JustGetThere

John Bush: I just sent the message below to Rob and Aaron over at Infowars. rob@infowars.com, aaron@infowars.com If you are as concerned as I am, I invite you to mail Alex Jones through Rob and Aaron or any other means or call in to his show @ 1-800-259-9231 and ask him to cover this issue.

This is serious folks. Alex believes the police and ADL as well as Cointelpro agents have infiltrated the local movement. He's usually pretty spot on with his information. Surely he could help us get to the bottom of this.

Dear Alex Jones,

My name is John Bush, I am the Executive Director of Texans for Accountable Government, a local political action committee whose mission is to further the cause of liberty through trans-partisan local activism. TAG, alongside the Austin Ladies of Liberty Alliance, organized the January 25th pro-gun rally which took place at APD headquarters. Many in the community are concerned with some of the recent assertions you have made on your program about the possibility of infiltration in the local movement. We would greatly appreciate some clarification on the matter as the prospect of infiltration here in Austin is a cause of grave concern.

On your February 16th, 2010 broadcast, you said the following about possible police and ADL (Anti-Defamation League) infiltration of the Austin pro-gun movement.

“We’ve also found out that CLEARLY, and I didn’t believe this at first, I had to see it, and I may cover it coming up in the next few days, clearly people working for the police and the ADL are involved, even in the Austin pro-gun movement, trying to destabilize it and things, and even go after me, and they even write articles about how great the ADL is and they are right about me being bad and staging these events, I mean, its getting real crazy.”

@ 3:25


As an individual who participates in local pro-gun activities and the executive director of one of the organizations that organized the rally, I feel it is my duty to better understand exactly who you are referring to when you say people from the Austin pro gun movement are “working for the police and the ADL.” What are your sources? Whom are you referring to?

Also, on your January, 27, 2010 broadcast, you inform your listeners that you were “sure” that there was Cointelpro at the event and that they were “poking you and getting in your face”.

“The whole time I was there I had like Cointelpro poking me and getting in my face, and I’m sure some of them were because later I found out about a meeting afterwards with some people we know are connected to some operations about how they want to get me and go after me, it’s a whole another subject, but it bordered on illegal but uh, luckily we had people on the inside that found out about that and called me about it”

@ 6:43



As I recall, you had a videographer with you most of the evening and there is also a great deal of footage of the event on YouTube. Surely if there was Cointelpro poking you and getting in your face you would remember them and they would be on video. We would greatly appreciate your time in pointing out to us exactly who or whom you are referring to when you say, “I had like Cointelpro poking me and getting in my face”.

You also mention a “meeting” with people wanting to “get me and go after me” that “bordered on illegal”. While this may be a private matter, it would do well for the local activist community to know who or whom is engaging in “borderline illegal” activity in attempts to “get” you and “go after” you.

If there was indeed police (APD presumably), ADL, or government infiltration, it may be possible to expose this corruption through open records requests and/or interviews with Chief Acevedo, ADL representatives, or other governmental agencies. We hope your sources for this information will assist us in exposing these potential threats to our local movement. You mentioned you might cover the police/ADL infiltration in the next few days. We look forward to hearing it! It is very important that we as a movement are familiar with Cointelpro and disruption tactics so that we may better deal with said threats in the future.

You have long been a trusted and reliable source of information for both the freedom movement and the public at large and we appreciate you for that. We know you understand the detrimental effect that infiltrators, disinfo agents, and provocateurs have on the health of freedom movements. We thank you again for all you have done and look forward to your assistance and response in this urgent matter.

Yours in Liberty,

John Bush
Executive Director
Texans for Accountable Government

Any attempted terror attack, no matter how poorly executed, raises a national alarm -- and our paranoia only adds to the power of the imperial presidency.

By Tom Engelhardt

Tom Dispatch | Let me put American life in the Age of Terror into some kind of context, and then tell me you’re not ready to get on the nearest plane heading anywhere, even toward Yemen.

In 2008, 14,180 Americans were murdered, according to the FBI. In that year, there were 34,017 fatal vehicle crashes in the U.S. and, so the U.S. Fire Administration tells us, 3,320 deaths by fire. More than 11,000 Americans died of the swine flu between April and mid-December 2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; on average, a staggering 443,600 Americans die yearly of illnesses related to tobacco use, reports the American Cancer Society; 5,000 Americans die annually from food-borne diseases; an estimated 1,760 children died from abuse or neglect in 2007; and the next year, 560 Americans died of weather-related conditions, according to the National Weather Service, including 126 from tornadoes, 67 from rip tides, 58 from flash floods, 27 from lightning, 27 from avalanches, and 1 from a dust devil.

As for airplane fatalities, no American died in a crash of a U.S. carrier in either 2007 or 2008, despite 1.5 billion passengers transported. In 2009, planes certainly went down and people died. In June, for instance, a French flight on its way from Rio de Janeiro to Paris disappeared in bad weather over the Atlantic, killing 226. Continental Connection Flight 3407, a regional commuter flight, crashed into a house near Buffalo, New York, that February killing 50, the first fatal crash of a U.S. commercial flight since August 2006. And in January 2009, US Airways Flight 1549, assaulted by a flock of birds, managed a brilliant landing in New York’s Hudson River when disaster might have ensued. In none of these years did an airplane go down anywhere due to terrorism, though in 2007 two terrorists smashed a Jeep Cherokee loaded with propane tanks into the terminal of Glasgow International Airport. (No one was killed.)

The now-infamous Northwest Airlines Flight 253, carrying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and his bomb-laden underwear toward Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, had 290 passengers and crew, all of whom survived. Had the inept Abdulmutallab actually succeeded, the death toll would not have equaled the 324 traffic fatalities in Nevada in 2008; while the destruction of four Flight 253s from terrorism would not have equaled New York State’s 2008 traffic death toll of 1,231, 341 of whom, or 51 more than those on Flight 253, were classified as “alcohol-impaired fatalities.”

Had the 23-year-old Nigerian set off his bomb, it would have been a nightmare for the people on board, and a tragedy for those who knew them. It would certainly have represented a safety and security issue that needed to be dealt with. But it would not have been a national emergency, nor a national-security crisis. It would have been nothing more than a single plane knocked out of the sky, something that happens from time to time without the intervention of terrorists.

And yet here’s the strange thing: thanks to what didn’t happen on Flight 253, the media essentially went mad, 24/7. Newspaper coverage of the failed plot and its ramifications actually grew for two full weeks after the incident until it had achieved something like full-spectrum dominance, according to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. In the days after Christmas, more than half the news links in blogs related to Flight 253. At the same time, the Republican criticism machine (and the media universe that goes with it) ramped up on the subject of the Obama administration’s terror wimpiness; the global air transport system plunked down millions of dollars on new technology which will not find underwear bombs; the homeland security-industrial-complex had a field day; and fear, that adrenaline rush from hell, was further embedded in the American way of life.

Under the circumstances, you would never know that Americans living in the United States were in vanishingly little danger from terrorism, but in significant danger driving to the mall; or that alcohol, tobacco, E. coli bacteria, fire, domestic abuse, murder, and the weather present the sort of potentially fatal problems that might be worth worrying about, or even changing your behavior over, or perhaps investing some money in. Terrorism, not so much.

The few Americans who, since 2001, have died from anything that could be called a terror attack in the U.S. — whether the 13 killed at Fort Hood or the soldier murdered outside an army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas — were far outnumbered by the 32 dead in a 2007 mass killing at Virginia Tech University, not to speak of the relatively regular moments when workers or former workers “go postal.” Since September 11th, terror in the U.S. has rated above fatalities from shark attacks and not much else. Since the economic meltdown of 2008, it has, in fact, been left in the shade by violent deaths that stem from reactions to job loss, foreclosure, inability to pay the rent, and so on.

This is seldom highlighted in a country perversely convulsed by, and that can’t seem to get enough of, fantasies about being besieged by terrorists.

Institutionalizing Fear Inc.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, which had the look of the apocalyptic, brought the fear of terrorism into the American bedroom via the TV screen. That fear was used with remarkable effectiveness by the Bush administration, which color-coded terror for its own ends. A domestic version of shock-and-awe — Americans were indeed shocked and awed by 9/11 — helped drive the country into two disastrous wars and occupations, each still ongoing, and into George W. Bush’s Global War on Terror, a term now persona non grata in Washington, even if the “war ” itself goes on and on.

Today, any possible or actual terror attack, any threat no matter how far-fetched, amateurish, poorly executed, or ineffective, raises a national alarm, always seeming to add to the power of the imperial presidency and threatening to open new “fronts” in the now-unnamed global war. The latest is, of course, in Yemen, thanks in part to that young Nigerian who was evidently armed with explosives by a home-grown organization of a few hundred men that goes by the name al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The fear of terrorism has, by now, been institutionalized in our society — quite literally so — even if the thing we’re afraid of has, on the scale of human problems, something of the will o’ the wisp about it. For those who remember their Cold War fiction, it’s more specter than SPECTRE.

That fear has been embedded in what once was an un-American word, more easily associated with Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany: “homeland.” It has replaced “country,” “land,” and “nation” in the language of the terror-mongers. “The homeland” is the place which terrorism, and nothing but terrorism, can violate. In 2002, that terror-embedded word got its own official government agency: the Department of Homeland Security, our second “defense” department, which has a 2010 budget of $39.4 billion (while overall “homeland security” spending in the 2010 budget reached $70.2 billion). Around it has grown up a little-attended-to homeland-security complex with its own interests, businesses, associations, and lobbyists (including jostling crowds of ex-politicians and ex-government bureaucrats).

As a result, more than eight years after 9/11, an amorphous state of mind has manifested itself in the actual state as a kind of Fear Inc. A number of factors have clearly gone into the creation of Fear Inc. and now insure that fear is the drug constantly shot into the American body politic. These would include:

The imperial presidency: The Bush administration used fear not only to promote its wars and its Global War on Terror, but also to unchain the commander-in-chief of an already imperial presidency from a host of restraints. The dangers of terror and of al-Qaeda, which became the global bogeyman, and the various proposed responses to it, including kidnapping (“extraordinary rendition”), secret imprisonment, and torture, turned out to be the royal road to the American unconscious and so to a presidency determined, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others liked to say, to take the gloves off. It remains so and, as a result, under Barack Obama, the imperial presidency only seems to gain ground. Recently, for instance, we learned that, under the pressure of the Flight 253 incident, the Obama administration has adopted the Bush administration position that a president, under certain circumstances, has the authority to order the assassination of an American citizen abroad. (In this case, New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar Aulaqi, who has been linked to the 9/11 plotters, the Fort Hood killer, and Abdulmutallab.) The Bush administration opened the door to this possibility and now, it seems, a Democratic president may be stepping through.

The 24/7 media moment: 24/7 blitz coverage was once reserved for the deaths of presidents (as in the assassination of John F. Kennedy) and public events of agreed-upon import. In 1994, however, it became the coin of the media realm for any event bizarre enough, sensational enough, celebrity-based enough to glue eyeballs. That June, O.J. Simpson engaged in his infamous low-speed car “chase” through Orange County followed by more than 20 news helicopters while 95 million viewers tuned in and thousands more gathered at highway overpasses to watch. No one’s ever looked back. Of course, in a traditional media world that’s shedding foreign and domestic bureaus and axing hordes of reporters, radically downsizing news rooms and shrinking papers to next to nothing, the advantages of focusing reportorial energies on just one thing at a time are obvious. Those 24/7 energies are now regularly focused on the fear of terrorism and events which contribute to it, like the plot to down Flight 253.

The Republican criticism machine and the media that go with it: Once upon a time, even successful Republican administrations didn’t have their own megaphone. That’s why, in the Vietnam era, the Nixon administration battled the New York Times so fiercely (and — my own guess — that played a part in forcing the creation of the first “op-ed” page in 1970, which allowed administration figures like Vice President Spiro Agnew and ex-Nixon speechwriter William Safire to gain a voice at the paper). By the George W. Bush era, the struggle had abated. The Times and papers like it only had to be pacified or cut out of the loop, since from TV to talk radio, publishing to publicity, the Republicans had their own megaphone ready at hand. This is, by now, a machine chock-a-block full of politicians and ex-politicians, publishers, pundits, military “experts,” journalists, shock-jocks, and the like (categories that have a tendency to blend into each other). It adds up to a seamless web of promotion, publicity, and din. It’s capable of gearing up on no notice and going on until a subject — none more popular than terrorism and Democratic spinelessness in the face of it — is temporarily flogged to death. It ensures that any failed terror attack, no matter how hopeless or pathetic, will be in the headlines and in public consciousness. It circulates constant fantasies about possible future apocalyptic terror attacks with atomic weaponry or other weapons of mass destruction. (And in all of the above, of course, it is helped by a host of tagalong pundits and experts, news shows and news reports from the more liberal side of the aisle.)

The Democrats who don’t dare: It’s remarkable that the sharpest president we’ve had in a while didn’t dare get up in front of the American people after Flight 253 landed and tell everyone to calm down. He didn’t, in fact, have a single intelligent thing to say about the event. He certainly didn’t remind Americans that, whatever happened to Flight 253, they stood in far more danger heading out of their driveways behind the wheel or pulling into a bar on the way home for a beer or two. Instead, the Obama administration essentially abjectly apologized, insisted it would focus yet more effort and money on making America safe from air terrorism, widened a new front in the Global War on Terror in Yemen (speeding extra money and U.S. advisors that way), and when the din from its critics didn’t end, “pushed back,” as Peter Baker of the New York Times wrote, by claiming “that they were handling terror suspects much as the previous administration did.” It’s striking when a Democratic administration finds safety in the claim that it’s acting like a Republican one, that it’s following the path to the imperial presidency already cleared by George W. Bush. Fear does that to you, and the fear of terror has been institutionalized at the top as well as the bottom of society.

9/11 Never Ends

Fear has a way of re-ordering human worlds. That only a relatively small number of determined fanatics with extraordinarily limited access to American soil keep Fear Inc. afloat should, by now, be obvious. What the fear machine produces is the dark underside of the charming Saul Steinberg New Yorker cover, “A View of the World from 9th Avenue,” in which Manhattan looms vast as the rest of the planet fades into near nothingness.

When you see the world “from 9th Avenue,” or from an all-al-Qaeda-all-the-time “news” channel, you see it phantasmagorically. It’s out of all realistic shape and proportion, which means you naturally make stupid decisions. You become incapable of sorting out what matters and what doesn’t, what’s primary and what’s secondary. You become, in short, manipulable.

This is our situation today.

People always wonder: What would the impact of a second 9/11-style attack be on this country? Seldom noticed, however, is that all the pin-prick terror events blown up to apocalyptic proportions add up to a second, third, fourth, fifth 9/11 when it comes to American consciousness.

So the next time a Flight 253 occurs and the Republicans go postal, the media morphs into its 24/7 national-security-disaster mode, the pundits register red on the terror-news scale, the president defends himself by reaffirming that he is doing just what the Bush administration would have done, the homeland security lobbyists begin calling for yet more funds for yet more machinery, and nothing much happens, remember those drunken drivers, arsonists, and tobacco merchants, even that single dust devil and say:

Hold onto your underpants, this is not a national emergency.

Steve Watson

Prison Planet | Cass Sunstein, president Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the man who outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate “conspiracy groups” in order to undermine them, is in direct line for a promotion to Supreme Court Justice.

Sunstein, already in an advanced position of power in the White House as Regulatory czar, has already called for strict restrictions on gun ownership, an internet “Fairness Doctrine”, and an effective ban on free speech where dissenting opinions to those of the government are expressed.

Suntein’s name was on various shortlists to replace Justice David Souter last year following his retirement, and prior to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. Sunstein’s name was also touted for the Supreme Court before Obama even took office in November 2008.

His close personal relationship with Obama should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, particularly as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now aged 75, is likely to take retirement soon following illness, and with Justice John Paul Stevens now aged 90.

Sunstein and Obama go way back from their faculty days at the University of Chicago law school and are firm friends. Sunstein worked as an advisor to Obama during his presidential campaign and was drafted into the White House soon after Obama won the election.

As Obama’s “Information Czar”, Sunstein effectively interprets the law for the Executive. Sunstein operates in a similar, but much more elevated, role to that of former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, who infamously re-interpreted the law to legally sanction torture under the Bush Administration.

As we highlighted in our article yesterday, Sunstein has outlined plans for the government to infiltrate “conspiracy groups”, including the 9/11 Truth Movement, in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings.

Sunstein has effectively penned the blueprint for a Cointelpro “provocateur” style program to silence what have become the government’s most vociferous and influential critics.

The specifics of the plans must be read in full in order to gauge their extreme nature and the threat Sunstein poses to the freedom in America.

On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” he proposed that “under imaginable conditions” the government “might ban conspiracy theorizing” and could “impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

In effect, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, opinions and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of.

Sunstein’s definition of a “conspiracy theorist” encompasses those who question manmade global warming and, most bizarrely, anyone who believes that sunlight is healthy for their bodies.

Presumably if Sunstein had been in power in the latter middle ages he would have attempted to tax and then ban the work of Galileo Galilei for subscribing to the theory that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and that it actually revolved around the Sun.

When he’s not going after those evil sunlight lovers, Sunstein advocates Internet censorship via enforced and regulated links in news pieces to opposing opinions.

Sunstein himself later retracted that proposal, explaining that it would be “too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns”, and admitting that it was “almost certainly unconstitutional.”

Sunstein has also called for the re-writing of the First Amendment, and has even proposed a mandatory celebration of tax day in America.

His views on the Second Amendment have also raised serious concerns. In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.”

Sunstein is on record attacking the Second Amendment. Watch in the following clip as he says “The Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have guns.”



Given his extreme actions and stated intentions, Cass Sunstein should be forced out of office and barred from practicing law with immediate effect. If president Obama has his way, however, we may very soon see his good buddy Sunstein elevated to the highest judicial position in the country.

By Daniel Tencer

Raw Story | In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups.

As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs," according to the White House Web site.

Sunstein's article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncovered by blogger Marc Estrin, states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."

By "crippled epistemology" Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public -- the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government "enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."

Download a PDF of the article here.

Sunstein argued that "government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories." He suggested that "government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

"We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI," Estrin writes at the Rag Blog, expressing surprise that "a high-level presidential advisor" would support such a strategy.

Estrin notes that Sunstein advocates in his article for the infiltration of "extremist" groups so that it undermines the groups' confidence to the extent that "new recruits will be suspect and participants in the group’s virtual networks will doubt each other’s bona fides."

Sunstein has been the target of numerous "conspiracy theories" himself, mostly from the right wing political echo chamber, with conservative talking heads claiming he favors enacting "a second Bill of Rights" that would do away with the Second Amendment. Sunstein's recent book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some on the right as "a blueprint for online censorship."

Sunstein "wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading 'rumors,'" wrote Ed Lasky at American Thinker.

James Delingpole

London Telegraph

Monday, Nov 23rd, 2009

Here’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:

E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).

And the Independent:

(Yep. Nada).

And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)

And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

Manipulated America: Divided we Fall.

Gordon Duff

Salem-News | "From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back...A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey."...FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds in the American Conservative

Top US officials are reported to have been selling US nuclear weapons secrets around the world as part of a spy ring which includes members of Congress from both parties. These and other accusations are broadly substantiated, but only by the American Conservative and newspapers around the world, including significant revelations about a 9/11 coverup. How can this be done in a "free country?"

Massive penetration of, not only Congress, but the Pentagon and State Department are outlined in detail, naming those involved and how it was done. Foreign intelligence agencies from Israel, Turkey and Pakistan, regularly accessed highly classified information and sold it around the world, even to terrorist organizations.

If 9/11 was a terrorist attack, inside job or planned to drag the US into an endless war in the Middle East for some other purpose, the information needed to plan the attacks was sold or given away by high ranking Americans who were under investigation by the FBI until 2001.

That investigation was ended by the Bush Administration and buried using States Secret Privilege, leading to the biggest espionage disaster in American history. This doctrine, since 2001, has been used to end nearly every aspect of accountability in our government. Any information can be withheld from Congessional investigations, such as with the 9/11 Commission and any whistleblower can be silenced, even those reporting threats to national security, as with Sibel Edmonds.

"John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her 'the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.'"

Since 2001 and continuing thru with President Obama, a regime of suppression and disinformation has taken over in Washington, totally unaccountable to Congress or the people. With the destruction of any ability for a people to make an informed decision through state secrecy laws without oversight and limit, there can be no democratic rule.

What are the basic mechanisms to overthrow a democracy?

If you control three institutions, you control a nation. First is the press. If you can manipulate the news, suppressing stories, stopping investigations and protecting "flawed" individuals while making the public look under their beds for imaginary enemies, your power is almost unlimited.

Second is government itself. If you can control government by putting the real power in the hands of a few committee chairmen or key "deal makers" and can flood the system with dirty money, there will be no real investigations, only coverups and no real laws, only raids on the public treasury by the powerful while crumbs are passed out to others.

Third is public opinion. Turning an intelligent electorate into a howling mob requires an endless series of both outlandish conspiracies and real threats, the truth behind all being misdirected through a concerted effort to divide a populace and keep them at each other, even to the brink of civil war, all to protect the economic cabal growing fat off "terror war" and "deregulation," a buzzword for massive theft.

When former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, reported that Osama bin Laden was an active US asset up to the second the planes hit the twin towers on 9/11, she was put under Patriot Act gag orders by Attorney General John Ashcroft that lasted for years. Now that she is speaking, laying out facts supported by key FBI and CIA experts, nothing is hitting our papers. How bad are the facts being kept from us?

"The 2008 Sunday Times series detailed Edmonds' allegations that Bush's Under Secretary of State Grossman --- the third-highest ranking official in the State Department, after Colin Powell and Richard Armitage --- worked closely with both the Turks and Israel in obtaining and selling U.S. nuclear weapons technology on the worldwide black market, and that he had even tipped off Turkish diplomatic colleagues about the true identify of then-covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson's front company, Brewster Jennings, several years before the operation was named publicly by columnist Robert Novak"

While we were pretending to use our Patriot Acts to defend America through torturing suspects to get the truth, we are learning that much more of that coerced testimony may have been gathered to support a wide coverup of government crimes, many at the highest level. The American Conservative goes on:

These are some of the things Edmond has sworn to under oath, taken from an interview with former CIA official Philip Geraldi printed in the American Conservative:

PHILIP GIRALDI: We were very interested to learn of your four-hour deposition in the case involving allegations that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accepted money from the Turkish government in return for political favors. You provided many names and details for the first time on the record and swore an oath confirming that the deposition was true.

Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let’s start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.

SIBEL EDMONDS: During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. Because the FBI had had no Turkish translators, these files were archived, but were considered to be very important operations. As part of the background, I was briefed about why these operations had been initiated and who the targets were.

Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.

Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.

Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.

GIRALDI: So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He’s rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for “Turkish interests”—both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual’s phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.

EDMONDS: Correct.

GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money…

EDMONDS: $14,000

GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It’s also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”

EDMONDS: Yes, that’s correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

GIRALDI: Makovsky is now working for the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank.

EDMONDS: Yes. Lantos was at the time probably the most outspoken supporter of Israel in Congress. AIPAC would take out the information from Lantos that was relevant to Israel, and they would give the rest of it to their Turkish associates. The Turks would go through the leftovers, take what they wanted, and then try to sell the rest. If there were something relevant to Pakistan, they would contact the ISI officer at the embassy and say, “We’ve got this and this, let’s sit down and talk.” And then they would sell it to the Pakistanis.

GIRALDI: ISI—Pakistani intelligence—has been linked to the Pakistani nuclear proliferation program as well as to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

So the FBI was monitoring these connections going from a congressman to a congressman’s assistant to a foreign individual who is connected with intelligence to other intelligence people who are located at different embassies in Washington. And all of this information is in an FBI file somewhere?

EDMONDS: Two sets of FBI files, but the AIPAC-related files and the Turkish files ended up converging in one. The FBI agents believed that they were looking at the same operation. It didn’t start with AIPAC originally. It started with the Israeli Embassy. The original targets were intelligence officers under diplomatic cover in the Turkish Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. It was those contacts that led to the American Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and then to AIPAC fronting for the Israelis. It moved forward from there.

GIRALDI: So the FBI was monitoring people from the Israeli Embassy and the Turkish Embassy and one, might presume, the Pakistani Embassy as well?

EDMONDS: They were the secondary target. They got leftovers from the Turks and Israelis. The FBI would intercept communications to try to identify who the diplomatic target’s intelligence chief was, but then, in addition to that, there are individuals there, maybe the military attaché, who had their own contacts who were operating independently of others in the embassy.

GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?

EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.

GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?

EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.

GIRALDI: RAND does highly classified research for the U.S. government. So they were setting up these people for recruitment as agents or as agents of influence?

EDMONDS: Yes, and the RAND sources would be paid peanuts compared to what the information was worth when it was sold if it was not immediately useful for Turkey or Israel. They also had sources who were working in some midwestern Air Force bases. The sources would provide the information on CD’s and DVD’s. In one case, for example, a Turkish military attaché got the disc and discovered that it was something really important, so he offered it to the Pakistani ISI person at the embassy, but the price was too high. Then a Turkish contact in Chicago said he knew two Saudi businessmen in Detroit who would be very interested in this information, and they would pay the price. So the Turkish military attaché flew to Detroit with his assistant to make the sale.

GIRALDI: We know Grossman was receiving money for services.

EDMONDS: Yes. Sometimes he would give money to the people who were working with him, identified in phone calls on a first-name basis, whether it’s a John or a Joe. He also took care of some other people, including his contact at the New York Times. Grossman would brag, “We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names.”

GIRALDI: Did Feith and Perle receive any money that you know of?

EDMONDS: No.

GIRALDI: So they were doing favors for other reasons. Both Feith and Perle were lobbyists for Turkey and also were involved with Israel on defense contracts, including some for Northrop Grumman, which Feith represented in Israel.

EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger’s group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker’s group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help.

Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.

Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client’s conditions were not met by the Bush administration.

GIRALDI: Armitage was deputy secretary of state at the time Scowcroft and Baker were running their own consulting firms that were doing business with Turkey. Grossman had just become undersecretary, third in the State hierarchy behind Armitage.

You’ve previouly alluded to efforts by Grossman, as well as high-ranking officials at the Pentagon, to place Ph.D. students. Can you describe that in more detail?

EDMONDS: The seeding operation started before Marc Grossman arrived at the State Department. The Turkish agents had a network of Turkish professors in various universities with access to government information. Their top source was a Turkish-born professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was useful because MIT would place a bunch of Ph.D. or graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos, and some of them were able to work for the Air Force. He would provide the list of Ph.D. students who should get these positions. In some cases, the Turkish military attaché would ask that certain students be placed in important positions. And they were not necessarily all Turkish, but the ones they selected had struck deals with the Turkish agents to provide information in return for money. If for some reason they had difficulty getting a secuity clearance, Grossman would ensure that the State Department would arrange to clear them.

In exchange for the information that these students would provide, they would be paid $4,000 or $5,000. And the information that was sold to the two Saudis in Detroit went for something like $350,000 or $400,000.

GIRALDI: This corruption wasn’t confined to the State Department and the Pentagon—it infected Congress as well. You’ve named people like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a registered agent of the Turkish government. In your deposition, you describe the process of breaking foreign-originated contributions into small units, $200 or less, so that the source didn’t have to be reported. Was this the primary means of influencing congressmen, or did foreign agents exploit vulnerabilities to get what they wanted using something like blackmail?

EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.

Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.

But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

GIRALDI: So we have a pattern of corruption starting with government officials providing information to foreigners and helping them make contact with other Americans who had valuable information. Some of these officials, like Marc Grossman, were receiving money directly. Others were receiving business favors: Pentagon associates like Doug Feith and Richard Perle had interests in Israel and Turkey. The stolen information was being sold, and the money that was being generated was used to corrupt certain congressmen to influence policy and provide still more information—in many cases information related to nuclear technology.

EDMONDS: As well as weapons technology, conventional weapons technology, and Pentagon policy-related information.

GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11…

EDMONDS: I don’t know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli’s group, Fethullah Gülen.

GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.

EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?

GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.

EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.

GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated. What do you think the chances are that the Obama administration will try to end this criminal activity?

EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA’s wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees. (end)

Our questions regarding Edmonds and the extent of what her charges mean are several:

1. How can an FBI investigation of this scope be ended so quickly without any information reaching the public? We have come to believe that everything is leaked? How is such control maintained? 2. When a story like this is broken, why is there no followup investigation by the FBI, Congress or any attempt by investigative reporters, outside a few, to tell the American people the truth? 3. Why has President Obama kept the same repressive and illegal policies in place that were used by the Bush administration?

We are well beyond conspiracy theory. With the ability of our government to silence this story, which undermines the official versions of nearly everything from 9/11 to the most basic aspects of our national security, can any version of anything, investigated or not, commissions or not, ever be taken as more than part of the real conspiracy behind the conspiracies?

We have long accepted that our government was for sale to the highest bidder and that our press sold its soul after 9/11 for the privilege of being fed lies and continual access to more of the same. Anyone breaking with the crowd was cut off, denied access and pushed out.

A government operating in secret is, in itself, a conspiracy. Everyone working to stifle open government, end challenges to government power and continue down this path is a part of this conspiracy. They are working against, not only the idea of democracy, but against the lives of everyone living in America. This has left Americans subject to war for profit, rigged elections, economic slavery at the hands of financial pirates and the Obama administrations willingness to continue Bush era policies to impoverish working Americans.

The saddest part of this is the willingness of millions of Americans to join in to silence any movement for a free government. Under the guise of patriotism, extremist groups, funded and organized, sometimes publicly, sometimes secretly, by special interest and supported by massive press organizations, some under foreign control,

Groups clamoring for "freedom," sometimes armed, are working feverishly on behalf of war profiteers, foreign spy agencies and criminal elements in our power elite. Why is suppressing the truth about 9/11 a way of making us free? Why is challenging the oil and defense cartels considered fascism?

The real goal is power, economic power. Stealing oil, running drugs and looting our defense budget is only part of it. With continual talk about conspiracies, Zionists, Socialists and endless cabals running a secret government, the real power, the multinational corporations and banking consortiums that control the Federal Reserve system, set oil and commodity prices, manipulate currencies set the course of human history, all unseen, have been around for decades.

Governments come and go, elections, real or rigged, assassinations, coups, none of it means much. Even the most secure democracy can be taken down by a handful of dedicated men, be they terrorists, spies or foreign agents. 9/11 proved that.

If only the intelligent can see and understand the danger, then the real cabal attacks the intelligent as "liberal" and "weak."

If the patriotic and brave become a danger, send them to war or give them an imaginary enemy, fill the news with warnings and alerts.

If an investigation starts, channel it into a pet "paid off" Congressman or two and feed it lies. Lying is now an honorable part of our national secuity effort.

If someone stands up, what happens? With Edmonds, John Ashcroft issued executive orders to have her silenced. Others are called "truthers" as a way of discrediting them. How have we sunk to the point where asking for the truth can discredit someone?

If a story threatens to break, debunkers, agents of the cabal, jump on it immediately. They come in two flavors:

1. Debunkers present wild and implausible explanations attacking eye witness testimony, science and even video evidence using sarcasm and backed by powerful organizations. Debunkers need prove nothing, only claim, with no accountability, that they have "debunked."

2. Debunkers also join any investigation but lead it to the "Twilight Zone." Every legitimate story is dumped on the door of "Zionists" or space aliens by this type of debunker. They take plausible attacks on government lies and poison them with insane speculation in order to discredit anyone asking for a legitimate investigation.

Today, as usual, America is divided and moving toward a period of domestic discord and even home grow terrorism. Our military forces have become a prime recruiting ground for the corporate cabal. Every group that is easily influenced and easily misinformed, military, police, gun owners or those in isolated rural areas, are subject to wild stories of race war, imaginary Communist takeovers or worldwide Jewish conspriacies.

Whatever is blown up, a nuclear plant, a famous bridge or monument, the result will be the same:

* More oppressive laws* More defense spending

* More taxes or more debt

* More dead American soldiers

* More high prices for gas

* More and more pundits on TV crying about socialism

It doesn't take a genius to understand any of this. We love watching movies and TV shows about government conspiracies identical to the one we really seem to have. Where is the line? How much has to be lies before we have become the thing we fear most of all, a police state?

Would we even know?

By Kevin Poulsen

Wired | The hanging death of a Kentucky census worker is likely to raise tensions among counters in the 2010 census, who have already been the focus of emotionally charged online rhetoric this year because they use GPS.

Internet conspiracy theories have grown in recent months over the fact that census workers are now equipped with GPS-enabled handheld computers that let them collect the geolocation of street addresses as they perform pre-census canvassing. It’s an improvement on the paper maps the census has historically used for the same purpose.

“The exact geographic location of each housing unit is critical to ensure that when we publish the census results for the entire country, broken down by various geographic areas ranging from states, counties and cities, to census blocks, we accurately represent the data for the area in question,” the Census Bureau explains on its website.

But that explanation doesn’t wash with everyone.

A post on the widely read Infowars.com in June warned: “I will tell you plainly, the NWO [New World Order] controlled American military wants these GPS markers so they can launch Predator Drone missile attacks, the aptly named HELLFIRE missile I might add, against a long list of undesirables here in CONUS, continental United States.”

Other commentators have posited less lethal theories. The American Daily Review warned in April that the Census Bureau is “shooting GPS coordinates of your doorway” in possible preparation for a secret Obama plan to cede some of America’s sovereignty to the United Nations.

“If the government decided to rely on foreign troops, perhaps United Nations personnel, most of which may not understand the street signs, much less know the lay of the land, they could use GPS devices to direct them to your front door,” the site explained.

And RightSoup.com suggests that the government, “and ACORN,” wants the coordinates for Americans’ front doors as “a jackboot convenience.”

The conspiracy theories have struck a chord with a certain type of American, and posts like these have collected comments from people vowing not to allow workers anywhere near their houses. A few comments have taken an ominous tone.

“Only a fool would allow the New World Order to come up and take GPS readings at your front door,” wrote a commenter to another Infowars.com post. “There is nothing good to come from Big Brother’s constant meddling into our lives! Beware, and carry a big stick… preferably .308 Winchester full metal jacket.”

The FBI is reportedly investigating the death of 51-year-old Bill Sparkman, who was found hanged on Sept. 12 with the word “fed” written on his chest. The Census Bureau has suspended field operations in the Kentucky county where Sparkman was found, The Huffington Post reports.

Update II: How convenient, Alex and company are now stating that it is a technical glitch that caused the disclaimer not to be there. Use your own BS meter to judge this explanation. And how bout this for a statement, he even claimed that MAYBE A HACKER PREVENTED THE DISCLAIMER FROM BEING POSTED! Have you ever heard Alex apologize for anything this much. He realized that he SCREWED UP BIG TIME with this stunt and is back peddling. If this is all the case, why didn't he say all of this yesterday during his show at the beginning. He has been humbled and that is a good thing. You can choose to believe anything you want, but looking at it with an open mind and substituting Alex out of the equation, would you believe this explanation? You guys would be jumping on any other MSM shill who did this and don't say you wouldn't. You have better wake up and call a spade a spade, it's not illegal to point out that Alex is WRONG in this newest publicity stunt.

This is a sad tale about a man who cried wolf too many times, finally discrediting himself in the eyes of many, by releasing a fake interview about suppressed information concerning September 11th, between Charlie Sheen and President Obama. Hyped as the biggest news story in his 14 years on radio, it turned out to be an elaborate hoax, better suited for posting on The Onion.

By Harold Gray

JustGetThere | On Tuesday September 8th, Alex Jones finally released his much hyped "biggest announcement" of his 14 years of being on radio and running his website infowars.com. What initially was published for 60 minutes as a riveting interview of President Barack Obama concerning suppressed facts about September 11th conducted by Charlie Sheen, in fact turned out to be an elaborate hoax aimed at his core supporters, in order to catapult this fake story to the mainstream media.

In the previous week, Mr. Jones dangled carrots to his listeners about a big guest and massive story that would be released on his websites at 8 AM on Tuesday morning that would catapult the truth movement to another level. Curious of the story he was breaking on that day, I along with thousands of his supporters checked the site at the reported time. What we saw was a full interview by Charlie Sheen that showed a 20 minute dictated interview with President Obama. The detailed interview even included italicized comments of Obama's mannerisms and fictional aides speaking in his ear. In another attempt to present this as an honorable document, Sheen placed an image of his John Hancock at the bottom of the article. Although it seemed like a daring feat for Mr. Sheen to pull off within the time constraints, it was very well crafted and prefaced as a real interview. Luckily the good people at Above Top Secret, archived a cached version of the article that shows what the original posting looked like.

After reading the article, I agreed that this would be a huge story and published it on my site JustGetThere.us. I also told my wife about the breaking news, and even read aloud the full article which took several minutes. She in turned, informed family and friends about this story, truly believing that someone finally put Obama, or anyone at that level, on the spot about 9/11 in such a masterful way. We also began posting it to social networking sites and spreading the news just like we always do, all the while not knowing that we were being duped, and would later have to retract our statements.

I guess being the first in line doesn't always payoff, because shortly after we did all this work spreading the disinfo, people began replying that it didn't happen. Confused, we just accepted it as people being in some sort of denial since I still had the original posting up in one of the tabs in my browser, and it hadn't been refreshed. Other people on forums were going through the same scenario, suddenly having to defend a story that they just read presented as fact. My response was,

why would Sheen and Jones spend so much time making this story up and put all these details in it, then present it as the biggest story ever.

Much to my dismay, within 30 seconds of his radio broadcast, he announced his psyop on the public and we were utterly disgusted with this ruse. I returned to the article on his site, and sure as shit, a new disclaimer was at the bottom of the page stating that the interview has not happened yet. In another later version they even added a picture of Sheen in front of his computer working on this fictional hyped puff piece that belongs on the front pages of The Onion.

The fallout

This intentional false flag aimed at his core supporters has resulted in a backlash the likes I have never seen. Immediately on social sites such as Myspace, people spontaneously began deleting his pages. Deciding to take a stand against being hoodwinked, we did as well. We are frankly tired of stunts like this, they are pointless, distract us from true causes, and discredits the movement as a whole. I have a keen sense of discernment, but I still fell victim to his latest stunt due to the long history following his rise to the top of alternative media. I am an independent thinker who takes action on my own, writing original articles, launching websites, covering protests and being active in the movement for liberty, so I'm not drinking the Alex Jonestown Kool-Aid in any manner.

I took the information in the article at face value since it was stated as fact just like the MIAC report, and other huge real stories he broke. Imagine if he came out days later and stated that the MIAC report is a fake, and was used to wake the MSM up to the dangers of Homeland Security focusing on law abiding Americans as domestic threats. He would have been laughed at, and the real fusion center reports would have been looked at as just fodder for conspiracy nuts. This is what he has basically done to our efforts bringing 9/11 truth to the light of day. Didn't he realize that his core supporters who honestly believed this psyop article, would later be ridiculed for promoting this? Does he care? Or is this the true agenda behind all of this, to fracture the movement and damage all credibility of those who believed his hyped up faux article. These are the very tactics used by COINTELPRO agents during the 60's to break up the peace movement. They would spread false information that would demoralize targeted groups and lessen their credibility and vigilance. Below are the FBI's two main tactics of COINTELPRO:

• Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.

• Psychological Warfare From the Outside: The FBI and police used myriad other "dirty tricks" to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists.

The article would have still been a meaningless hyped event, even if the disclaimer was posted originally, but to use the people who are your biggest supporters as pawns in your cult of personality driven hype machine is truly despicable. When formulating this plan, he knew that his supporters would be the first ones who would take the story and spread it all over the net within the first hour. He even baited us by giving a specific release time of the article. He claims that this was done to get the media to pay attention to the 20 bullet points in the article. He clearly knows that all of these points have been done before, separately, combined, in video clips, documentaries, even pointed out on radio shows, and all done in a way that isn't deceptive. So the people who are reading this info are not having some revelation of the information presented, instead we thought we were being provided with a tool that was supposed to help wake people up and bring much needed media attention on the subject during this 9/11 anniversary week. This truly could have been accomplished with a real article documenting a sit down interview between Obama and Sheen. With the subject matter being controversial to begin with, he expected us to have credibility selling a fake interview between Obama and Sheen? Exactly how is this suppose to work, do pray-tell.

After spending years using real mainstream news accounts, declassified documents, witness testimony, government records, video evidence, peer reviewed reports by physicists such as Steven Jones and etc, as tools to wake people up. I am know suppose to believe that using a fake interview as source info will be the magic bullet that will expose 9/11 to the media? This is complete nonsense and I have a hard time believing that this is a miscalculation by someone who is as informed as Mr. Jones.

Hyping the Obama Joker posters was the first clue

Since the manufactured news story about the Obama Joker posters, it seems Jones has been taking meaningless issues and hyping them for no apparent reason. When the Obama Joker posters first appeared, I immediately assessed them as tools of disinformation, due to the image and convoluted message it was promoting. I explain all this here in my article, which appeared days before Jones embraced the posters and began making T-shirts and announcing contests for people displaying these images. In a move that raised many red flags in across the web, he dressed up as the Joker and put posters up just minutes away from my day job. I already was wary of the reaction to these posters so I took no part in promoting this meaningless distracting news story. We already knew how most people within their political and racial paradigms would react. It was also no surprise how the media would spin it. So it seems pointless to go on and on, and write continuous stories about the reaction of the media, when we could foresee it. It is a distraction, and complete waste of time focusing on issues like this, please tell me, has anyone awakened up by this? Has the media broke through the left-right paradigm, or gleamed some understanding of the New World Order and the compartmentalized nature of our political puppets.

The answer is no. If anyone has awakened due to the Joker posters or knows someone who has, contact me and you will get a prize. This is suppose to be the reason why we are doing all of this, to bring people together, not keep dividing us with messages that could be interpreted as partisan or racially motivated. Mr. Jones admits he was in Los Angeles right before the posters showed up, so could he be the mastermind behind this? It's speculating, but it makes sense because he rarely promotes anything that he isn't personally affiliated with. This would explain why he is still promoting the story to this day, while others have moved on. It is very curious that the person who started the guerrilla campaign has not came forward. The person who initially created the image has been identified, but the individual who actually first put the posters up hasn't. With all the media hype and adulation by the Jones camp, you would think the person would reveal themselves, at least to them.

Conclusion

This 60 minute deception has proven that Mr. Jones and company, are intentionally using manufactured news in order to distract and discredit the truth movement. This psychological attack has fractured the movement and led to another wasteful discussion of if Alex Jones is real or memorex. His actions are similar to Glen Beck's, who he assails almost daily on his website and radio show. Beck presents himself as if he is with us, but then pulls a fast one, ensnaring his viewers, and then feeds them disinfo. Everyone who listens to Alex's show, can envision what he would have said if Glen Beck pulled the same thing. Oh wait he did, Beck claimed that he was going to expose the governments program of FEMA camps for citizens, but then he presented old discredited new stories that were easily debunked by his staff. He then tells his viewers that the FEMA camps aren't real, sorry I tried to debunk them, but trust me they don't exist. Isn't this in essence what Mr. Jones just did? Presenting false information on an already controversial subject, so that the media would in turn discredit it, and those who were duped into promoting it.

It is pathetic and infuriating to read the frozen comments of people believing that the article was real, and that President Obama was presented with irrefutable evidence about the attacks on 9/11. The comments have sense been turned off due to the backlash I suspect. It is a sad commentary of how someone with so much power, money, and resources, who has fallen into the rabbit hole of his own egoic sense of self-importance, regardless of the collateral damage.

This site, along with other alternative news sites, have been working hard exposing the lies of government, media propaganda and presenting new realities of living off the grid mentally, within this matrix of control we were all born into. I implore you to show support to the websites listed below, by visiting them frequently and contributing monetarily if you can. I, along with others, have been truthing on a budget, with minimal support, unlocking minds without any intentional deception.

The Alex Jones juggernaut needs to be broken up a little, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is in no way meant to be an attack on Mr. Jones or his crew, but rather a wake up call, proving that you must question everything from anybody including myself, as Alex Jones himself states. I am not going to write another piece on the subject of Mr. Jones or any other leader in this movement in the future. This is not my focus, and frankly has been a mental drain and waste of time compiling this together in an article. But it had to be done in the interest of my integrity as a researcher and independent journalist. I have had roughly all of my original articles appear as featured stories on Mr. Jones' sites, so this is not coming from a place of jealousy or spite. I even wrote an article acknowledging what he has done for activist media in this movement, and promoted his latest money bomb with a banner on this site. This is why it pains me so much the fact that I have to write this about him, but I'm not in it to be a part of some clique, I'm doing this to unlock minds and motivate others to take action themselves in whatever way they are best suited. I could not sit idly by when I see something that is troubling or damaging to our tight knit community.

In conclusion I leave you with my quote from a previous article on the subject of the truth movement:

"discernment is imperative in order to keep from being herded into a new mental prison of control. This journey of knowledge is about truth, wherever it leads you, and not about the personalities of the message who can be torn down by true or false information. In essence, you know your intentions are good, so do your own research, listen to your gut instincts, and let YOUR path of synchronicities guide you through life.

This list (in no particular order) is comprised of other researchers and websites that you can visit in order to have a wide perspective on a myriad of issues. Some of these researchers even disagree with each other. I am not a gatekeeper, it's up to you to decide if their information resonates with you.

Freeman

Alan Watt

Jeff Rense

David Icke

Dr. Len Horowitz

Michael Tsarion

Jordan Maxwell

Chris White

Jack Blood

David Flynn

Steve Quayle

Les Visible

G. Edward Griffin

Michael Badnarik

Dr. Mercola

Blacklisted News

Rogue Government

What Really Happened

Dprogram

Cryptogon

Red Ice Creations

Media Monarchy

News With Views

Natural News

Lew Rockwell

Global Research

Information Liberation

American Free Press

Coast to Coast AM

The Power Hour

Campaign for Liberty

Pseud Occult Media

Dedroidify

Puppet Gov

RonPaul.com | Missing Sentence in Transcript Causes Premature HR 1207 Victory Celebration

Several blogs and forums reported during the past 24 hours that Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, said that Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve, HR 1207, will pass in October.

Incorrect Reports about Barney Frank’s Statement on HR 1207

Washington Times: Barney Frank says Ron Paul bill will pass

Politico: Barney: Fed audit bill will pass in October

Business Insider: Barney Frank: Yes, We Will Pass Ron Paul’s “Audit The Fed” Bill

United Liberty: Frank: Vote on HR 1207 in October

Daily Paul: Video: Barney Frank Says House Will Pass HR1207 in October

ZeroHedge: Barney Frank Says The House Will Pass HR 1207 In October

Mish: Barney Frank Says Ron Paul’s Audit The Fed Bill Will Pass In October

Washington Independent: Ron Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ Bill to Get October Vote?

The source of the rumor seems to be the following video.