Truth? We Don’t Need No
Stinkin’ Truth
By Paul Craig Roberts
February 08, 2015 "ICH"
- In the previous posting,
The Grand Manipulation,
I again wrote about the false reality that
government manipulation of information and
control over explanations creates for
Americans and others who have subordinated
themselves to Washington.
Consider the “war on
terror.” According to a Nobel economist and
a Harvard University budget expert,
Washington’s 14 years of war on terror has
cost Americans a minimum of $6 trillion.
That’s 6,000 billion dollars. This sum,
together with the current PayRoll tax
revenues is enough to keep Social Security
and Medicare in the black for years to come.
Without the vast sum wasted on the war on
terror, Republicans would not have an excuse
to be trying to cut Social Security and
Medicare for budget reasons and to privatize
the old age pensions and health care of
people, thus turning Medicare and Social
Security pensions into fee income for Wall
Street.
Combatting terrorism is
the excuse for squandering a minimum of
$6,000 billion dollars.
What were the terrorist events that serve as
a basis for this expenditure?
There are five: 9/11, the
London transport system bombings, the
Spanish train bombing, the Boston Marathon
Bombing, and the French Charlie Hebdo rifle
attack.
In other words, 5 events
in 14 years.
The loss of life in all
these events combined is minuscule compared
to the loss of life in the war on terror.
Even the deaths of our own soldiers is
greater. Washington’s wars against terror
have caused more deaths of Americans than
the alleged terrorist events themselves.
But were they terrorist
events?
There are many reasons to
suspect these “terrorist attacks.”
Governments have always resorted to false
flag events in order to serve secret
agendas. The Czar’s secret police set off
bombs in order to create grounds for
arresting labor agitators. We know from
Operation Gladio that Western intelligence
services did the same thing in order to
blame European communist parties and block
their electoral gains. Washington lived in
fear that a communist party would gain
executive power in some European country.
The 9/11 Truth movement,
consisting of 2,300 architects and
engineers, physicists, nano-chemists,
military and airline pilots, first
responders, and former government officials,
have blown the official 9/11 story out of
the water. No person with a brain believes
the official story. The chairman,
co-chairman, and legal counsel of the 9/11
Commission have written books stating that
information was withheld from the
commission, that the military lied to the
commission, and that the commission “was set
up to fail.”
Now we have claims from an
imprisoned Al Qaeda member that Saudi Arabia
financed 9/11. There is a secret government
document, whose 28 pages allegedly point to
Saudi involvement, that some lawmakers think
should be released. At this point we have no
way of knowing whether this is another layer
of cover, another red herring to divert
attention from the collapsing 9/11 story to
the Saudis, whose country is also on the
neoconservative list of Middle Eastern
countries to be overthrown. When Washington
lies and withholds information, the American
people cannot know what the truth is.
There are peculiarities
and contradictory evidence with regard to
the London transport bombings and the
Spanish train bombing. Moreover, these
bombings arrived at the right time to serve
Washington’s propaganda and purposes, while
what terrorists had to gain from them is
unclear and ambiguous. The Boston Marathon
Bombing and the Paris Charlie Hebdo attack
have many characteristics of false flag
attacks, but the media have not asked a
single question. Instead, the media hypes
the official explanations. When questions
cannot be asked or answered, it is a
reasonable suspicion that something is wrong
with the story.
Myself and a large number
of observant and astute persons have asked
questions about the Boston and Paris events.
Our reward, of course, has been ad hominem
attacks. For example, a non-entity of whom
no one has ever heard used Salon, known as A
Voice For The Government, to call me a
series of names for asking the obvious
questions that every journalist should be
asking.
The only reason to read
Salon is to continue your brainwashing
experience as a good patriotic American
should. I mean, how dare you contemplate
disbelieving your honest, caring, loving,
humane, moral, life-preserving,
truth-telling government, which takes
special care to spare human life everywhere,
as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Ukraine.
You can take it as a
general rule that anytime you see an ad
hominem attack on someone who raises
questions that the questions are dangerous
and that the government is using its
well-paid trolls to discredit the sceptic
who raised the questions.
The Charlie Hebdo and
Boston bombing have in common that the
police decided to kill the alleged
perpetuators rather than capture them–just
as a person alleged to be Osama bin Laden
was gratuitously murdered in the raid on the
“mastermind’s compound” in Pakistan. Dead
men tell no tales. They can’t contradict the
story.
The obvious question is,
like the question about Osama bin Laden’s
alleged murder by a Seal in Abbottabad,
Pakistan, why were such valuable
intelligence resources killed rather than
captured? But the Western print and TV media
have not made a point of this obvious
question. One of the alleged suspects in the
Charlie Hebdo affair, Hamyd Mourad, when he
heard via social media that he was the
driver of the getaway car of the Charlie
Hebdo killers, had the wits to quickly turn
himself into the French police before he
could be murdered as a terrorist. The
frame-up of this intended victim failed.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/looking-mourad-hamyd
I have seen nothing in the
news questioning how the official story can
be so wrong about Hamyd Mourad and still be
right about the alleged brothers who
conducted the attack. The evidence
connecting the brothers to the attack is the
claim that they left their ID in the
get-away car. This reminds me of the
passport initially said to have been found
in the ruble of the twin towers that was
used to establish the identity of the
alleged perpetrators of 9/11.
Hamyd Mourad is like the
surviving Tsamaev brother. Neither were
supposed to survive, because their stories,
if we ever hear them, will not fit the
official explanation.
We are only two months
short of two years since the Marathon
bombing and the surviving brother Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev has still not been brought to
trial. Nor has he or his attorney been heard
from.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/01/06/boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-silent/
According to the official
story, Dzhokhar wrote his confession on the
side of a boat in which the severely
wounded, unarmed 19-year old was hiding from
execution. That such an unlikely story could
become part of American reality demonstrates
the stupidity of both the authorities and
the American public.
It is entirely possible
that Dzhokhar’s attorney has learned from
the Lynne Steward case that any lawyer who
defends his Muslim client will be himself
sentenced to federal prison for not
cooperating with the government’s agenda.
But these are
speculations. What facts do we have? None,
of course, from Washington. Washington needs
no facts. Washington is the Imperial Power.
Washington’s word rules, the facts be
damned. The print and TV media do not dare
to contradict Washington on any important
point or raise any embarrassing questions.
Concerning facts, we have
the non-investigated report that a
high-ranked French police official, for
reasons unknown, killed himself in police
headquarters while writing a report on the
Charlie Hebdo affair based on his
investigation.
Police officials spend
their lives hoping for a major, big time
case, participation in which makes their
career memorable. No police official
benefitting from such an opportunity would
deny himself of it by committing suicide.
Did the investigation not support the
official story? Was the police official
Helric Fredou not compliant with cover-up
orders? The media has not asked these
questions, and I have seen no reports about
the content of Fredou’s report. What does
his report, finished or unfinished, say? Why
isn’t this of media interest?
Moreover, the family of
Helric Fredou is unable to get the autopsy
report of Helric’s “suicide” from the French
government. I have seen no news reports of
this fact in the US print and TV media. Here
is the only report that I can find: from
Kevin Barrett on Veterans Today:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/26/fredou/
Let’s turn now to one of
the last remaining investigative reporters,
Russ Baker. In an interview with Lew
Rockwell on January 30, 2015, investigative
reporter Russ Baker points out that no
evidence has ever been presented that the
Tsarnave brothers killed a MIT campus cop or
highjacked a motorist. He points out that
these stories helped to inflame the
situation and to firmly place in the
public’s mind that the brothers were
dangerous and guilty of the bombing, while
launching the police on a revenge killing.
There are many anomalies
in the case against the Tsarnave brothers. I
won’t go into them. The Internet is full of
skeptical information about the official
story, and you can look into it to your
heart’s content. At the time, the main
evidence against the brothers was a video of
them walking with packs on their backs. Yet
there is an abundance of videos available
showing large numbers of people with
backpacks, including a number of men dressed
identically as if in uniform, and there are
reports that a terrorist bombing drill was
being held at the site complete with crisis
actors. To my knowledge, none of this was
ever examined or explained by the TV and
print media.
One aspect that suggests
pre-planning is the quick appearance of
10,000 heavily armed militarized units from
a number of police and federal agencies. How
(and why) was this varied force so quickly
and easily assembled? The complete lockdown
of Boston and its suburbs, and the eviction
of people from their homes at gunpoint in
order to conduct house by house searches for
the one wounded brother still alive, is a
response so outside of the normal range of
responses as to raise questions that the
media avoided asking.
Another suspicious
incident is the “spontaneous” street party
giving thanks to the militarized forces for
saving Boston from the 19-year old kid found
bleeding to death under a boat by a local
resident. This party took place within a
very short time just after the kid was found
and seems inconsistent with lead times for
organizing street parties, especially coming
out of a locked-down situation when so much
is disorganized.
Lew Rockwell has given me
permission to repost his January 30, 2015,
transcription of his June 4, 2013 podcast
interview with Russ Baker, “Suppressing the
Truth About the Boston Bombings.” I have
edited the long interview for length, but
here is the link to the full interview:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/suppressing-the-truth-about-the-boston-bombing/
ROCKWELL: Well, good
morning. This is the Lew Rockwell Show.
And it’s great to have as our guest this
morning, Mr. Russ Baker. Russ is an
award-winning investigative reporter. I
mean, an actual investigative reporter. I
think that’s, unfortunately, a dying breed.
He’s written for The New Yorker, Vanity
Fair, The Nation, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, The Village Voice, Esquire,
and many, many others publications. To me,
most importantly, he’s the author of a great
book called Family of Secrets:The Bush
Dynasty, the Powerful Forces that Put It in
the White House and What Their Influence
Means for America, and an updated paperback
under the title of Family of Secrets: The
Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government
and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty
Years. Russ has his own site, of course,
RussBaker.com, also WhoWhatWhy.com, which
continues his investigative reporting
outside of the mainstream media.
Russ, is anybody, but you
questioning the information shutdown that’s
taken place in Boston?
BAKER: We are looking at
the actual facts of the case. And in the
information that has come out, we’re seeing
tremendous anomalies, inconsistencies,
out-right falsehoods, reversals by these
agencies, and we are troubled by them. And
so I and other members of our team have been
working this story now for more than a
month, and we’re going to stay at it for a
few more months.
We saw the clamp down on
the freedom of movement. We’ve seen the
increasing encroachment of military troops
into our American cities. We see the public
getting softened up and being made to become
more and more comfortable with living in
kind of a military state almost.
ROCKWELL: Now, you’ve
actually been on the ground in Boston?
BAKER: I spent the last
two weeks there. I’ll be going back again.
I can’t stay there full time. I’m based in
New York now, not in Boston. But I did
spend two weeks there, and it was very, very
instructive and I got a sense of a bunch of
things. I met with and even drove around
with journalists from major newspapers and
radio shows; some good people, but I could
see the limitations. There really is almost
nobody there digging deeply into these
problematical issues. And when I say
problematical issues, what I mean is it is
the job of the media to just find out what
happened. It is not our job to pass along
what somebody else says happened. That’s
not our job. And the media there, the major
newspapers, the TV and the radio, by and
large, just said what the authorities told
them. In a few cases, places like “The
Boston Globe,” they do more than that, a
little bit more than that; they’ve tried to
talk to people. But I can tell you from my
own experience that a lot of this stuff is
being controlled.
We’ve done four pieces.
We have another one coming up in a few
days. That’s going to be about this
carjacking victim, which is a very, very
important piece of this story that has not
been investigated by the media. Another one
we just did recently is about the shooting
of an MIT police officer named Sean
Collier. That story was treated — it was
not examined, Lew, in the context of what
that story was. That story was actually a
kind of a propagandistic moment. And those
of us who study and read history remember
that back in the Nazi era, there was the
killing of a police officer, a Horst Wessel,
and they even created a song for the Nazi
movement, the “Horst Wessel” song. Killings
of police officers that are magnified like
this — and if you go to WhoWhatWhy.com and
read that article, there’s a photo of all of
these baseball players at a stadium standing
with their hats off and their heads bent in
a giant projection of this one police
officer. And what is that for? Because,
tragically, police officers are killed in
the line of duty all the time. Why all of
the focus on this one police officer? I
have never, Lew, seen a news organization
ask that question. Why are we focusing on
this police officer? And more importantly,
what actually happened with this police
officer that would make us interested in
him?
ROCKWELL: Well, of
course, it’s clearly become an unexamined
assumption that police are worth more than
regular people. So the killing of a cop is
far worse than the killing of an old lady or
a young father or whatever else, which
happens all the time. And in fact, there
actually are not that many police killed in
the line of duty. You can actually find out
that figure. It’s far more dangerous to be
a commercial fisherman or a logger or a
farmer or many other occupations than to be
a cop. So it’s not actually true that
they’re always being killed.
But absolutely, it’s made
into a huge political deal, as Will Grigg
puts it, with a Brezhnev-style funeral any
time a cop is killed, whereas, if some poor
store owner or whatever is killed in the
line of duty, his family cares and that’s
about it.
BAKER: I agree with you,
that’s true. I guess what my point was that
even in agreeing with you that there are not
that many police officers killed, there
still are nationally probably some.
ROCKWELL: Oh, sure.
Actually, about 40 to 50, which is terrible.
BAKER: But what interests
me here is this particular police officer.
By the way, there were two police officers
shot; one died and one almost died. And
they’re both very strange cases. And so,
first of all, I was struck by the fact that
they wanted to make it a big deal about this
police officer’s death. Biden flew in and
addressed his funeral. It’s literally said
that thousands of law enforcement people
came from all over the country to attend the
funeral of this man they didn’t know. Now,
it is logical to ask, “Why would people
attend a funeral of a person they didn’t
know?” It’s for some reason. And what it
really comes down to is it’s
propagandistic. And what this is, is this
is focusing the public and it’s very
strongly sending out a message that the
system is taking care of you and you have to
honor the system. “This person died for
you.”
And what’s very
interesting was, if you go into that article
and you read all the detail of what I
investigated — and we’ll be doing more on
this — first of all, when Officer Collier
was killed, we were essentially told either
explicitly or implicitly that he had been
killed by these two brothers. Now what’s
very interesting is, at the time that he was
killed, all we knew was that these two
brothers, whose names were not even public
yet, were pictures from a video, wearing
backpacks, walking along with dozens,
hundreds of other people wearing backpacks
and walking. And so it was the death of
this police officer that set everything into
motion.
And as soon as I heard
about the death of this police officer, I
thought, OK, when an officer is down, when
that is announced, I can tell you this — and
I know a lot of police officers and many of
them are very, very fine people, but they
act with a kind of a pack mentality — and it
suddenly turbo charges. You know, there’s a
whole tradition, the Blue Wall of Silence
and all this, and when anything happens to a
police officer in any instance, immediately,
all the other police respond in a very, very
aggressive way. And so what you saw was,
the second he had been shot, boy, whatever
the police officers were doing, they were
all going to get whoever did this. And so
this became the justification for that
shootout on the street in Watertown; later,
going after the younger brother, the
Tsarnaev brother, and peppering that boat
with gunshots when he wasn’t even armed.
This was essentially a kind of retribution
for their fellow officer. Except for one
thing, and that is that about a week later,
when they were doing this whole big memorial
service with Biden and everything, they
rather quietly announced that, oh, you know
what, actually, the original story that he
had maybe tried to stop these brothers and
they had killed him was not right. It turns
out, they don’t know who shot this man. He
didn’t confront anybody. And he was
assassinated. And do you know where he was
assassinated, Lew? He was sitting in his
patrol car. Just sitting there. Somebody
came up behind him for no apparent reason
and killed him in cold blood. We have no
evidence right now that those brothers even
did it. But that was the precipitating
event that then unleashed all of this fire
power.
The next thing that
happened is this carjacking. And an unknown
person, whose name is still not public, has
said that he was carjacked by these brothers
and that they told him, “We planted the bomb
and we killed that cop.” Now, those are two
things that there is no hard evidence that
they did either of them, but now you’ve got
killed the cop and then you have a
carjacking with an unnamed person saying
these guys told me they did it. And then
one of them is killed; the other one, I
believe, they attempted to murder him. So
what you would have had, Lew, is you would
have had a situation where both of these
suspects would be dead, an unknown witness
would connect them to both of the things,
the whole thing would be over; and that
military, that huge military police response
would have been accepted, and we would be
used to the idea that there will be more of
these things.
ROCKWELL: Well, that’s
right. And of course, then we had the
younger brother writing out his confession
on the side of the boat in the dark.
BAKER: Well, in the dark,
but this guy was basically gravely injured.
According to the story, which is a little
bit strange, of the man who owned that boat,
when he went out to check, he saw blood
there. I mean, this guy was already in a
pool of blood before they called the cops.
Because we know he’s gravely injured in the
hospital. So the likelihood that he was in
any shape, you know, to sort of heroically
prop himself up and go to these incredible
lengths to scrawl out a confession virtually
with his dying breath is a little bit hard
to believe.
At the end, I think the
notion was that they thought this guy was
going to die. With those shots that they
fired, given the fact that he hadn’t fired a
single shot at them, you have to assume that
at least one person in that group, whether
it was local police or it was the FBI people
on the scene, was shooting to kill. That
was the intent, it seems. And so this
confession, if it’s even real — and we
haven’t seen that in that confession. And
other thing we’ve been reporting is that
that confession was reported to us by John
Miller, a senior correspondent at CBS News.
It’s very, very important to remember that
John Miller’s last major job was that he was
a top official of the FBI. He was a lead
spokesman for the FBI. He loves the FBI.
He’s very, very close with them. And this
is the man who is now back in journalism
telling us this story. He also has been a
key figure throughout. He got one of those
so-called exclusive interviews with the
unknown carjacking victim. So in other
words, this entire narrative is being
constructed essentially by the FBI or its
allies.
ROCKWELL: I always think
of the FBI as the American secret police.
And if you called them that, then when you
see this sort of thing going on, it seems to
me you ought to take things with maybe not a
grain of salt but a cup of salt.
BAKER: You know, I’ve
reported all over the world. I was one of
the first reporters into East Germany before
the wall came down; Romania when Ceausescu
was overthrown. I’ve been in so many
societies where there was totalitarianism or
authoritarianism. And these kinds of
organizations — you do need police, you do
need investigative agencies but,
unfortunately, the abuses are just rampant.
And anybody who is listening to this who
thinks that that is unfair, I invite you to
read any of dozens, maybe scores of books
about J. Edgar Hoover, who ran the FBI for
half a century, and to see that he ran it
like a personal fiefdom, basically, like a
mobster, and everybody in the agency was
terrified of him. There were constant
cover-ups in there. You understood you
could lose your job in a second if you asked
any questions at all. Some of these books
are by scholars. Others are by people who
worked in the FBI itself.
And so I have to agree
with you. I mean, in some respect, of
course, one wants an agency like the FBI to
be there, but that doesn’t mean we have to
apologize for the grave structural,
philosophical and other problems with it.
The FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, local
police, all of these institutions are
absolutely riddled with problems. And, you
know, my attitude as a journalist is many
institutions are riddled with problems, many
aspects of the federal government, but also
private industry, big corporations, riddled
with problems, abuses and so forth. And it
is not our job as journalists, and I don’t
think it’s our jobs as citizens, to just
accept what anybody tells us and to just
blindly trust when they say, whether it’s
the FBI or it’s your bank.
ROCKWELL: tell us what
happened in the alleged fire or bomb or
whatever the heck it was at the Kennedy
Presidential Library in Boston.
BAKER: You know, that’s a
strange one, because we were told that that
happened almost at the same time of the
marathon bombing, within a short time of
that, on the same day. We still haven’t
gotten a straight answer on what happened.
I’ve been doing a little bit in the way of
inquiries and, I have to say, I have
questions about that. I don’t think that
the authorities are being forthcoming. And
even more disturbing than the bombing
itself, the potential damage there or
attempted damage to priceless research
materials that people like I need to
continue to investigate what happened to
John F. Kennedy, what happened to American
50 years ago, and how it’s impacting us
today, which I believe it is. The past
certainly is prologue. But not only am I
concerned about that but, you know, there
was no coverag — the media dropped it. Go
and Google this thing, you’ll see zero,
almost. I mean, nothing from the local
Boston media or the national media. I mean,
WhoWhatWhy is a little, tiny non-profit and
we’re looking into it. And these giant news
organizations have nobody asking these
questions.
I find the Boston bombing
story absolutely rife with weird messaging.
And it could all be coincidental; it may be
coincidental; probably a lot of it is. I’ll
give you an example. The shooting of
Officer Collier was almost a dead ringer for
the shooting of Officer Tippet in the Lee
Harvey Oswald/John F. Kennedy saga. Lee
Harvey Oswald wouldn’t even have been a real
suspect in the Kennedy assassination had not
a police officer been shot shortly after
Kennedy was killed, because Oswald was just
one of many people who worked in that
building. Nobody said that they saw him
with a rifle. He only became really a
suspect when this police officer was shot
and then the description of the man who shot
him matched Oswald. So here you see a very,
very similar thing where it’s a police
officer goes down right after this other
event and plays a role essentially in tying
them, making these non-suspects suspects,
and making them very, very guilty. So that
was one thing.
The second thing is this
thing at the library on the 50th anniversary
of the Kennedy assassination. There are
many, many disturbing parallels. You’ve
got, in both of those stories, the suspects
had recently been in Russia. Remember
that? They both had been in Russia.
[LAUGHTER]
Strange families. Both
the Tsarnaevs and Lee Harvey Oswald had been
being monitored by the FBI. Both of them
had relatives, or other people they were
associated, with ties to the CIA. I mean,
is this all coincidental? Does somebody
have a particularly sophisticated and sick
sense of humor? I mean, what are we looking
at here? Of course, you’re not even allowed
to ask these questions.
Another story going up
probably today is how The New York Times,
instead of investigating any of these
things, they quickly have somebody roll out
a story talking about conspiracy theorists
and how anybody who has questions about
things basically is sort of mentally ill,
which is a very, very important
contradiction. If you ask any questions and
you don’t accept the conventional narrative
that everything is just fine, there is
something really, really wrong with you.
But, you know, my
continuing efforts to look into these giant
traumas, what happened to Martin Luther King
and Robert Kennedy and Walter Reuther, you
know, union leaders who died in a strange
plane crashes and so on, there’s so much of
this, and it is disproportionately reformers
who get taken out. Very, very few
corporate-cozy conservative politicians, who
also, by the way, fly in private planes all
the time, never seem to have an accident.
But this stuff we need to look at.
Now, you were talking
about the KGB and putting people into mental
hospitals but, you know, that happens in the
United States all the time. And just one
example is there was an Army sergeant by the
name of Dinkin, who was intercepting cables
and big top-secret stuff at a military base
in 1963, and he divined from his own
monitoring of cable traffic that there was
an assassination plot against JFK. And he
divined that that assassination plot was
going to involve right wingers and members
of the military and some foreign assassins,
and that it was going to take place in
Dallas in November of 1963. And when he
tried to say what he knew, they put him into
a mental hospital and they began injections
and they began essentially doing
mind-control things with him. And
eventually, he was forced to say, oh, no,
the reason I said those things — and he gave
some other explanation that was totally
benign. And that was the only way that this
man could get out of basically the gulag.
So if you think that these things only go on
in the Soviet Union, you’re wrong.
ROCKWELL: Russ, before we
go, I want you, to the extent you can, tell
us about the book you’re working on now.
BAKER: Well, you know, I
generally don’t talk too much about what I’m
working on. But I will say this. In terms
of subjects and major interests to me, I
continue to be very interested in the John
F. Kennedy assassination. Would have loved
to have something out on the 50th
anniversary of his assassination, but that
story is so layered and so complicated, some
people believe we could never get to the
bottom of it. I think we can. I think we
can put enough pieces of the things together
to figure out what happened. And I think
that solving that is absolutely essential
for us to understand what kind of society we
really live in, to kind of wake up. And you
know, people say, though, “This is so
depressing, I don’t want to hear about it,”
but that is not a way to empower yourself.
You empower yourself by educating yourself,
by having your eyes open, by understanding
how things work. And that is really the
beginning to go about and correct these
things, because this country has always —
and Franklin Roosevelt said this and Woodrow
Wilson said it. They always warned us that
they didn’t really run the country.
Franklin Roosevelt very famously said in a
letter to somebody, he said, as you and I
both know, the real power in this country
resides in the financial circles on Wall
Street. And that’s true. And I’m
continuing to look at Obama and how people
like that get to the top and people like
Hillary Clinton, and who are behind them,
and why it is that, whether we have a
Democrat or a Republican, even though there
are real substantive differences, primarily
on social issues, when it comes to the big
global issues and the big financial issues,
essentially, we see very, very similar
policies and appointments made. What is
really going on in this country? Why is it
that we actually seem to live under a kind
of a one-party state? And that is what my
continuing efforts, my books, and, most
importantly, my work at WhoWhatWhy.com,
which really is the main focus of my efforts
in my life today. It’s to build a
meaningful journalistic institution that can
train a whole new generation of journalists,
funded entirely by the public, with no
corporate influence or government influence,
asking questions with neither fear, nor
favor, and doing what we’re supposed to be
doing, really, as journalists.
Dear Readers: If we
expect to regain the liberty bestowed upon
us by the Bill of Rights, we must turn a
deaf ear to Washington’s lies. Washington’s
agenda is divorced from the agendas of the
American people. Washington’s agenda is war
and more debt for taxpayers to service even
though a majority cannot pay their bills
except with mounting credit card debt, and a
police state in place to control the
population as jobs offshoring eliminates the
middle class buffer that suppresses class
war between the poor and the rich.
Any American who has read
Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the
United States knows that government in
America has not served the interests of the
people but the agendas of the rich and
powerful.
War and “security” make
large claims on the US budget and on civil
liberties. Having established the precedent
of locking down a major city in order to
search for one suspect, this power was used
recently to lock down New York because of a
snow storm. People in northeastern US
certainly know how to deal with snow, but
suddenly they are told they cannot leave
their homes or be on the streets because of
snow.
What has changed that
suddenly a snow storm produces a political
response comparable to a declaration of
martial law?
What will the next excuse
be?
Are Americans being
trained to accept arbitrary curtailments on
their freedom of movement?
Pay attention. The
likelihood is that you are being conditioned
for narrowing the dimensions of your
freedom.