Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Ron Paul on the Turk Downing of a Russian Jet Fighter...

"Mark my words: if we do not push back against the menace of the police state now, if we fail to hold onto the Constitution and our constitutional republic, and if we allow the government to remain the greatest threat to our freedoms, then future Thanksgivings will find us paying the price with tyranny at home and anarchy throughout the world."

This Thanksgiving, Let’s Say ‘No Thanks’ to the Tyranny of the American Police State

John W. Whitehead

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”—Daniel Webster

Thanksgiving is not what it once was.

Then again, America is not what she once was.

Americans have become so enthralled by the “bread and circuses” of our age—tables groaning under the weight of an abundance of rich foods, televisions tuned to sports and entertainments spectacles, stores competing for Black Friday shoppers, and a general devotion to excess and revelry—that we have lost sight of the true purpose of Thanksgiving.

Indeed, the following is a lesson in how far we have traveled—and how low we have fallen—in the more than 200 years since George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving proclamation, calling upon the nation to give thanks for a government whose purpose was ensuring the safety and happiness of its people and for a Constitution designed to safeguard civil and religious liberty.

This Thanksgiving finds us saddled with a government that is a far cry from Washington’s vision of a government that would be a blessing to all the people:

governed by wise, just and constitutional laws
faithfully executed and obeyed by its agents
assisting foreign nations with good government, peace, and concord
promoting true religion, virtue and science
and enabling temporal prosperity.

Instead, as the following shows, the U.S. government has become a warring empire, governed by laws that are rash, unjust and unconstitutional, policed by government agents who are corrupt, hypocritical and abusive, a menace to its own people, and the antithesis of everything for which Washington hoped.

George Washington didn’t intend Thanksgiving to be a day for offering up glib platitudes that require no thought, no effort and no sacrifice. He wanted it to be a day of contemplation, in which we frankly assessed our shortcomings, acknowledged our wrongdoings, and resolved to be a better, more peaceable nation in the year to come.

It is in that true spirit of Thanksgiving that I offer the following list of things for which I’m not thankful about the American police state.

The U.S. has become a corporate oligarchy. As a Princeton University survey indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen. We are no longer a representative republic. As such, the citizenry has little if any impact on the policies of government. There are 131 lobbyists to every Senator, reinforcing concerns that the government represents the corporate elite rather than the citizenry.

Americans are being jailed for profit. Imprisoning Americans in private prisons and jails run by mega-corporations has turned into a cash cow for big business, with states agreeing to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in privately run prisons for at least 20 years. And how do you keep the prisons full? By passing laws aimed at increasing the prison population, including the imposition of life sentences on people who commit minor or nonviolent crimes such as siphoning gasoline. Little surprise, then, that the United States has 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners. The government’s tendency towards militarization and overcriminalization, in which routine, everyday behaviors become targets of regulation and prohibition, have resulted in Americans getting arrested for making and selling unpasteurized goat cheese, cultivating certain types of orchids, feeding a whale, holding Bible studies in their homes, and picking their kids up from school.

Endless wars have resulted in a battlefield mindset that is infecting the nation. The Departments of Justice, Homeland Security (DHS) and Defense have passed off billions of dollars worth of military equipment to local police forces. Even EMS crews and fire fighters are being “gifted” with military tanks, Kevlar helmets and ballistic vests. Police agencies have been trained in the fine art of war. It has become second nature for local police to look and act like soldiers. Communities have become acclimated to the presence of militarized police patrolling their streets. Americans have been taught compliance at the end of a police gun or taser. Lower income neighborhoods have been transformed into war zones. Hundreds if not thousands of unarmed Americans have lost their lives at the hands of police who shoot first and ask questions later. And a whole generation of young Americans has learned to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

Militarized police, shootings of unarmed citizens, SWAT team raids, misconduct and qualified immunity have transformed the U.S. into a police state. What we must contend with today is the danger of having a standing army (which is what police forces, increasingly made up of individuals with military backgrounds and/or training, have evolved into) that has been trained to view the citizenry as little more than potential suspects, combatants and insurgents. Despite propaganda to the contrary, it is estimated that U.S. police kill more people in days than other countries do in years. On an average day in America, at least 100 Americans have their homes raided by SWAT teams (although I’ve seen estimates as high as 300 a day), which are increasingly used to deal with routine police matters: angry dogs, domestic disputes, search warrants, etc. Every five days a police officer somewhere in America engages in sexual abuseor misconduct.

The barrier between public and private property has been done away with. Call it what you will—taxes, penalties, fees, fines, regulations, tariffs, tickets, permits, surcharges, tolls, asset forfeitures, foreclosures, etc.—but the only word that truly describes the constant bilking of the American taxpayer by the government and its corporate partners is theft. What Americans don’t seem to comprehend is that if the government can arbitrarily take away your property, without your having much say about it, you have no true rights and no real property. In this way, the police state with all of its trappings—from surveillance cameras, militarized police, SWAT team raids, truancy and zero tolerance policies, asset forfeiture laws, privatized prisons and red light cameras to Sting Ray devices, fusion centers, drones, black boxes, hollow-point bullets, detention centers, speed traps and abundance of laws criminalizing otherwise legitimate conduct—has become little more than a front for a high-dollar covert operation aimed at laundering as much money as possible through government agencies and into the bank accounts of the corporate oligarchy that rule over us.

The technologically-driven surveillance state has become the fourth branch of government. This fourth branch—the NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, etc.—came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum, and yet it possesses superpowers, above and beyond those of any other government agency save the military. It is all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful. It operates beyond the reach of the president, Congress and the courts, and it marches in lockstep with the corporate elite who really call the shots in Washington, DC. This age of technological tyranny has been made possible by government secrets, government lies, government spies and their corporate ties. Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it will all be recorded, stored and used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing. Privacy, as we have known it, is dead. The police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state.

The schools, modeled after quasi-prisons, are churning out future compliant citizens. Within America’s public schools can be found almost every aspect of the American police state that plagues those of us on the “outside”: metal detectors, surveillance cameras, militarized police, drug-sniffing dogs, tasers, cyber-surveillance, random searches, senseless arrests, jail time, the list goes on. Whether it takes the form of draconian zero tolerance policies, overreaching anti-bullying statutes, police officers charged with tasering and arresting so-called unruly children, standardized testing with its emphasis on rote answers, political correctness, or the extensive surveillance systems cropping up in schools all over the country, young people in America are first in line to be indoctrinated into compliant citizens of the new American police state.

The courts have become courts of order in an age of government-sanctioned tyranny. With every ruling handed down by the courts, it becomes more apparent that we live in an age of hollow justice, with government courts, largely lacking in vision and scope, rendering narrow rulings that have nothing to do with true justice. This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater. Yet when presented with an opportunity to weigh in on these issues, what does our current Supreme Court usually do? It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern. More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt. Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, these are abuses that no American should tolerate from its government, and yet not only do we tolerate them, but we help to advance them by supporting meaningless elections, allowing ourselves to be divided by partisan politics, and failing to hold the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution.

Mark my words: if we do not push back against the menace of the police state now, if we fail to hold onto the Constitution and our constitutional republic, and if we allow the government to remain the greatest threat to our freedoms, then future Thanksgivings will find us paying the price with tyranny at home and anarchy throughout the world.


Does surveillance work???

What’s the evidence mass surveillance works? Not much

by ProPublica

Current and former government officials have been pointing to the terror attacks in Paris as justification for mass surveillance programs. CIA Director John Brennan accused privacy advocates of “hand-wringing” that has made “our ability collectively internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.” Former National Security Agency and CIA director Michael Hayden said, “In the wake of Paris, a big stack of metadata doesn’t seem to be the scariest thing in the room.”

Ultimately, it’s impossible to know just how successful sweeping surveillance has been, since much of the work is secret. But what has been disclosed so far suggests the programs have been of limited value. Here’s a roundup of what we know.

An internal review of the Bush administration’s warrantless program — called Stellarwind — found it resulted in few useful leads from 2001-2004, and none after that. New York Times reporter Charlie Savage obtained the findings through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and published them in his new book, “Power Wars: Inside Obama’s Post20139/11 Presidency”:

[The FBI general counsel] defined as useful those [leads] that made a substantive contribution to identifying a terrorist, or identifying a potential confidential informant. Just 1.2 percent of them fit that category. In 2006, she conducted a comprehensive study of all the leads generated from the content basket of Stellarwind between March 2004 and January 2006 and discovered that zero of those had been useful.

In an endnote, Savage then added:

The program was generating numerous tips to the FBI about suspicious phone numbers and e-mail addresses, and it was the job of the FBI field offices to pursue those leads and scrutinize the people behind them. (The tips were so frequent and such a waste of time that the field offices reported back, in frustration, “You’re sending us garbage.”)

In 2013, the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies analyzed terrorism cases from 2001 on, and determined that the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records “was not essential to preventing attacks.” According to the group’s report,

In at least 48 instances, traditional surveillance warrants obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were used to obtain evidence through intercepts of phone calls and e-mails, said the researchers, whose results are in an online database.

More than half of the cases were initiated as a result of traditional investigative tools. The most common was a community or family tip to the authorities. Other methods included the use of informants, a suspicious-activity report filed by a business or community member to the FBI, or information turned up in investigations of non-terrorism cases.

Another 2014 report by the nonprofit New America Foundation echoed those conclusions. It described the government claims about the success of surveillance programs in the wake of the 9/11 attacks as “overblown and even misleading.”

An in-depth analysis of 225 individuals recruited by al-Qaeda or a like-minded group or inspired by al-Qaeda’s ideology, and charged in the United States with an act of terrorism since 9/11, demonstrates that traditional investigative methods, such as the use of informants, tips from local communities, and targeted intelligence operations, provided the initial impetus for investigations in the majority of cases, while the contribution of NSA’s bulk surveillance programs to these cases was minimal.

Edward Snowden’s leaks about the scope of the NSA’s surveillance system in the summer of 2013 put government officials on the defensive. Many politicians and media outlets echoed the agency’s claim that it had successfully thwarted more than 50 terror attacks. ProPublica examined the claim and found “no evidence that the oft-cited figure is accurate.”

It’s impossible to assess the role NSA surveillance played in the 54 cases because, while the agency has provided a full list to Congress, it remains classified.

The NSA has publicly discussed four cases, and just one in which surveillance made a significant difference. That case involved a San Diego taxi driver named Basaaly Moalin, who sent $8,500 to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab. But even the details of that case are murky. From The Washington Post:

In 2009, an FBI field intelligence group assessed that Moalin’s support for al-Shabab was not ideological. Rather, according to an FBI document provided to his defense team, Moalin probably sent money to an al-Shabab leader out of “tribal affiliation” and to “promote his own status” with tribal elders.

Also in the months after the Snowden revelations, the Justice Department said publicly that it had used warrantless wiretapping to gather evidence in a criminal case against another terrorist sympathizer, which fueled ongoing debates over the constitutionality of those methods. From The New York Times:

Prosecutors filed such a notice late Friday in the case of Jamshid Muhtorov, who was charged in Colorado in January 2012 with providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a designated terrorist organization based in Uzbekistan.

Mr. Muhtorov is accused of planning to travel abroad to join the militants and has pleaded not guilty. A criminal complaint against him showed that much of the government’s case was based on intercepted e-mails and phone calls.

Local police departments have also acknowledged the limitations of mass surveillance, as Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis did after the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013. Federal authorities had received Russian intelligence reports about bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, but had not shared this information with authorities in Massachusetts or Boston. During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, Davis said,

There’s no computer that’s going to spit out a terrorist’s name. It’s the community being involved in the conversation and being appropriately open to communicating with law enforcement when something awry is identified. That really needs to happen and should be our first step.

Correction, Nov. 18, 2015: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology’s report about the effectiveness of the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records was issued in 2014. The report came out at the end of 2013.


Cartoon of the day...

Some truth form Thomas Sowell...

Political Translations

By Thomas Sowell

It is amazing how many different ways the same thing can be said, creating totally different impressions. For example, when President Barack Obama says that defeating ISIS is going to take a long time, how is that different from saying that he is going to do very little, very slowly? It is saying the same thing in different words.

Defenders of the administration’s policies may cite how many aerial sorties have been flown by American planes against ISIS. There have been thousands of these sorties, which sounds very impressive. But what is less impressive — and more indicative — is that, in most of those sorties, the planes have not fired a single shot or dropped a single bomb.

Why? Because the rules of engagement are so restrictive that in most circumstances there is little that the pilot is allowed to do, unless circumstances are just right, which they seldom are in any war.

Moreover, the thousands of sorties being flown are still a small fraction of the number of sorties flown in the same amount of time during the Iraq war, when American leaders were serious about getting the war won.

Politics produces lots of words that can mean very different things, if you stop and think about them. But politicians depend on the fact that many people don’t bother to stop and think about them.

We often hear that various problems within the black community are “a legacy of slavery.” That phrase is in widespread use among people who believe in the kinds of welfare state programs that began to dominate government policies in the 1960s.

Blaming social problems today on “a legacy of slavery” is another way of saying, “Don’t blame our welfare state policies for things that got worse after those policies took over. Blame what happened in earlier centuries.”

Nobody would accept that kind of cop-out, if it were expressed that way. But that is why it is expressed differently, as a “legacy of slavery.”

If we were being serious, instead of being political, we could look at the facts. Were the kinds of problems we are concerned about in black communities today as bad during the first century after slavery or in the first generation after the vastly expanded welfare state?

What about children being raised with no father in the home? As of 1960, nearly a century after slavery ended, 22 percent of black children were being raised in single-parent families.

Thirty years later, 67 percent of all black children were being raised in single-parent families.

What about violence? As of 1960, homicide rates among non-white males had gone down by 22 percent during the preceding decade. But, during the decade of the 1960s, that trend suddenly reversed, and the homicide rate shot up by 76 percent. The welfare state vision was often part of a larger, non-judgmental social vision that was lenient on criminals and hard on the police.

Few people today know that marriage rates and rates of labor force participation were once higher among blacks than among whites — all of this during the first century after slavery. In later years, a reversal occurred, largely in the wake of the welfare state expansions that began in the 1960s.

Another fashionable phrase that evades any need for evidence is “disparate impact” — a legal phrase accepted in the Supreme Court of the United States, despite being downright silly when you stop and think about it.

Whenever there is some standard for being hired, promoted or admitted to a college, some groups may meet that standard more so than others. One way of expressing that is to say that more of the people from group X meet the standard than do people from group Y. But politically correct people express the same thing by saying that the standard has a “disparate impact” on group Y. Once it is expressed this way, it is the standard that is suspect — and whoever set that standard has to prove a negative, namely that he is not guilty of discrimination against group Y. Often nobody can prove anything, so the accused loses — or else settles out of court.

Stupid? No. It takes very clever people to make something like that sound plausible. But it also requires people who don’t bother to stop and think, who enable them to get away with it.


"It would seem there are more people who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny than who believe Oswald did it alone. Nevertheless, the propaganda keeps coming..."

The Mystery of the Constant Flow of JFK Disinformation

By Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor

For more than half a century, the combined American thought establishment (media, publishing, film, academia, and the like) have been cranking out a steady stream of books, articles, films, plays and more that present a completely false picture of what the assassination of John F. Kennedy was about — including who was behind it, and why.

No mention of the tremendous animus massed against John and Robert Kennedy from every quarter, including but hardly limited to Wall Street, the oil industry, the steel industry, the armaments industry, big publishers, the Pentagon, the CIA, the Mob, the John Birchers. They all hated John and Robert Kennedy and wanted them out. They said it to each other, and virtually spat it in the brothers’ faces. Ruthless men, men who found violence a necessary tool of success.

Yet, who killed John F. Kennedy? We are told that it was one angry, unstable man. Forget that the evidence — massively documented in hundreds of books, government papers and more — is that Oswald was nothing like the way he was portrayed, but instead, a focused, deliberate individual with a history that almost certainly involved participation with American intelligence.

One can debate that forever, though the assembled evidence is that it was not Oswald at all who wanted Kennedy dead, not Oswald who shot him. More important, however, is the evidence, everywhere, of a coverup — from hanky-panky in the autopsy room to a shockingly premature termination of any efforts to seriously investigate. Was the coverup itself not proof of more going on? Of course it was.


If this were Stalinist Russia or 1984, we could understand who was behind this giant hoax perpetrated against the people. But this is the Land of the Free. How is it that a Big Lie of such magnitude could roll along, unflinchingly, after half a century? Yet, let’s consider the tremendous output of this well-oiled machine, and ask ourselves: How does this work?

Though polls have shown varying majorities of the public (sometimes more than 80 percent) disbelieving the “lone nut” story over the years, and though the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that Kennedy’s death was the result of a probable conspiracy, the establishment continues to produce and approve, with a few controversial and flawed exceptions, narratives that support the “Oswald done it” school.

It would seem there are more people who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny than who believe Oswald did it alone. Nevertheless, the propaganda keeps coming. The entire establishment spectrum, from “liberals” to arch-conservatives, has continually backed the Warren Commission’s discredited version. For example, liberal TV host Chris Matthews of MSNBC has repeatedly promoted the Lone Nut angle on his own show, on other shows, Access Hollywood, for example, and in interviews, such as this one with the Los Angeles Times.

Below we begin with only a few choice examples to demonstrate the chicanery involved in selling the Lone Nut theory. The first is about the manipulating and cropping of an interview by CBS to make a witness appear to say something he did not. The second demonstrates a deceptive presentation of Kennedy’s posture in a computer simulation by Emmy-Award winner Dale Myers, to promote the single-bullet theory. The third is about a high tech show that made the gory head shot appear to support the official line...

Read the rest here:

"Perhaps we’ll all be singing “Walking In A Nuclear Winter Wonderland” this Christmas..."

A Thanksgiving Turkey Shoot

By Jack Perry

Uh-oh…it’s happened. Turkey shot down a Russian Air Force plane. I knew this was going to happen sooner or later. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Enjoy that turkey, pardon the many-fold pun. It might be our last. Russia says there will be serious consequences, and I don’t doubt that. One of the pilots was killed and the other might be captured. See the article here.

Now, from here, it looks like the Turks were working with some al-Qaida forces in the area. The Russian plane was supporting Syrian troops which have been on the offensive in an area controlled by several rebel forces including al-Qaida’s branch in Syria, the Nusra Front. And some other jokers, the 2nd Coastal Division and the 10th Coast Division, who are probably also affiliates of al-Qaida. Or own a franchise. Jahed Ahmad, a spokesman of the 10th Coast Division, said its forces fired at the Russian pilots as they descended and one died. Wow, class act! Shooting at parachuting pilots. What’s next? Kicking puppies? Excuse me, but could it be any more obvious that the Turks support al-Qaida?

Some think tank chimed in with a typical “The Russians are coming!” ride to Concord. Sarah Lain, a propaganda jockey at the Royal United Services Institute, said the last time she could remember a NATO country shooting down a Russian plane was the 1950s. “But the Soviets appear to have shot down more U.S. planes amid the Cold War,” she quickly added. Right, and they did. Those were B-47 spy planes that were over Soviet airspace and, therefore, legitimate military targets. So was the U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers that the Soviets bagged and Powers, rather inconveniently for the U.S., did not commit suicide as he was trained to do. Let’s also not forget that the U.S. used to fly formations of B-52s towards the borders of Soviet airspace to test their air defense response times to scramble interceptors. Moves like that could have started a nuclear war. But, hey, we got to see how long it took their planes to respond, so it’s all good, right?

This is sheer madness. Turkey shot down this Russian plane not just as macho grandstanding, as if they’re a TV wrestler strutting around the arena, but it’s obvious they’re protecting al-Qaida. Probably ISIS, too. Does anyone see the absolute stupidity at work here?! Let Russia retaliate and what do you think Turkey will do? Of course!! Go whining to NATO that an attack on one is an attack upon all. So, what, we get an invite to World War Three because Turkey was defending al-Qaida?! Excuse me, but weren’t they allegedly the enemy?!

Well, this is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into, United States government. This ALLLLLL began because YOU could not leave well enough alone. News flash for ya: I DON’T CARE if Bashar al-Assad runs Syria. He never raised my taxes or flooded my mailbox with electioneering pamphlets I end up lining my birdcage with. So now we get to risk the nuclear war we avoided when the Cold War finally ended? What, were you all disappointed up there in DC or something? “Gosh, what a shame! We never got to launch all of those MX and Minuteman 3s! And now the trade-in value is gone!”

I tend to think Turkey is acting on orders from the United States to provoke Russia into “starting” the war that the U.S. and NATO can then have “justification” to get into. “Pssst…hey, Turkey! Shoot down a Russian plane and just say they were in your airspace. When they retaliate, invoke the NATO “thirty minutes or less or it’s free” plan and we’ll deliver. There’s some new F-16s and cash in it for you…”

Why does the U.S. want to get into a war with Russia? Because they’re all insane! Pardon me, but hasn’t anyone noticed that at some point?! My gosh, back in the early Cold War days, they had to remove a Secretary of Defense from office because he went insane. I don’t think that’s an isolated incident. Seriously, folks, look at these clowns! Can anyone call these people sane, much less wise? And they’ve got nuclear weapons!

Perhaps we’ll all be singing “Walking In A Nuclear Winter Wonderland” this Christmas. Ah, well, I’ll be seeing you all soon. Somewhere in the upper atmosphere.


Tuesday, November 24, 2015


Yoga Class Cancelled Over 'Cultural Issues'

Robert Wenzel

A yoga instructor who teaches at the University of Ottawa says she is fighting to keep her program alive after the school’s student body suspended it over concerns that “cultural issues” relating to the class could offend students, reports NyPo.

Jennifer Scharf, who has been offering free weekly sessions at the university’s Center for Students with Disabilities since 2008, told the Ottawa Sun that she was informed in September that the program would not come back for the fall semester.

In an email exchange between Scharf and a representative of the university’s Student Federation — which was viewed by the newspaper — a student wrote that “while yoga is a really great idea and accessible and great for students… there are cultural issues of implication involved in the practice.

“Yoga has been under a lot of controversy lately due to how it is being practiced,” the email continues, and which cultures those practices “are being taken from.”

The Student Federation, which operates the center, went on to say that many of those cultures “have experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and Western supremacy… we need to be mindful of this and how we express ourselves while practicing yoga.”

Student Federation Acting President Romeo Ahimakin told the Ottawa Sun that the class has been put on hold until a way can be figured out “to make it better, more accessible and more inclusive to certain groups of people that feel left out in yoga-like spaces.

“We are trying to have those sessions done in a way in which students are aware of where the spiritual and cultural aspects come from, so that these sessions are done in a respectful manner,” he added.


"If you disagree with the government, Amazon can pull your book..."

CENSORSHIP SHOCK: bans investigative book 'Nobody Died at Sandy Hook' because it disagrees with government version of what happened

by Mike Adams

In a stunning demonstration of online book burning, has just banned a book because of its contents. The book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook consists of analysis from a dozen contributor authors, and it's edited by Jim Fetzer, Ph.D. The book concludes that Sandy Hook was a staged FEMA drill carried out by the government to push an agenda of nationwide gun control.

Use hashtag #StopAmazonCensorship to Tweet this story.

We have a full download of the book below in PDF form, so keep reading if you want to find out what's so "dangerous" about this book that Amazon had to ban it...

Whether the authors' conclusions are well-founded or complete lunacy isn't the point here. has selectively targeted this book for censorship due to the political incorrectness of the author's conclusions. Remember, went out of its way to ban Confederate flags in the aftermath of another shooting, enforcing a grotesque, almost Stalinist political correctness in its decision to pull Confederate flag merchandise from its online store (including children's toys like the General Lee car from Dukes of Hazzard).

Yet at the same time, Amazon sells tens of thousands of books asserting all sorts of bizarre things, from authors who believe the Earth is literally flat to Adolf Hitler's pro-genocidal Mein Kampf.

"If you disagree with the government, Amazon can pull your book..."

Amazon's banning of Fetzer's book is a dangerous precedent of banning books based on their non-conformity with political correctness. "Amazon gave me no reason," Fetzer told Natural News. "The situation is completely absurd... if you disagree with a government version of anything, Amazon can pull your book."

This brings up the possibility that Amazon might soon ban U.S. history books that show the country's Founding Fathers in a positive light, for example. Will books on Thomas Jefferson soon be memory holed by the Amazon Ministry of Truth? What about books that question the cancer industry or Monsanto's GMOs? Notably, Jeff Bezos is both the founder of and the owner of the Washington Post, a highly politicized paper whose "science" writers parrot Monsanto talking points with absolute obedience.

On Fetzer's blog, he further explains that had already accepted his book for publication, then reversed its position when sales began to take off:

Create Space and review every submission for its suitability for publication and conformity to their guidelines before they are accepted for publication. They accepted and published NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK on 22 October 2015, nearly a month ago. There is no good reason for this book to now be taken down for further review other than that it has become a sensation and has the potential to embarrass the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama, which appears to be the underlying problem.

Click here to search for "Sandy Hook." Good Gopher is the indy media search engine I created as an alternative to the Google censorship now experienced by nearly everyone across the independent media.

What's so dangerous about a book that most Americans think is complete fiction anyway?

According to, selling a pro-genocide book by Adolf Hitler seems perfectly acceptable, yet something in Jim Fetzer's "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" is so incredibly offensive (or dangerous) that it must be banned at all costs.

It begs the obvious question: What is so dangerous about Fetzer's book that must banish it from retail?

Perhaps 90% of Americans would take one look at the title and consider the book to be a complete joke from the start. They'd call it "loony conspiracy theory" material and wouldn't give it a second thought. So why bother banning it? Or is the book so compelling that it runs the risk of making "believers" out of former skeptics?

If "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" is filled with complete nonsense, then why risk making it a sensation from the censorship angle alone? (See the latest indy media headlines on censorship at sells all sorts of books filled with complete nonsense, including the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5. If a book's factual basis is the determining factor for whether it should be carried by the online retailer, then half of's inventory must now be reviewed and possibly pulled.

Clearly, something in "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" has the powers that be so frightened that they are desperately trying to memory hole the book.

What if Sandy Hook were totally staged?

I haven't read the book, and school shootings are not my investigative focus, so I'm not yet informed enough to make any conclusive statements on this topic. But my curiosity is raised, and there are some things we already know about the fraud of staged news events and political events taking place right now.

For example, we know the mainstream media is largely fake and staged. We know CNN uses "crisis actors" and that a few of these crisis actors were also on location at the Sandy Hook event, crying on cue and playing out their roles for the TV cameras (see the video links below). We also know that some of these same crisis actors appear multiple times on camera at different staged events such as the Boston Bombing and the Umpqua Community College shooting.

See the following videos for examples of footage on these "crisis actors." (I can't vouch for the authenticity of all these videos, by the way. This is just a sampling of what's out there on this topic...)

Same crisis actor at Sandy Hook and Boston Bombing

Sandy Hook crisis actors read cue cards for the cameras

Crisis actors busted: Fake Sandy Hook eyewitness

Sandy Hook hoax and lies

And this one from just six days ago: Sandy Hook crisis actors pose as Paris attack victims!

We also know for a fact that Sandy Hook was seized upon by gun control opponents in an attempt to destroy the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. The crisis appears to have been ready made for precisely such a political push, complete with the imagery of children's bodies and sobbing parents which, according to Fetzer, was nothing more than elaborate theater. That's the basis of his book, after all: That the entire "shooting" was staged as a drill. Nobody really died at Sandy Hook, he says, and a quick glance at his book definitely raises some interesting questions.

5-star ratings from readers... so why was it banned?

As the screen shot shows below, this book was receiving 5-star reviews from Amazon readers. (h/t to for the screen shot.)

And you can click here for a cached image proving the book was being sold on Amazon.

If readers were loving the book -- and even if they weren't -- why would pull it from retail?

Download the book here and view for yourself

We have permission from the author to post the full copy of this book as a PDF.

Click this link to download the entire book (PDF).

We're also interviewing Fetzer and will be posting the interview on tomorrow, during the Health Ranger Report show which airs at 11am Pacific / 2pm Eastern. Listen in at

Censoring unpopular thought

Amazon's censorship effort should be disturbing to all of us, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the conclusions of the author of this banned book.

By banning this book because of its speech, now believes it has a right to determine "truth" in books and ban those books that contradict the company's opinions on current events., in other words, has just become your Big Brother, and it's going to decide what you can and cannot read. To me, that's far more alarming than anything we might find in the pages of "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," regardless of whether it's truth or fiction.

If is now the arbiter of what kind of political information you're allowed to read, then we're already deep into the corporatocracy of a police state society... and it all gives even more credence to the possibility that Fetzer's book rings true with an increasing number of Americans who are waking up to what's really happening.

Learn more:

The Left always bans what it doesn't like because Leftists hate freedom...

No dissent allowed: bans book for questioning the government narrative on Sandy Hook

by: J. D. Heyes

The Nazis burned books in an attempt to erase historical records that Chancellor/Dictator Adolph Hitler did not like and did not want to deal with. The Nazis were hardly the first to do so.

Throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages, the burning of books critical of regimes or simply as an attempt to destroy an entire culture took place, stretching from before the Early Modern Period (1492 to the turn of the 19th century) through the Industrial Revolution.

Perhaps one of the most famous – or infamous – cultural purges began in 1966 in China, when communist leader Mao Zedong sought to reassert control over both China and his party. As noted by the website

The Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) was a historical tragedy launched by Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It claimed the lives of several million people and inflicted cruel and inhuman treatments on hundreds of million people. However, 40 years after it ended, the total number of victims of the Cultural Revolution and especially the death toll of mass killings still remain a mystery both in China and overseas.

Such horrible things could never happen in the U.S., especially with the First Amendment – right?

Well, there haven't been any widespread killings or attempts to wipe out American culture through the mass elimination of literature, there are book bannings taking place, nonetheless, and ironically at, which first began as, primarily, an online book seller, ironically enough.

As noted by Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, in a recent column, the giant online retailer just banned a book that the corporate masters simply disagreed with.

The Left always bans what it doesn't like because Leftists hate freedom

"In a stunning demonstration of online book burning, has just banned a book because of its contents. The book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook consists of analysis from a dozen contributor authors, and it's edited by Jim Fetzer, Ph.D. The book concludes that Sandy Hook was a staged FEMA drill carried out by the government to push an agenda of nationwide gun control."

Adams went on to note that the authors' conclusions are not the issue, or shouldn't be.

"Whether the authors' conclusions are well-founded or complete lunacy isn't the point here," he wrote. " has selectively targeted this book for censorship due to the political incorrectness of the author's conclusions. Remember, went out of its way to ban Confederate flags[*] in the aftermath of another shooting, enforcing a grotesque, almost Stalinist political correctness in its decision to pull Confederate flag merchandise from its online store (including children's toys like the General Lee car from Dukes of Hazzard)."

*But not Nazi flags or paraphernalia, by the way.

And speaking of that, as Adams noted, the online retail giant is rather selective (read hypocritical) when it comes to deciding what is and is not "worthy" of your money, time and attention. For instance, has no issues selling a book that boldly asserts that Earth is flat and that we've all been duped by a massive "fairy tale" conspiracy with things like satellite photos of our planet and such.

Also, just 70 years after the modern era's most evil, diabolical leader walked the earth, has no problem selling his book (warning: Nazi alert).

What's next to be banned?

Fetzer told Adams that is setting a dangerous precedent.

"Amazon gave me no reason," Fetzer told Natural News. "The situation is completely absurd... if you disagree with a government version of anything, Amazon can pull your book."

Think about that – what's next? Politically incorrect versions of American history? All books about firearms? Any book laying out Catholic opposition to abortion or pointing out where, in the Bible, Christians are urged to "hate the sin" of homosexuality but "love the sinner"?

"Will books on Thomas Jefferson soon be memory holed by the Amazon Ministry of Truth?" Adams wonders. "What about books that question the cancer industry or Monsanto's GMOs? Notably, Jeff Bezos is both the founder of and the owner of the Washington Post, a highly politicized paper whose 'science' writers parrot Monsanto talking points with absolute obedience."

Learn more:

"The left thinks America is the land of violence, sexism, racism, poverty and fear..."

Sentenced to America

by Ben Crystal

As it turns out, it’s my Christian duty to throw open the doors and welcome every refugee who manages to fly, walk or swim across our borders. I know this because our liberal friends have taken great pains to remind me at every turn since ISIS rolled across President Barack Obama’s “red line” in vehicles he “mistakenly” provided to them, at a cost to the U.S. taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars.

After all, America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. It’s the shining city on the hill. It’s no wonder tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free are willing to risk life and limb just to find a little place of their own somewhere on the fruited plain. According to our liberal friends, denying that to any widow, orphan and/or victim of oppression is tantamount to treason. In fact, some of them have even suggested that our caution is “doing ISIS work for them.”

Hey, I can dig it. America is pretty damned awesome. This nation is so resilient it has survived multiple wars, multiple economic collapses, multiple famines, multiple pestilences and multiple Clintons. America is so magnificent even our poorest citizens have access to free healthcare, free housing, free cable television and free smartphones. And despite their Hollywood-sized lack of gratitude, we not only tolerate our least sensible citizens, we practically venerate them.

At least, I think America is the best. Apparently, I’m in the minority on that topic. In fact, I find myself a bit confused over how the same people who insist I’m a xenophobic bigot for not setting up a Syrian family in my spare room also seem to think our collective spare room is a total dump.

Ask the so-called “Black Lives Matter” movement. Begun in response to a posture never taken and a question never asked by an NFL-sized thug in Ferguson, Missouri, the BLM kids have made no bones about their disdain for their fellow Americans. According to the banners they wave, signs they carry and epithets they shout at the top of their lungs, America is a horror movie for its darker-hued citizens. Racist white people and homicidal police officers lie in wait around virtually every corner.

BLM’s bratty brothers and sisters seem to share their aversion to the Red, White and Blue. According to the Million Student March, the same campuses that play host to such luminaries as Joyce Carol Oates, Marc Lamont Hill and that crazy-looking communications professor who flipped her lid at the University of Missouri are also hotbeds of racial unrest. From “poop swastikas” to Klan sightings to nooses hanging from trees, college kids contend with “triggers” and “microaggressions” on a virtually daily, albeit imaginary, basis.

Well up the ladder from the intellectual black hole that is liberalism’s rank and file, the Democrats’ ruling elite takes an even dimmer view. Sen. Bernie Sanders wishes America were more like “Denmark.” The only presidential candidate who was alive before World War II wants healthcare, college and pretty much anything else that can be bought, borrowed or stolen to be bought, borrowed or stolen by the federal government. Of course, he has “Denmark” confused with “the Soviet Union;” but at his age, that’s hardly the only thing that he gets confused.

Hillary Clinton thinks America is a misogynist cesspool. “It is past time for women to take their rightful place side by side with men in the rooms where the fates of peoples, where their children’s and grandchildren’s fates, are decided.” An obscenely wealthy woman who built her entire political career on her husband’s coattails thinks it’s tougher for the girls to get a word in edgewise. Hillary also wants us to be on the lookout for self-aware firearms. “Since we last debated in Las Vegas, nearly 3,000 people have been killed by guns.”

Not to be outdone, President Barack Obama thinks the whole country is a nightmare. “(O)ur political system does not work as well as it should … in the United States, there is a growing inequality that I think is a real problem.” And he also thinks half the country shares the same twisted ideology from which refugees are supposedly fleeing. By balking at giving Iran money and the keys to the nuclear weapons locker, we’re “making common cause” with islamofascism.

The left thinks America is the land of violence, sexism, racism, poverty and fear. If this place is a tenth as awful as they claim, I can’t help but wonder what the hell every desperate refugee from here to Syria and back has done to enrage them so.


“Why does global warming only turn Muslims into terrorists?”

A great unanswered question about global warming’s one weird trick

by Personal Liberty News Desk

Global warming, whose mythic ability to cause all kinds of side effects grows more legendary by the day, is blamed for everything from acne to shark attacks to farmers killing themselves in Australia.

So it’s no surprise that global warming is frequently cited as a driving force behind global terrorism. But conservative blogger Erick Erickson poses a complicating question this week at his website: “Why does global warming only turn Muslims into terrorists?”

Why indeed? We’re sure there’s a scientific explanation, but Erickson leaves that for the scientists to unearth. He’s just playing the role of an innocent savant who doesn’t understand his own discovery:

Global warming is the cause of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world according to Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and other Democrats. Let’s add in the Prince of Wales. With a straight face they make this claim, ignoring any and all other evidence to the contrary.

But if that is so, if global warming causes terrorism, then I think the Democrats need to answer this question: why does global warming only turn Muslims into terrorists?

A great question. “Why is the sky blue?” must already have been taken.

“There are Jews in the Middle East and Africa,” Erickson continues. “There are Christians in the Middle East and Africa. There are animists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and others. But only certain Muslims, often from wealthy families, turn into terrorists. The Jews, Christians, animists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and the rest never seem to be affected by global warming in that way.”

Erickson’s got no answers, but he suggests that Democrats, while they’re still in control of the federal government, start spending some of their frivolous-study money to get to the bottom of the riddle.

If anybody comes up with the answer, we’ll let you know … in the name of science.


"If you trade your freedom for security, the terrorists win."

To France from a Post-9/11 America: Lessons We Learned Too Late

By John W. Whitehead

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”—Hermann Goering, German military commander and Hitler’s designated successor

For those who remember when the first towers fell on 9/11, there is an unnerving feeling of déjà vu about the Paris attacks.

Once again, there is that same sense of shock. The same shocking images of carnage and grief dominating the news. The same disbelief that anyone could be so hateful, so monstrous, so evil as to do this to another human being. The same outpourings of support and unity from around the world. The same shared fear that this could easily have happened to us or our loved ones.

Now the drums of war are sounding. French fighter jets have carried out a series of “symbolic” air strikes on Syrian targets. France’s borders have been closed, Paris has been locked down and military personnel are patrolling its streets.

What remains to be seen is whether France, standing where the United States did 14 years ago, will follow in America’s footsteps as she grapples with the best way to shore up her defenses, where to draw the delicate line in balancing security with liberty, and what it means to secure justice for those whose lives were taken.

Here are some of the lessons we in the United States learned too late about allowing our freedoms to be eviscerated in exchange for the phantom promise of security.

Beware of mammoth legislation that expands the government’s powers at the citizenry’s expense. Rushed through Congress a mere 45 days after the 9/11 attacks, the USA Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, undermined civil liberties, expanded the government’s powers and opened the door to far-reaching surveillance by the government on American citizens.

Pre-emptive strikes will only lead to further blowback. Not content to wage war against Afghanistan, which served as the base for Osama bin Laden, the U.S. embarked on a pre-emptive war against Iraq in order to “stop any adversary challenging America’s military superiority and adopt a strike-first policy against terrorist threats ‘before they’re fully formed.’” We are still suffering the consequences of this failed policy, which has resulted in lives lost, taxpayer dollars wasted, the fomenting of hatred against the U.S. and the further radicalization of terrorist cells.

War is costly. There are many reasons to go to war, but those who have advocated that the U.S. remain at war, year after year, are the very entities that have profited most from these endless military occupations and exercises. Thus far, the U.S. taxpayer has been made to shell out more than $1.6 trillion on “military operations, the training of security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, weapons maintenance, base support, reconstruction, embassy maintenance, foreign aid, and veterans’ medical care, as well as war-related intelligence operations not tracked by the Pentagon” since 2001. Other estimates that account for war-related spending, veterans’ benefits and various promissory notes place that figure closer to $4.4 trillion. That also does not include the more than 210,000 civilians killed so far, or the 7.6 million refugees displaced from their homes as a result of the endless drone strikes and violence.

Advocating torture makes you no better than terrorists. The horrors that took place at Abu Ghraib, the American-run prison in Iraq, continue to shock those with any decency. Photographs leaked to the media depicted “US military personnel humiliating, hurting and abusing Iraqi prisoners in a myriad of perverse ways. While American servicemen and women smiled and gave thumbs up, naked men were threatened by dogs, or were hooded, forced into sexual positions, placed standing with wires attached to their bodies, or left bleeding on prison floors.” Adding to the descent into moral depravity, the United States government legalized the use of torture, including waterboarding, in violation of international law and continues to sanction human rights violations in the pursuit of national security. The ramifications have been far-reaching, with local police now employing similar torture tactics at secret locations such as Homan Square in Chicago.

Allowing the government to spy on the citizenry will not reduce acts of terrorism, but it will result in a watched, submissive, surveillance society. A byproduct of this post 9/11-age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers such as Google that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere. We are all becoming data collected in government files. The chilling effect of this endless surveillance is a more anxious and submissive citizenry.

Don’t become so distracted by the news cycle that you lose sight of what the government is doing. The average American has a hard time keeping up with and remembering all of the “events,” manufactured or otherwise, which occur like clockwork and keep us distracted, deluded, amused, and insulated from the reality of the American police state. Whether these events are critical or unimportant, when we’re being bombarded with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days, it’s difficult to stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this. In this way, regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions that keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles also keep them tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on their freedoms.

If you stop holding the government accountable to the rule of law, the only laws it abides by will be the ones used to clamp down on the citizenry. Having failed to hold government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law, the American people have found themselves saddled with a government that skirts, flouts and violates the Constitution with little consequence. Overcriminalization, asset forfeiture schemes, police brutality, profit-driven prisons, warrantless surveillance, SWAT team raids, indefinite detentions, covert agencies, and secret courts are just a few of the egregious practices carried out by a government that operates beyond the reach of the law.

Do not turn your country into a battlefield, your citizens into enemy combatants, and your law enforcement officers into extensions of the military. A standing army—something that propelled the early colonists into revolution—strips the citizenry of any vestige of freedom. How can there be any semblance of freedom when there are tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, Blackhawk helicopters and armed drones patrolling overhead? It was for this reason that those who established America vested control of the military in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. They did not want a military government, ruled by force. Rather, they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, we in America now find ourselves struggling to retain some semblance of freedom in the face of police and law enforcement agencies that look and act like the military and have just as little regard for the Fourth Amendment, laws such as the NDAA that allow the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens, and military drills that acclimate the American people to the sight of armored tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and combat aircraft patrolling overhead.

As long as you remain fearful and distrustful of each other, you will be incapable of standing united against any threats posed by a power-hungry government. Early on, U.S. officials solved the problem of how to implement their authoritarian policies without incurring a citizen uprising: fear. The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers). They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being. Most of all, they want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.

If you trade your freedom for security, the terrorists win. We’ve walked a strange and harrowing road since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state. And in so doing, we have proven Osama Bin Laden right. He warned that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”

To sum things up, the destruction that began with the 9/11 terror attacks has expanded into an all-out campaign of terror, trauma, acclimation and indoctrination aimed at getting Americans used to life in the American Police State. The bogeyman’s names and faces change over time, but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has transitioned us to life in a society where government agents routinely practice violence on the citizens while, in conjunction with the Corporate State, spying on the most intimate details of our personal lives.

The lesson learned, as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is simply this: once you start down the road towards a police state, it will be very difficult to turn back.


"I am all too afraid that most of my fellow Americans are hostile to the principle of liberty in general. Most people want liberty for themselves. I want more than that. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man."

Free Speech
By Walter E. Williams

Recent events at the University of Missouri, Yale University and some other colleges demonstrate an ongoing ignorance and/or contempt for the principles of free speech. So let’s examine some of those principles by asking: What is the true test of one’s commitment to free speech?

Contrary to the widespread belief of tyrants among college students, professors and administrators, the true test of one’s commitment to free speech does not come when one permits people to be free to express those ideas that he finds acceptable. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits others to say those things that he finds deeply offensive. In a word, free speech is absolute, or nearly so.

No doubt a campus pseudo-intellectual, particularly in a law school, will chime in suggesting that free speech is not absolute, bringing up the canard that you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue. A person who shouts “fire” violates the implied contract that theatergoers have to watch a performance undisturbed. Of course, if all patrons were informed when they purchased tickets that someone would falsely shout “fire” during the performance, there would be little problem.

Then there is speech called defamation, which is defined as the action of making a false spoken or written statement damaging to a person’s reputation. Defamation is criminalized, but should it be? That question might be best answered by asking: Does your reputation belong to you? In other words, are the thoughts that other people have about you your property?

The principles that apply to one’s commitment to free speech also apply to one’s commitment to freedom of association. Like the true test of one’s commitment to free speech, the true test of one’s commitment to freedom of association does not come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems acceptable.

The true test of one’s commitment to freedom of association comes when he permits people to be free to associate — or not to associate — in ways he deems offensive.

Permitting discriminatory association practices in publicly owned facilities — such as libraries, parks and beaches — should not be permitted. That is because they are taxpayer-financed and everyone should have a right to equal access. But denying freedom of association in private clubs, private businesses and private schools violates people’s right to freely associate.

Christian Americans have been prosecuted for their refusal to cater same-sex weddings. Those who support such attacks might ask themselves whether they would also seek prosecution of an owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide services for a neo-Nazi affair. Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress?

Liberty requires bravery. To truly support free speech, one has to accept that some people will say and publish things he finds deeply offensive. Similarly, to be for freedom of association, one has to accept that some people will associate in ways that he finds deeply offensive, such as associating or not associating on the basis of race, sex or religion.

It is worthwhile noting that there is a difference between what people are free to do and what they will find it in their interest to do. For example, a basketball team owner may be free to refuse to hire black players, but would he find it in his interest to do so?

I am all too afraid that most of my fellow Americans are hostile to the principle of liberty in general. Most people want liberty for themselves. I want more than that. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man.


"“Social justice” will be served if the Black Lives Matter movement succeeds in getting Lincoln’s mug shot off the penny, tearing down the Lincoln Memorial, blasting his image from Mount Rushmore, and getting others to do the same to the hundreds, or thousands, of Lincoln statues and memorials that cover the American landscape. These are all American versions of Russia’s old Lenin and Stalin statues, the sole purpose of which is always to sanctify and deify the state and excuse or justify all of its crimes."

The Next Target of the Black Lives Matter Movement

By Thomas DiLorenzo

The Black Lives Matter movement has persuaded Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber to begin expunging the name and image of Woodrow Wilson (Princeton president for eight years) from campus buildings because of Wilson’s undeniably racist words and actions (He re-segregated the federal government, for example). Their next target, who should have been the movement’s first, should be the most publicly outspoken racist and white supremacist of all American presidents – Abraham Lincoln.

The college students involved in the Black Lives Matter movement should include in their education a reading of the book, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., the longtime editor of Ebony magazine. This should be followed up by The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked by Yours Truly, along with Lincoln Uncensored by Joseph Fallon, and Lincoln the Man by Edgar Lee Masters. In these works they would learn that Woodrow Wilson, as abhorrent as he was, was a racial angel compared to Lincoln. Indeed, as Lerone Bennett, Jr. would argue, it is an abomination that young black students are taught, along with all other American students, to worship and idolize such a vulgar racist and white supremacist whose “white dream” was literally an all-white America, achieved by deporting all the black people from the country. Up to his dying day, Lincoln was busy plotting the deportation of all the black people in America, including the soon-to-be-freed slaves, as proven by the brilliantly-researched book, Colonization After Emancipation by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page. “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” to Liberia, Central America, anywhere but the U.S. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime,” said Lincoln in a plea to ship all the black people back to Africa (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409). And, “The place I am thinking about having for a colony [for the deported black people] is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia” (Collected Works, vol. V, pp. 373-374). Woodrow Wilson “merely” re-segregated the federal government; if Lincoln had lived and carried out his plans there would have been no re-segregation because there would have been no black people to desegregate.

Frederick Douglas called Lincoln “the white man’s president” because he knew the man’s character and was familiar with his political speeches. He knew that during one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates Lincoln said “Free them [black slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 256). “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races,” Lincoln announced (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 405). “What I would most desire,” he continued, “would be the separation of the white and black races” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 521). And, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge [Stephen] Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position” (Collected Works, vol. II p. 16). This statement proves that Lincoln was the very definition of a white supremacist if ever there was one.

He was far worse than that, however. “I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he scolded. “I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146). Moreover, said Abe as an Illinois state legislator, “I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes” (Collected Works, vol. III, p. 146). “Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for Negroes. Why, in point of fact, I think so too,” said the hyper white supremacist from Springfield, Illinois whose language would make any KKK member blush (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 281).

Lincoln powerfully supported the explicit enshrinement of slavery in the text of the U.S. Constitution in his first inaugural address by endorsing the “Corwin Amendment” to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. The amendment had already passed the post-secession, Northern-dominated House and Senate, guided by Lincoln’s secretary of state William Seward, who followed Lincoln’s pre-inaugural instructions. In the same speech, which few average Americans have ever read, Lincoln literally threatened, in his words, “invasion” and “bloodshed” in any state that failed to collect the federal tariff tax, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier when President James Buchanan signed the Morrill Tariff into law.

Following the Republican Party platform of 1860, Lincoln only opposed the extension of slavery into the new territories, which he said he wanted to reserve “for free white people.” He never said that this would somehow magically end all slavery some day, as his modern-day apologists and court historians laughingly argue. He was the strongest supporter of the Fugitive Slave Act that compelled Northerners to round up runaway slaves and return them to their owners. He enforced this evil law all throughout his presidency. As an Illinois state legislator he championed the Illinois Black Codes, which stripped the small number of free blacks in the state of any semblance of real citizenship; supported the Illinois state constitution’s prohibition of the emigration of black people into the state; and served as a “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society, which sought to use state tax dollars to deport as many black people out of the state as possible. As a lawyer he never defended a runaway slave but did defend a slave owner (Robert Matson) who sought to regain his five runaway slaves (in 1847).

Lincoln did not even lift a finger to help get the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress to constitutionally end slavery, contrary to the tall tales and fables of the court historians, and the silly movie about Lincoln by Steven Spielberg. The preeminent, Pulitzer Prize-winning Lincoln scholar David Donald of Harvard writes on page 545 of his book, Lincoln, that there is: 1) no evidence that Lincoln ever did anything at all to change a single Democratic vote for the Thirteenth Amendment; and 2) that when several Republican congressman asked for his assistance he refused them.

All of this makes it seem trivial that the Black Lives Matter movement has chosen the lowly Woodrow Wilson as one of its first targets of extinction when an infinitely greater evil is staring them in the face. It is as though a man who is being charged by a grizzly bear and holding a hunting rifle decides to swat the mosquito on his arm instead of shooting the bear. I suppose this is a “testament” of sorts to the generations of lies and propaganda perpetrated by the Lincoln cult about the founding father of American statism, militarism, empire building, crony capitalism, bureaucratic centralization, and never-ending political deception.

“Social justice” will be served if the Black Lives Matter movement succeeds in getting Lincoln’s mug shot off the penny, tearing down the Lincoln Memorial, blasting his image from Mount Rushmore, and getting others to do the same to the hundreds, or thousands, of Lincoln statues and memorials that cover the American landscape. These are all American versions of Russia’s old Lenin and Stalin statues, the sole purpose of which is always to sanctify and deify the state and excuse or justify all of its crimes.


Monday, November 23, 2015

Who are the real terrorists/??

‘We are the terrorists!’

Paul Craig Roberts

“Terrorism has been unleashed in the Western World, and it is the terrorism of Western governments against Western peoples.” — Paul Craig Roberts

The Paris attack is playing out as I expected. The French government is attacking French civil liberty with legislation similar to the US PATRIOT Act.

Readers in France have informed me that 84% of the French people, according to a poll, are content to be spied upon as long as it keeps them safe. This means that only 16% of the French nation is not brain dead.

Another reader informs me that a TV news station read a letter left behind by one of the alleged ISIL bombers, a letter written in perfect English. Really! I mean, Really! Those with their secret agendas know how stupid the Western peoples are, collectively a hopeless basket case.

French and American politicians are demanding that NATO Article 5 be used to put NATO boots on the ground in Syria. This is important not in order to fight ISIL, which the Russians are successfully doing, but to overthrow Assad under the pretext of fighting ISIL, a crazy policy that could bring conflict with Russia.

Alternatively, to avoid conflict with Russia, Washington can take advantage of the Russian government’s hope that the Paris attack will show the West that Putin was correct that the West should join Russia in opposing ISIL. Once a NATO-Russian coalition, as advocated by French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, is formed, Putin becomes the West’s captive in the overthrow of Assad. (See here)

To insure that no one is informed of the true facts by the English language Russian media, such as RT and Sputnik, the US Senate arranged hearings on foreign propaganda. Kenneth Weinstein, a member of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, that is, the censors, told the senators that RT, Sputnik, and a variety of other truthful news sources are “well-funded state propaganda outlets.” (Here)

In other words, only believe what you read in Washington-controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, BBC, NPR, and so forth.

The aftermath of the Paris attack is like the aftermath of the so-called Boston Marathon Bombing. Fifty heavily armed police converged on two people and murdered them. The murdered female is described even by RT as a “female suicide bomber.” If the murdered woman is a suicide bomber, how is she still alive to be murdered by police? Not even the “Russian propaganda outlet” RT asks why 50 heavily armed police were unable to capture two people alive and had to kill them!

A number of readers have sent to me information that indicates that the Paris attack was reported on both Wikipedia and Twitter the day before it occurred. I do not know what to make of this. I do remember that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC building 7 prior to its collapse. The BBC reporter is actually standing in front of the still standing WTC 7 as she makes the report of its collapse. In other words, orchestration mistakes occur. But hardly any of the brainwashed pubic notices.

The question that raises itself is to what extent is this false flag attack in Paris a hoax. Why don’t we see the large number of dead and wounded. What we seem to have are uninjured crisis actors.

Where are the eyewitness videos?

Witnesses in behalf of the official story seem to have performed the same function on other occasions. Having been at the top of government, journalism, and academia for a lifetime, it is clear to me that there is a great deal wrong with the explanations that people are being given. However, the majority of Western peoples have been thoroughly brainwashed to believe that anyone who doubts official explanations is a “conspiracy theorist.”

In other words, only governments and their media presstitutes tell the truth.

This makes it simple for governments with their secret agendas to protect their agendas from the facts. Who would believe me when the alternative is to believe Fox News, CNN, the BBC, NPR, Dubya, Obama, Wolfowitz, Hollande, Merkel, Cameron, the Weekly Standard?

If Putin’s government and the Chinese people are so desperately determined to be part of the “glorious West” that they will accept a false reality, the world is doomed.

If it is up to Western politicians, the world is doomed for sure. To most men and women they are warmongers. The response to the false flag/hoax attack is mindless. The morons declare that the West is attacked because it allows women to be educated. The West is attacked because of “french values and French way of life, because we dance”, according to Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. (See endnote 1 below).

In other words, the nonsense that worked for the idiot US president, George W. Bush, works for the French. Apparently we are attacked “because we are good.”

The idea that we good people here in the West could ever be attacked because we have looted and robbed the Middle East for a century, and then followed up the looting with 14 years of military devastation of seven countries, producing millions of deaths and displaced persons — that is beyond the comprehension of most of us “good people”.

Really, it is a wonder that there are not round-the-clock REAL TERRORIST ATTACKS on Western countries! — which certainly deserve them.



Endnote 1 by Lasha Darkmoon

Paul Craig Roberts is here attempting to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of our rulers. This quote from a recent article by Philip Giraldi, highlighting the low level of discourse which is now the stock in trade of most politicians, is a good example. Here is American Senator Marco Rubio plumbing the depths of moronic stupidity:

“I believe the world is a stronger and a better place, when the United States is the strongest military power in the world… I’ve never met Vladimir Putin, but I know enough about him to know he is a gangster. He is basically an organized crime figure that runs a country, controls a $2 trillion economy. And is using to build up his military in a rapid way despite the fact his economy is a disaster. He understands only geopolitical strength. And every time he has acted anywhere in the world, whether it’s in Ukraine or Georgia before that, or now in the Middle East, it’s because he is trusting in weakness… our allies in the region do not trust us.

For goodness sake, there is only one pro-American free enterprise democracy in the Middle East. It is the state of Israel. And we have a president that treats the prime minister of Israel with less respect than what he gives the ayatollah in Iran.

All those radical terrorist groups…they are coming to us. They recruit Americans using social media. And they don’t hate us simply because we support Israel. They hate us because of our values. They hate us because our girls go to school. They hate us because women drive in the United States.”

So, there you have it! ISIS has just killed 132 innocent people in Paris because they are mad angry with us for sending our girls to school. They want to destroy Western civilization, these evil jihadis, because they can’t stand the idea of female motorists! (LD)

“The Paris attack was reported on both Wikipedia and Twitter the day before it occurred.“
— Paul Craig Roberts

Some people who are not inclined to believe the official story of the Paris attack are troubled by the question why Muslim suicide bombers would blow themselves up for a false flag attack. The answer to this question is very simple. But first we should dispose of the question whether suicide bombers did blow themselves up. Is this something that we know, or is it part of the story that we are told? For example, we were told that during 9/11 passengers in hijacked airliners used their cell phones to call relatives, but experts have testified that the technology of the time did not permit cell phone calls from airliners at those altitudes.

To dispose of the question whether we have or do not have any real evidence that suicide bombers blew themselves up, I will assume that they did.

So we have suicide bombers blowing themselves up.

Now turn to the question that troubles some doubters: Why would suicide bombers blow themselves up for the sake of a false flag attack?

As I said, the answer is simple: Why assume that the suicide bombers knew who was organizing the attack?

There seems to be abundant evidence that ISIL is a US creation, one that is still dependent on US active or passive support—thus the conflict between Putin and Washington over attacking ISIL.

ISIL seems to be what Washington used to overthrow the government in Libya and afterward was sent by Washington to Syria to overthrow Assad.

Obviously, Washington has ISIL infiltrated.

Washington has long proven its ability to use Islamic extremists. Washington used them in Afghanistan against the Soviets. And in Libya and Syria against their independent governments. Washington used them in Paris!

By my last count, the FBI on 150 occasions has successfully deceived people into participating into FBI orchestrated “terror plots.”

But let’s move on now to the bigger questions:

Why do terrorists attack ordinary innocent people who have neither awareness of “their” government’s actions or control over them? The victims of 9/11 were not the neocons and members of the Washington establishment, whose policies in the Middle East justified attacks on their persons. Ditto for the Boston Marathon Bombing, and ditto for the Paris attacks. Innocents were the victims, not those who have taken Muslim lives.

Historically, terror attacks are not on the innocent but on the rulers and those who are guilty. For example, it was the Archduke of Austria/Hungary who was assassinated by the Serbian terrorist, not ordinary people blown up or shot down in a street cafe.

It is interesting that terrorists attacks attributed to Muslims only fall upon ordinary people, not upon the political elites who oppress the Muslims.

In past years on several occasions I have remarked in my columns on the total vulnerability of the neoconservatives to assassination. Yet there has been not a single attack by terrortists on a neocon life, and the neocons are the source of the violence that Washington has unleashed on the Muslim world. The neocons walk around without threat, free as birds.

How believable is it that Muslim terrorists take their ire out on innocents when the President of France himself, who has sent military forces to murder Muslims, was sitting in the attacked stadium and could easily have been eliminated by a suicide bomber? (See endnote 2)



Endnote 2 by Lasha Darkmoon

Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out previously, with exceptional eloquence, that if these so-called Islamic “terrorists” had been brilliant enough to carry out 9/11, armed only with box cutters, then there would have been nothing to prevent them wiping out the entire gang of neoconservatives who had been the original cause of all their sufferings. After all, why pick on innocent people to murder, as again in the Paris attacks, when it would be so much easier to bump off the guilty politicians?

Here is Paul Craig Roberts making this simple point in an article written a few years ago:

“If Muslims were capable of pulling off 9/11, they are certainly capable of assassinating Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, Condi Rice, Kristol, Bolton, Goldberg, and scores of others during the same hour of the same day.

The argument is just not believable that a government that was incapable of preventing 9/11 is so all-knowing that it can prevent assassination of unprotected neocons.

Try to imagine the propaganda value of terrorists wiping out the neoconservatives in one fell swoop, followed by an announcement that every member of the federal government down to the lowest GS, every member of the House and Senate, and every governor was next in line to be bumped off.”

(Scroll down to bottom of article, here)

So, it is in this context that Roberts asks quite reasonably, in relation to the Paris attacks: “How believable is it that Muslim terrorists take their ire out on innocents when the President of France himself, who has sent military forces to murder Muslims, was sitting in the attacked stadium and could easily have been eliminated by a suicide bomber?”

It doesn’t look good.

“Who are the real terrorists?” we must ask ourselves.

I suspect it is the Usual Suspects and their well-paid lackeys in high places — the same gangsters who gave us 9/11 and are now busy turning the world into a dystopian gulag.


"’s because they have the most powerful military and intelligence force in history, Americans are among the most fearful people in the world."

Fear Is the Name of the Game
by Jacob G. Hornberger

President Obama announced, “We do not succumb to fear.”

What did he mean with his use of the pronoun “we”?

He’s got to be talking about the military and the CIA — i.e., the national-security establishment — which undoubtedly will not be afraid to drop more bombs in the Middle East and kill more people in that part of the world.

He certainly can’t be talking about the American people. They are among the most frightened people in the world! They succumbed to fear a long time ago, on a permanent, ongoing basis.

Think back to the 9/11 attacks, when most every American was terrified that the al-Qaeda terrorists were coming to get them. That’s how Americans ended up living under a government with emergency totalitarian powers, including the power of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA to arrest Americans, put them into military dungeons and concentration camps, secretly spy on them, and even assassinate them, all without trial by jury or due process of law.

Fear did that. Americans were so terrified that Osama bin Laden and his million-man army of Muslim terrorists were coming to get them that they eagerly traded away their freedom to live under a regime with totalitarian powers — a regime that promised to keep them “safe.”

Fourteen years later, has their fear dissipated? Are you kidding? It’s bigger than ever! “ISIS! ISIS! ISIS! They’re coming to get us! Renew the PATRIOT Act! Give even more power to the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA! Do whatever is necessary to keep us safe!”

Look at how Americans are reacting to the possibility that Middle East refugees might be admitted into the United States. “Oh, my gosh, they’re going to come and get me and behead me, or make me read the Koran, or force me into a mosque! Don’t even think of letting those horrible people into my country,” the fearful beseech the president.

The dark irony of the refugee crisis, of course, is that it’s the U.S. government that is the major cause of the chaos, violence, and war that has caused people to flee their homelands in a desperate attempt to save their lives and the lives of their spouses and children.

Even more darkly, the Americans who have lived their lives in fear ever since 9/11 and who now fear the refugees have been major supporters of the interventionism that has caused the refugee crisis.

Remember Iraq? When the U.S. government invaded that country, it was the fearful who blindly supported the aggression. Neither the Iraqi government nor the Iraqi people ever attacked the United States. But U.S. officials preyed on the post-9/11 fear that held so many Americans in its grip. “Oh, my gosh, Saddam Hussein is coming to get us! WMDs! Mushroom clouds! Yellowcake uranium! Operation Iraqi freedom! Support the troops! ”

And now we see many of the same fearful ones railing against letting any of the refugees from Iraq come into the country because they’re afraid that some of them might be angry over what the U.S. government did to them, their families, and their country.

Even more darkly, these same fearful ones are scared to publicly condemn the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the lies and deception that went with it. They’re scared the U.S. government might get angry at them for that, maybe even cut off their Social Security, Medicare, or education grants.

Young people missed all the fear that took place in the 1990s. The entire decade was a daily litany against Saddam Hussein, who was called the “new Hitler.” Just think about how fearful people are about ISIS today and transfer that to Saddam. Day after day, Americans were treated to diatribes of fear against Saddam, just as they are today with ISIS (and, until recently, al-Qaeda). I recall a conservative friend of mine finally getting so frustrated and exasperated over “Saddam! Saddam! Saddam” on television every day that he said to me, “We just need to send the troops in there and take him out!” Never mind the large number of innocent people that would have to be killed in the process of taking him out. That didn’t matter.

Of course, my friend genuinely believed that if the troops or the CIA were to take out Saddam, he would finally be fear-free and live a life of inner peace. What a joke that was. I am sure the guy is more fearful than ever before and is exclaiming, “Oh, my gosh, ISIS, ISIS, ISIS!”

Consider Syria and the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. The fearful are certain that if they’re admitted to the United States, a few of them will be terrorists. But why would Syrian refugees want to do anything bad to Americans? Well, the reason is because the U.S. government has been doing some very bad things to Syrians. It’s been killing them for the past several years.

Why has the U.S. government been killing Syrians? Because U.S. officials don’t like Syria’s president and want to replace him with another dictator. Like Iraq, Syria has never attacked the United States. The U.S. government is the aggressor there too. That’s why some Syrians — the ones who have lost brothers, sisters, parents, relatives, or friends because of U.S. interventionism — might be angry.

What has been the attitude of the fearful during the U.S. government’s regime-change operation in Syria? Either full-throated support or muted support. Remember: this is the national-security state we’re talking about. It’s the idol of the fearful. Through all the death and destruction that the U.S. national security state has wreaked in Syria and the rest of the Middle East for the past several decades, the fearful have just loyally and blindly repeated their favorite mantras: “Support the troops!” and “Thank you for your service.”

Actually, though I should say that U.S. officials don’t like Syria’s president anymore. The word “anymore” needs to be added because they used to love him. During the time they loved him, they struck a secret deal with him to torture a Canadian citizen on behalf of the U.S. national-security establishment. For that matter, they also used to love Saddam Hussein, which is why they furnished him with those infamous WMDs — so that he could use them to kill Iranians with.

What was the attitude of the fearful during those sordid love affairs between the U.S. national-security state and foreign dictators? Blind allegiance, rooted in fear. That’s how they have been able to excuse or support the U.S. renditions, torture, and assassinations, actions that are traditionally carried out by totalitarian dictators.

Of course, the fear goes back further, before 9/11. Don’t forget the Cold War, when Americans were absolutely terrified that the communists were coming to get them and turn American Red. That’s what the anti-communist crusade was all about, when the FBI was spying on innocent Americans — that is, Americans who were suspected of being communist moles — and when the civil rights movement was considered a communist front for turning America Red. Just ask the family of Martin Luther King.

An interesting part of the Cold War was that no one was afraid of Islam, the Muslims, or the terrorists. The fear of communists and communism was everything.

When President Truman was considering altering America’s original governmental system with the adoption of national-security state — a type of governmental apparatus inherent to totalitarian regimes — he was told that in order to secure the support of the American people to this radical and fundamental change to the U.S. government, he would have to scare the hell out of them.

Truman succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Despite their having the most powerful military and intelligence force in the history of the world, Americans are among the most fearful people in the world.

Or should I say that it’s because they have the most powerful military and intelligence force in history, Americans are among the most fearful people in the world?