Wednesday, November 24, 2010

What do You KNOW about America? (Part 2)

The Doomsday Project, Deep Events, and the Shrinking of American Democracy
By Prof Peter Dale Scott
Global Research, January 22, 2011
Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 4 No 2, January 24, 2011.
I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [the National Security Agency] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."-- Senator Frank Church (1975)
In recent years I have become more and more concerned with the interactions between three important and alarming trends in recent American history. The first is America’s increasing militarization, and above all its inclination, even obsession, to involve itself in needless and pernicious wars. The second, closely related, is the progressive shrinking of public politics and the rule of law as they are subordinated, even domestically, to the requirements of covert U.S. operations abroad.
The third, also closely related, is the important and increasingly deleterious impact on American history and the global extension of American power, of what I have called deep events. These events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in media and internal government records.
One factor linking Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all three deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1980s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially as “the Doomsday Project.” The implementation of COG plans on 9/11, or what I call Doomsday Power, was the culmination of three decades of such planning, and has resulted in the permanent militarization of the domestic United States, and the imposition at home of institutions and processes designed for domination abroad.
Writing about these deep events as they occurred over the decades, I have been interested in the interrelations among them. It is now possible to show how each was related both to those preceding it, and those which followed.
I would like in this essay to go further and propose a framework to analyze the on-going forces underlying all of the most important deep events, and how they have contributed to the political ascendance of what used to be called the military-industrial complex. I hope to describe certain impersonal governing laws that determine the socio-dynamics of all large-scale societies (often called empires) that deploy their surplus of power to expand beyond their own borders and force their will on other peoples. This process of expansion generates predictable trends of behavior in the institutions of all such societies, and also in the individuals competing for advancement in those institutions. In America it has converted the military-industrial complex from a threat at the margins of the established civil order, to a pervasive force dominating that order.
President Eisenhower in his farewell address in 1961 warned that “We must guard against the unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex.”
With this framework I hope to persuade readers that in some respects our recent history is simpler than it appears on the surface and in the media. Our society, by its very economic successes and consequent expansion, has been breeding impersonal forces both outside and within itself that are changing it from a bottom-up elective democracy into a top-down empire. And among these forces are those that produce deep events.
I am far from alone in seeing this degradation of America’s policies and political processes. A similar pattern, reflecting the degradation of earlier empires, was described at length by the late Chalmers Johnson:
The evidence is building up that in the decade following the end of the Cold War, the United States largely abandoned a reliance on diplomacy, economic aid, international law, and multilateral institutions in carrying out its foreign policies and resorted much of the time to bluster, military force, and financial manipulation.
But my analysis goes beyond that of Johnson, Kevin Phillips, Andrew Bacevich, and other analysts, in proposing that three major deep events – Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11 – were not just part of this degradation of American democracy, but played a significant role in shaping it.
As author Michael Lind has observed, there have for a long time been two prevailing and different political cultures in America, underlying political differences in the American public, and even dividing different sectors of the American government. One culture is predominantly egalitarian and democratic, working for the legal consolidation of human rights both at home and abroad. The other, less recognized but with deep historical roots, prioritizes and teaches the use of repressive violence against both domestic and Third World populations to maintain "order."
To some extent these two mindsets are found in all societies. They correspond to two opposing modes of power and governance that were defined by Hannah Arendt as “persuasion through arguments” versus “coercion by force.” Arendt, following Thucydides, traced these to the common Greek way of handling domestic affairs, which was persuasion (πείθειν) as well as the common way of handling foreign affairs, which was force and violence (βία)."
(left: Hannah Arendt)
Writing amid the protests and riots of the 1960s, Arendt feared that traditional authority was at risk, threatened (in her eyes) by the contemporary “loss of tradition and of religion.” A half century later, I would argue that a far greater danger to social equilibrium comes now from those on the right who invoke authority in the name of tradition and religion. With America’s huge expansion into the enterprise of covertly dominating and exploiting the rest of the world, the open processes of persuasion, which have been America’s traditional ideal for handling domestic affairs, have increasingly tilted towards top-down violence.
This tilt towards violent or repressive power is defended rhetorically as a means to preserve social stability, but in fact it threatens it. As Kevin Phillips and others have demonstrated, empires built on violent or repressive power tend to rise and then fall, often with surprising rapidity. Underlying the discussion in this essay is the thesis that repressive power is unstable, creating dialectical forces both within and outside its system. Externally, repressive power helps create its own enemies, as happened with Britain (in India), France (in Indochina) and the Netherlands (in Indonesia).
The Socio-dynamics of Repressive Power in Large-scale Societies
But more dangerous and destabilizing has been the conversion of those empires themselves, into hubristic mechanisms of war. The fall of Periclean Athens, which inspired Thucydides’ reflections, is a case in point. Thucydides described how Athens was undone by the overreaching greed (pleonexia) of its unnecessary Sicilian expedition, a folly presaging America’s follies in Vietnam and Iraq. Thucydides attributed the rise of this folly in the rapid change in Athens after the death of Pericles, and in particular to the rise of a rapacious oligarchy. Paul Kennedy, Kevin Phillips, and Chalmers Johnson have described the recreation of this process in the Roman, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and British empires. Its recurrence again in recent American history corroborates that there is a self-propelling dynamic of power that becomes repressive.
It is useful to be reminded of the historical division between two cultures in America, which both underlay and predated the Civil War. But these two cultures have evolved and been reinforced by many factors. For example urbanization in America’s South and West worked for most of the 20th century to meld the two cultures, but after about 1980 the increasing disparity of wealth in America tended to separate them to an extent recalling the Gilded Age of the 19th century.
More importantly, postwar U.S. history has seen the institutions of domestic self-government steadily displaced by an array of new institutions, like the CIA and Pentagon, adapted first to the repressive dominance and control of foreign populations abroad, and now increasingly dominant domestically. The manipulative ethos of this repressive bureaucracy promotes and corrupts those who, in order to be promoted, internalize the culture of repressive dominance into a mindset.
The egalitarian mindset is widely shared among Americans. But Washington today is securely in the hands of the global repressive dominance mindset, and a deepening of the military-industrial complex into what in my most recent book I call the American war machine. This transformation of America represents a major change in our society. When Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex in 1961 it was still a minority element in our political economy. Today it finances and dominates both parties, and indeed is now also financing threats to both parties from the right, as well as dominating our international policy. As a result, liberal Republicans are as scarce in the Republican Party today as Goldwater Republicans were scarce in that party back in 1960.
That change has been achieved partly by money, but partly as a result of deep events like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, and 9/11. As a rule, each of these deep events is attributed by our government and media to marginal outsiders, like Lee Harvey Oswald, or the nineteen alleged plane hijackers.
I have long been skeptical of these “lone nut” explanations, but recently my skepticism has advanced to another level. My research over four decades points to the conclusion that each of these deep events
1) was carried out, at least in part, by individuals in and out of government who shared and sought to promote this repressive mindset;
2) enhanced the power of the repressive mindset within the U.S. government;
3) formed another stage in a continuous narrative whose result has been a transformation of America, into a social system dominated from above, rather than governed from below.
Please note that I am talking about the result of this continuous narrative, not about its purpose. In saying that these deep events have contributed collectively to a major change in American society, I am not attributing them all to a single manipulative “secret team.” Rather I see them as flowing from the workings of repressive power itself, which (as history has shown many times) transforms both societies with surplus power and also the individuals exercising that surplus power.
We are conditioned to think that the open institutions of American governance could not possibly provide a milieu for plots like 9/11 against public order. But since World War Two covert U.S. agencies like the CIA have helped create an alternative world where power is exercised with minimal oversight, often at odds with public agencies’ proclaimed policy objectives of law and order, and often in conjunction with lawless and even criminal foreign and domestic elements.
The expansion of this covert world has occurred principally in Asia. There covert U.S. decisions were made to build up drug-financed armies in Burma, Thailand, and Laos, in a series of aggressive actions that by the 1960s involved America in a hot Indochina War. This war, like the related wars that ensued later in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, was initiated by America for a mix of geostrategic and economic reasons, above all the desire to establish a dominant U.S. presence an important region of petroleum reserves.
(left: Air America at Sam Thong, Laos, 1961)
The country most deeply affected by the succession of Asian Wars has been America itself. Its expansive forces, backed by powerful interest groups, are now out of control, as our managers, like other empire managers before them, have “come to believe that there is nowhere within their domain – in our case, nowhere on earth – in which their presence is not crucial.”7
To illustrate this, loss of control, let us look for a moment at a milieu which I believe to have been an important factor in all of America’s major domestic deep events: the CIA’s ongoing interactions with the global drug connection.
Unaccountable Power: The CIA and the Return of the Global Drug Connection
Since World War Two the CIA has made systematic use of drug trafficking forces to increase its covert influence -- first in Thailand and Burma, then in Laos and Vietnam, and most recently in Afghanistan.8 With America’s expansion overseas, we have seen more and more covert programs and agencies, all using drug traffickers to different and opposing ends.
In 2004 Time and USA Today ran major stories about two of the chief Afghan drug traffickers, Haji Juma Khan and Haji Bashir Noorzai, alleging that each was supporting al-Qaeda, and that Khan in particular “has helped al-Qaeda establish a smuggling network that is peddling Afghan heroin to buyers across the Middle East, Asia and Europe.”9 Later it was revealed that both traffickers were simultaneously CIA assets, and that Khan in particular was “paid a large amount of cash by the United States,” even while he was reportedly helping al-Qaeda to establish smuggling networks.10
There is no longer anything surprising in the news that large U.S. payments were made to a drug trafficker who was himself funding the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The arrangement is no more bizarre than the CIA’s performance during the U.S. “war on drugs” in Venezuela in the 1990s, when the CIA first set up an anti-drug unit in Venezuela, and then helped its chief, Gen. Ramon Guillén Davila, smuggle at least one ton of pure cocaine into Miami International Airport.11
It would be easy to conclude from these reports that the CIA and Pentagon intentionally use drugs to help finance the enemy networks that justify their overseas operations. Yet I doubt that such a cynical Machiavellian objective is ever consciously voiced by those responsible in Washington.
More likely, it is an inevitable consequence of the U.S. repressive style of conducting covert operations. Great emphasis is put on recruiting covert assets; and in unstable areas with weak governance, drug traffickers with their own ample funds and repressive networks are the most obvious candidates for recruitment by the CIA. The traffickers in turn are happy to become U.S. assets, because this status affords them at least a temporary immunity from U.S. prosecution.12
In a nutshell: I am describing a development that is not so much intentional, as a consequence of repressive dynamics. A related example would be the CIA’s recurring use of double agents, again for the reason just suggested. In the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, the chief planner was a double agent, Ali Mohammed, who surveyed the Embassy and reported to Osama bin Laden in 1993, just months after the FBI had ordered the Canadian RCMP to release him from detention.13 In the Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008, the scene was initially surveyed for the attackers by a DEA double agent, David Headley (alias Daood Sayed Gilani) whom “U.S. authorities sent... to work for them in Pakistan... despite a warning that he sympathized with radical Islamic groups.”14
(left: David Headley in court)
The central point is that expansion beyond a nation’s borders engenders a pattern of repressive power with predictable results -- results that transcend the conscious intentions of anyone within that repressive power system. Newly formed and ill-supervised agencies spawn contradictory policies abroad, the net effect of which is usually both expansive and deleterious – not just to the targeted nation but also to America.
This is especially true of covert agencies, whose practice of secrecy means that controversial policies proliferate without either coordination or review. Asia in particular has been since 1945 the chief area where the CIA has ignored or overridden the policy directives of the State Department. As I document in American War Machine, CIA interventions in Asia, especially those that escalated into the Laotian, Vietnam, and Afghan wars, fostered an ongoing global CIA drug connection, or what I have called elsewhere a dark quadrant of unaccountable power.
This drug connection, richly endowed with huge resources and its own resources of illegal violence, has a major stake in both American interventions and above all unwinnable wars to aggravate the conditions of regional lawlessness that are needed for drug trafficking. Thus it makes perfect sense that the global drug connection has, as I believe, been an ongoing factor in the creation of an overseas American empire that most U.S. citizens never asked for. More specifically, the dark quadrant has contributed to all the major deep events – including Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11, that have helped militarize America and overshadow its public institutions.
Doomsday Power and the Military Occupation of America
I have said that, underlying the surface of America’s major deep events, there has been a pattern of conflict between two mindsets – that of openness and that of repressive dominance – dating back to the Civil War and the Indian wars of the mid-nineteenth century (and before that to the American Revolution).15 But it would be wrong to conclude from this on-going pattern of conflict that there is nothing new in our current situation. On the contrary, America is in the midst of a new crisis arising from this very old antagonism.
Since World War Two, secrecy has been used to accumulate new covert bureaucratic powers under the guise of emergency planning for disasters, planning known inside and outside the government as the
“Doomsday Project.” Known more recently (and misleadingly) as “Continuity of Government” (COG) planning, the Doomsday Project, under the guiding hands in the 1980s of Oliver North, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and others, became the vehicle on 9/11 for a significant change of government. This package of extreme repressive power accumulated under the guise of the Doomsday Project can be referred to as Doomsday Power. In concrete terms, the repressive power developed to control the rest of the world is now, to an unprecedented extent, treating America itself as an occupied territory.
What I mean by “doomsday power” is the package of repressive mechanisms (which I have discussed elsewhere under their official name of “continuity of government” or COG plans), that was prepared over two decades by the elite COG planning group, and then implemented beginning on 9/11. The package includes 1) warrantless surveillance, 2) warrantless detention, (including unprecedented abridgments of the right to habeas corpus), and 3) unprecedented steps towards the militarization of domestic security enforcement and shrinking of the posse comitatus acts.
One recent development of Doomsday power, for example, has been the deployment since 2008 of a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team to be stationed permanently in the United States. A major part of its dedicated assignment is to be "called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.”16 Many people seem to be unaware that Americans, together with this Brigade, have lived since 2002 under a U.S. Army Command called NORTHCOM.17 Yet if nothing is done to change the present course of events, historians may come some day to compare the stationing of this brigade in 2008 CE to the date, in 49 BCE, when Caesar, along with his legion, crossed the Rubicon.
And I believe that the forces that have worked for decades to create Doomsday power have, like the global drug connection, been involved in every one of the deep events, from Dallas to 9/11, that have helped bring us here.
Time to Shut Down Government Until January 5, 2011!
Harry Reid and fellow Marxists have shown utter and complete contempt for the American people
By John Lillpop
Thursday, December 16, 2010
By dumping a $1.1 trillion Omnibus bill on the Senate in the final days of the 111th Congress, Harry Reid and fellow Marxists have shown utter and complete contempt for the American people and the results of the November 2 elections.
Omnibus is a vile piece of proposed funding for government set forth in more than 1,900 pages, which no one has read because the monster was released just days ago.
Asking members to vote on legislation that Senators have not read and which, given the late hour, will not be able to debate, sounds eerily like the sort of reckless stupidity that caused the American people to trash nearly 70 Democrats just 40-something days ago!
To add insult to injury, Omnibus contains more than 6,000 earmarks, which come with a price tag of $8 billion—billable to taxpayers.
Hmmm. Is it not true that 40-something days ago, the people said, “Read Our Lips—No More Earmarks!” ?
Just what part of NO! do Democrats not understand?
Harry Reid plans to force action on the START treaty, DADT, the DREAM Act
Even more distressing, Harry Reid plans to force action on the START treaty, DADT, the DREAM Act, and
lord knows what other lame duck nonsense in the waning hours of 2010.
With the very economic and political health of our nation at stake, responsible Republicans have but one option in dealing with out-of-touch Marxists like Harry Reid.
Namely, the GOP must garner all of its significant power and guile and wage a battle royale to affect the immediate and complete shutdown of all government functions until January 5, 2011, when rational people will take over.
NOTHING currently being worked on, from the Obama tax cut “deal”, to the Omnibus travesty is nearly as important as ending Harry Reid’s ability to inflict further harm on America.
Republicans need to filibuster, filibuster, and filibuster some more in order to cut off Harry Reid’s manic spending and legislative idiocy.
Simply put, the GOP has a moral obligation to say, “F the Democrats!” where F means filibuster.
Please, Republicans of good will: Shut down this insane lame duck before it is too late!
Setting the Stage For America's Degraded Future
By Frosty Wooldridge
December 13, 2010
Nobody wants to talk about how America faces ‘standard of living’ and ‘quality of life’ degradation within two decades. I cannot begin to understand the grandest taboo of all. When I do mention it, even Americans argue with me—in light of observable realities. They fail to understand the ‘exponential equation’ of endless growth.
By writing about severe consequences heading, like an Immigration Katrina, toward not just New Orleans five years ago, but every state in America—readers chastise me, and fellow writers, by the way! They feel my columns’ themes do not apply to them or wouldn’t happen to them. They are correct—it won’t happen to them—it will happen to their children.
If our nation continues thinking like the people of New Orleans—that it won’t happen to them—think again. Look at millions living in the earthquake arena of California. It is not a question of if, but when the 9.5 scale quake hits. New Orleans was not a question of if, but when. Same goes for those living in Florida’s hurricane
alley. If you travel west, you see people building homes on the cliffs of California when contractors told them that rains would cause slides. They built anyway and look what happened the last two years during the rainy season. What about those building in fire areas of California? Did you not see their homes burn in the past two years?
What I seek to convey to the American public stems from my bicycle travels on six continents and through the most densely populated countries of the world. I’ve seen the misery, suffering, debasement of human living conditions and I’ve witnessed that once human numbers exceed carrying capacity, all life suffers. Examine China, India, Africa and Bangladesh for starters. They grow worse by the day. They can’t solve their problems once manifested.
Within a scant twenty-five years, through endless and relentless immigration, projections show the United States adding 70 million third world immigrants and their children. They race to America to escape their plights in their own countries, but their leaders NEVER solve the problems in their own civilizations. The third world adds a net gain of 80 million humans annually that it cannot water, feed or shelter. Another 1 billion humans every 13 years! Haiti provides a perfect example even before the earthquake.
One simple video by Roy Beck graphically shows you exactly what I am talking about: In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of immigration on the USA. Take five minutes to see for yourself.
Several readers ask if I follow Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population,” or, they don’t
agree with me based on the size of the United States. Folks! It’s not about size! It’s about carrying capacity! Many who pursue a religious course say, “God will provide.” What they neglect to realize is, according to the March 14, 2005, issue of Time Magazine, 18 million people starve to death around the planet annually. Therefore, it is not an issue of Malthus or God; the issue concerns a growing reality that humanity outstrips the planet’s ability to feed, water and clothe the growing ‘human storm’ on this planet.
Anyone can live in denial all they want, but like Hurricane Katrina, reality will strike when the storm hits. In other words, those that scoff at me can sit back just like five days before Katrina hit, and drink coffee on the back porch. But when it hits and you didn’t evacuate, you become one of the victims. And, as Time and Newsweek graphically reported, our children. We failed the most innocent of all by our lack of action.
Today, like a nation of fools, we add 3.1 million immigrants annually. (Source: Dr. Steven Camarata) But we lack any kind of plan as to what we will do when those immigrants overload our entire civilization with poverty, entrenched illiteracy and endless growth.
When I talk about the crisis of immigration, plenty of already manifested realities sober any rational mind. The quality of our lives deteriorates daily as we add 3.1 million people annually to our shores. The standard of living drops like a brick with millions of added people, i.e., 15 million unemployed Americans and 41.8
million subsisting on food stamps. But let me quote those who know more and are the leaders from the past and present.
“We must prevent human tragedy rather than run around trying to save ourselves after an event has already occurred. Unfortunately, history clearly shows that we arrive at catastrophe by failing to meet the situation, by failing to act when we should have acted. The opportunity passes us by and the next disaster is always more difficult and compounded than the last one.” - Eleanor Roosevelt
Eleanor stands right on the money and we will pay the consequences for such observable incompetence as Obama muddles through his last two years. When it comes to the immigration invasion of three million people crashing onto our shores annually, Obama doesn’t have a clue as to the critical impact and danger to future generations due to sheer numbers. He resembles a blind watchmaker.
So what do other brighter minds say about the worsening crisis of immigration in America?
“Immigration of the kind and on the scale America has had for the last three decades is in effect, a recipe for cultural suicide and squandering of a rich national heritage.” - Dr. Lee Marland
Look at that quote and tell me you don’t feel it in your community with all the illegal aliens and non absorbing legal immigrants who can’t and won’t speak English, but use and abuse our system for their own purposes. Tell me you think our country can continue, with dozens of other languages and Stone Age cultures that don’t assimilate into what is America as a first world country.
“The two-generation indirect immigration, i.e., including the births to foreign-born mothers, explained the incredible 98 percent of California’s growth between 1990 and 2000.” Dr. Leon Bouvier. California adds a mind-numbing 1,700 people net gain DAILY! (Source:
Anyone want to move to the beautiful Los Angeles area anytime soon? I would need my head examined if I wanted to move into that grinding traffic, three million illegal aliens and nine million legal immigrant quagmire. Immigration provoked growth from 17 million in 1965 to over 38 million today. They suffer gridlock, air pollution, crime, disease, mountains of trash, Mexico’s slums and a non English speaking populace, which is more anti-American than Castro.
As you read this column, are the lights turning on? Are you connecting the dots? Do you see the growing calamity about to visit, possibly not you, but definitely your children here in the once limitless USA?
Exploding gas prices present harbingers of our future. Air pollution grows thicker with every added person. Farmland diminishes as asphalt and concrete cover it. I spent the summer bicycling 4,000 miles across the USA to see it first hand. Gas costs $3.00 a gallon.
If you think the gridlock, air pollution, acid rain, diminishing cropland, congestion, failing health systems, global warming, species extinction is bad now, you ain’t seen nothing yet! In other words, “Immigration Katrina” will hit all 50 states in 2035. But even before that date, it will degrade all our lives with too many people, shrinking freedoms, diminished resources, water wars, diseases, maddening traffic and worsening air pollution.
The more extreme our numbers, the more extreme our children’s consequences. Unless, of course, you decide to get involved in your children’s future.
“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck
This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a word “Mind boggling!”
Fred Upton: Horrible Choice for Energy and Commerce Chair
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and "Global Censorship of Health Information"
December 13, 2010
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is one of the most powerful committees in Congress. It oversees federal regulation of telecommunications, food and drugs, consumer protection, public health, environmental health, energy, and interstate and foreign commerce. The ideological revolution promised by the victorious Tea Party and conservative Republican candidates in the mid-term elections will be dealt a serious set-back if the new Chairman of the Committee favors big government. Indeed, the position must be filled by a person committed to eliminating government regulation and restoring a Constitution of liberty. The senior most Republican in line to become the Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman has voted over and over again for expanding the regulatory state. He is part of the problem, not the solution. He has worked mightily to transform the Founding Father’s republic into the bureaucratic oligarchy that now robs us of liberty. His name is Fred Upton (R-MI), and the new Republican leadership must prevent him from becoming the Energy and Commerce Committee Chair.
Like George W. Bush, Fred Upton has no problem favoring vast expansion of the regulatory state. He has voted repeatedly for measures that have expanded the cost, size, and freedom constricting effects of big government. Upton voted for the “cash for clunkers” bill. He voted for the $787 billion Wall Street Bailout, the auto bailout, and Barney Frank’s bill to give the Obama Administration wide latitude in spending $350
billion in TARP funds. He voted against several measures to reduce government spending (including measures to cut millions in pork barrel spending), against extending tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, and against substituting tax cuts for the $787 billion stimulus plan. He has repeatedly voted in favor of measures that would increase taxes and government regulation (including bills for increasing commodity market, food and dietary supplement, and energy regulations). He voted against Congressman Ron Paul’s bill to halt Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Bank Board borrowing from the U.S. Treasury.
Upton was one of a very few Republicans that the Obama Administration thought useful to the President’s domestic policy agenda. Former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly wrote to Upton in appreciation for his support of the President, writing that Upton would be “the guy we’re going to be looking to” in building coalitions among Republicans to support Obama legislation.
In his present campaign to win over colleagues for the committee chairmanship, Upton has donned sheep’s cloth. He now says (in marked contrast to earlier instances in which he voted for government regulation of health care) that he favors repeal of the Obama health reform law. That about face does nothing more than confirm him to be a man of fickle sentiments, not one with an ideological core that defines his character in politics and not one who can be trusted.
We can only hope that the Republican leadership respects the electorate enough to prevent this enemy of limited government from assuming control of a most powerful committee. The person selected needs to be committed not simply to overseeing a profligate government but to cutting it back, forcing deregulation, and removing government barriers to market entry. The person must be the antithesis of Henry Waxman, the liberal, pro-government Democrat who will be stepping down in January.
He needs to reverse course and drive hard for stripping the agencies of regulatory power now used to censor health information, regulate beyond statutory and constitutional limits, protect industry leaders from competition, and impose prior restraint. He must be committed first and foremost to restoring a constitution of liberty. He must be opposed, intellectually and viscerally, to the present regulatory state and be animated by a desire to restore limited government, separation of powers, and the non-delegation doctrine.
Upton, a wolf in sheep’s cloth, needs to be viewed in light of his horrible legislative record. He must be rejected in his bid for chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I urge you to write or call House Republican Steering Committee Chairman John Boehner to state your opposition to Fred Upton in his bid for the chairmanship.
The Kindergarten Congress
Billions squandered. Trillions borrowed. It is a national death spiral that must be set right, but which is imperiled by a succession of potential presidential vetoes
By Alan Caruba
Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The Founders in their genius created a Constitution that was intended to slow down the process of legislation precisely because they wanted the new nation to avoid being destroyed by the passions and trends of the day.
So what do we have today, a month away from the largest transfer of power in Congress since 1946?
We have a Senate being asked to vote on whether, not when, to extend the tax rates that have been in existence for the past nine years.
We have no indication of a resolution to continue funding the operation of government.
We have extraneous issues such as whether Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be imposed on a military, a large portion of which do not want to have openly gay members in their midst.
We have seen a vote allegedly on food safety that will destroy yet another segment of the economy, the small, usually family-owned farm.
The majority leader of the Senate wants a “Dream Act” amnesty program that would fund the college education of the children of illegal immigrants. And while this is being contemplated, since January 2000 census data shows that 13.1 million immigrants, legal and illegal, have arrived in the nation. In 2008 and 2009, 2.4 million new immigrants settled in the United States at the same time that 8.2 million jobs were lost.
Across our southern border, Mexico is in a state of anarchy that threatens States from Texas to California, but the present administration is suing Arizona for taking action to respond to the threat.
We have seen the White House push for approval of a critical nuclear weapons treaty that clearly needs to be subjected to further thought before we allow the Russians to decide how many such weapons we can have.
We have an Environmental Protection Agency threatening to ignore Congress and initiate an authority it does not have, the imposition of regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions. This would give it control over all energy use and thus control over our lives and the future of our economy.
The present Congress, until December 31, is filled with defeated Representatives and Senators, or those about to retire. It should be enacting only such legislation as will maintain the government until a newly-elected Congress takes office in 2011.
And we have a President who sat down this week with the present and future leaders of Congress for two hours in the White House and resolved absolutely NOTHING.
If we replaced the Democrats in Congress with randomly selected kindergarten children, we could do no worse than the ones who forced so-called Medicare reform, Obamacare, on a majority of Americans who expressed their opposition in “town hall” meetings and mass marches.
We have a government-owned automobile company producing obscenely priced electric cars that can barely travel beyond forty miles despite a massive infrastructure that will ensure that gasoline powered automobiles can transport Americans anywhere they want to go.
We have a Congress and administration that, in two years, inflated the nation’s debt beyond that of every
previous combined Congress in the nation’s history.
Beyond our borders there are U.S. carrier groups in the Yellow Sea of China and the Gulf of Persia because we have never resolved to take action against a criminal cartel called North Korea and we lack the will to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities even though the entire Middle East would support the action.
Meanwhile, millions of homes in America are over-valued, forcing foreclosures when a rational reevaluation is called for. We have an official 9.6 unemployment rate that is in reality close to twenty million unemployed. Two million of them will lose unemployment compensation that has been provided for two years with which to find employment.
There cannot, however, be renewed employment until the income tax issue is resolved by the simple action of extending present rates.
We have a government that told us that the last Recession ended in 2009! By any rational definition, the U.S. is in a Depression.
Billions squandered. Trillions borrowed. It is a national death spiral that must be set right, but which is imperiled by a succession of potential presidential vetoes.

The American Oligarchy, Civil Rights and the Murder of Martin Luther King
The ‘Foundations’ of Social Control
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
Global Research, November 30, 2010
Civil Rights and Social Control
As the American civil rights movement emerged in the 1950s, the established American oligarchy, in all its various forms and avenues of influence, set in motion simultaneous attempts to control the evolution of the movement, in order to both divide the movement and its leaders against each other, and also to control its direction. The Civil Rights Movement arose as an independent and people-driven movement in a struggle for black rights in America. In this, the movement presented a great threat to the establishment oligarchy, as historically the subjugation of black people within western society was not merely a result of western policies, but lies at the very foundations and bedrock of western ‘civilization’, politically, socially, and economically. Thus, challenging the segregation of race inevitably challenges the entire political, economic and social system.
The National Security State and its various apparatus, such as the CIA, FBI, police and military structures, saw the Civil Rights Movement as a threat to the status quo (as it was), and treated it as an ‘enemy of the
state’. The apparatus of the National Security State were spying, infiltrating and disrupting the civil rights movement, and were ultimately planning for its elimination.
Simultaneously, the major philanthropic foundations of America’s richest families and billionaire elites (whose imperial interests are served through the National Security State), moved in to actively fund the Civil Rights Movement, so as to control its progress and make it ‘safe for Capitalism.’ The idea was to prevent the Civil Rights Movement from remaining an organic people-driven movement and taking its natural course, which falls outside the false boundary of the social construct of race, and would seek to unite all oppressed and impoverished people of the world in one struggle against the system, itself. The role of the billionaire philanthropies was to ensure that the ‘Civil Rights Movement’ remained race-based, and that it became about black people being absorbed into and rising within the system, instead of fighting against it. It was
about financially co-opting the movement to suit the interests of the ruling oligarchy.
Martin Luther King, the most articulate, intelligent and respected leader of the Civil Rights Movement, was also the most hated by the ruling oligarchy. The wealthy philanthropies attempted to co-opt him, the political establishment attempted to use him and the ‘National Security State’ despised him and hated him. King was tolerated by the oligarchy so long as his focus was on the issue of race, as the oligarchy has always functioned on the basis of ‘divide and conquer’, so ‘identity politics’ – that is, basing political, economic and social views based upon one particular identity you have (whether it is race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc) – lends itself to being easily controlled. If everyone adheres to ‘identity politics’, then people will remain divided and the overall power structures of society will remain intact, and actually increase in legitimacy.
When Martin Luther King began speaking about more than race, and openly criticized the entire social structure of empire and economic exploitation, not simply of blacks, but of all people around the world and at home, he posed too great a threat to the oligarchy to tolerate him any longer. It was at this point that the National Security State chose to assassinate Martin Luther King, and the philanthropies greatly expanded their financing of the Civil Rights Movement to ensure that it would be led in their desired direction.
Civil Rights and the National Security State
A Congressional investigation in the 1970s revealed that the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, began a program in 1956 called COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program), which was “a secret, often illegal FBI campaign of surveillance and sabotage against a wide variety of right-and left-wing groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” Among the key targets of COINTELPRO was the Civil Rights Movement, which largely emerged in 1955 with Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The Boycott was organized by a young Baptist minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., who was thrown into the national spotlight as a result:
COINTELPRO involved not only wiretapping, but as the investigation showed, attempts to disrupt, discredit, and defame perceived political radicals. Hoover targeted few figures as relentlessly as Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. The charge, Communist influence in the civil rights movement.
Of particular note, was in August 1963 when King gathered more than a quarter of a million Americans in the march on Washington to champion Civil Rights. Hoover was not amused:
That march spurred Hoover to action. A little more than a month later, the FBI Director petitioned the Attorney General, then Robert F. Kennedy, to approve a wiretap on King's telephone. Kennedy only agreed, according to his attorney Nicholas Katzenbach, in order to protect King.
In fact, in December of 1963, no more than a month after the John F. Kennedy assassination, FBI officials met in Washington to explore ways to “neutralize King as an effective Negro leader.”
When, in 1964, three civil rights workers disappeared, Martin Luther King “publicly questioned whether the FBI had done enough to safeguard the lives of civil rights activists and black citizens. An enraged Hoover then began to publicly denounce King, telling reporters that King was, ‘The most notorious liar in the country’.” Hoover had “decided that Martin Luther King was an enemy to the country.” The FBI then began a massive campaign to discredit King, with the FBI compiling “a tape recording of Reverend King with extra marital lovers.” King was sent a copy with an anonymous note which said, “King, there is only one thing left for you to do. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, fraudulent self is bared to the nation,” and “King and his advisors interpreted the note as calling for him to commit suicide.”
Important in understanding the nature of COINTELPRO, is that, “COINTELPRO was not just surveillance, it was active disruption. It was putting agents into the movement to incite rivalries, a jealousy, to try to get people fighting against each other and not trusting each other.”
As a Congressional investigation into the activities of COINTELPRO revealed, “the infiltration of an
informant into the top post of the United Klans of America, then largest of several major Ku Klux Klan organizations, was seriously considered in 1967.” Further, “in the early 1970s the leadership of the Black Panthers was so riddled with FBI informants that the bureau virtually ran the organization.”
Even the National Security Agency, the massive intelligence agency that dwarfs the CIA in its size, had begun in the 1960s, compiling a watch list of US citizens whose phone calls were wiretapped. In 1967, “the list was expanded to include the names of U.S. citizens involved in antiwar and civil-rights activities.”
The Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964, which banned discrimination based on “race, color, religion, or national origin” in employment practices and public accommodations. Martin Luther King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize the same year. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was signed. In 1966, Black Power was created as a group designed to be armed and ready to take on the Ku Klux Klan, and was made most famous by the Black Panther Party.
In April of 1967, Martin Luther King gave a speech entitled, “Beyond Vietnam,” in which he most publicly
and famously spoke out against not just the Vietnam War, but all war. He declared that he could not confront the evils of poverty without confronting “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” King stated, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
After delivering such a monumental speech against war and empire, King was attacked by the national media; with Life Magazine calling the speech, “demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi,” and the Washington Post saying that, “King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.”
Martin Luther King was vastly contributing to the use of the apparatus of government in expanding and strengthening the democratic nature of society. This was largely at odds with the aims and methods of the National Security State “secret government,” operating through the realm of ‘deep politics.’ This was particularly prescient as the civil rights movement coalesced with the antiwar movement, posing a significant political threat to the established powers. When King spoke out against the Vietnam War and imperialism, the ‘secret government’ could no longer tolerate him. Protests in the civil rights and antiwar movements were often becoming violent, and prompted violent state responses. In regards to COINTELPRO, “efforts to discredit Reverend King intensified as he began to criticize as he began to criticize the Vietnam War.”
In 1967, “the National Guard was called out twenty-five times to deal with rioting, gunfire, arson, and looting.” In 1968:
The Pentagon took unusual steps to combat civil disturbance. A plan and command, named Operation Garden Plot, was devised for “DOD [Department of Defense] components [that is, U.S. armed forces] to respond to reasonable requests from the FBI for military resources for use in combating acts of terrorism.”
Under Operation Garden Plot, “Military Intelligence – working with the FBI, local county and state police forces – undertook and directed a massive domestic intelligence-gathering operation.” Further, “security forces ranging from Army troops to local police were trained to implement their contingency plans.” The name of this Army task force that took on this operation was the Directorate of Civil Disturbance Planning and Operations. In the Army surveillance of King, as Peter Dale Scott documented:
The 20th Special Forces Group is reported to have used reservists from the Alabama National Guard, who in turn traded arms for intelligence from the Ku Klux Klan. In other words the U.S. Army with these programs, consciously or not, was countering a militant left by building up and arming a militant right.
On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. The murder was
blamed on James Earl Ray, a fugitive who was later arrested in London and extradited to the United States. Even after King’s death, J. Edgar Hoover “continued the campaign to discredit the civil rights leader.”
The King family had for a long time, publicly acknowledged that they believed the accused killer, James Earl Ray, to have been innocent of the crime he was accused. In fact, in 1999, the case was taken to court, in one of the most important, and yet least-widely reported court cases in the last century. O.J. Simpson’s trial became a national issue seared into the collective cultural subconscious, while the trial of the charge of government conspiracy in the murder of Martin Luther King, received barely a whisper of attention. The jury at the trial concluded that:
Loyd Jowers, owner of Jim’s Grill, had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, a conspiracy that included J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Richard Helms and the CIA, the military, the Memphis Police Department (MPD), and organized crime. That verdict exonerated James Earl Ray who had already died in prison.
Upon the announcement of the verdict, Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King’s widow, said, “There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief.” She continued:
The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame.
William Pepper, the lawyer for the King family who took the case to trial, and who was previously the lawyer for James Earl Ray, spoke upon the final verdict of the jury. He stated that Martin Luther King:
took on those forces, powerful economic forces that dominated politics in this land, they killed him. He was killed because he could not be stopped. He was killed because they feared that half a million people would rise in revolution in the capitol of this country, and do what Mr. Jefferson said needed to be done every 20 years, to cleanse this land. This land has not been cleansed. This nation has not faced the problems that Martin Luther King, Jr. died trying to face and confront. They still exist today, the forces of evil, the powerful economic forces that dominate the government of this land and make money on war and deprive the poor of what is their right, their birthright. They still abound and they rule.
As it was revealed at the trial:
Members of the Army’s 111th Military Intelligence Group, based at Fort McPherson in Atlanta, Georgia, had come to Memphis and were keeping King under 24 hour a day surveillance.
William Pepper, the lawyer for the King family, later wrote a book on the trial and the evidence for the assassination, titled, “An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King.” In it, he lays out the evidence:
of how Martin Luther King was killed, not by James Ray, a bumbling patsy, but by a Memphis policeman in league with the Mafia, backed by soldiers -- some armed with high-powered rifles, others with cameras to film the event -- in a special Military Intelligence unit.

Judge Joe Brown had presided over James Earl Ray’s final appeal of his conviction, which thrust him into the national spotlight. It was out of this that he got the job to host the television court program, “Judge Joe Brown.” However, he continued to speak out on matters of the Martin Luther King assassination. Brown has publicly stated that James Earl Ray did not shoot King, and that, “Dr. King was shot with an M-21, which is a specially accurized edition of the M-14 semi-automatic weapon that the military used.”
Following the assassination of Martin Luther King on April 4, 1968, the Pentagon’s Directorate of Civil Disturbance Planning and Operations emerged “during the massive rioting that broke out in black ghettos of nineteen cities after the assassination.” The headquarters of the Directorate was in the basement of the Pentagon, in “the domestic war room.” As Peter Dale Scott explained:
In effect, plans and programs were being established to institutionalize martial law on a long-term or even permanent basis.
A number of steps were taken toward eroding the prohibition, established in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1876, against the ongoing use of the army in civilian law enforcement.
The military intelligence operation “was supplemented at various stages by the CIA, the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, and the National Security Administration.” By 1968:
many Justice Department personnel knew that the military was preparing to move in massively if needed to quash urban riots, and some officials feared the development of a large national military riot force. It was well known among top officials that the Department of Defense was spending far more funds than the Justice Department on civil disorder preparations indicative of the growing trend at the federal level toward repression and control of the urban black rioters.
A US Senator later “revealed that Military Intelligence had established an intricate surveillance system covering hundreds of thousands of American citizens.” Further:
At first, the Garden Plot exercises focused primarily on racial conflict. But beginning in 1970, the scenarios took a different twist. The joint teams, made up of cops, soldiers and spies, began practicing battle with large groups of protesters...
As time went on, "Garden Plot evolved into a series of annual training exercises based on contingency plans to undercut riots and demonstrations, ultimately developed for every major city in the United States. Participants in the exercises included key officials from all law enforcement agencies in the nation, as well as the National Guard, the military, and representatives of the intelligence community.
Garden Plot oversaw suppression of antiwar and civil rights protests and riots from the 1960s into the 1970s, having been called to a variety of cities over that period of time. Following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who was, at the time, campaigning for the presidency, broke the news to a large gathering of African Americans in Indianapolis, Indiana. He spoke, not of campaign issues, but of the man and ideas that King was and represented:
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.
The Billionaire Oligarchy and the Civil Rights Movement
The major philanthropic foundations of America (primarily the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and a host of others), represent the interests of the most highly concentrated sources of power in the world. The foundations are run by and for major elite interests, who simultaneously control the economic and political apparatus of entire nations and the world economy. The foundations were founded in the early 20th century as a means of these same elites to steer social progress, and ultimately undertake projects of social engineering. It was these very same foundations that were the principle financiers of the eugenics movement, which gave birth to scientific racism and ultimately led to the Holocaust. In short, these foundations had one principle aim: to socially engineer society according to the wishes of their owners. Through the banks and corporations these elites owned, they came to dominate the global economy. Through the think tanks they established, they steered politics and imperial foreign policy, and through the foundations, they engineered ‘culture’ and co-opted social movements into social engineering projects. Thus, every threat to the established social order would become an asset in its advancement and legitimization.
In the 1950s, the Ford Foundation began taking an interest in the Civil Rights movement, and after
convening a study on how to “improve race relations,” the Ford Foundation began giving grants to black colleges “to improve the quality of their educational offerings.” By 1966, the Civil Rights movement was one of the major areas of Ford Foundation funding. Against the backdrop of the summer of 1966 in which there were 43 “urban disorders” (riots in ghettos), which had been “precipitated by confrontations between blacks and the police,” the Ford Foundation announced that it would “direct significant resources to the social justice area.” Among the aims of the Foundation were: “to improve leadership and programming within minority organizations; to explore approaches to better race relations; to support policy-oriented research on race and poverty; to promote housing integration; and to increase the availability of legal resources through support of litigating organizations and minority law students.”
There was a transformation between 1966 and 1967 of the notion of ‘black power’, which was increasingly viewed by elites and ‘authorities’, such as J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, as “the beginning of a true black revolution.” Many advocates of ‘black power’ saw it as the beginnings of a revolt against “white western imperialist” America.
The problem for elites was in having such prolific and anti-establishment leaders of social change movements.
King was accepted by the established powers, although very reluctantly, as it was a political necessity to support him unless one wanted to risk a revolution. However, when King moved against not only the issue of racial inequality, but the issues of poverty and imperialism, and drawing the connections between these areas and building opposition to them, King could no longer be tolerated by the established powers. Thus, they killed him. King, who was without a doubt, the leader of the Civil Rights movement, was, in his last year, steering the Civil Rights movement against poverty and empire. This would have been the natural progression of the Civil Rights movement had King lived longer, fighting for the rights of all people around the world and at home, and aiming to unite them all under a common cause of liberation against systemic oppression. This was simply too much for the oligarchy to accept, and thus King was killed. With King gone, the movement lent itself to be more easily steered in “safer” directions.
The Civil Rights movement was originally “launched by indigenous leadership and primarily mobilized the
southern black community.” Thus, it was essential for large foundation funding of the movement, to effectively control its direction and impetus. This “elite involvement would seem to occur only as a response to the threat posed by the generation of a mass-based social movement.” The major foundations “supported the moderate civil rights organizations in response to the ‘radical flank’ threat of the militants, while non-elites (churches, unions and small individual donors) spread their support evenly.” Elite patronage of the Civil Rights movement “diverted leaders from indigenous organizing and exacerbated inter-organizational rivalries, thereby promoting movement decay.”
Foundation funding for civil rights did not become significant until 1961-62, five years after the Birmingham bus boycott, and the peak of foundation support for civil rights was in 1972-73, four to five years after the assassination of King. This indicated that foundation grants to civil rights were ‘reactive’, in that they were designed in response to changes in the movement itself, implying that foundation patronage was aimed at social control. Further, most grants went to professionalized social movement organizations (SMOs) and in particular, the NAACP. While the professional SMOs initiated only 14% of movement actions, they accounted for 57% of foundation grants, while the classical SMOs, having carried out roughly 36% of movement actions, received roughly 32% of foundation grants. This disparity grew with time, so that by the 1970s, the classical SMOs garnered 25% of grants and the professional SMOs received nearly 70% of grants. Principally, the NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund were the most endowed with foundation support. Many of the foundations subsequently became “centrally involved in the formulation of national social policy and responded to elite concerns about the riots.”
It became clear that the older, established and moderate organizations received the most outside funding,
such as the National Urban League, the NAACP and the Legal Defense and Educational Fund. As the black struggles of the 1960s increasingly grew militant and activist-oriented in the latter half of the 1960s, “foundation contributions became major sources of income for the National Urban League, the Southern Regional Council, and the Legal Defense and Educational Fund.”
The NAACP and the National Urban League represent the more moderate civil rights organizations, as they were also the oldest, with membership primarily made up of middle class African Americans, leading to many, including King himself, to suggest they were disconnected from the reality or in representing poor blacks in America. The radicalization of the black protest movement led to the emergence of challenges to the NAACP and Urban League in being the ‘leaders’ in civil rights, as new organizations
emerged which represented a broader array of the black population. Among them were the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), which Martin Luther King led. Foundations increased funding for all of these organizations, but as activism and militancy accelerated in the latter half of the 1960s, the funding declined for the more radical, militant and activist organizations and increased dramatically for the established and moderate organizations. This trend continued going into the 1970s.
In 1967, Martin Luther King’s SCLC received $230,000 from the Ford Foundation, yet after his assassination, the organization received no more funding and virtually fell to pieces. That same year, the Ford Foundation gave the NAACP $300,000, and gave the Urban League $585,000. The Rockefeller Foundation granted the League $650,000, with the Carnegie Corporation coming in with $200,000. The Ford Foundation also gave the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) $175,000 in 1967.
In 1968, with the SCLC out of the picture, Ford increased funding for CORE to $300,000, increased grants to the NAACP to $378,000, and gave the Urban League a monumental grant of $1,480,000. The same
year, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation gave the NAACP $500,000 and $200,000 respectively. Clearly, the foundations were supporting the older established and moderate organizations over the new, young and activist/radical organizations. From the following year, 1969, CORE received no more grants from foundations, while the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations increased their grants to the NAACP and the Urban League. In 1974, the NAACP received grants of $950,000 from the Ford Foundation, $250,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation, and $200,000 from the Carnegie Corporation. The Urban League received grants of $2,350,000 from the Ford Foundation and $350,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation.
This co-optation of the civil rights movement was so vital to these elite interests for the principle reason of the
movement taking its natural course, out of an ethnic or race-based focus and into a class and global social focus. A. Philip Randolph, a civil rights leader, spoke in 1963 at an ALF-CIO convention at which he stated, “The Negro’s protest today is but the first rumbling of the ‘under-class.’ As the Negro has taken to the streets, so will the unemployed of all races take to the streets.” This was clearly the sentiment of Martin Luther King in 1967, when he spoke of how poverty, empire, war and economic exploitation are faced not simply by one race or one people, but all people, everywhere. It was an issue and an approach and a natural progression from the civil rights movement, coupled with the anti-war movement, which would ultimately unite all people against the prevailing imperial structures and ideas.
In 1970, pamphlets were circulating in which it was said that the black woman “allies herself with the have-
nots in the wider world and their revolutionary struggles.” While in the past, wrote Patricia Robinson in one pamphlet, the poor black woman did not “question the social and economic system,” now she must, and “she has begun to question aggressive male domination and the class society which enforces it, capitalism.”
Ultimately, the methods, amounts and sources of elite financing for civil rights organizations had the desired effects. The strategy for civil rights became integration and reform, not agitation and revolution. The distinctly anti-capitalist sentiments of many in the civil rights movement, as well as exponentially increasing criticisms of American imperialism and campaigns against poverty, not simply as a racial issue, but as social and class issues, all ceased to accelerate and advance. From this point on, civil rights procedures took a distinctly institutionalized approach, preferring the legal route rather than the activist route. The legal route was instrumental in advancing notions of black integration into the system (ex: ‘affirmative action’), as opposed to black activist-inspired reorganization or revolution of the system. In this sense, the major foundations had the effect of co-opting one of the most promising social movements in recent history, so that it did not negatively damage the prevailing systems and structures of power, and instead, focused on ‘reforming’ appearance rather than substance, so that blacks can be included within the system, thus removing the impetus for them to fight against it.
Elite Ideology: Social Movements are “Dangerous” to Democracy
It is important to briefly address some of the institutional ideologies of the elite, so as to understand their motivations for co-optation of social movements and their preference and proclivity for social engineering.
In 1970, David Rockefeller became Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, while also being Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan. In 1970, an academic who joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1965 wrote a book called Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. The author, Zbigniew Brzezinski, called for the formation of “A Community of the Developed Nations,” consisting of Western Europe, the United States and Japan. Brzezinski wrote about how “the traditional sovereignty of nation states is becoming increasingly unglued as transnational forces such as multinational corporations, banks, and international organizations play a larger and larger role in shaping global politics.” David Rockefeller had taken note of Brzezinski’s writings, and was “getting worried about the deteriorating relations between the U.S., Europe, and Japan,” as a result of Nixon’s economic shocks. In 1972, David Rockefeller and Brzezinski “presented
the idea of a trilateral grouping at the annual Bilderberg meeting.” In July of 1972, seventeen powerful people met at David Rockefeller’s estate in New York to plan for the creation of the Commission. Also at the meeting was Brzezinski, McGeorge Bundy, the President of the Ford Foundation, (brother of William Bundy, editor of Foreign Affairs) and Bayless Manning, President of the Council on Foreign Relations. So, in 1973, the Trilateral Commission was formed to address these issues.
The Commission’s major concerns were to preserve for the “industrialized societies,” in other words, seek mutual gain for the Trilateral nations, and to construct “a common approach to the needs and demands of the poorer nations.” However, this should be read as, “constructing a common approach to [dealing with] poorer nations.” As well as this, the Commission would undertake “the coordination of defense policies and of policies toward such highly politicized issues as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and aerial hijacking, and such highly politicized geographic areas as the Middle East or Southern Africa.”
In 1975, the Trilateral Commission published a Task Force Report entitled, “The Crisis of Democracy,” of which one of the principal authors was Samuel Huntington, a political scientist and close associate and friend of Zbigniew Brzezinski. In this report, Huntington argues that the 1960s saw a surge in democracy in America, with an upswing in citizen participation, often “in the form of marches, demonstrations, protest movements, and ‘cause’ organizations.” Further, “the 1960s also saw a reassertion of the primacy of equality as a goal in social, economic, and political life.” Huntington analyzed how as part of this “democratic surge,” statistics showed that throughout the 1960s and into the early 1970s, there was a dramatic increase in the percentage of people who felt the United States was spending too much on defense (from 18% in 1960 to 52% in 1969, largely due to the Vietnam War).
Huntington wrote that the “essence of the democratic surge of the 1960s was a general challenge to existing systems of authority, public and private,” and that, “people no longer felt the same compulsion to obey those whom they had previously considered superior to themselves in age, rank, status, expertise, character, or
talents.” Huntington explained that in the 1960s, “hierarchy, expertise, and wealth” had come “under heavy attack.” He stated that three key issues which were central to the increased political participation in the 1960s were:
social issues, such as use of drugs, civil liberties, and the role of women; racial issues, involving integration, busing, government aid to minority groups, and urban riots; military issues, involving primarily, of course, the war in Vietnam but also the draft, military spending, military aid programs, and the role of the military-industrial complex more generally.
Huntington presented these issues, essentially, as the “crisis of democracy,” in that they increased distrust with the government and authority, that they led to social and ideological polarization, and led to a “decline in the authority, status, influence, and effectiveness of the presidency.”
Huntington concluded that many problems of governance in the United States stem from an “excess of democracy,” and that, “the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups.” Huntington explained that society has always had “marginal groups” which do not participate in politics, and while acknowledging that the existence of “marginality on the part of some groups is inherently undemocratic,” it has also “enabled democracy to function effectively.” Huntington identifies “the blacks” as one such group that had become politically active, posing a “danger of overloading the political system with demands.”
Huntington, in his conclusion, stated that the vulnerability of democracy, essentially the ‘crisis of democracy,’ comes “from the internal dynamics of democracy itself in a highly educated, mobilized, and participant society,” and that what is needed is “a more balanced existence” in which there are “desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.” Summed up, the Trilateral Commission Task Force Report essentially explained that the “Crisis of Democracy” is that there is too much of it, and so the ‘solution’ to the crisis, is to have less democracy and more ‘authority’.
This is the principle ideology behind the political, economic and social institutions and apparatus of power: to control people and protect and expand centralized authority. ‘Democracy’ used in this sense simply implies maintaining an ‘image’ of democracy, with a legislature, judiciary, and executive branch, and of course, voting. Ultimately, a system in which the political, economic and social spheres are directed by and serve the interests of a tiny elite (national or international in composition) is not a true democracy. Voting is a cruel fraud on the people promoting a façade of democracy by allowing the people to vote between two elite-chosen candidates. This is not ‘democracy,’ this is oligarchy.
The Civil Rights Movement is an excellent example of how the imperial structures of society can be turned
against an indigenous social movement to either crush or co-opt it. The natural progression of the Civil Rights Movement as a global struggle for liberation against not only racism, but empire, poverty and exploitation was interrupted and deconstructed; but it should not be forgotten. We are coming to a time, now, where the world is more ready for a resurgence of the ideas of Martin Luther King, the very ideas he was articulating in his final year alive, and the very ideas that are capable of uniting all of humanity against our common oppressors. All power structures, in every facet of society, should have their legitimacy challenged and ultimately have their power withdrawn in place of indigenous power: people power. What systems and structures arise will be plentiful and with successes and failures, and no one can say what the “right” system is; but what is very evident, is that the current system is wrong, and should be challenged on every level, and by every person.
“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered... The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr., “Beyond Vietnam,” 1967
Americans Hiding from Reality: Personal Responsibility
By Frosty Wooldridge
November 29, 2010
NBC’s Brian Williams last week reported, “The latest figures show 72 percent of African-American newborns in the United States arrive from single mothers, most of them teenagers.” (Date: November 7, 2010, NBC Nightly News) They immediately land on welfare rolls as “Aid to Dependent Children.” Similar figures include Hispanic teen single mothers. These unmarried teen mothers fail to graduate from high school—while they birth two, three, four and more children while living full-time off welfare.
The rate of U.S. taxpayer welfare dollars for this new generation of illiterate, irresponsible, unemployed and un-trainable armada of citizens and non-citizens—grows annually with massive immigrant loading of 3.1 million. (Source:, Dr. Steven Camarata) Legal immigrant mothers birth 900,000 newborns annually within the United States.
Additionally, figures show that an average of 350,000 to 400,000 illegal alien un-wed women and pregnant visa over-stayers also land on welfare rolls—paid for by U.S. taxpayers. U.S. citizens must pay for assisted housing, medical care, breakfasts and lunches, food stamps, K-12 education and more.
Seventeen percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008. (Source: David Salano, KIAH TV Houston, November 7, 2010)
"It's unbelievable. I didn't realize the number was so astounding," said Kathleen Zein, a native of Port-Au-Prince, Haiti living in Houston. "I think the report is very sad. Hopefully things will change around, but it's an ongoing process. It's just bad choices, and they don't have the right mentors to guide them and [provide them with the appropriate way of] protecting themselves.”
Today, the American Reading Foundation offers these educational facts: The United States houses 42 million Americans and non-citizens that cannot read, write or perform simple math. Another 50 million American citizens cannot read past the 4th grade level.
Illiteracy Defines the Third World
In my world travels, I witnessed unimaginable poverty, misery and human suffering in third world countries. Where you enjoy grocery stores filled with food and schools with teachers, over 1 billion humans cannot find a clean glass of drinking water daily. Because of that, 18 million humans starve to death annually.
Yet, third world mothers not only birth enough kids to replace the 57 million humans that die annually, those mothers add 80 million net gain newborns every year.
 What am I getting at? Just this: illiteracy defines the third world. They add 80 million more mouths to feed annually, but cannot maintain or sustain any educational thrust. Therefore, what do illiterate human beings do? Answer: while we attend the opera or a football game—they propagate.
Brian Williams also reported that Detroit, Michigan suffers a 76 percent dropout rate from its high schools and all around the USA, a whopping 1.2 million 18 year olds hit the streets annually unable to read, write or perform simple math.
Yet, we spend $12 billion a month ‘nation building’ in Iraq and Afghanistan—while our own civilization degrades into third world illiteracy.
Bob Herbert of the New York Times followed up with my column last week, “Has the American Dream Come to an End?”, with his own, “America is hiding from reality.” He said, “However you want to define the American Dream, there is not much of it that’s left anymore. Wherever you choose to look—at the economy and jobs, the public schools, the budget deficits, the non-stop warfare—you’ll see a country in sad shape. Standards of living are declining.” (November 28, 2010, NYTimes)
No kidding Jack!
This country rots deeper in its belly than ever before. A whopping 41.8 million Americans utilize food
stamps. Yet, our Congress outsources, offshores and insources millions of jobs. Congress takes jobs away from Americans by the millions—and gives them to immigrants.
The PEW Hispanic Center showed: In the year after the official end of the recession in June 2009, foreign-born workers in the USA gained 656,000 jobs while native-born American workers lost 1.2 million jobs—now totaling 15 million unemployed.
As the U.S. economy adds 95,000 jobs monthly, our Congress adds another 200,000 immigrants every 30 days. No chance for ever closing the employment gap for Americans! None! Zilch!
“The human suffering in the years required to recover from the recession will continue to be immense,” said Herbert.
While we stagger into 2011, our president and this Congress continue importing 3.1 million legal immigrants and their children annually with no end in sight. (Source:
Does it make sense? Who chose this path? Why do we continue to follow it? Who benefits? Why does our Congress continue to do this to American citizens?
We do not see personal responsibility or accountability in our president or U.S. Congress. Beats the balderdash out of me!
Has the American Dream Come to an End?
By Frosty Wooldridge
November 25, 2010
“For generations, parents have told their children about “The American Dream.” Basically it has meant building a life based on the foundational principles that created and have sustained America for more than 200 years.”
Greater than any other country in the modern world, the United States offered, from 1776 to 2010, unprecedented opportunities to the common citizen to manifest the “American Dream.” Every resident enjoys the choices of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
How do you define the American Dream? Basically, it allows average citizens to enjoy higher education, greater choices and fulfillment of their personal goals. Those aspirations allow farm boys to play in the New York Philharmonic, or a Texas kid to sing the National Anthem in Yankee Stadium, or a poor black girl like Oprah Winfrey to become a movie star, fabulously rich and the host of the Oprah Show. She that educates and enlightens millions around the world. It allows inner-city ghetto kids like O.J. Simpson to gain stardom, money and a mega-wealthy home—only to sit in prison for his transgressions.
It allows men like Bernie Madoff to rise to astonishing wealth only to fall into disgrace and prison. The American Dream allows a poor white kid like Abe Lincoln to rise to the presidency as well as an illegitimate black kid like Barack Obama to sit in the White House in 2010. The American Dream allows anyone with fortitude, integrity, drive and creative talents to chase their dreams.
For example: how could a poor boy step off the farm in the 1950s, graduate from college, become a teacher, and move on to live a life of adventure? How could he jump on a bicycle and ride it 100,000 miles across six continents and seven times coast-to-coast across America? How could a kid enjoy such an amazing life that Marco Polo or Captain Cook would envy? How could he write 10 books with more on the way? How could he speak up against his own government and fight for what’s right and not get thrown into political prison? I don’t know, but I am that kid. I must pinch myself because it all gets down to the luck of my birth and country of origin.
If you look around the planet, you will not see the “Indian Dream”; “China Dream”; “Mexican Dream”; “Bangladesh Dream” or “African Dream.” In those places—poverty, death, disease, famine, few choices and a pretty unfortunate life experience await many human beings.
For that matter in my 40 years of world travel, only about 15 countries allow their citizens the ability to make enough money to travel the planet. The rest of humanity scratches out a living.
But, I am willing to bet, that for the United States, the American Dream will turn out to be a brief fantasy in the history of our country, ending circa 2010 or so. Our own leaders bankrupted our government, defrauded future generations with $13 trillion in debt, forced us into useless and immoral wars like Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan; they sold the American people downstream by shipping our entire manufacturing foundation and mercantile goods to other countries.
We suffer a mind-numbing 41.8 million Americans subsisting on food stamps. Another 15 million stand in unemployment lines and seven million cannot procure a full time job. Our country and its citizens morph into a welfare state. Personal accountability and personal responsibility—die in the schools of America where Black, White and Hispanic kids flunk out of high school at 7,000 per day—over 1.2 million annually. A record 72 percent of black teens give birth to children without fathers—and live off the backs of taxpaying Americans—without giving it a second thought as they birth two, three and more babies.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"                     — Isaac Asimov
Is the American Dream dead? I submit that it staggers on life-support and the final diagnosis may prove unfortunate.
Charleston Tea Party writer KC said, “We have created a new definition of “The American Dream”. It has
nothing to do with values and principles, but has everything to do with “stuff.” Is the goal an accumulation of possessions? If that’s the case, then our nation of bureaucratic welfare recipients should be the happiest, most fulfilled people the world has ever produced. Instead Prozac, valium and therapists abound. Suicide is an epidemic and we are engaged in major sociological soul searching to find fulfillment in this wealthy but empty lifestyle.”
As I learned in my travels—as human numbers climb into the millions and billions in any civilization, human options diminish and degrade. As human numbers grow—options and freedoms shrink. As human numbers accelerate, everything degrades from standard of living to quality of life. And, once enormous populations manifest—everyone lives in tense toleration, intimidation and diminished opportunities. Can this country survive the next added 100 million Americans manifesting via immigration within 25 years?
Bill Moyers asked the question to write Isaac Asimov, “What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if population growth continues at its present rate?”
“It will be completely destroyed,” said Asimov. “I will use what I call my bathroom metaphor. Two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have the freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, and stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. Everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in the freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, "Aren't you through yet?" and so on.
“The same way democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are the less one individual matters.”
From my world traveling perspective, the American Dream will not survive what’s coming.
A Pastor with GUTS!
Thought you might enjoy this interesting prayer given in Kansas at the opening session of their Senate. It seems prayer still upsets some people. When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:
Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and
guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story' and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to You Your Government
Recent compilation of headline stories of the ineptness, obtuseness, and general lack of commonsense of governmental agencies
By Jim Byrd
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Warning: Never, under any circumstance, confuse what the federal government has morphed into as representative of the heart and soul of the United States of America as long as this country is a free republic. It is one thing to rebuke the federal government, and another to rebuke this country.
The majority of Americans view the United States federal government as incarnate, a being, a corporeal entity; generally the bearded caricature of Uncle Sam suffices for most as representative of the federal government. But good ol’ Uncle Sam is generally only employed to invoke patriotism among the masses for some gain at the federal level, or the very rare occasion that the federal government actually accomplishes something for the greater good of the country rather than for political expediency.
Warren Buffett, who supported Obama for president, has disagreed with his policies, agreed with his policies, has penned an article for the New York Times thanking Uncle Sam (Obama), for saving the world, or rather the projects that Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway was able to profit from either by conventional investing or shorting, and with penned lines such as, “Only one counterforce was available, and that was you, Uncle Sam. When the crisis struck, I felt you would understand the role you had to play.” Buffett, like all investors, sees only what is good for his profits, and the opportunities presented to him by any administration.
The federal government is a bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that has reached immeasurable magnitude. All forms of governmental bodies are bureaucracies: local city governments, school boards, committees, states, and etc. Bureaucracy and commonsense work in unison just as the north-seeking poles of two magnets work
together. The smaller the bureaucracy, the less it resists commonsense, and the opposing forces are small enough to give hope that the two could be reconciled. But the federal government and commonsense resist each other with such a force that it is mathematically too powerful to quantify. The larger the government, the larger the bureaucracy, and the larger the bureaucracy, the greater the probably that accomplishing anything of tangible value will diminish exponentially. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but, by Jove, they are a rarity.
Lacking functional skills, apply for a government job; devoid of ambition, apply for a government job; just want a paycheck without accountability, apply for a government job; afflicted with all of the above, run for office.
I do not advocate the extremist positions of libertarianism that call for the practical elimination of the federal government. Government is necessary for maintaining this republic, but the United States federal government could be downsized by 50% or more, and the country would be much better for it. It is the excess girth of the federal government that is the largest problem this country faces.
To understand the dysfunctions of bureaucracies, I present a recent compilation of headline stories of the ineptness, obtuseness, and general lack of commonsense of governmental agencies of all sizes within these United States of America. It is historically clear that the real enemy of all nations, and their eventual downfall, is garden-variety stupidity.
The evidence:
School Makes Boy Take American Flag Off Bike
The Golden State, California, is the most anti-American state in the union. Cody Alicea decided to fly the American flag, Old Glory, the flag used during the revolutionary war of our independence. That flag mounted on his bicycle as he rode it to school during veteran’s week was his way of honoring our country’s soldiers past and present. But, the Denair Unified School District took offense to the flag and young Cody’s offensive display of patriotism. Following complaints from Hispanic students, the school ordered Cody to remove the flag as it was too offensive to be allowed on school property. The school stated that when Hispanics brought Mexican flags to school it created racial tensions during Cinco de Mayo. Denair Superintendent, Edward Parraz, stated: “Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they’ll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don’t really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures.”
You know, it would be a disgrace, you know, if there was not an outrage about flying Mexican flags at an
American school, you know. California, the state that is in debt to the point of no return, has just elected a Governor, Jerry Brown, who can be assured to double the debt, unemployment, taxes, and continue to drive wealth out of the state. California has an illegal alien population that has caused 15% of the public schools to consist of either illegals or the children of illegals, a statistic that is costing the state an additional 7.7 billion dollars a year. It is this valueless, iniquitous, and dysfunctional state that has rejected the American flag.
Not only are public schools robbing children of proper education for the cost, they are now in the business of robbing the children of their patriotism, and teaching that Old Glory is an offensive symbol even on American soil.
Was George Washington fearful of offending the British or the Hessians by charging into battle waving Old Glory?
Armed Cops Raiding Barber Shops over Criminal Barbering
It is as if a huge weight has been lifted.. Now the citizens of Orange Country can sleep at night knowing that cutting hair without a license, illegal barbering, has become public enemy number one for Orange County law enforcement, and that justice has prevailed against the wayward snippers.
Fourteen armed Orange County deputies, narcotic agents, and well-trained agents from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation conducted armed raids, for the public’s safety and in the name of bad haircuts, of course, and raided Skillz barbershop. On a lazy Saturday afternoon, barbers were caught in the criminal act of styling hair without a license. The offenders were handcuffed and hauled off to the pokey in front of bewildered half-sheared customers. Nine barbershops were caught in this unprecedented dragnet, producing 37 arrests, the bulk of the charges levied were for barbering without a license. Captain Dave Ogden, of Orange County Sheriff’s Office, was left with no choice but to arrest and incarcerate: “It was a misdemeanor crime being committed in our presence. We decided to make arrests,” Ogden professed. It is unclear if Odgen harbored a personal vendetta against the felonious barbers, as he suspiciously hid his suspected mutilated coiffure under a chapeau.
Remember to check your stylist’s license against his or her photo identification, and if it matches, and the license is not expired, hug your stylist, and relax knowing your cut will not be interrupted by the incarceration of your stylist mid-snip.
Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint for Seeking a Christian Roommate
A Michigan woman has crossed the line of decency by looking for a Christian roommate in an advertisement posted at a Christian church.
A Samaritan of bountiful civic duty saw the ad and promptly reported it to the fair housing authority, which
led to formal charges being brought against the Christian advertiser, and her illegal quest for a Christian roommate. She perhaps had violated some pagan’s civil rights. The complaint filed at the Fair Housing Center accused the Christian of having “expressed an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths.” Executive Director Nancy Haynes said, “It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement. There are no exemptions to that.” Haynes also elaborated that the unnamed woman could face hundreds of dollars in fines, and of course the obligatory indoctrination of being sent to “fair housing training” so it does not happen again.
Remember, in the world of the Left, it is a crime to have a preference about with whom you choose to live. If you choose to date or marry a certain race, you could be found guilty of preferring one race over another, and if you prefer one gender over another for dating purposes, or marriage, be prepared to be fined, jailed, and indoctrinated.
Haynes, apparently suffering from chronic imbecilicitis compounded by the deprivation of commonsense, said the state will pursue the matter.
New Castle Councilman Calls Cops on Boys’ Cupcake Sale
New Castle, New York will not tolerate any breach of the law, even if it mirrors a Norman Rockwell painting. Two 13 year old scofflaws, Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff, did what kids have done since,
well, forever, and set up a little stand to sell cupcakes, brownies, and cookies at Gedney Park. And along came—remember what we discussed earlier—New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn, bureaucrat, completely depleted of commonsense. Once Wolfensohn realized the den of inequity in the guise of a cookie stand, he promptly called the police, probably 911. Law enforcement promptly arrived.
When asked by someone with a lick of sense why he couldn’t have simply told the boys that they needed a license instead of calling the police, Wolfensohn lamented, “In hindsight, maybe I should have done that, but I wasn’t sure if I was allowed to do that.” But Wolfensohn did raise a perplexing and valid point: “The police are trained to deal with these sorts of issues.”
It is reassuring that my local police academy focuses training new recruits on how to handle armed suspects, weapons handling, self defense, and other rather important skills to protect citizens against criminals rather than being trained on raiding junior high cookie stands.
Of course, the boys could opt for the $1 million dollar insurance, and pay $350 per hour to operate in the park, per the Parks Department.
Obama Statement on Israeli Construction Freeze Startles Prime Minister’s Office
President Obama, the smartest human alive, publicly praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for freezing new settlements in the West Bank. This statement, of course, sent shock waves through the country of Israel, especially Netanyahu and Israel’s government. The problem is that no one in the Israeli government, including Netanyahu, had ever made such a statement to Obama or anyone else. Obama again is subscribing to the if I say it, then it will be happen credo of his administration that has produced zero beneficial and tangible results two years into his presidency.
Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s spokesman, said, “nothing has changed in between the time the cabinet met and the U.S. president’s remarks.” What he did was call Obama a prevaricating buffoon in a very diplomatic sort of way.
Netanyahu is considering some type of freeze, but it is still only in the outlined stages.
Netanyahu personally joined the dog-pile on Obama’s lack of diplomacy and ability to tell the truth, while reassuring his cabinet that he is running Israel, and not Obama: “If and when it is complete, I will bring this proposal to the appropriate government forum, which in this case is the cabinet. In any case, I insist that any proposal meet the state of Israel’s security needs, both in the immediate term and vis-√†-vis the threats that we will face in the coming decade.”
HHS Falls Short of Pre-existing Coverage Prediction by 97.8%
Remember when Obama and the Democrats said we had to overhaul this country’s healthcare system immediately? He wanted to socialize our healthcare system so badly that he and the Democrats circumvented this country’s legislative system, passed the bill without a vote from the Senate, and Obama merrily signed it into law. While trying to sell it to a very unreceptive public, Obama tried to coerce its acceptance by alluding that if passed, a burden would be lifted off this country’s economy and conscience: “The cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough.” And all those disenfranchised sick people who are not covered by health insurance will surely stampede to the government troughs and slake their thirst for government subsidized health care coverage, and of course save the economy at the same time. Well almost one year later and the numbers are in. The economy is worse, more people are uncovered, and over the horizon it looks just as bleak:
255 million: The number of Americans with existing health insurance coverage.
20 million: The number of Americans without any health coverage at all due to economic circumstances.
375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.
8,011: The number that actually did.
Eight-thousand people. That’s it. Eight-thousand people. One person in North Dakota. Four people from West Virgina. Fifteen in Minnesota. Sixty-three people in Indiana. And 393 in Texas. What was not released was whether or not they were American citizens.
In a statistic that encapsulates the entire Obama administration and the Democratic led Congress, their success rate was a measly 2.2% after the upheaval of the entire healthcare system, lying to the American public about being able to keep their current plan, circumventing the legislative process, and destroying the insurance coverage of those already insured, and creating a plethora of mandates that are already stalling or destroying businesses, all for a 2.2% success rate. But so far, Obama has issued 111 waivers to corporations exempting them from ObamaCare.
Homeland Security and the Transportation and Safety Administration Demonstrate the Idiocy of the Federal Government
For the sake of brevity, I will only use a truncated list of the idiotic policies of Homeland Security and its rules governing the TSA and aircraft safety for the past couple of weeks that has left the probability of an incident happening to lottery style protection.
Pilots must go through either sexual assault—government sanctioned groping—or completely unknown health risk by passing through a body scanning machine that will expose their naked bodies. If they have a pair of nail clippers or too many ounces of Prell shampoo, it will be confiscated. But, once they are on board their aircraft, they will have at their disposal an axe, fire extinguishers, flares, and absolute control of a 900,000 pound missile capable of traveling at mach .92, over 600 miles per hour, but severely handicapped without their overabundance of Prell or trusty nail clippers. The pilot could also be one of the 85,000 to 90,000 pilots and crew who are certified to carry firearms on their flights, but no nail clippers.
Janet Napolitano is one of the few people in America that can make Michael Brown look like the Albert
Einstein of national security. She said that abandoning the scanners would be “irresponsible” and that passengers who don’t like it can “travel by some other means.” She also stated that the scanners would have caught the “underwear bomber.” She lies. What she does not address is that with our random selection of which passengers will pass through the body scanners or enhanced pat-downs, it is highly probable that the “underwear bomber” wouldn’t even have been groped or scanned, plus it is only conjecture that the scanner would have noticed the underwear bomb. His flight originated in another country, which leaves Homeland Security, TSA, and the scanners and gropers impotent to incoming international flights.
A military convoy of 330 soldiers was coming back from Afghanistan. They had been through two full screenings already, but were pulled off the plane in Indiana, where hilarity ensued.
They were carrying their weapons from Afghanistan, M4 carbines, pistols, and M240 machine guns, but they actually had their nail clippers confiscated by the TSA while holding their weapons.
 And on and on and on.
This is not about airline security; it is theater, hype, and creating the illusion that flying is safe with the seal of the United States government.
So there it is, government and bureaucracy v. commonsense. As can be seen, not one of the government employees or elected officials are remotely qualified for their jobs: Barack Obama and his cabinet, the school superintendent, the city councilman, Janet Napolitano, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and every single Democrat in Congress. This is your government at work. This was just a snap shot of a couple of incidents during the past couple of weeks, so sit back and enjoy watching as new episodes unfold this week, and the next, and the next…. The question is, what are you going to do about it?
The National Security State and the Assassination of JFK
The CIA, the Pentagon, and the `Peace President`
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
Global Research, November 23, 2010
Just 47 years ago, on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. This marked the turning of the American National Security State apparatus against its own leadership. After having overthrown, assassinated leaders, and orchestrated coups around the world, the moment its growing power was threatened by the civilian leadership in America, the apparatus of empire came home to roost.
The National Security State
The apparatus of the National Security State, largely established in the National Security Act of 1947, laid the foundations for the extension of American hegemony around the globe. In short, the Act laid the foundations for the apparatus of the American Empire. The National Security Act created the National Security Council (NSC) and position of National Security Adviser, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JSC) as the Pentagon high command of military leaders, and of course, the CIA.
The first major foreign operation carried out by the National Security State, or rather, the “secret government,” was the overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Iran. In 1952, the British were concerned at the efforts of Iran’s new Prime Minister Mohommad Mossadeq, in nationalizing Iran’s oil industry, taking the monopoly away from British Petroleum. So the British intelligence, the SIS, proposed to the Americans a joint operation, and the CIA obliged. In early 1953, with the ascendancy of the Eisenhower administration, two brothers, the Dulles brothers, came to dominate foreign policy decisions. John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State while his brother, Allen Dulles, became director of the CIA. Allen Dulles was a founding member
of the Council on Foreign Relations and was a director of the CFR from 1927 to 1969, while John Foster Dulles had joined the Council in the 1930s, and was a career diplomat and Wall Street lawyer. In 1953, the Dulles brothers both worked and lobbied Eisenhower for the removal of Mossadeq from Iran, and subsequently, the CIA and SIS worked together to enact the plan and overthrew the Iranian government.
On January 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell address to the nation in which he warned America and indeed the world about the growing influence of the National Security State in what he referred to as the “military-industrial complex”:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Eisenhower was speaking from the point of view of having first-hand knowledge of this ‘influence’ in the corridors of power, himself as President being unable to challenge it, and unable to do so simply in the first decade of the American Empire. He was warning against the influence of the interconnected relationship and organized power of the military, government, and industry, in that the growing influence of this ‘complex’ was so vast that it threatened to take over the government and subvert democracy itself. It was the functions of this complex that saw profit created through war and empire, and thus, there was a constant drive and impetus towards pursuing empire and resorting to war. If you build a massive military structure, you are going to use it; if it is profitable to go to war, you will go to war.
The “Secret Government” and the Bay of Pigs
In January of 1959, the Cuban Revolution ousted the military strong man and American-ally Batista, and installed the Communist government of Fidel Castro. Beginning in October of 1959, the United States began a covert bombing and strafing campaign against Cuba, and in the early months of 1960, the US even firebombed Cuban cane fields and sugar mills. The CIA had organized the Cuban exile community, largely under the leadership of former supporters of Batista, in Florida to mount an operation aimed at overthrowing the revolutionary government.
The CIA and the American military, headed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (itself a creation of the National Security Act of 1947), were dead-set against Cuba. The idea of a Communist government so close to the United States was seen as completely unacceptable to the National Security State. Thus, in less than three months of JFK becoming president, in April of 1961, the CIA launched the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, in which nearly 2,000 Cuban exiles trained and supported by the CIA were to invade from the sea. However, Kennedy refused to go along with the operation and cancelled the air support for the invasion, leading to the failure of the invasion and capture of the exiles, and “the CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy.” Kennedy, in turn, blamed the CIA and the Pentagon, and fired CIA Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Director of the CIA, Charles Cabell in January of 1962.
The Bay of Pigs reveals some startling information about the “Deep Politics” surrounding the Kennedy administration. ‘Deep politics’ is a term popularized by former Canadian diplomat, author and academic
Peter Dale Scott, who – in my opinion – is one of the pre-eminent researchers of the “secret government.” Scott defines ‘deep politics’ as “looking beneath public formulations of policy issues to the bureaucratic, economic, and ultimately covert and criminal activities which underlie them.” In short, ‘deep politics’ is the functions and actions of the ‘secret government’.
David Talbott, former Editor-in-Chief of Salon, wrote a book about the assassinations of JFK and Robert Kennedy, in which he undertook in depth research into what can only be described as the ‘deep politics’ of their deaths. In it, he explained that upon JFK becoming President, Allen Dulles had felt that as he and his late brother John Foster Dulles (who died in 1959) “had largely run America’s foreign policy between the two of them during the 1950s,” that “he expected to continue the family’s policies undisturbed under the new, inexperienced president.” Dulles, in the presence of a close Kennedy confidante, even “started boasting that he was still carrying out his brother Foster’s foreign policy,” saying, “that’s a much better policy. I’ve chosen to follow that one.” The Kennedy confidante who was present informed JFK who was furious, “God damn it! ... Did he really say that?”
Richard Bissell, a man who formerly worked with the OSS (the precursor to the CIA), as well as the Ford Foundation, was brought into the CIA by Allen Dulles in 1958 as the Deputy Director for Plans, overseeing and personally running the covert plots to overthrow Arbenz in Guatemala, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam and primarily Fidel Castro. He was in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation. In short, Bissell was a devout acolyte of the ‘secret government.’ Bissell reassembled the key CIA officers involved in the Guatemala coup for the Bay of Pigs operations, including Tracy Barnes, David Atlee Phillips, Howard Hunt (who would later become famous as one of the Watergate burglars) and David Sanchez Morales.
The Bay of Pigs operations, which was organized in the Eisenhower administration, under the guidance of his Vice President, Richard Nixon, was briefed to Kennedy upon becoming president. JFK “made it clear to Dulles and Bissell that he would not commit the full military might of the United States to the Bay of Pigs operation.” During the Bay of Pigs operation, when it was clear that the operation would fail without military support, a major meeting took place with Kennedy, his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Vice President Johnson, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Lyman Lemnitzer, as well as Admiral Burke, the Navy Chief and Richard Bissell of the CIA. Bissell urged the president to take military action, with the support of Navy Chief Burke. Kennedy had refused, and he “was beginning to realize that his top military and intelligence chiefs did not take his instructions that seriously.”
Kennedy had repeatedly told Bissell in the lead up to the Bay of Pigs that as president, he reserved the right to abort the operation at any time. Yet Bissell had informed the military leaders of the Bay of Pigs operation that there were forces in the White House trying to stop it from going forward, and if they succeeded, he advised them to “mutiny against their U.S. advisors and proceed with the invasion.” Further, on the first day of the invasion, Admiral Burke, the Navy Chief, had sent “the U.S. aircraft carrier Essex and helicopter landing ship Boxer close to Cuban shore, in violation of Kennedy’s order to keep U.S. ships fifty miles away.” This was the true first test of the young president:
"The country’s military and intelligence chiefs had clearly believed they could sandbag the young, untested commander-in-chief into joining the battle. But he had stunned them by refusing to escalate the fighting."
As declassified CIA documents later revealed, the CIA itself knew that the operation was doomed to fail, and had hid these bleak reports from Kennedy and went ahead with the operation anyhow. Startlingly, “the CIA knew that it couldn’t accomplish this type of overt paramilitary mission without direct Pentagon participation,” and further, the CIA had “discovered in advance that the plan had been leaked to Soviet intelligence” and Castro, who even knew the date of the attack. Dulles, therefore, “regarded the band of Cuban exiles who were about to hit the beaches as mere cannon fodder, a device to trigger the real invasion by the U.S. military.”
On the evening that the mission had finally come to an abrupt failure, Allen Dulles sat down to dinner with Richard Nixon, “the man who had spearheaded the plan as vice president,” and Dulles proclaimed, “This is the worst day of my life!” Thus, the Bay of Pigs failure “sent shockwaves through the [central intelligence] agency, particularly among the agents who had worked closely with the Cuban émigrés on the operation.”
Following the Bay of Pigs, “the heavens ripped open for the Kennedy administration” and “never came back together,” as JFK became “estranged from his national security team.” CIA agents like Howard Hunt, who were involved in the operation, would proclaim that the United States “owed the Cuban people a blood debt,” and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Lyman Lemnitzer proclaimed that Kennedy’s actions were “unbelievable... absolutely reprehensible, almost criminal.” With Kennedy’s first test as president, the nations’ top military and intelligence officials saw him “to be a dangerously weak link at the top of the chain of command.”
Kennedy, for his part, said, “I’ve got to do something about those CIA bastards,” and also “lashed out at the Joint Chiefs.” JFK publicly took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs failure, but “CIA and Pentagon officials knew that he privately spread the word that they were to blame.” Subsequently, Kennedy threatened to “shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, and scatter it to the winds.”
Kennedy Versus the ‘Kings’ of the National Security State
Shortly after the Bay of Pigs, the Joint Chiefs approached Kennedy urging him to invade the Southeast Asian
country of Laos, “to respond to the advances of Communist insurgents,” yet Kennedy quickly dismissed their advice, and Kennedy had personally thought of Chairman Lemnitzer as “a dope.” However, “Kennedy was acutely aware of how formidable the institutional powers were that he confronted.” As Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, an old family friend of the Kennedy’s explained, regarding JFK confiding in him, that Kennedy was “seared” by the Bay of Pigs experience, and “he had experienced the extreme power that these groups had, these various insidious influences of the CIA and Pentagon, on civilian policy.” JFK even questioned if he, as president, could “ever be strong enough to really rule these two powerful agencies.”
Following the Bay of Pigs, JFK pulled away from any advice of these National Security kingpins and began to rely upon his most trusted personal advisers, and particularly his brother Robert Kennedy, who was the Attorney General, who would “move into the center of national security decision making for the rest of his brother’s presidency,” and took on the responsibility of supervising the CIA.
Kennedy, for his part, “was more viscerally antiwar than has been recognized in some quarters,” as he once stated, “I am almost a ‘peace-at-any-price’ president.” As Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, once explained, JFK “brought into the presidency the knowledge of history that many presidents didn’t have when they became president,” and that JFK had thought that, “the primary responsibility of the president is to keep the nation out of war if at all possible.”
Arthur Schlesinger, Special Assistant to President Kennedy, later recalled that, “Certainly we did not control the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” reflecting on the deep divisions within the Kennedy administration. The National Security State’s “secret government,” which had controlled foreign policy in the previous two administrations of Truman and Eisenhower, “was not prepared to cede power to the new Kennedy government. This was soon made clear to the president’s team by the top military commanders.” In particular, Schlesinger explained regarding Kennedy’s fears of the military, “Kennedy’s concern was not that Khrushchev [the Soviet leader] would initiate something, but that something would go wrong in a Dr. Strangelove kind of way,” referring to Stanley Kubrick’s film in which a rogue U.S. general starts World War III. Even Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was struggling to control the generals under his command.
General Curtis LeMay, the Air Force Chief, was a particularly staunch opponent of the Kennedy administration. He had once
mused aloud to a Washington Post columnist in July of 1961 that he felt “nuclear war would break out in the final weeks of the year,” and that nuclear war was “inevitable.” LeMay, as McNamara acknowledged, was a staunch advocate of “preemptive nuclear war to rid the world of the Soviet threat,” casually acknowledging that “it would likely incinerate such major U.S. cities as Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago and Detroit.” LeMay, during World War II, made his name by “laying waste to much of Japan with his infamous firebombing campaign.”
In the summer of 1961, JFK came under intense pressure from both the military and intelligence officials in his government “to consider launching a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union.” On July 20, “at a National Security Council meeting, Kennedy was presented an official plan for a surprise nuclear attack by the Joint Chiefs chairman, General Lemnitzer, and Allen Dulles,” and Kennedy, disgusted, got up and left in the middle of the meeting, then remarked to his Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “and we call ourselves the human race.” Kennedy had, in the fall of 1961, fired Allen Dulles, Charles Cabell, the Deputy Director of the CIA, and Richard Bissell, the Deputy Director
of Plans for the CIA. Kennedy had made himself ‘Enemy #1’ of the National Security State apparatus. A retired Marine general at the time once “suggested a coup was in order if the ‘traitors’ could not be voted out.”
Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General, began to increasingly exert supervision over the CIA, he discovered that the CIA was working with the Mafia in plots to assassinate Castro. JFK had appointed John McCone as CIA director to replace Dulles, however, Richard Helms “emerged as the real power in the agency soon after the downfall of Dulles and Bissell,” leading one top official to even state that, “Helms was running the agency,” and that, “anything McCone found out was by accident.” Richard Helms worked in the OSS, the precursor to the CIA during World War II, and became CIA Director of Plans in 1962, running the covert operations of the CIA.
The Joint Chiefs Propose a Plan for State-Sponsored Terrorism
In 1962, the Pentagon was still pushing for a war with Cuba, and was even drawing up contingency plans for an invasion of Cuba. One such plan, named Operation Northwoods, was recently declassified. On March 13, 1962, Chairman of the Joint Chief General Lemnitzer delivered this plan to McNamara, marked “top secret” and signed by the nation’s highest military commanders.
Operation Northwoods, also named “Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba,” was endorsed by the entire Joint Chiefs, which recommended the operation go into planning stages, and recommended that the Joint Chiefs assume responsibility “for both overt and covert military operations” of the plan. The purpose of the plan was to orchestrate pretexts for a US military intervention in Cuba, and the Joint Chiefs recommended that throughout the operations, the US military will be in an ‘exercise’ mode in order to allow for a “rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.”
Among the recommended provocations and pretexts to justify a war, the Joint Chiefs suggested that, “a series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around [the US military base at] Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces,” including starting rumours, landing “friendly Cubans in uniform” outside of the base to “stage attack on base” in Cuban uniform, capturing friendly “saboteurs inside the base,” and have friendly Cubans “start riots near the base main gate.” Further recommendations were to “blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires,” as well as burning aircraft on the base, or sabotage a ship in the harbor, or to even, “sink [a] ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.”
One startling recommendation was that, “We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” or that, “we could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters,” and blame Cuba, and that, “casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”
However, the most disturbing aspect of Operation Northwoods was the recommendation that:
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
The general even suggested bombing other Latin American countries such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Nicaragua and blaming it on Cuba. They even suggested that a “US military drone aircraft”
could be destroyed by a US military plane that,
“properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban” aircraft. The Joint Chiefs further suggested, “hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.” Startlingly, the plan also recommended concocting a scenario in which an American plane, possibly consisting of “a group of college students,” would be flown over Cuba and blown up, to be blamed on Cuba.
So there you have it, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff put out recommendations for hijacking US aircraft, staging “false flag” attacks, which are covert military operations in which they attack selected targets under the “flag” of another nation/entity in order to blame that particular entity for the attack, such as the recommendations for attacking Guantamo Bay by “friendly Cubans” and conducting a “terror campaign” within the United States, itself.
Three days after Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Lemnitzer presented this plan to McNamara, he was
summoned by President Kennedy to the Oval Office for a discussion of Cuba strategy alongside other National Security figures. Many of the figures suggested a military invasion of Cuba, and Lemnitzer jumped at the opportunity to recommend Operation Northwoods, yet spared the specific operational plans of “blowing up people on the streets of Miami and the nation’s capital and blaming it on Castro.” However, “Kennedy was not amused” and he told the general that, “we were not discussing the use of U.S. military force.”
Yet, over the next month, the Joint Chiefs and in particular, Lemnitzer, continued to press both McNamara and Kennedy for a military invasion of Cuba, and “after a National Security Council meeting in June, the president took the general aside and told him he wanted to send him to Europe to become NATO’s new supreme allied commander.” Kennedy thus replaced Lemnitzer with Max Taylor.
The Cuban Missile Crisis: America on the Verge of a Military Coup
Another event of monumental importance to the conduct of JFK challenging the “secret government” apparatus of the National Security State was with the Cuban Missile Crisis, a thirteen-day nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, which was described by one top official involved as, “the most dangerous moment in human history.” The crisis was started when US reconnaissance observed missile bases being built in Cuba by the Soviet Union. It brought the world closer to nuclear war than ever before or since. During the crisis, JFK, his brother Bobby, and Robert McNamara:
"were trying to steer the decision-making process toward the idea of a naval blockade of Cuba, to stop the flow of nuclear shipments to the island and to pressure the Soviets into a peaceful resolution of the crisis. But virtually his entire national security apparatus was pushing the president to take military action against Cuba. Leading the charge for an aggressive response were the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were urging the president to launch surprise air strikes on the island and then invade."
Air Force Chief Curtis LeMay, who had been advocating nuclear war with the Soviet Union since the early 1950s, thought Cuba was a “sideshow” and told the President that the United States should “fry it.” LeMay, himself a member of the Joint Chiefs, “was in the habit of taking bullying command of Joint Chiefs meetings,” and with LeMay leading the charge for war, “the other chiefs jumped into the fray, repeating the Air Force general’s call for immediate military action.” LeMay even did something remarkable for a military official:
"He decided to violate traditional military-civilian boundaries and issue a barely veiled political threat. If the president responded weakly to the Soviet challenge in Cuba, he warned him, there would be political repercussions overseas, where Kennedy’s government would be perceived as spineless.
“And I’m sure a lot of our own citizens would feel that way too,” LeMay added. With his close ties to militaristic congressional leaders and the far right, LeMay left no doubt about the political damage he could cause the administration. “In other words, you’re in a pretty bad fix at the present time,” LeMay told Kennedy.
Kennedy asked him to repeat what he said, LeMay obliged, and Kennedy retorted, “You’re in there with me.” Kennedy soon left the meeting with McNamara, “the confrontation with his top military men had clearly disturbed the commander-in-chief. Later he told an aide that the administration needed to make sure that the Joint Chiefs did not start a war without his approval, a chronic fear of JFK’s.” After Kennedy and McNamara left the meeting, a secret taping system in the office recorded the conversation between the generals, who “began profanely condemning Kennedy’s cautious, incremental approach to the crisis.”
LeMay’s right-hand man, General Tommy Power, who even LeMay regarded as “not stable,” had taken “it upon himself to raise the Strategic Air Command’s alert status to DEFCON-2, one step from nuclear war,” and ensured that the Soviets knew it. The White House was completely unaware of Power’s actions at the time.
As the crisis continued, Kennedy ordered McNamara “to keep close watch over the Navy to make sure
U.S. vessels didn’t do anything that would trigger World War III.” Admiral Anderson, Chief of Naval Operations, who was running the Naval blockade of Cuba, was increasingly frustrated at McNamara’s “hands-on control” of the blockade and clashed with the Defense Secretary in the Navy’s Flag Plot room, suggesting that he didn’t need McNamara’s advice on managing the blockade, prompting McNamara to respond explaining that he doesn’t “give a damn” about past procedures for running blockades, to which Anderson replied, “Mr. Secretary, you go back to your office and I’ll go to mine and we’ll take care of things.” As Anderson later recalled, “Apparently it was the wrong thing to say to somebody of McNamara’s personality,” as when McNamara left the office, he told his aide, “That’s the end of Anderson.” Anderson, months after the Cuban Missile Crisis, was sent to Portugal as ambassador, “where he would be chummy with dictator Antonio Salazar.”
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, it wasn’t the Joint Chiefs alone who were trying to push for war, as the “CIA also played a dangerous game during the crisis,” as Kennedy had ordered the CIA to halt all raids against Cuba during the crisis, “to make sure that no flying sparks
from the agency’s secret operations set off a nuclear conflagration.” However, Bill Harvey, the CIA agent in charge of “Operation Mongoose,” the CIA plan which employed the Mafia to attempt to kill Castro, in brazen defiance of Kennedy’s orders, mobilized “every single team and asset that we could scrape together” and then dropped them into Cuba, “in anticipation of the U.S. invasion that the CIA hoped was soon to follow.”
Robert Kennedy became the conduit through which the back-channel negotiations took place with the Soviets that ultimately ended
the crisis without catastrophe. Nikita Khrushchev recounted the situation in his memoirs, in which he explained that Robert Kennedy “stressed how fragile his brother’s rule was becoming as the crisis dragged on,” which struck Khrushchev as “especially urgent.” Robert Kennedy warned the Soviets that, “If the situation continues much longer, the president is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power. The American army could get out of control.” Khrushchev even later wrote that, “for some time we had felt there was a danger that the president would lose control of his military,” and that, “now he was admitting this to us himself.” Thus:
"Moscow’s fear that Kennedy might be toppled in a coup, Khrushchev suggested in his memoirs, led the Soviets to reach a settlement of the missile crisis with the president. “We could sense from the tone of the message that tension in the United States was indeed reaching a critical point.”"
Thirteen days after the crisis began, the Soviets announced that they would remove the missiles from Cuba,
with the US agreeing to remove missiles from US bases in Turkey and “pledging not to invade Cuba,” which Kennedy and future presidents would honour. At the announcement of the end to the crisis, General LeMay roared at Kennedy, “It’s the greatest defeat in our history,” and that, “We should invade today!” A defense analyst at the Pentagon, Daniel Ellsberg, who was consulting with Air Force generals and colonels on nuclear strategy at the end of the crisis, remarked that after the settlement was reached, “there was virtually a coup atmosphere in Pentagon circles,” explaining, “not that I had the fear there was about to be a coup – I just thought it was a mood of hatred and rage. The atmosphere was poisonous, poisonous.”
What’s more, the CIA was further enraged at Kennedy, as “for those militants who were part of the massive juggernaut organized to destroy the Castro regime, the peaceful resolution of the missile crisis was a betrayal worse than the Bay of Pigs.”
Going into 1963, however, the anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami continued to undertake covert actions against Castro. The CIA claimed the groups got out of its control, “but the rebels were heavily dependent on agency funding and it was never certain whether the groups’ frequent defiance of Kennedy policy was in fact instigated by their spymasters in Langley and Miami.”
One of these groups was the Cuban Student Directorate (DRE), “a particular favourite of the CIA,” which was founded in 1954 “as a Catholic student group militantly opposed to the dictator Batista,” but in 1960 moved to Miami and shifted its operations against Castro, where its operations were planned by the CIA. A man named Lee Harvey Oswald became affiliated with the group in August of 1963. Oswald made contacts with other Cuban exile groups that summer, some of whom found the “Ex-Marine” to be “suspicious” and even reported on him to Bobby Kennedy.
Kennedy Makes Moves for Peace
In June of 1963, Kennedy delivered his famous “Peace Speech” in which he discussed “the most important topic on earth: world peace.” Kennedy continued:
"What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
... First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many
think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again."
Kennedy further stated, “Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union,” suggesting an end to the Cold War, and then remarked: “We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it.” Kennedy famously proclaimed, “We all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
This was not particularly to the liking of the National Security State, a proclamation for America to follow “not a strategy of annihilation, but a strategy of peace.” Kennedy even stated that America would “never start a war.” As Robert McNamara later recalled, “the American University speech laid out exactly what Kennedy’s intentions were,” and that, “If he had lived, the world would have been different, I feel quite confident of that.”
Kennedy and Vietnam
While the National Security State began maneuvering for an escalation of violence in Vietnam, Kennedy began formulating a plan of his own. He was intent upon the United States withdrawing from the conflict. However, knowing that it would prompt a great outcry, he would wait until after the 1964 election. As Kennedy told one of his top aides, Kenny O’Donnell, “In 1965, I’ll become one of the most unpopular presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I am reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected.”
As Vietnam came to crisis late in his term, Kennedy was the lone voice against escalation of military conflict. On October 11, 1963, Kennedy issued National Security Action Memoranda NSAM 263, authorizing his plans “to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963,” with the longer goal of withdrawing “the bulk of U.S. personnel” by the end of 1965. However, Kennedy ordered that, “no formal announcement be made of the implementation,” yet on November 20, at a top-level conference, “the secrecy was lifted,” and it was reported in the New York Times the following day, which was the day before Kennedy was assassinated.
Following Kennedy’s continuing stealth moves to avoid an escalation of the conflict in Vietnam, the majority
of his national security bureaucracy “was in flagrant revolt against him. The Pentagon and CIA were taking steps to sabotage his troop withdrawal plan.” Further:
"Frustrated by the growing instability of South Vietnam’s Diem regime, U.S. officials split over whether to back a military coup to replace it, with Kennedy himself vacillating back and forth on the question."
An open revolt took place between the two camps with Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, “who supported a coup, and Saigon CIA station chief John Richardson, who backed the increasingly autocratic President Ngo Dinh Diem.” Richard Starnes, a newspaper correspondent in Saigon, wrote on this feud, and explained that “a high U.S. official” in Saigon views the CIA as a “malignancy,” guilty of “insubordination,” and that he “was not sure even the White House could control [it] any longer.” The U.S. official added:
"If the United States ever experiences a [coup attempt] it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon... [The CIA] represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone."
On November 1, South Vietnamese military plotters killed Diem and his brother in a coup which “was facilitated when the CIA withdrew Richardson from Saigon, allowing the agency to cooperate with the South Vietnamese generals behind the plot.”
Kennedy is Killed
Throughout the fall of 1963, “the CIA pursued its own agenda” with mobsters and militant Cuban exiles, while “the Kennedy’s struggled to control the sprawling operations related to Cuba.”
While in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was killed while driving in his motorcade along Dealey Plaza. E. Howard Hunt, the infamous CIA agent who overthrew the government of Guatemala and worked in the CIA’s anti-Castro Cuban operations, and who later achieved infamy as one of the Watergate burglars, had his deathbed confession revealed by his son in 2007. In his confession, E. Howard Hunt revealed that it was the CIA and Lyndon Banes Johnson who were behind the assassination, and that he, himself, was involved.
Hunt recalled that in 1963, he was invited to a secret meeting in a CIA safe house in Miami by Frank Sturgis,
another infamous Watergate burglar, and a “mob-friendly anti-Castro operative.” At the meeting was also CIA agent David Morales, someone Hunt referred to as a “cold-blooded killer,” and William Harvey, another CIA man. The discussion of the meeting was the Kennedy assassination, or what they referred to as “the big event.” Bill Harvey was the man that Richard Helms, CIA Deputy Director for Plans, had put in charge of the CIA’s anti-Castro Cuban operations, and who had a particularly antagonizing relationship with Robert Kennedy, who was trying to supervise Harvey’s operations.
As author Peter Dale Scott revealed, Vice President Lyndon Johnson “had been, since 1961, the ally of the Joint Chiefs (and in particular Air Force General Curtis LeMay) in their unrelenting efforts, against Kennedy’s repeated refusals, to introduce U.S. combat troops into Asia.” The Joint Chiefs had thus taken it upon themselves to keep Johnson more informed than Kennedy on the situation in Southeast Asia, with Chairman Lemnitzer himself going around Kennedy to Johnson. The Joint Chiefs created a back channel where they were delivering “accurate Vietnam reports” to Johnson, “which were denied to the President.” US Army Intelligence reports produced in Saigon were delivered to McNamara and Kennedy, which were “false and optimistic” in order to help “ensure their ongoing support for the war,” while US Army Intelligence in Honolulu produced a second set of reports, described as “accurate and gloomy,” which were supplied to Johnson. When Lemnitzer was replaced as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the man Kennedy chose to replace him, General Max Taylor, continued in taking part in this deception. As Peter Dale Scott explained:
"These divisive intrigues came to a head at the Honolulu conference of November 20, 1963, two days before the assassination. At this meeting the truth about the deterioration of the ineffective war effort “was presented in detail to those assembled, along with a plan to widen the war, while the 1,000-man withdrawal [first publicly acknowledged at the same meeting] was turned into a meaningless paper drill.”
The tone of the meeting, in other words, was in keeping with the policies of the man who would not become President until the shootings in Dallas two days later."
Thus, “a group within the military command, dissatisfied with Kennedy’s limited support, had already begun secretly to plan for the option preferred by the Vice-President.” Two days after the assassination, Johnson and his top advisers issued a new policy statement in contrast to Kennedy’s NSAM 263 issued on October 11, 1963, which called for a withdrawal of forces from Vietnam. Johnson’s NSAM 273 was finalized on November 26, 1963, four days after the assassination, of which the key policy innovation was “for the United States to begin carrying the war north” in Vietnam. On the very same day Johnson’s NSAM 273 was issued, the Joint Chiefs launched “accelerated planning for escalation against North Vietnam.” Roughly one month later, on December 24, 1963, Lyndon Johnson told the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Just get me elected, and then you can have your war.”
The Warren Commission: The American Establishment Cover-Up Committee
The Warren Commission was established by Lyndon Johnson on November 29, 1963, to investigate the assassination of JFK. Among the members were Gerald Ford, a Congressman who would later become
President of the United States, and John J. McCloy, a lawyer, banker, former Assistant Secretary of War in World War II, and former President of the World Bank. McCloy was chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank from 1953 to 1960, was chairman of the Ford Foundation from 1958 to 1965, and was a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1946 to 1949, and again between 1953 and 1958. From 1954 until 1970, McCloy was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, where he was succeeded by David Rockefeller, a close associate from Chase Manhattan.
Another notable member of the Warren Commission was none other than Allen Dulles, the former CIA Director whom Kennedy had fired. An interesting fact to note is regarding Dulles’ Deputy Director of the CIA whom Kennedy also fired, Charles Cabell, who was also an Air Force General. Cabell’s brother, Earle Cabell, happened to be mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy’s assassination. Allen Dulles was the “Warren Commission’s most active member,” and was adamant in his “unwillingness to let the Commission’s investigation get into a most pertinent project, the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro.”
The Warren Commission was responsible for producing the idea of the “magic bullet theory,” which
postulated that three bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald at the Texas School Book Depository resulted in the murder of Kennedy. The ‘lone gunman’ and ‘single bullet theory’ were sold to the American people and not subjected to criticism by the mainstream media.
Peter Dale Scott differentiated between the notion of a ‘secret government’ – with the institutional structure of something like a government – and ‘deep politics’ – being, rather, the methods of deception, itself. Thus, it is not within a state structure that the assassination was conducted, but rather it was in the functions of an intricate network that transcends government and industry. Scott explained that, “the President was murdered by a coalition of forces inside and outside government,” and that, “In short, Kennedy was killed by the deep political system.”
As a result of the death of JFK, the National Security State “secret government” – or the ‘deep political’ system, as it is more accurately described, got exactly what it wanted with the escalation of the Vietnam War. The military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned the American people about two years prior, had turned the apparatus of the “secret government” in on the president, himself. It was a political lynching on a grand scale. And it was not to be the last.