sponsored it. She chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

On October 31, FIA was introduced. Senate Intelligence Committee members approved it. They voted 11 to 4 in favor. Legislation awaits a full floor vote.

It's a fake fix. Enactment would enhance NSA spying. It'll codify it into law.

(7) "Reject the third party doctrine." Obama should say data held by third parties (like phone and Internet companies) have "the same constitutional protections as data stored at home."

(8) "Provide a full public accounting of our surveillance apparatus." End administration secrecy. Tell Americans and others what they deserve to know.

(9) "Reform the state secrets privilege and stop over-classifying." Sunlight more than ever is needed. Public accountability is most of all. End rule of law abuses.

(10) "Reform the FISA court: provide a public advocate and stop secret law." FISA court judges are secretive, unaccountable and rubber-stamp. Abolishing their authority entirely should be ordered.

(11) "Protect national security whistleblowers working for the public good." Candidate Obama called whistleblowing "acts of courage and patriotism."

He pledged whistleblower protection, saying:

"Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out."

"We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance."

He promised to do it. He promised protection. He's targeted more whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined. It bears repeating. Another promise made. Another broken.

(12) "Criminal defendants should know if national security surveillance is being used against them." Failing to do so violates Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

They guarantee defendants "meaningful opportunity" to effectively challenge government accusations.

EFF will score Obama's Friday speech. It'll publish its assessment online. It bears repeating. Policy pronouncements don't matter. They ring hollow.

Enforcing rule of law principles alone counts. Obama betrayed the public trust. He's done so consistently.

Expect no change going forward. Expect worse ahead than ever. Expect continuing police state lawlessness. Expect full-blown tyranny if not stopped.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour