The Solution To Everything: Slavery To The State

Guest Post By Jon Rappoport

Let me clarify that. Slavery to the corporate State. Government and mega-corporations work hand in hand.
The incurably naïve believe the State is beneficent. The government is kind. The government knows what to do. The government will solve society’s ills if we let it.

Of course, the government, in the form of NSA, is spying on everybody all the time—but you see, that’s not really the government. It’s a rogue element.

Sure it is. And rainbows will appear at any moment and the people of Earth will experience a galactic frequency that eradicates all impulses toward conflict.

To put it another way, people see what they want to see.

“Ahem, when I say ‘government,’ I don’t mean the CIA or the Pentagon or the FDA or the President’s national security team, or fraudulent federal scientists, or the whole lot of venal people in Congress, or corrupt prosecutors and judges or invasive bureaucrats or paper-pushing money-sucking desk jockeys.”

Of course not. Government is an idea in the mind of God.

And when you think about it, the NSA watches over us to make sure we stay on the path of righteousness. It’s absurd to be suspicious of the State. The authors of the Constitution, who tried to limit central authority, were a bunch of paranoids.

We need more government, not less.

Here are quotes from George Orwell. In case there is any doubt, he is describing aspects of the State:
“As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are ‘only doing their duty’, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life.” (The Lion and the Unicorn, 1941)

“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.” (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)

“A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. Then, again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revaluation of prominent historical figures.” (The Prevention of Literature, 1946)

“But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty’s figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.” (1984, chapter 4)

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.” (1984, chapter 5)

But you see, these are all old Orwell remarks. Now we have a different kind of State. It’s…government. Yes. The State isn’t government. Aha. The State exists in places other than America. In America, we have government. Yes, that’s right. Two different animals. One is repressive, and the other is earnest. (More rainbows for the sentimentalists.)

Here are quotes about the State from Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World:
“Till at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!” (Chapter 2)

“Every one belongs to every one else.” (Chapter 3)

“Mother, monogamy, romance. High spurts the fountain; fierce and foamy the wild jet. The urge has but a single outlet. My love, my baby. No wonder these poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable.” (Chapter 3)

“Everyone works for every one else.” (Chapter 5)

“Don’t you wish you were free, Lenina?”

“I don’t know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.”

He laughed, “Yes, ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ We begin giving the children that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way.”

“I don’t know what you mean,” she repeated. (Chapter 6)

But again, Huxley’s remarks are about the aspirations and victories of the State, which doesn’t exist in America. Never has. In America, we have a fluid and flexible government, which tries to respond to the people’s needs. Of course. Just ask Elizabeth Warren or Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, or the ghost of Richard Nixon. Ask the heads of Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont. Google, Facebook, Microsoft.

There are “repressive States” in Europe, Asia, and Africa, but that is a foreign phenomenon.
Rebelling against the State? Not here. Here we merge with the government and help it and encourage it. Besides, we’ve recently learned—and this is a revelation—that rebelling is very likely a terrorist act. Well, that settles that.

We’re all in this together. Even if the “we” and the “this” and the “together” seem to require some further clarification, rest assured it will be forthcoming. At the right time.

The government understands time (and also space). It arranges them. Someone has to.

The government is not the State, the government is not the State.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Iraq - The Real Story About The “Too Extreme for Al Qaeda” I.S.I.S.

Guest Post By  Gary Brecher

As the Scriptures remind us, “Do not believe the hype.” The hype of the moment is ISIS, the Sunni militia that just drove the so-called Iraqi Army out of Mosul, Tikrit, and other Iraqi cities.

This is one of those dramatic military reverses that mean a lot less than meets the eye. The “Iraqi Army” routed by ISIS wasn’t really a national army, and ISIS isn’t really a dominant military force. It was able to occupy those cities because they were vacuums, abandoned by a weak, sectarian force.

Moving into vacuums like this is what ISIS is good at. And that’s the only thing ISIS is good at.ISIS is a sectarian Sunni militia—that’s all. A big one, as militias go, with something like 10,000 fighters. Most of them are Iraqi, a few are Syrian, and a few hundred are those famous “European jihadis” who draw press attention out of all relation to their negligible combat value. The real strength of ISIS comes from its Chechen fighters, up to a thousand of them. A thousand Chechens is a serious force, and a terrifying one if they’re bearing down on your neighborhood. Chechens are the scariest fighters, pound-for-pound, in the world.


But we’re still talking about a conventional military force smaller than a division. That’s a real but very limited amount of combat power. What this means is that, no matter how many scare headlines you read, ISIS will never take Baghdad, let alone Shia cities to the south like Karbala. It won’t be able to dent the Kurds’ territory to the north, either. All it can do—all it has been doing, by moving into Sunni cities like Mosul and Tikrit—is to complete the partition of Iraq begun by our dear ex-president Bush in 2003. By crushing Saddam’s Sunni-led Iraq, the Americans made partition inevitable. In fact, Iraq has been partitioned ever since the invasion; it’s just been partitioned badly, into two parts instead of the natural three: the Kurdish north, and the remainder occupied by a weak sectarian Shia force going by the name of “The Iraqi Army.” The center of the country, the so-called “Sunni Triangle,” had no share in this partition and was under the inept, weak rule of the Shia army.

By occupying the Sunni cities, ISIS has simply made a more rational partition, adding a third part, putting the Sunni Triangle back under Sunni rule. The Shia troops who fled as soon as they heard that the ISIS was on the way seem to have anticipated that the Sunni would claim their own territory someday. That’s why they fled without giving even a pretense of battle.

So, Iraq is now partitioned on more natural, sensible lines, thanks to ISIS. It’s going to be a messy transition, as Iraqi transitions tend to be, with mass executions of collaborators like those already happening in Mosul and Tikrit.

But in the long run, ISIS has simply swept into a power vacuum, like it’s done from the start.
ISIS has always been good at generating scary stories about itself, like the notion that it was kicked out of Al Qaeda for being “too extreme.” It’s true that ISIS has a beef with Zawahiri, the nominal head of Al Qaeda, but the issue isn’t extremism. Their quarrel was a turf war about who would get the Al Qaeda franchise in Syria, and it just showed ISIS’s most pronounced characteristic in action: A real knack for moving in on vulnerable turf.

In fact, ISIS’s quarrel with Zawahiri was a lot like a corporate boardroom feud. It’s always worth remembering that Jihadis are just friggin’ people, and their disagreements tend to be about very ordinary organizational issues. Granted, it’s a little harder to see that when they solve those disagreements with public beheadings and overly-cinematic rituals, but at heart this is just standard human behavior—primates squabbling for rank and power, Game of Thrones with Islamic voiceover.

Even the name, “I.S.I.S.,” is the result of a series of policy disputes and turf wars. “I.S.I.S.” is an English-language acronym, standing for “The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams [Greater Syria].” You may have seen people insist on calling it “I.S.I.L.,” because they translate “al-Shams” as “the Levant,” the old-fashioned term for the Eastern Mediterranean shore. Arabs don’t use either of these acronyms; the Arabic acronym for the group is “Daash,” as in this headline describing the aftermath of I.S.I.S.’s conquest of Mosul: “Daash Executed 12 Imam [sic] who refused to pledge allegiance.”

The most important thing about this name is that it’s clear about policy—“Islamic State”—and very flexible about territory. The Islamic State is supposed to cover the whole world, so it doesn’t matter very much which chunk of turf it starts on. None of the borders of the Arab Middle East—Iraq, Syria, Jordan—mean much if you believe in a Caliphate that should encompass the whole Ummah, every believer in the world. So I.S.I.S. has always been vague about territory. It’s a fluid group, moving away from pressure and toward chaos, toward regions where authority is weak and there’s room to expand. Think of I.S.I.S. as something between a liquid and a gas, always striving to fill a void.

It started with a small group of Sunni militants who agreed, around the turn of the Millenium, to overthrow the monarchy in Jordan. You may remember a shadowy Scarlet Pimpernel figure called “Al Zarqawi,” who was built up into the Mister Big of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq by US public-relations mouthpieces. He was called “Al Zarqawi” because he came from the town of Zarqa, a town in Jordan founded by Chechen refugees who gave the peaceful Arabs an infusion of Chechen ferocity.

Zarqawi’s group didn’t do very well in Jordan. Jordan’s Bedouin security guys don’t play around, as the PLO found out in what came to be known as Black September.

Again your nation is being brought to war by unscrupulous politicians on blatant lies

By 2002, Zarqawi was in bad shape, on the run with a bullet in his leg. Things were looking bleak for Sunni Islamists all over the Middle East…until the Spring of 2003, when a couple of guys named Bush and Cheney gave them new life by invading Iraq, crushing Saddam’s Sunni-dominated Iraqi state, and pushing millions of Iraqi Sunni into armed insurgency.

Within a few months, insurgent groups formed in every Sunni neighborhood in Iraq. That’s how insurgencies begin, with the strongest, most charismatic guys in the neighborhood (let’s face it, Sunni insurgencies are male-dominated, and I’m not going to go bother with de-gendered pronouns here) rounding up their cousins, choosing a pious, identifiably Sunni name, and planning a first strike.

It’s a brutal learning curve for these groups. Some are penetrated and betrayed before they can do anything—somebody’s cousin wasn’t as trustworthy as they thought. Some are wiped out the first time they attack an army patrol, or lose the leaders who kept the group together. Some break up over trivial ego issues, and the loser informs on the winner. The death rate is appalling in this sped-up unnatural selection, and those who survive it are the ones who are willing to be flexible about territory, moving away from pressure, toward chaos, rather than fighting to the death.

Zarqawi’s career is a classic example of that fluidity. Even after jumping from Jordan to Iraq after the invasion, he didn’t move immediately to the Arab cities of the Sunni Triangle. He started with a Kurdish jihadi group, Ansar al-Islam, that was holed up in Halabja, a hill village a few miles from Suleimaniya, where I used to teach. When I was there in 2010, locals still boasted of the battle that drove Ansar al-Islam out of Halabja, killing most of the core membership.

Zarqawi survived that attack and landed in the Sunni Triangle, working with the usual alphabet soup of jihadi groups, which go through more name-changes than a band full of speed freaks. Some of these names, coming straight out of the gaudy tradition of Islamic rhetoric, really don’t translate very well—“The Oath of the Scented Ones” being a prime example.

Zarqawi’s group, one of many forming and bursting in the Sunni Triangle, went through several name changes before it finally settled on the no-nonsense title of “The Islamic State of Iraq,” or “I.S.I.” in the Autumn of 2006. By then, Zarqawi was dead, vaporized in a U.S. air strike in June 2006.


America needs to mind OUR own damn business. We have plenty of problems here to solve. Making war in distant lands for control of resources is not the answer to our problems. It has created more and destroys our Liberty daily.

At the time, American reporters crowed over his death, going for the old “Mister Big” theory of insurgency that never fits the facts. Insurgent groups go through leaders like Spinal Tap went through drummers, and often the cull makes them stronger, since every new generation selects for the most ruthless, cunning survivor in the group. Eager martyr types die fast. Macho idiots die even faster. Only the most cautious, hard-bitten, businesslike jihadis survive long enough to move up to a leadership position.

It’s amazing how well combat selects for talent. Nothing rewards talent less than a peacetime army, and nothing rewards it faster than an army actually in combat. And irregular forces, which usually suffer something like a 10:1 casualty rate against conventional occupiers, go through a nightmare-quick selection process.
ISIS went through a lot of commanders before one stuck. He was a product of Islamic schools and US prison camps. He called himself Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, which means exactly nothing except that he’s claiming to be from Baghdad. He got out of prison in 2009 and walked into a leadership vacuum created by an airstrike which killed his predecessor—nothing like airstrikes to make room at the top—and oversaw ISIS’s move away from pressure once again, out of the cities toward the deserts of Anbar Province where Sunni sheikhs maintained strong clan networks. It wasn’t much, but it was a safe base, and that’s something any mixed militia/guerrilla force requires.

ISIS got its second great break when The Syrian Civil War exploded in 2012. They looked west, across the Anbar deserts, and saw a huge organizational opportunity opening up in Syria. Assad’s troops had abandoned most of Eastern Syria to focus on defending the Alawite heartland along the coast. That vacuum created an opportunity for lots of people: The Syrian Kurds, who occupied a tier along the Turkish border in the northeast; dozens of local mafia/resistance groups, who mobilized to profit from the wide-open borders; and the nucleus of ISIS, who saw a chance to set up a little emirate in this new no-man’s-land in the wastelands of eastern Syria, along the borders with Anbar.

That’s the key here: ISIS is a physics demonstration in guerrilla form. It began as a Jordanian insurgent group. Jordan was too tough to crack, and the group was under deadly strain until Bush and Cheney gave it new life with the 2003 invasion. It moved into Iraq, first to the north, in Kurdistan, and then, as the pressure grew up there, to the south and west, landing in Anbar. And when a new low-pressure system opened up to the west in Syria, ISIS flowed into it like a rain cloud—right along a natural pathway, the Euphrates River, which flows eastward into Anbar from Syria.

Syria should have been ISIS’s greatest moment, but things didn’t work out for it there. Not because it was “extreme,” but because it tried too hard to dominate the market against savvy local competition. Syria was a wide-open market for jihadi organizers, free to operate openly over most of the country after decades of effective repression. Money was pouring in from fat armchair jihadis in Saudi, Kuwait, and the Emirates—enough to pay jihadis a first-world salary of $1,500/mo. If you had a good line of patter and a few Quranic passages memorized, you could score some investment money. And military entrepreneurs poured in to take advantage of the opportunity; so many that by 2013, there were 1,200 different jihadi groups operating in Syria.

These baby militias popped up, prospered for a while, then vanished like Ethiopian restaurants. And out of the chaos, ISIS was ready to make its move, with a decade of guerrilla knowledge gained the hard way over the border in Iraq. ISI (soon to be ISIS) started well, grabbing the strategic town of ar-Raqqah in central Syria, upriver on the Euphrates from ISI’s home base in Anbar, over the border. ISI(S) now had a safe base of operations, a luxury it had never experienced before.

ISI(S) felt entitled to lead the jihad. Syria, Iraq—what was the difference? Those were fake borders anyway (which is sort of true, actually). The Sunni on the Syrian side were the natural allies of the Sunni in Anbar, and ISI(S) had been leading them in Anbar for years.

So Abu Bakr started asserting himself a little in Syria. A little too much, in fact. Jihad may be a universal, but politics, as they say, is always local—and the locals weren’t happy with the foreign fighters telling them how to do their war. It wasn’t a matter of being more “extreme,” or more “Islamist.” In fact, every single Sunni militia in Syria is “Islamist.” There are no secularists in Syria, at least none who’ll admit it. It ain’t a healthy thing to admit. All 1,200 resistance groups are “extreme” and “Islamist.” There’s not much point in being a friggin’ jihadi if you don’t believe in jihad.

The issue was power and precedence. Who owned the resistance? Of course, there were front groups like the “Free Syrian Army” (pause for laughter), set up to convince the West to give up some serious weaponry by playing at being “moderate.” But how many divisions did the FSA ever have? None, really—a few officers who’d defected from Assad’s army, but very few fighters willing to die for the cause.
There were only two real claimants, ISI and Jabhat al-Nusra, and both were as extreme and Islamist as anyone could ask. JaN had deeper roots in Syria, but ISI had been bleeding for jihad for ten long years, and Abu Bakr felt entitled by that decade of combat to step in as emir of the Syrian operation. Like a good CEO, he moved west to take over the new, expanding Syrian operation, and changed the firm’s name from ISI to ISIS to reflect the new Syrian focus.

But when you have 1,200 different factions to deal with, you have at least 1,200 egos to massage, and every damn one of them has a few dozen, or a few hundred, men ready to kill, and die, at his command. These nay-sayers were not in the mood to let some Iraqi interloper take over the Syrian revolution, and insisted on localizing what ISIS saw as the inherently universal mandate of jihad. The local/universal tension is deep in Islam, which borrowed Christianity’s universalizing mandate. In theory, a Chechen who knows the Quran is as entitled to tell a Syrian what to do as anyone else. In practice, he’s a jerk, and if he tells you to do things a different way than your family has done them for generations, you don’t care how many verses he can quote at you. You’re pissed off.

ISIS’s Syrian forces were full of loudmouthed young Islamic pedants, all heavily armed, and all eager to tell the locals how to live. It didn’t go over very well. It wasn’t about “extremism” as much as “localism.” ISIS was eventually forced out of Aleppo in favor of Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic Front—both every bit as extreme as ISIS, but with more local recruits who didn’t rub everybody the wrong way quite as much. Zawahiri chimed in from his hiding place in Pakistan to scold ISIS, saying in typically florid jihadi lingo something that amounted to “You’re gonna screw us up in Syria just like you and Zarqawi did in Iraq!” His verdict was that ISIS should move east to Iraq, and Jabhat al Nusra should be Al Qaeda’s franchise in Syria.
Abu Bakr did not take kindly to this sort of provincialism. When you’ve been fighting for ten years, and seen pretty much everybody you care about killed, often in fairly gruesome ways, you don’t really want to hear a lot of noise about how local sensibilities must be respected, and corporate HQ back in the mountains of Pakistan must be obeyed.

ISIS replied with a program of assassinations directed at dissenting jihadis, starting in January 2014. When they killed al-Suri (“The Syrian”), Zawahiri’s envoy sent to settle the dispute, in February 2014, it was flat-out war between ISIS and every other faction in Syria. More than 2,000 casualties later, that feud is still simmering.
But as the pressure ramped up in Syria, a new low-pressure area was opening up to the east in Iraq. Since the Americans left Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS had been picking away at their Shia replacements, always testing, looking for weakness. And they found plenty of it. In July 2013 they broke into Abu Ghraib prison—yes, THAT Abu Ghraib—and broke out hundreds of their comrades who were fed back into the war against the Shia in Iraq. The Shia security services were showing weakness, and it doesn’t take long in the gigantic maximum-security institution we call Iraq for your fellow inmates to smell weakness and jump you.

All ISIS had to do was tilt to the east, along the axis of the Euphrates River. This river defines the territory of the Sunni insurgency. It starts in Syria, passes through ar-Raqqah, ISIS’s HQ in Syria, and crosses into Iraq, passing through ISIS strongholds like Ramadi and Fallujah before veering south toward the Gulf. The Euphrates defines the insurgency, not because ISIS fighters actually need it to travel but because, before the 20^th century, settlement was only possible along its banks, so the Sunni Arabs built their towns along the river.

And at the beginning of 2014, ISIS, facing a tough fight from angry jihadi rivals in Syria, simply headed downstream, along the Euphrates, back to the area of weakness it had smelled in Iraq. Think of the Euphrates as a see-saw; when pressure on the western end pushed it up, ISIS just slid down to the other end of the plank, the city of Fallujah. ISIS took control of Fallujah at the beginning of the year 2014.
That wasn’t such a shock. Fallujah has always been a combative Sunni city, as the US military  discovered a couple of times during the US occupation. Many irregular forces grab cities for short periods as a show of strength, then retreat when the regular army moves in. But that didn’t happen in Fallujah, and that was very bad news for Maliki and the Shia coalition that rules Iraq (more or less). Their expensive, American-trained army was unable to take back Fallujah, which is still in ISIS’s hands.

That was showing weakness on a Vegas-size billboard, and other Sunni strongholds got the message very quickly, especially Mosul, where Saddam’s officer corps has been simmering since it was dismissed with prejudice by the US occupiers. Mosul fell to ISIS in the second week of June, 2014.
ISIS now controls most of Anbar as well as a huge chunk of eastern and central Syria. It’s a de facto Sunni state, straddling the Syria/Iraq border between Kurdish and Shia territory.

And that’s as far as it will go. ISIS has done well to take back its natural constituency, the Sunni center of Iraq. It will push against the Shia to the south, but they’ll fight much better on their own turf. And if it has any sense, it won’t even try to push against the Persh Merga. I used to see the Pesh Merga every day, and they ain’t nobody to mess with.

So out of all this chaos and blood comes something like a vindication of the laws of physics, as expressed in ethnic turf wars. But with one modification of those laws: Some things really don’t abhor a vacuum, especially transnational ethnic militias. They love a vacuum more than Alice did on the Brady Bunch.

Beware a Beneficent Government

Guest Post by Andrew P. Napolitano

The president is an ardent progressive. This dastardly philosophy of government was brought into the American mainstream 100 years ago by a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, and a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. Its guiding principle is the belief that government — not individuals — is the chief engine of human progress. If that means government tearing down rich persons to help poor persons, if that means the massive redistribution of wealth, if it means federal regulation of every conceivable occupation or productive endeavor, if it means fighting an unjust war, progressives are for it.

Before the progressives, the dominant political thinkers in America were Madisonians. James Madison, who kept the notes at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 — notes that eventually formed much of the language of the Constitution — made clear what the purposes of the Constitution were: to prescribe discrete areas of human endeavor in which the new federal government could legislate; to set forth open-ended areas of human behavior in which no government could legislate; and to leave the remaining areas of governmental endeavor in the hands of the states. The areas delegated to the federal government are only 17 in number and generally are referred to as federal powers. The areas in which no government may regulate are infinite and generally are referred to as natural rights.

The progressives have turned this philosophy on its head. TR and Wilson believed that the federal government could regulate any behavior, right any wrong, tax any event and curtail any freedom, subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution itself. This view of American government not only contradicts Madison, but it also contradicts the language of the Constitution itself, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state in writing what Madison said many times throughout his life.

President Obama, most congressional Democrats and many congressional Republicans are ardent progressives. They view Congress as a general legislature with no limits to its powers — and they mean no limits. For example, in an area clearly beyond congressional reach, such as in-state highway speed limits, the progressives found a way to extend their reach. They offered money to the states to repave their highways, with the condition that the states adhere to federally prescribed speed limits (only South Dakota declined). Once the courts gave their imprimatur to this assault on the Constitution, the feds realized that by spending taxpayer dollars — by bribing the states — they could extend their regulatory tentacles to any extra-constitutional area they chose.

Progressivism’s adherents finance the government by borrowing or by heavily taxing only the rich, both of which are sold as being painless to most voters. Yet, the former merely delays the due date of bills until tomorrow for goodies consumed today; the latter takes cash out of the free market today, where it could contribute to growth and jobs tomorrow, and puts it into the hands of the mindset that runs the Post Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Progressives hate the states because they can be laboratories of less government. They love central government and all of its creations, such as the cash-printing Federal Reserve, the wealth-stealing progressive income tax, and the concept of a federal safety net for all persons. None of this, except the income tax (which Wilson promised would not exceed 3 percent of adjusted gross income), is authorized by the Constitution.

Yet today, we are witnessing a government that is beyond ideologically progressive. Does Obama understand that progressive ideas have consequences and that governmental behavior often has unintended consequences? It would appear not, as his long train of incompetence and indifference, grounded in progressive thought, keeps picking up speed. It is crushing human freedom, destroying human wealth and even taking human lives.

Under his presidency, the government saddled us all with a three-sizes-fits-all version of compulsory health care (which caused more than five million persons to lose their coverage and their doctors); it has been spying on all Americans all the time (and we sleepily permit it to do so); it allowed our ambassador in Libya to be murdered (after it destroyed the lawful government there); it told illegal aliens they need not worry about deportation (and thus encouraged the immigration of hundreds of thousands more — even unaccompanied children — to our shores); it neglected veterans to the point of death in government hospitals (demonstrating conclusively that the feds cannot deliver health care); it released assets material to terrorist organizations into the theater of war in the Middle East (ostensibly in a prisoner swap to save a weird military bird who once embraced his captors); it has claimed the power to kill Americans it views as a threat to others and yet too troublesome to arrest and bring to trial (all the while claiming it has a secret reading of the Constitution and American law that somehow justifies this); and it has added $6 trillion to government debt (with no plans to repay it).

What’s going on? The modern presidency is blinded by a conceit that says it can do no wrong. This is partially the result of the passage of power from the states to the feds and from Congress to the president and partially the fault of a president who relishes telling us all how to live. In Obama’s hands, all this power produces the vast unhappiness and government recklessness we now see every day.
The same Madison whom Obama rejects warned 200 years ago against the Obama mindset: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

 Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Al-Qaeda: NATO’s “Stateless Army”

 Guest Post from PakalertPress

With the demise of American “land power” in Europe and the Middle East, the globalist agenda of NATO has fallen upon a collection of irregular forces, led by, strangely enough, a series of “Al Qaeda franchise” groups.

Whether randomly hired jihadists accepting Saudi “coin” for terror and mayhem against the Syrian people or one of a dozen groups, infiltrating kill teams into Iran from Azerbaijan, Balochistan or Afghanistan, riding the sands of Anbar to spread terror across Iraq or kidnapping girls in Nigeria, the real face behind this and many other faces of world terrorism is NATO.

TERRORISM AS A “DOOR OPENER”

During the Bush administration a strategy was developed to create, not as claimed, “an American century,” but rather the systematically planned exhaustion of America’s economic, moral and political will to accept international law and accountability.

Sold as “unilateralism” under the justification of a state sponsored “New Pearl Harbor,” described with total clarity by administration “global strategic planners,” thousands of Americans were slaughtered in an act of murderous frenzy.

Islam was to be “neutered” and the Caspian Basin or as F. William Engdahl calls it, “the New Silk Road,” would fall under dominance at the hands of select families, crime organizations really, under the guise of banks, oil exploration companies or pipeline operators.

Terrorism, initially staged to appear as an attack on the United States, and for a decade “and counting,” sweeping across Asia and Africa, targeting vulnerable resource-laden nations for destabilization and the “helping hand” of American military power, the “best cure” for a disease delivered, predictably by “American military power.”

As is so often the case, the “doctor” that comes to save the patient ends up “ruling the roost” while the patient dies.

Thus, America’s new role as “policeman of the world” now more closely resembles that of housebreaker and pillager.

NATO’s DEATH

The real NATO died long ago, the French left, then Western Europe lost interest in the Cold War and its ad hoc replacement, the Bush/Blair imaginary “War on Terror.” Long before, NATO’s Gladio terror armies had turned to mischief and crime, the “stay behind” Illuminati insurgency now an organ of state terrorism “for hire,” kidnappings, bombings and murder.

Thus, when NATO directs genocide in the Ukraine or Syria, they are only “returning to their roots.”

Not so long ago, Washington was ruled by traditional special interests, the military-industrial complex, oil/coal/nuclear/fracking polluters, drugs/prostitution and gambling and the AIPAC/ADL/Israel lobby, frankly a combination of all the others.

Today, America’s new “junkyard dog” or “stationary aircraft carrier” in the Middle East isn’t Israel. It’s Al Qaeda. America now loves Al Qaeda, cheap and disposable fighters replacing the worn-out veterans plaguing America with their demands for medical care and “money for nothing.”

Despite the recent flurry of scandals and gnashing of teeth, America hates war veterans, members of the lower classes, noisy, demanding and potentially dangerous and unpredictable.

The message was simple and easy to sell to a nation of sheep: Freedom is dangerous, submission to authority is the only survival option, debt, wage slavery and moral depredation are not only acceptable lifestyles, but the only allowable ones.

That kind of nation can drone kill, invade, run narcotics, fill itself with prisons, poison its water and air and still preach morality to the world without a hint of irony.

BACKGROUND

Take the clock back to 9/11. Americans watched every car, glared at every passerby, looking for so-called “Muslim” terrorists, the throat-slitting monsters unleashed by Osama bin Laden.

Women clutched screw drivers in their pockets, men began carrying pocket knives, fearful that a box-cutter-toting bearded maniac would descend on them.

As American humorist, Jim W. Dean so often says, “You just can’t make things like this up.” Today, things are different. Al Qaeda frightens no one, in fact America send them guided missiles, trains their fighters and supports their terror bombings in Syria and Iraq quite publicly and around much of the world less openly but not that “less openly.”

When African leaders met last week to discuss the threat of Boko Harum, the Al Qaeda “franchise” threatening nation after nation, all privately admitted that this was no gang of backward “technology hating” terrorists, not with that secure satellite phones and advanced weapons systems.

Boko Harum, to the real “players” in security and intelligence means oil companies, arms dealers, the IMF and “the usual suspects,” intelligence agencies, Mossad, CIA, MI 6 and several others.

GROUND ZERO SYRIA, THE ELECTION

America is again fighting a multi-front war, this time managed by CIA and State Department contractors and fought by jihadists from around the world. The war is the same; nothing has changed since 9/11 or, were we to look back even further, 1991 and Operation Desert Storm. America is clearing the way for a “predictable” Middle East of corrupt right wing autocrats terrified of the United States and fully mindful that America will do the bidding of Israel “at the drop of a hat.”

What represents the most recent serious threat to NATO/Gladio/Illuminati plans is the election in Syria. By all accounts, not only is Syria refusing to fall to Al Qaeda, derailing plans for a jihadist super-state answerable to the London-Tel Aviv-Zurich-Washington axis, the antithesis of this long established plot is looming on the horizon.

THE BEST LAID PLANS

This week, Kuwaiti officials visited Iran. Each Memorandum of Understanding, and many were signed, represents not just an abandonment of “axis” globalism but moves toward the reestablishment of a nonaligned power base capable of challenging traditional debt induced economic models, perhaps if anything , the real basis for the idea of NATO or Gladio or whatever the “hydra” chooses to call itself.

TERRORISM IS ABOUT DEBT

When Al Qaeda, real or imaginary, CIA/Mossad or cave dwelling masterminds, took to the world stage, whatever the stated goal, and nobody has been clear on that one yet, the end result has been debt.

America, particularly under virtual martial law since 2001, not only deregulated its banking and financial industry but allowed the creation of uncollateralized and totally unauthorized debt instruments of such grandiose scale that all the stars in heaven would never be able to pay the interest even at the most paltry levels.

As terrorism has entered predictable cycles, exercises and “crisis actors” hired, “lone gunmen” or “misfits” thawed and deployed, the now thousands of car bombs, disappearing airliners, emptied schools, so many guises scripted “for television” it would seem, the end result has been austerity, looted assets, filled prisons and a burgeoning supply of new unending wars.

If terrorism is debt, then Al Qaeda is simply an offshoot of the IMF/Rothschild “loan department,” a promotional organization tasked with helping stimulate realignment of assets.

To that end, they have functioned flawlessly.

Refuting President Obama’s Lies, Omissions and Distortions

An Open Letter to the Graduates of West Point

Gueat Post By Prof. James Petras

On May 2014 President Obama delivered the commencement address to the graduates of United States Military Academy at West Point.  Beyond the easy banter and eulogy to past and present war heroes, Obama outlined a vision of past military successes and present policies, based on a profoundly misleading diagnosis of the current global position of the United States.
His presentation is marked by systematic lies about past wars and current military interventions.  The speech’s glaring failure to acknowledge the millions of civilians killed by US military interventions stands out. He glosses over the growth of NSA, the global police state apparatus.  He presents a grossly inflated account of the US role in the world economy.  Worst of all he outlines an extremely dangerous policy of confrontation with rising military and economic powers, in particular Russia and China.

Distorting the Past:  Defeats and Retreats Converted into Victories

One of the most disturbing aspects of President Obama’s speech is his delusional account of US military engagements over the past decade.  Obama’s claim that, “by most measures America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world”, defies belief.  After 13 years of war and occupation in Afghanistan, the US has failed to conquer the Taliban and is leaving behind a fragile puppet regime on the verge of collapse.  The US was forced to withdraw from Iraq after causing the deaths of hundreds of thousand of civilians, the displacement and wounding of millions and the ignition of a sectarian war, which has propelled a pro-Iranian regime to power in Baghdad.  In Libya, the Obama pushed NATO to destroy the entire country in order to overthrow the secular Gadhafi government, thus undermining any possibility of reconciliation among opponents.  He has brought bands of Islamist terrorists to power who are profoundly hostile to the United States.

Washington’s effort to broker an accord between Palestine and Israel is a shabby failure, characterized by Obama’s spineless capitulation to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s goal of grabbing more Palestinian land for new  “Jews only” settlements – paid with American tax money.  Obama’s craven pandering to the Jewish power configuration in Washington does little to bolster his claim to lead the world’s “greatest power”…
You have heard lectures on the world economy at the Academy: Surely you know that China has displaced the US in major markets throughout Latin America, Asia and Africa.  While China is a major economic challenge, it is not an expansionist military power.  It does not possess thousands of overseas bases or Special Forces troops operating in seventy-five countries; it does not pursue military alliances and does not invade countries thousands of miles from its borders.  Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ is a provocative expansion of US military power off China’s coast contrary to his public claims of “winding down” overseas military operations.

Obama speaks of defending “our core interests” by military force yet he provokes China over a disputed pile of rocks in the South China Sea, undermining the “core interests” of the 500 biggest US corporations which have invested billions of dollars in the most dynamic economy in the world and of the biggest American exporters to our second largest trading partner.

Obama refers to fighting “terrorism” yet his policies have encouraged and promoted terrorism.  Washington armed the Islamist terrorists who overthrew the secular Gadhafi government and plunged that country into chaos.  Obama backs the Islamist terrorists invading and attempting to overthrow the secular regime Syria.  He provides 1.5 billion dollars in military aid to an Egyptian military dictatorship terrorizing its democratic, civilian political opposition, assassinating and imprisoning thousands of dissidents.  In February, the US backed the violent overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine and supports the Kiev regime’s bombing of pro-democracy, pro-federation civilian populations in the Southeast, a majority of whom are ethnic Russians.  Obama’s “anti-terrorism” rhetoric in nothing but a cover for state terrorism, closing the door on any peaceful resolution of overseas conflicts and spawning scores of violent opposition groups in its wake.
Obama brags about “our success in promoting partnerships in Europe and in the world at large”, yet his bellicose policies toward Russia have created deep rifts between the US and the leading countries of the European Union.  With its multi-billion dollar trade agreements with Russia, German opposes harsh sanctions and provocations against Moscow, as do Italy, Holland and Belgium.  In Latin America, the US-controlled Organization of American States is a toothless relic amidst growing regional organizations which exclude the US.  Where are Washington’s “partners” in its hostile campaign to overthrow the government in Venezuela and blockade Cuba?  Washington’s efforts to forge an Asian economic bloc, excluding China, has run aground against the deep and comprehensive ties linking South Korea, Taiwan and Southeast Asia to China.
Wherever you look, Washington’s closest ‘allies’ are the least dynamic and most repressive:  Israel, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in the Middle East; Egypt, Morocco and Algeria in North Africa; Colombia in Latin America; the Philippines in Asia; and motley groups of sub-Sahara despots and Kleptocrats squirreling away billions of dollars into New York and London bank accounts while starving their countries’ budgets on health and education.

Obama’s diagnosis regarding the position of the US in the world is fundamentally flawed:  He ignores the military losses from unwinnable overseas adventures and understates the decline in US economic power.  The growing divisions among former regional allies have no place in his speech.  Above all, he refuses to acknowledge the profound disenchantment among most Americans with Washington’s foreign military and trade policies.  The flawed diagnosis, the deliberate distortions of current global realities and the deep misreading of domestic public opinion, cannot be overcome by new deceptions. Bigger lies and more extensive foreign military interventions mean that newly commissioned officers will serve as cannon fodder for policies deeply unpopular with our people.

Obama:   Political Desperado in Search of an Imperial Legacy

Obama has marked a new phase in his escalation of a military-centered foreign policy.  He is presently engaged in a major build-up of air and ground troops and provocative military exercises in the Baltic States and Poland…all of which are directed at Russia, raising the specter of a ‘First Strike’ strategy against a major nuclear power which poses no threat to our nation.

President Barack Obama, deeply unpopular at home, is propelled by a mania for global military escalation.  He is expanding naval forces off China’s coast. He has dispatched hundreds of Special Forces to Jordan to train and arm Islamist and al Qaeda mercenaries invading Syria.  He promotes Kiev’s brutal crackdown on civilian protesters in the Eastern Ukraine by increasing US military aid and training.  He has dispatched hundreds of US forces throughout Africa.  He has just allocated $1 billion for military expansion along the European frontiers with Russia and another $5 billion to boost the capacity of despotic regimes to repress popular insurgencies under the pretext of “fighting terrorism”.

Obama’s ‘vision’ of US foreign policy is clearly and unmistakably colored by his readiness to pursue highly dangerous military adventures.  His tactic of launching Special Forces’ operations in all corners of the world, his increasing use of mercenaries and proxies is a throw-back to 19^th century colonialism.  Sending client regime troops from one oppressed country to conquer and pillage another marks a regression to  brutal old-style empire building.  No one is deceived when Obama declares that “American leadership is indispensable for world order”.  His Washington-centered new world order is unraveling.  Disorder and misery are the consequence of relying on naked military intervention to delay the inevitable – the decline of a uni-polar world is a fact.

The Obama Administration’s involvement in the violent coup in the Kiev is a case in point:  As a consequence of placing an oligarch, the so-called ‘Chocolate Billionaire’ to head a junta infested with neo-fascists, Ukraine is falling apart, cities in the east are being bombed and the economy is in free-fall.  A massive humanitarian disaster threatens the stability of Europe if hundreds of thousands of people are displaced by the brutality of civil war in Ukraine.

Obama’s unopposed air war against Libya utterly destroyed that nation and has created a Hobbesian world where bloody warlords fight brutal jihadists over shrinking oil sales.   In Syria, US-sponsored ‘rebels’ have devastated the economy and the social fabric of a complex secular society.  Al Qaeda-linked terrorists have recently kidnapped hundreds of secular high school students heading for their final exams in Aleppo in order to prevent any recovery and reconciliation in that brutalized nation.

No major country in South America follows US ‘leadership’ on Cuba and Venezuela.  Even in the United States, outside of a few enclaves of fanatics in Florida, very few American citizens back Obama’s hostile policies to Cuba and Venezuela.

Obama’s duplicity, of talking peace while preparing wars, has been exposed.  And now this same president is preparing to commit you, newly commissioned officers of the US Army, to overseas military adventures against the interests and wishes of  the majority of your fellow Americans.

Obama will send you to war zones where you will face popular insurgencies, supported by masses of working people.  While propping up corrupt oligarchs and defending foreign capital, you will be despised by the local populations.  You will be ordered to ‘defend’ an Administration which has pillaged  our national Treasury  to bail out the 15 biggest banks in the world, banks which paid $78 billion dollars in fines, between 2012 – 2013, for fraud and swindles while their CEO’s received obscene bonuses, wealth and immunity .  You will be told to sacrifice your lives and limbs fighting wars for the State of Israel in the Middle East – an Israel which bombed the USS Liberty (among other incidents) – killing and maiming hundreds of American service people with impunity.  You will be sent to command bases in Poland and to direct missiles at Russia. You will be sent to the Ukraine to train neo-Nazis in the ‘National’ Guard to kill their own compatriots.  You will be expected to subvert the loyalties of military officers in Latin American, hoping to provoke military coups and convert independent progressive governments into neo-liberal puppet states – ripe for pillage and mayhem.

Obama’s plans for you do not resonate with your ideals and hopes for a prosperous America dedicated to democracy, freedom and peaceful development at home.  You face the choice of serving a political desperado, contemptuous of our Constitution and intent on launching unjust wars at the behest of billionaire swindlers and armchair militarists in Washington, or refusing to participate as muscle-men for bloody empire and joining the majority of the American people who believe that America’s ‘leadership’ should be directed at redistributing the wealth and power of an unelected oligarchy which currently runs this country.  Who will you choose to serve?

911 Was An Inside Job

How difficult is it to pay people with a history to board planes, to be seen and operate aircraft remotely to fly into targets? And who had the power, the means and the motive to pull it off successfully?

 Guest Post by Kevin Ryan

Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism official, has recently come out suggesting that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld should be charged with war crimes. Unfortunately, media outlets reporting this story have failed to examine Clarke’s long relationship to Cheney and Rumsfeld and his record of having prevented the capture of Osama bin Laden. These omissions highlight that, although Cheney and Rumsfeld undoubtedly are guilty of post-9/11 war crimes, suspicions that they helped create the pretext for those crimes go unreported.

Clarke’s history is regularly misrepresented in the media. It’s often said that he started in his counterterror position under Clinton when he was, in fact, appointed to it by George H.W. Bush in 1992. Clarke is a right wing hawk who had close ties to Cheney and Rumsfeld going back at least another decade with his selection for a secret Reagan Administration project. Clarke, Cheney and Rumsfeld were among a small group that spent nearly 30 years practicing to takeover the United States government in the Continuity of Government (COG) program. Their secretive COG plan was implemented only once—on the morning of 9/11.

Considering the media’s treatment of Clarke, it’s no surprise that most people have little or no understanding of his relationship to Cheney and Rumsfeld. It’s also not surprising that some people don’t know why these men are primary 9/11 suspects, despite the many reasons to consider that Cheney and Rumsfeld were behind the attacks. Much of the evidence against Cheney and Rumsfeld is circumstantial. But the amount of evidence linking them to the crimes is far greater than that used to accuse Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Osama bin Laden.

Apart from George W. Bush, who was well controlled on that day, Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the most important positions of power on 9/11. Some of their closest colleagues were also in positions to affect the crimes.

• Rumsfeld’s direct subordinate Ralph Eberhart was in charge of the military exercises that disrupted the nation’s air defense response on 9/11.
• Cheney’s protégé Duane Andrews led SAIC on 9/11. Andrews was a leading expert on the DOD systems that failed and SAIC had numerous suspicious links to the facilities and systems impacted, as well as to the official accounts for what happened.
• Rumsfeld’s deputy Paul Wolfowitz managed the Pentagon renovation project that was focused on the exact spot where the Pentagon was hit.
• Rumsfeld’s fellow ABB director Peter Janson managed the company that did the renovation work at the Pentagon and that was hired to clean up the Pentagon and the WTC.
• After the attacks, Cheney’s old business partner Bruce Bradley went into business with WTC security company manager Barry McDaniel.
• Rumsfeld’s close friend Frank Carlucci ran the Carlyle Group, a company that was partly funded by the Bin Laden family and that employed Barry McDaniel before he left to run security at the WTC.
• Cheney and Rumsfeld were both on the advisory board of Salomon Smith Barney, the company that occupied almost all of WTC 7.
• Paul Bremer, the terror propagandist who was selected by Rumsfeld to govern occupied Iraq, had an office in the WTC and helped present the official account of what happened.
• Porter Goss, the old CIA operative who ran the initial investigation, had “long shown himself to be under the spell of Vice President Dick Cheney.”

The actions of Cheney and Rumsfeld on 9/11 also suggest their involvement in the crimes.
Vice President Cheney was in charge at the White House. That morning, he had an unusual early meeting with Sean O’Keefe, who was deputy assistant to the president and Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. O’Keefe had been a close colleague of Cheney at the Pentagon and served as Secretary of the Navy under George H.W. Bush. The meeting with O’Keefe was remarkable in that, unlike Cheney’s normal meetings, it was unscheduled and lasted longer than Cheney normally allowed. And although the conversation seemed urgent, “In time, neither man would be able to recall what it was that had been so important.”

The attacks began as Cheney and O’Keefe were meeting in Cheney’s office. O’Keefe then left and Cheney began another meeting with his speechwriter. It was reported that other members of the White House staff began to congregate there until the Secret Service came in to move the vice president to the lower levels.
When questioned by the 9/11 Commission, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified that he came to the basement operations center at the White House, around 9:20 a.m., and Cheney was already there. Mineta said that Cheney had an exchange with a “young man” who came in and out over a period of time, giving Cheney updates about an incoming plane and asking if “the orders still stand.” Mineta’s testimony indicates that Cheney was aware of Flight 77 as it was approaching Washington, before the official account says that anyone knew, and that he was maintaining orders about that incoming plane.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was in charge at the Pentagon. As the attacks were beginning, he was finishing a breakfast meeting with Pentagon leaders. Attendees said that at this meeting Rumsfeld predicted that a shocking world event would occur in the near future, one that would remind people of the need for a strong U.S. military.

By the time that the second plane hit the WTC, Rumsfeld had moved on to a meeting with his CIA briefer. Reports vary on where he was after that, but national security advisor Condoleezza Rice claimed that she could not reach him. Some said that Rumsfeld continued with regularly scheduled meetings after the second strike, and that he was on a roll with his predictions that morning. Apparently, he told Congressman Christopher Cox “Believe me, this isn’t over yet. There’s going to be another attack, and it could be us.” Minutes later, the Pentagon was hit.

After the Pentagon was hit, Rumsfeld wandered out to the parking lot for approximately 30 minutes. His presence there showed that he was not concerned about other planes that were reported hijacked and that he was not considering the danger to other potential targets. It was as if he knew what to expect.
To explain his behavior, Rumsfeld later stated; “I wanted to see what had happened. I wanted to see if people needed help. I went downstairs and helped for a bit with some people on stretchers. Then I came back up here and started—I realized I had to get back up here and get at it.”

Rumsfeld did not concern himself with the work of his direct subordinate, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart, and he did not do his job to ensure the nation’s air defenses. Meanwhile, NORAD experienced inexplicable failures and Eberhart lied about it to Congress afterward.

After the 9/11 attacks, Cheney tried to prevent an investigation.  It was later learned that Rumsfeld co-authored a letter to the 9/11 Commission, warning it to limit its investigation and denying it access to critical evidence. According to Kean and Hamilton’s book Without Precedent, each of the commissioners was also invited to have private meetings with Rumsfeld, who gave them advice throughout the investigation. This was despite the fact that Rumsfeld’s DOD failed to provide many of the documents that had been requested.

Considering the unraveling of the official accounts for 9/11, people don’t need more deceptive comments from Richard Clarke about the obvious post-9/11 crimes of Cheney and Rumsfeld.  What people need to understand is that Cheney and Rumsfeld were running the show on 9/11 and were in perfect position to coordinate the attacks. Their actions on that day, as well as their surprising links to others who had the access and knowledge to accomplish the crimes, make them prime suspects.

Humanity In An All-Out Effort to Save Itself From Government

Guest Post by Bernie Suarez


The experience of humanity is driven and defined by our own consciousness, which is a product of our sophisticated brain functions. We are consciousness in every way shape and form. Control of this miracle of consciousness is sought by a few individuals who are actually suffering from a mental (disconnect) disorder.

What psychiatrists sometimes refer to as the psychopathic mind. Unfortunately, one of the characteristics of being a psychopath is that the individual exhibiting the psychopathic behavior has little to no insight into their own actions. In this example, we can say that the "consciousness" is missing from the equation.

This insight to one's own behavior is also a reference for distinguishing who might be considered "normal" and who might be considered schizophrenic "impaired" or "abnormal" This might lend perspective as to why groups of people (as opposed to individuals), such as governments and corporations, are capable of acting and speaking as a group in ways that are destructive to consciousness and mental and spiritual expansion of our species. Ironically, when an individual acts the same way, he may be considered impaired; but groups, however, will get a pass thus allowing (immune) group entities to implement such damage on the species.

One could measure this phenomenon scientifically by documenting physiological body changes that occur when humans are exposed to images or ideas that reflect "non-consciousness" related items (images of war, government oppression) versus measurable body changes seen when exposed to consciousness related items (love, compassion, human rights issues, etc).  Basic vital signs such as heart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure, also brain wave spikes readings, magnetic or tomography images are all factors and signs that might be measured to compare the human physiological responses to the concepts of non-consciousness-related reality versus consciousness and higher purpose.

Government would have us think that it is protecting humanity from itself. This non-conscious force we call government gets its life-force from an artificial set of rules called the legal system which non-conscious government would have you think is the script that your reality is not only based on but controlled entirely by. This is like someone walking into a room and notifying everyone in the room that their consciousness and state of awareness of existence doesn't exist any more. What? You can take someone's money and belongings, and even forcefully do harm to them and imprison them, but how can you steal someone's consciousness? Government's answer to this? By eliminating it or ignoring its existence.

This is one of the prime realities about the concept of government and any group efforts that robs the individual human being of his/her natural state of conscious equilibrium. This is a crime like any other crime, being committed on that individual human being. This can only be appreciated from the standpoint of third party looking down on the species as a whole. When you consider it in this context it is then easy to appreciate this reality. It then becomes easy to see how non-conscious government concepts act as a cancer to the species.

With humanity now swimming in knowledge about itself thanks to technology and the Internet - knowledge which can no longer be ignored - we are only now beginning to see the early results of what happens when truth, awareness and consciousness is triggered by a massive pulse of lies which jolts the consciousness of the species.

Edward Bernays (propaganda) Effect Now Backfiring?

With the current global awakening now accelerating at speeds that must not be pleasing to the globalist gangsters, it is reasonable to reflect back on the concept of propaganda, groupthink and group manipulation for the purposes of a certain agenda. I would like to suggest that it is possible that the global awakening we are seeing may partially and indirectly have been contributed to by Edward Bernays himself. After all, it was Bernays who admitted openly how these mass mind control techniques were A: Real; B: They worked; C: They worked on the masses because they worked on the individual in a perceived group setting. Bernays showed us that humans responded to clever timing, images and messages that appealed to our subconscious urges, imagination and thoughts. Can it be that we are seeing the culmination of many of these factors backfiring against the original CIA/U.S./NWO plans?

They hoped to continue to fool everyone with their propaganda. They planned and executed false flag operations and reinforced them with their planned propaganda, precisely timed talking points, images and sensationalism. But did they ever consider that the propaganda effect would actually wear out after so many decades of continued obvious lies and hypocrisy? Perhaps they did, and perhaps that is why there is so much talk about depopulation as seen in their own Georgia Guidestones. Perhaps the talk by Zbigniew Brzezinski about how much "easier" it is to kill a million people than control them is an admission that they know humanity will factually wake up as a whole and thus a last resort for the psychopath globalists before they must face their doom.

I believe this is all the end result of hundreds of years of propaganda now fully exposed due to the information age. One thing I'll say about Bernays is that he never hid what he was doing. He told you straight forward what he was doing, even writing several books about it.

The global political events we are seeing exposed in real-time are a first of its kind. Because of all the released information and knowledge, and because of the Internet, we can track globalist mafia crimes in real-time in a rather exciting way which has led to the alternative or "New Media." What started off as a truth movement with many little cousin movements all around the world has morphed into one big freedom and consciousness movement. Thankfully, many of the lines that separated us have blurred as humans recognize that they need to come together more than anything else.

Humanity is responding to this non-consciousness force we call government, by coming together and slowly ignoring our political, religious and philosophical differences and instead focusing on the common enemy which is now emerging as the forces that represent non-consciousness that we call governmental control systems. This is at the root of all of our struggles. We hear TV pundits tell us that humans must be controlled by a federal and global unchallenged government. Many of the script-reading advocates for the big government top-down control system just happen to have significant voices in the mainstream media.

No one at mainstream media dare stands for freedom and individual sovereignty. Anyone who does ends up getting fired or being asked to quit. Hollywood TV shows as well as the educational system are all supporting the paradigm of big government. Obama's primary message to Americans seems to be about not listening to those (lunatics? radicals?) that stand for individual freedoms. Obama may actually be the only U.S. president warning America not of tyranny and the need to stand for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but instead he's warning his sheep to beware of those warning of tyranny.  One of the things the globalists have accomplished is they've made it easy to identify those who are with us and those who are not.

Given the current global awakening in light of all the information and spiraling propaganda mentioned above, we can now simplify the battlefield in such a way that it is easy to identify the enemies of freedom. We can now ask anyone the simple question: Power to the state or power to the people, which one do you choose? Will you side with those that demand freedom and sovereignty from government or will you side with those that feel the people are the property and responsibility of big government, and those who rebel are terrorists? The state or the individual? Choose one and take sides now.

We know where NBC stands, and CNN and all the left-wing Obama supporters. Despite their attempts to sound pro-America, we know where Fox News and the Republicans stand also. When measured with this simple question of State versus Individual it is easy to see that both Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same. They are both controlled by criminal elements in the .1 percent class who want their one world government. It is then easy to see how the human element of humanity that is living and breathing, is now fully awakening to this non-consciousness element we've been calling government.

Now we can observe how humanity will deal with this force that has cycled its way into an over-sized oppressive control mechanism. Humanity is now realizing that freedom is more a realization than anything else. Yes, realizing something is an expression of consciousness and learning or integration of knowledge and the awareness of this newly acquired knowledge.

With humanity now realizing that government is a useless obstacle in the way of human thriving and freedom, I expect we will witness phenomenal things in the coming months and years. I see humanity now actually slowly but surely pulling together in an all-out effort to save itself from government.

I never thought of this concept myself until recently and I don't see any other way to articulate it. This is where we are.  We are now seeing the expression of this reality in many freedom lovers world wide. This was essentially the very same spirit behind the founding of America. This was the spirit behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the primary meme of those initial years when America was founded. It doesn't mean that the founding fathers were saints or any of that, it means that the spirit of freedom that drove them to do what they did is back, in fact this modern-day rekindling of freedom is and will be much more intense than what the founding fathers imagined. Humanity is now realizing it didn't finish the job. There is already a track record for getting this freedom thing done, and this track record is serving as a precious guideline for those of us who are new at this.

Let freedom ring, and I look forward to witnessing the end result of this focused effort now closing in on government. No, no one was injured in the writing of this article. Not a shot fired. Consciousness knows no violence, and the desire to thrive and be free is a realization. This battle is strictly mental warfare (as Bernays would have told you) and the transition from rooting for big government to control the people, to empathizing with your own species and connecting with other humans in a conscious way to exercise and celebrate your individual freedom from government is seamless.

Awakening from the matrix cannot be measured with blood, bullets, drones or violence. It (the individual's awakening) can only be delayed with fear - external, engineered, artificial, government-crafted fear. This awakening is being triggered by the realization that the fear of tyranny is much greater than any artificial fears the government can come up with.

The human awakening has thus triggered a long-awaited re-prioritizing of fear within the species, which is rendering the globalists primary weapon of mass deception obsolete. To think, we need only overcome their engineered fears to render the concept of over-controlling big government obsolete. Once we reach this point (and we are very close) we can then focus more on officially implementing all the solutions to the new world order at a mass scale. Till then, mass knowledge of solutions are now spreading globally as part of the awakening despite the fact that many of the solutions are still being contained by government using fear and intimidation.

The day is soon coming when these barriers of fear will dwindle as more and more people resort to being the change they want to see in the world. It's already happening and it's a wonderful thing to see.

Bernie Suarez is an activist, critical thinker, radio host, musician, M.D, Veteran, lover of freedom and the Constitution, and creator of the Truth and Art TV project. He also has a background in psychology and highly recommends that everyone watch a documentary titled The Century of the Self. Bernie has concluded that the way to defeat the New World Order is to truly be the change that you want to see. Manifesting the solution and putting truth into action is the very thing that will defeat the globalists.