Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott agree on need to stay course in Afghanistan
Ben Packham, Antonia Magee From:Herald Sun & Tetractys Merkaba From the Mikiverse June 22, 201012:00AM
KEVIN Rudd and Tony Abbott were at one as they argued the need to stay the course in Afghanistan. They are also "at one" on issues such as as; The Bali, 9/11 & 7/7 false flag op's, the unconstitutional private minting of our currency, the rape of the poor & working classes by business & government & the war on the Constitution, the law book of the Australian people.
But the debate on whether Australian troops should stay in the war-torn country-because of Western Countries- is gathering momentum.
Greens leader Bob Brown renewed his call for the withdrawal of Australian soldiers after the deaths of Sapper Jacob Moerland and Sapper Darren Smith two weeks ago.
But Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott yesterday expressed their firm commitment to the conflict, -it is actually an invasion- which has claimed 16 Diggers/terrorists so far.
The Prime Minister said the tragedy-inevitable result- was a sad day for the the nation, but the fight against the Taliban was vital to national security. Whose national security? Ours? Is Rudd & Abbott REALLY claiming that the Taliban are going to attempt, much less succeed in an attempt to INVADE AUSTRALIA????? C'mon now.
"We know our mission/our invasion in Afghanistan is hard/doomed to fail but this mission/invasion is critical for our common security," -Exactly how?- Mr Rudd told Parliament.
"We work alongside our allies from the United States and from other NATO countries, to avoid Afghanistan once again becoming a breeding ground for terrorists -the ONLY terrorists that have ever been in Afghanistan were those trained and supported by US secret service branches- who can then strike at innocent -rhetoric- Australians both at home-Can you name the last time The Taliban, Al- CIAda, Bin Laden engaged in a terrorist "at home" in Australia?? Me neither. BUT...... The Australian Government has engaged in a bi-partisan terrorist assault on the health, wealth, land & welfare of the Originie inhabitants of this land. Maybe this terrorist activity was funded by the Taliban and this is why we to invade this foreign country. Or maybe the elitist LIBOR and LABREL parties are just lying.... AGAIN!!and abroad." Try to name an act of terroism that HASN'T been carried out by the US and/or one of her allies.
Australia has 2351 troops serving/invading & particiating in terrorist activity in Afghanistan.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the Diggers/the terrorists were crucial -2351 terrorists will make or break this invasion according to John Howard (who has not satisfactorilly answered charges that he had foreknowledge on the 9/11 false flag op)'s cronie Tony Abbot, who is apparently Kevin Rudd's crony on this terrorist activity as well to the outcome in Afghanistan.
"I commend the work/terrorist activity that the Un-Australian "Defence" Force is doing in Afghanistan," Mr Abbott said.
"It is vital to ensure that that country does not again become a safe haven for terrorists. -Such as when the CIA were funding and training terrorists- It's a task vital for the security of all Australians. Really? How?"
The mother of Private Benjamin Renaudo, who was killed in Afghanistan last year, said the troops needed to stay and finish the job. -This is an IMPARTIAL opinion that is employed to try to win you over to a preconditioned Herald Sun opinion. If you were not sure of the HS's position on this issue, you now should be.
"They've got to complete the job and the job is to rebuild for those people," Jennifer Ward said. It is such a shame to hear hypnotised people repeating the government propaganda.
"There's gonna be people trying to stop us but we are doing the right thing by rebuilding their country." WE ALSO USED THIS DITTY IN VIETNAM, IRAQ AND WHEN WE STOLE ORIGINIE CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS AND HOMES.
Governor-General Quentin Bryce-the REAL leader of Australia. Is she the Queen of Australia when Elizabeth is fouling the air of some other poor country? praised the courage of three Australian soldiers who died yesterday.
Ms Bryce said it was "a heartbreaking day for the nation.As Australia's Commander-in-Chief, she had been struck by the professionalism and comradeship of the troops she had visited in Afghanistan.
"They knew the risks, and met them with real courage," Ms Bryce said of the latest victims.
"Their families should be assured that those who died and are suffering have done so upholding the values that Australians hold dear."
The Australian Defence Association said Australia should be increasing its military commitment in Afghanistan, not reducing it. Another impartial opinion that suits the overall opinion being expressed here. I have never heard of the Australian "Defence" Association, but, I certainly do not associate defence with invading innocent countries.
"We're already seeing the clamour of people saying this means an increase in the fighting and therefore it's too dangerous and we should quit, but this incident wasn't due to any direct enemy action," ADA executive director Neil James said.
Mr James, who served in the army for 31 years, said troop casualties were inevitable in any war. Bill Hicks that you need TWO sides to have a war. Here we have an invading force who are wrong, and a defensive force who are right. Yet, we have an inclination about the desires of this so-called "defence" association.
"The last thing we should do is give any indication that our will is faltering because all war/invasions in the ultimate analysis is a contest of will.
"We believe our strategic goal should be to win the war/invasion but the Government has a different point of view because they are looking at it very much in terms of casualties and electoral consequences, and that is no way to fight wars/invasions." So it would seem that not only is Mr. James a warmonger, but that the HS is quite happy to quote him.
But the ADA said debate about whether to stay or withdraw should be put off until the dust had settled on the latest tragedy.
"People get too emotional at a time like this and they also get too simplistic," Mr James said.
"We would be far better off having this discussion next week or the week after." Mr. James thinks we are emotional and simplistic people who will forget our opinions in a week or two. Maybe he thinks we will lose ourselves in tv shows and the like.
The only problem here is that this invasion will be as wrong in one week as it will be in two weeks. It will be as wrong today as it was in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or any time in 2010 or beyond.
This terrorist invasio is into it's tenth year, meaning it has gone on for as long as WW1 AND 2.
This terrorist invasion is wrong. We are wrong. We are war criminals. We are as wrong as Israel was last week, as wrong as the US in Vietnam, as wrong as Nazi Germany was when it murdered 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, as wrong as the Australian government was when it subjegated and murdered and broke up the families of our Originie Ausralian brothers and sisters.
For those who thought the end of the Bush Administration spelled doomsday for the neoconservative movement, think again.
According to a May report (pdf) from the Brookings Institution, a Washington, DC think tank, neoconservatives associated with prominent figures like former Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and pundit Richard Perle are still broadly active, despite policy failures associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Brookings Institution senior fellow Justin Vaisse, author ofNeoconservatism: A Biography of a Movement, argues that because neocons never had the degree of influence that opponents credited them with, and also because of a general unawareness of their history, observers don’t fully understand the trajectory of the neoconservative movement that began long before the Iraq invasion and one continues today.
“Neoconservatism remains, to this day, a distinct and very significant voice of the Washington establishment,” Vaisse insists. In May he published the report Why Neoconservativism Still Matters.
Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School and co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, says that the most obvious place the neocons are still influential is in U.S. policy toward Iran, where the Obama administration is “continuing the Bush administration’s basic approach, albeit with a ‘kinder, gentler’ face.”
Walt’s assessment squares with a number of recent op-eds in the pages of the Wall Street Journalby Richard Perle, Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith and Danielle Pletka, the latter of whom also testified on Iran before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs earlier this month.
Walt calls attention to two major reports produced by the Bipartisan Policy Center on Iran, where neoconservative Michael Makovsky was staff director for the studies and Dennis Ross -- whose role “in the administration remains something of a mystery," according to Walt -- was directly involved. The studies, Walt says, “are quite hawkish” and promote the use of force against Iran if diplomacy doesn’t work. Walt also points out that Ross has argued that diplomacy is necessary in part to win international support for military action later.
Following the neocon lead, says Walt, the Obama administration’s insistence “that Iran give up its enrichment capability is simply a non-starter, and keeps us on the same road as Bush’s policy did."
Benjamin Balint, a fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine that Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right, says that even despite their overly rosy predictions surrounding Iraq, neoconservatives have remained steadfast.
They've offered “not a heart-searching mea culpa, not a re-examination of first principles, but very nearly the opposite,” Balint says.
In part, Brooking's Vaisse suggests, the continued influence of the neocons has to do with the organizing principles of the movement and the persistent concerns of U.S. foreign policymakers even under the Obama administration.
Among issues of importance during the Bush administration that have not subsided in the Obama years include: the role the U.S. plays in the world; the U.S. as the sole superpower; a tendency toward unilateralism (whether intentional or by default); the question of militarism; and the exportation of democracy. These issues provide an opening for neocons to assert their leverage.
The three generations of currently-operating neoconservatives show “their substantial presence and political dynamism in Washington,” making it “difficult to imagine that they will not play a significant role in the future of American foreign policy,” according to Vaisse.
Numerous prominent neocons still active
The report indicates that there is still an active and influential older generation of neoconservatives, such as Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey. The middle generation includes The Weekly Standard publisher Bill Kristol, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholar Robert Kagan, New York Times columnist David Brooks and AEI scholars Danielle Pletka, and Tom Donnelly. Former AEI scholar David Frum is also counted among their ranks.
Vaisse says that there is also a younger group in their 40s, 30s and 20s “whose formative experience is not the Cold War, but the 1990s and, more to the point, 9/11 and the Bush administration’s response.” They include Max Boot, Dan Senor, Jamie Fly, Rachel Hoff, Abe Greenwald and Daniel Halper.
“In this sense, neoconservatism is regenerating itself and keeping a balanced age pyramid,” writes Vaisse. “After all, its idealistic, moralistic and patriotic appeal may be better suited to attract young thinkers than the prudent and reasonable calculations of realism.”
But Vaisse argues that it’s not just the individuals who make the neoconservative movement. Just as important -- perhaps more so -- are the “institutions that support them and the publications that relay their views and shape the public debate,” and Vaisse offers the assessment that in this respect, “neoconservatives are well positioned.”
Citing the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, Project for a New American Century,Commentary, and The Weekly Standard, Vaisse writes “These younger neoconservatives have generally received their first internships and jobs, and published their first articles in the old network of friendly think tanks and publications built by the older generation of neoconservatives.”
One of the more recent and robust institutions, according to the report, is the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), created in the spring of 2009. Operating under the direction of Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and Dan Senor, FPI is “animated by young operatives” and according to Vaisse “is already making its mark on the Afghanistan and human rights debates, notably by sending public letters signed by neocons and non-neocons alike,” a technique that is a hallmark of neocon action.
Financial support for these institutions, which comes from various conservative donors and foundations, such as the Scaife family, Bradley, Earhart, Castle Rock, and Smith Richardson foundations, “shows no sign of abating,” according to Vaisse.
Sustained financial, institutional and publication support has provided the platform necessary for neoconservatives to have influence long after they were broadly thought to have been run out of the White House.
The report refers to the 2007 Iraq troop surge as a specific, significant, recent development where neocons have had tremendous influence. It was partly devised by Fred Kagan, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who is also an influential voice on the current counterinsurgency debates. He was, for example, part of the team of civilian experts who advised General McChrystal on his Afghanistan review in July 2009.
Perhaps more important than the institutions and financial support is the modus operandi of the neoconservatives, according to Janine Wedel, professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University and author of Shadow Elite. In particular, a small subset of neocons, a “neocon core,” has been working together for more than 30 years “to remake American foreign policy according to their own vision.”
According to Wedel, this is done through the neocons' creation of alternative versions of official information and their ability to market those accounts as the more credible ones to audiences in the media, government and other political circles.
The neocons are able to achieve their goals, according to Wedel, “by undermining the rules and standard processes of the government they supposedly serve and supplanting them with their own, all the while making public decisions backed by the power and resources of the state.” Because their undermining of these processes often goes undetected, it is likely many remain in place under the Obama administration.
While the report points out that Obama’s foreign policy team is composed of liberals and realists “whose positions are far from the neocons,” Vaisse also recognizes that “opposition is not total.” On occasion, neoconservatives coordinate with liberal groups on human rights issues, or engage in conversations with senior administration officials, but they “lined up behind the administration” on the war effort in Afghanistan -- this time against the liberal left and some realists in both parties, according to the report.
Earlier this month, when Egypt announced it was renewing its long-standing emergency law, which has been used as the basis for many of its human rights violations, a letter was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by the Carnegie Endowment’s Working Group on Egypt. This group was composed of think tank scholars of various colors but was heavily populated with neoconservatives like Elliott Abrams, Robert Kagan and Ellen Bork. The letter called on Clinton to use U.S. leverage as Egypt’s major donor to “encourage them along a path toward reform.” The same day, the State Department released a statement from Secretary Clinton echoing the letter's sentiments.
Vaisse also points out that just as important as the neocons' persistence and coordination with non-neocons is the fact that American foreign policy is cyclical and that frustration with the Obama administration’s “realist and pragmatic” approach will “inevitably create a more congenial environment for the neocons.”
Allen McDuffee is a New York-based journalist and has recently launched a blog called Think Tanked.
Two Australian soldiers killed by bomb on first tour of Afghanistan June 8, 2010 - 12:05PM By Tetractys Merkaba in red, & AFP, AAP and Paul Tatnell in black.
Two Australian soldiers and a sniffer dog have been killed by a roadside bomb during their first tour of duty in Afghanistan.
The Diggers -A nice propagandistic label, that is untrue, because, as previously discussed, the digger appellation, was originally applied to the A.N.Z.A.C's of WW1 who engaged in the failed invasion of Gallipoli. This label is designed to steer your mind into thinking that these invaders are cut from the same cloth as the original diggers- belonged to the Mentoring Task Force and are the first Australians to die in 11 months, bringing the total number of deaths in the campaign to 13.
Acting Defence Force chief David Hurley said the troops were based in Brisbane with the 2nd combat engineer regiment.
They were killed by a roadside bomb explosion in the Mirabad Valley on Monday morning Afghanistan time.
One soldier was killed instantly. The second was given emergency first aid by his fellow soldiers and taken to a nearby hospital but later died.
Lieutenant-General Hurley said the two soldiers, who were part of a foot patrol, were evacuated to the Tarin Kowt base by helicopter following the explosion.
"It was about 10 minutes out to the site and back.
"It was 38 minutes from wheels off, from the incident being announced, to the two soldiers returning to the base."
Lieutenant-General Hurley said Monday had been "a hard day in theatre".
"There's a lot of troops in action and a lot going on.
"This has just been a difficult day for us."
He said military investigators were already looking into the deaths.
"We have sent in our weapons intelligence team to conduct a technical inspection," he said.
Asked if the NATO-led coalition was winning the almost decade long war, he said: "Bodies aren't going to tell whether you win or lose this war.
"Some good things are happening and we're heading in the right direction."
Lieutenant-General Hurley said it was the first time since the Vietnam war that two Australian soldiers had died in combat on the same day.
10 NATO soldiers killed
In total 10 NATO soldiers were killed on Monday.
Lieutenant-General Hurley said there were no other Australian or Afghan casualties.
"However, an explosive detection dog also died in the incident," he said.
An investigation will be held to determine the "exact details of the incident".
"I speak for the entire ADF [Australian Defence Force] and Defence community when I tell you I am deeply saddened by the loss of these two brave Australian soldiers," Lieutenant-General Hurley said.
Houston devastated
Defence force chief Angus Houston in a statement read out by his deputy said he was devastated to hear about the deaths.
"Foremost in my thoughts at this time are the families of these two soldiers ... who today are suffering overwhelming shock and anguish." It was a pity that these soldiers and there families were not foremost in Houston's mind before they were killed in a futile, dangerous and unsuccessful invasion.
It was too early for words to provide comfort to the families of the men, but Air Chief Marshal Houston said he wanted them to know both were outstanding Australians. I say they have paid too high a price for their ignorance, that their leaders in the chain of command failed them by allowing them to participate in a pointless & failing invasion.
"Quietly serving our nation and demonstrating every day the very best of what Aussies pride themselves on displaying to the world - courage, determination, mateship and selfless service."
He also had a message to Australian troops still serving in Afghanistan.
"I ask you to look after and support each other. Because you know damn well that the Un-Australian "Defence" Force, the Australian Government, the opposition, & the corporate media will not support you under any circumstances. In fact, ALL of these aforementioned groups will seek to capitalise on your efforts for their own gain.
"We will support you but I need you to make sure you seek any assistance that you may need to come to terms with your loss.
"Draw strength from one another and pay tribute to your mates."
Air Chief Marshal Houston, who is overseas with Senator Faulkner, asked the media to respect the wish of the families not to make public the names of the dead soldiers.
Constant dangers: Faulkner
The deaths were a reminder of the constant dangers faced by Australian troops in Afghanistan, Defence Minister John Faulkner said in a statement, which was read out by Defence Personnel Minister Greg Combet.
"While all Australians will mourn along with those two families, the immensity of their grief cannot be shared," Senator Faulkner said.
"The manner of their deaths from an insidious and indiscriminate improvised explosive device again shows the callous and truly despicable nature of our enemy." I say that it is not callous to defend your homeland against an invading force. It is callous, and truly despicable to try to capitalise on these deaths to score political points, or, to sell newspapers.
It was a great loss to the nation-but obviously not significant enough to end this pointless and futile invasion- and Senator Faulkner sent his sincere condolences to the families of both men.
Seven US soldiers killed
Five US soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) in eastern Afghanistan, while another American died in a separate IED attack and the seventh one from small arms fire in the south, said Lieutenant Colonel Beth Robbins in Washington. Three other NATO service members from other countries were also killed in attacks on Monday, two of whom were the Australians.
The French government announced that one of the deaths was a sergeant in the French Foreign Legion.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy "forcefully condemned this blind violence and expressed France's determination to continue working as part of the International Security Assistance Force [ISAF]", his office said. France too knows how to use propaganda to shift blame from themselves as an invasive force, and onto the victim of this invasive force when they defend themselves. Israel has been unsuccessfully trying this tactic to defend its disgraceful attack on the humanitarian boats running the Giza Blockade recently.
Suicide attack on an Afghan police training centre
Separately, two foreign contractors, -notice how casually the phrase foreign contractors is inserted. This means private employees of a private corporation and is another example of the blurring of the lines between the private and the government. This is because your government is actually a registered for profit corporation, and lets not get into the murky waters of the connections between the people who walk from government to private company and -stand up Mr. Dick Cheney- back to government and then to the the private sector again- one of them an American, were killed on Monday in a suicide attack on an Afghan police training centre in the southern city of Kandahar, the US embassy said. Three militants armed with bombs and guns were killed in the attack.
One of the rebels -dehumanizing these people helps the ignorant to work out the good & bad guys easily, just the same as the movies- detonated a bomb-filled car along the wall of the facility hoping to punch open a route for his comrades, the interior ministry said in Kabul.
The two others were shot dead by police guards, ministry spokesman Zemarai Bashary told AFP.
There was no claim of responsibility for the bombing but Afghanistan's Taliban is leading a nearly nine-year insurgency to bring down the Western-backed government and evict foreign troops.
Elsewhere, in the southern province of Ghazni, police said five Afghan security guards were killed in two separate attacks while they were escorting NATO logistics convoys.
"There were two roadside bomb attacks against the convoys in Andar and Ab Band districts. Three guards were killed in Andar district and two were killed in Ab Band district," said Ghazni police chief Khial Baz Shairzai.
NATO, US and Afghan troops are preparing their biggest offensive yet against the Taliban in Kandahar province, with total foreign troop numbers in the country set to peak at 150,000 by August.
US President Barack Obama hopes the counter-insurgency strategy focused on the south can allow US troops to start withdrawing next year.
According to an AFP tally, based on one kept by the independent website icasualties.org, 245 foreign soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year. Last year was the deadliest yet with 520 killed.
Monday's toll was the highest for a single day since the deaths of 11 French soldiers on one day in August 2008. The latest deaths follow Sunday's killings of five NATO soldiers, four of them Americans, in two separate attacks and a vehicle accident.
Plan to reintegrate Taliban fighters
In Madrid, US special envoy Richard Holbrooke said more funds for Afghanistan's plan to reintegrate Taliban fighters who renounce violence-More employment of the Orwellian language known as 'doublespeak'- were likely to be pledged next month at a conference in Kabul.
The July 20 conference is a follow-up to a London summit in January, when donors pledged an initial $US140 million to a so-called Afghanistan Peace and Reconciliation Programme trust fund.
"Almost $US200 million has been committed under a programme led by the Japanese ... and there will more developments on this at the Kabul conference," Mr Holbrooke said.
US soldier charged with murdering civilians
In Washington a US army spokeswoman said an American soldier had been charged with the murder of three civilians in Afghanistan -It's murder when it is not authorised, or not performed by an authorised agent, or, it was authorised, but the wrong guy was hit, or, it was authorised and the right guy was hit, but we were not technically supposed to hit him- and four others had been implicated but not charged in the crimes.
Specialist-What is a "specialist"?- Jeremy Morlock, 22, was charged on Friday with premeditated murder and assault in three separate incidents that occurred in Kandahar province between January and May this year.
AFP, AAP and Paul Tatnell
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/world/two-australian-soldiers--killed-by-bomb-on-first-tour-of-afghanistan-20100608-xreo.html
Former Nato Secretary-General Admits Bilderberg Sets Global Policy
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Monday, June 7, 2010
Former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes has confounded claims by debunkers that the secret organization which met in Sitges Spain over the last few days does not set policy, admitting during a Belgian radio interview that Bilderberg attendees are mandated to implement decisions that are formulated during the annual conference of power brokers. In a radio interview reported on by the Belgian news website www.zonnewind.be, Claes told host Koen Fillet that Bilderberg does indeed decide policy for the coming year. Claes would certainly be in a position to know, being a two-time Bilderberg attendee as well as the eighth Secretary General of NATO from 1994 until 1995. Claes said that Bilderberg guests are normally given around 10 minutes of talk time, after which a report is compiled of their presentation. “The participants are then obviously considered to use this report in setting their policies in the environments in which they affect,” stated Claes, according to the translated text. The host asked Claes to repeat this astounding admission, before Claes went on to explain that no two guest are allowed to sit next to each other more than once at Bilderberg, to enable the maximum exchange of views on important subjects. A Dutch-speaking reader sent us the article and confirms that the translation is accurate. This represents a solid confirmation of what we already knew through witnessing Bilderberg’s leaked agenda later play out in the real world time after time – that the elitist organization does verbally set global policy in a completely undemocratic and illegal manner. However, despite Claes, who personally attended the 1994 Bilderberg meeting in Helsinki when he was Belgium’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, confirming the obvious that Bilderberg does manufacture a consensus amongst its participants, which is then implemented as policy in the real world, during the past few days numerous debunkers have claimed that Bilderberg is just a talking shop that has no impact on the global stage. Iain Hollingshead of the London Telegraph wrote a sophomoric piece in which he dismissed Bilderberg as “a group of willy-waggling old men comparing their security details and dreaming of past glories,” which is a complete misnomer seeing as Bilderberg is routinely attended by active Presidents and Prime Ministers very much in power and very much in a position to have an impact on current events, such as Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who attended this year’s conference with his country on the verge of becoming the next Greece. Hollingshead claims that because the group is becoming more well known, its allure is on the wane, but fails to mention that this is because of the fine work of activists and real journalists who have spent decades trying to get the castrated corporate media to report on the event while people like Hollingshead either made childish jokes about the whole issue or even denied the very existence of Bilderberg. One such “skeptic” is Chip Berlet, who works for a group called the Political Research Associates, which is funded in part by the Ford Foundation, founded by Edsel Ford, the son of the notorious Henry Ford, who received awards from Hitler for funding the Nazi war machine with slave labor, which somewhat taints the PRA’s stated objectives, which are apparently to track conspiracy theories and the the right-wing while “advancing an open, democratic, and pluralistic society”. The Ford Foundation is little more than an attack dog which transnational elitists use, through its offshoots like PRA, to demonize any criticism of their agenda as extremist and anti-semitic, which is quite rich considering the history of the corporation. Berlet himself has made a career out of characterizing the idea that powerful people might get together and discuss ways of expanding their power as a belief of the lunatic fringe. Little surprise therefore that towards the end of Berlet’s appearance on Russia Today, in which he stumbles through a broken record of excuses claiming Bilderberg has no power, he invokes the tired old cliche that anyone who expresses concern about 200 powerful men gathering in secret with no democratic oversight whatsoever behind a wall of security is probably a closet racist. Berlet claims the American Free Press was founded by “one of the biggest anti-semitic, neo-fascist conspiracy theorists in the world,” which coincidentally is also a pretty apt description of the man who founded the company that now pays Berlet via the Ford Foundation funding PRA receives to spew his propaganda – Henry Ford – one of Hitler’s biggest supporters. Watch the clip. Berlet demonizes the notion that the Bilderberg Group has any influence over world affairs or is working towards a new world order as “a lot of malarkey,” and “a hoax carried out by people who believe in an elaborate fairy tale about how power is exercised in the world”. He then completely contradicts himself by admitting “they talk over policy” but then claims “the organization itself has no power” before stating, “The policies that are formulated don’t hold any power within the nation that people who go to the meeting….they go back to their country and say hey I heard this at the Bilderberger meeting what do you think? And the national assembly or the powerful people say I think that’s a lot of malarkey take it back and shove it someplace, so this idea that this is a plot that is carried out to 30 or 40 countries and implemented is baloney.” Really? So according to Berlet, the Prime Minister of Spain, his Secretary General, and the Queen of Spain, all of whom attended the Bilderberg meeting this past weekend, go back home and are then told to “shove” whatever they discussed at Bilderberg by “the powerful people”. These are the powerful people! These are the people who run the country. Presumably, Berlet believes there are powerful people above the Prime Minister and the Queen of Spain who tell them what to do, which sounds like an even bigger conspiracy theory than the one he is attempting to debunk. Of course in reality, Berlet knows that the most powerful people in the world attend Bilderberg and he is either completely ignorant or deliberately lying by claiming that Bilderberg has no impact on policy. Merely on the face of it the claim that Bilderberg does not have an influence on policy is patently ridiculous. This would be akin to claiming that a four-day gathering of 200 MLB officials would have no impact on the future of baseball. Despite the fact that many politicians shunned Bilderberg this year because of the group’s increasing notoriety as a furtive and insidious front for anti-democratic elitists, just take a look at the list of powerful individuals who did attend. Top CEO’s like Bill Gates of Microsoft and Eric Schmidt of Google, top bankers like Marcus Agius of Barclays and Peter Sutherland of Goldman Sachs, don’t meet with national Presidents, Prime Ministers, big newspaper owners, members of the European Parliament and officials in the U.S. government to talk about tiddlywinks. They don’t get together for four days and surround themselves with a security ring of steel to discuss the weather or American Idol – they’re at Bilderberg to come to a consensus and then to implement it in their respective spheres of influence, just as Claes confirms in the radio interview. Using bluff and slimy semantics, apologists like Berlet imply that just because no treaties or laws are signed at Bilderberg, that the group has no power. In reality, Bilderberg sets the global consensus for the agenda that is subsequently implemented in the host countries of the Bilderberg members, a process that holds even more power than signing an individual treaty. Bilderberg sets the consensus for a whole gamut of policy areas, from oil, to the environment, to wars, to the economy. This is confirmed not only by former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes in the radio interview we covered earlier, but it is manifestly evident in the policies that have later come to pass after being formulated at Bilderberg. Indeed, Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon last year bragged about how the Euro single currency was a brainchild of the Bilderberg Group. “A meeting in June in Europe of the Bilderberg Group- an informal club of leading politicians, businessmen and thinkers chaired by Mr. Davignon- could also ‘improve understanding’ on future action, in the same way it helped create the Euro in the 1990s, he said,” reported the EU Observer in March 2009. The foundations for the EU and ultimately the Euro single currency were laid by the secretive Bilderberg Group in the mid-1950’s. Bilderberg’s own leaked documents prove that the agenda to create a European common market and a single currency was formulated by Bilderberg in 1955. As we first reported in 2003, a BBC investigative team were allowed to access Bilderberg files which confirmed that the EU and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg The summary report of the 1955 Bilderberg meeting which took place from September 23-25 1955 at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbichl in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany, talks of the “Pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market.” The document also outlines the plan, “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.” Just two years later, in 1957, the first incarnation of the European Economic Community (EEC) was born, which comprised of a single market between Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The EEC gradually enlarged over the next few decades until it became the European Community, one of the three pillars of the European Union, which was officially created in 1993. The 1955 Bilderberg summary outlines a consensus that, “It might be better to proceed through the development of a common market by treaty rather than by the creation of new high authorities.” The EEC was duly created via the Treaty of Rome, which was signed on 25 March 1957. Debunkers like Berlet will probably still try and claim that the idea of a common European market was floating around in the early 1950’s and that Bilderberg were merely debating contemporary political ideas. However, the same cannot be said for the single European currency, which wasn’t even introduced in the form of notes and coins until January 2002, having been first codified in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. The documents prove that Bilderberg members were pushing for its introduction nearly 40 years earlier. “A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority,” states the summary document. True to form, the single European currency, the Euro, was not introduced until after the creation of a central political authority – the EU itself. The document also stresses, “The necessity to bring the German people into a common European market as quickly as possible,” adding that the future was in danger without a “United Europe”. These proven examples of Bilderberg formulating some of the biggest policies of the 20th century do not even come from leaks obtained by journalists from within the meetings, they come directly from the mouth of Bilderberg’s chairman and Bilderberg’s own internal documents. However, leaks from inside the meetings uncovered by independent journalists have also proven routinely accurate in confirming that Bilderberg has a massive impact on policy decisions. In spring 2002, when war hawks in the Bush administration were pushing for a summer invasion of Iraq, Bilderbergers expressed their desire for a delay and the attack was not launched until March the following year. In 2006, journalists who got leaked information from inside Bilderberg predicted that the U.S. housing market would be allowed to soar before the bubble was cruelly popped, which is exactly what transpired. In June 2008, we learned that Bilderberg were creating the conditions for a financial calamity, which is exactly what began a few months later with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Bilderberg has habitually flexed its muscles in establishing its role as kingmaker. The organization routinely selects presidential candidates as well as running mates and prime ministers. Despite widespread expectation that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would be announced as the first European Union President, the former Prime Minister of Belgium, Herman Van Rompuy, was picked for the role just days after he attended a Bilderberg Group dinner meeting. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both groomed by the secretive organization in the early 1990’s before rising to prominence. Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden was selected by Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson, and John Kerry’s 2004 running mate John Edwards was also anointed by the group after he gave a glowing speech at the conference in 2004. Bilderberg attendees even broke house rules to applaud Edwards at the end of a speech he gave to the elitists about American politics. The choice of Edwards was shocking to media pundits who had fully expected Dick Gephardt to secure the position. The New York Post even reported that Gephardt had been chosen and “Kerry-Gephardt” stickers were being placed on campaign vehicles before being removed when Edwards was announced as Kerry’s number two. A 2008 Portuguese newspaper report highlighted the fact that Pedro Santana Lopes and Jose Socrates attended the 2004 meeting in Stresa, Italy before both going on to become Prime Minster of Portugal. Several key geopolitical decisions were made at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting in Washington DC, again emphasizing the fact that the confab is far more than an informal get-together. As we reported at the time, Bilderberg were concerned that the price of oil was accelerating too fast after it hit $150 a barrel and wanted to ensure that “oil prices would probably begin to decline”. This is exactly what happened in the latter half of 2008 as oil again sunk below $50 a barrel. We were initially able to predict the rapid rise in oil prices in 2005 when oil was at $40, because Bilderberg had called for prices to rise during that year’s meeting in Munich. During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened. Also at the 2008 meeting, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice formalized plans to sign a treaty on installing a U.S. radar base in the Czech Republic with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg. Rice was joined at the meeting by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who reportedly encouraged EU globalists to get behind an attack on Iran. Low and behold, days later the EU threatened Iran with sanctions if it did not suspend its nuclear enrichment program. For the first time, the majority of Bilderberg members expressed their support for an attack on Iran during this year’s meeting in Sitges. There was also widespread speculation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s “secret meeting,” which was accomplished with the aid of cloak and dagger tactics like locking journalists on an airplane to keep them from tracking the two down, took place at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting in DC. So as we can see, there are a plethora of examples of Bilderberg setting a consensus on a particular policy area which later comes to pass at both the national and international levels. To claim otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the manifestly provable fact that Bilderberg has immense power in setting agreements on policy and exercises that power on a regular basis. In light of this, Berlet and Hollingshead are either shoddy journalists who have done no research whatsoever and are merely phoning it in, or they are being paid to deliberately spew biased and completely inaccurate information by the establishment they work for in a futile attempt to convince people that Bilderberg has no power, presumably in an effort to halt growing numbers of protesters who descend on Bilderberg each year, whom Bilderberg members now class as a “threat” to their agenda and secrecy.
Go ahead and hate your neighbor, Go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of Heaven, You can justify it in the end.
- One Tin Soldier (The Legend of Billy Jack) by Lambert-Potter, sung by Coven
(San Francisco) Everybody knows Israel does not possess any oil and gas. Right? Right.
As the legendary former Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir stated “Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil! Golda Meir ”
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli government are going to extreme lengths to prevent these Freedom Flotillas from getting directly to the Gaza shore. Why? Are the Israelis trying to hide something?
The political leaders in Gaza are using unyielding military discipline and truly have nothing left to lose; or do they?
As a result of this huge contrast, the common people of Gaza die like flies before a rigid, unflinching onslaught of US supplied F16s, bunker buster missiles, GBU-39 smart bombs, Israeli main battle tanks and small arms fire.
Why the slaughter of ready and willing to die, dirt poor Palestinians?
It appears the Freedom Flotilla sailing to Gaza would go through a thicket of off shore oil and gas rigs and wells. The wells are sucking an estimated minimum of US$6 Billion Dollars of Palestinian off shore Natural Gas through rigs set up for slant drilling.
From Peter Eyre The Palestine Telegraph Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:29 EDT
The drilling consultant on the hidden project is the former Noble Drilling Company of Ardmore, Oklahoma, USA, experts in “oil field management.” They are also allegedly experts in illegal slant drilling techniques Noble pioneered in the early Oklahoma oil fields back in the day.
Slant drilling is the best way to steal your neighbors’ oil and gas.
So much so that the formerly oil and gas poor Israel of Prime Minister Golda Meir is now floating the idea of Natural Gas exports to the European Union (EU) of presumably Palestinian Natural Gas.
Future Freedom Flotillas are said to specifically have escorts from the Turkish Navy. The Turkish Air Force version of the American F-16 Fighting Falcons were not mentioned. The Turkish Navy protection is symbolic and problematic without the Turkish F-16s. Will the Turkish government commit their 200 plus F-16s?
Small world, eh? Greed and force of arms count. Always have. Always will.
[End]
Notes:
Google “Gaza Marine 1” and “Gaza Marine 2” for well specific information of the coast of Gaza.
The chief executive of BP sold £1.4 million of his shares in the fuel giant weeks before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill caused its value to collapse. By Jon Swaine and Robert Winnett Published: 12:10AM BST 05 Jun 2010 BP chief executive Tony Hayward has been under intense pressure since the oil well erupted on April 20 Tony Hayward: 'This won't stop deepwater drilling. It will transform it'
Tony Hayward cashed in about a third of his holding in the company one month before a well on the Deepwater Horizon rig burst, causing an environmental disaster.
Mr Hayward, whose pay package is £4 million a year, then paid off the mortgage on his family’s mansion in Kent, which is estimated to be valued at more than £1.2 million.
There is no suggestion that he acted improperly or had prior knowledge that the company was to face the biggest setback in its history.
His decision, however, means he avoided losing more than £423,000 when BP’s share price plunged after the oil spill began six weeks ago.
Since he disposed of 223,288 shares on March 17, the company’s share price has fallen by 30 per cent. About £40 billion has been wiped off its total value. The fall has caused pain not just for BP shareholders, but also for millions of company pension funds and small investors who have money held in tracker funds.
The spill, which has still not been stemmed, has caused a serious environmental crisis and is estimated to cost BP up to £40 billion to clean up.
There was growing confidence yesterday that a new cap placed over the well was stemming the oil flow. An estimated three million litres a day had been pouring into the sea off the coast of Louisiana since the April 20 explosion, damaging marine life.
The crisis has enraged US politicians, with President Obama yesterday forced to cancel a trip to Indonesia amid a row over the White House’s response.
Mr Hayward, whose position is thought to be under threat, risked further fury by continuing plans to pay out a dividend to investors next month.
By Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter June 6, 2010 9:31 pm Federal officials have arrested an Army intelligence analyst who boasted of giving classified U.S. combat video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to whistleblower site Wikileaks, Wired.com has learned.
SPC Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad, where he was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. A family member says he’s being held in custody in Kuwait, and has not been formally charged.
Manning was turned in late last month by a former computer hacker with whom he spoke online. In the course of their chats, Manning took credit for leaking a headline-making video of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online in April. The video showed a deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad that claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.
He said he also leaked three other items to Wikileaks: a separate video showing the notorious 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan that Wikileaks has previously acknowledged is in its possession; a classified Army document evaluating Wikileaks as a security threat, which the site posted in March; and a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing “almost criminal political back dealings.”
“Hillary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning wrote.
Wired.com could not confirm whether Wikileaks received the supposed 260,000 classified embassy dispatches. To date, a single classified diplomatic cable has appeared on the site: released last February, it describes a U.S. embassy meeting with the government of Iceland. E-mail and a voice mail message left for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on Sunday were not answered by the time this article was published.
The State Department said it was not aware of the arrest or the allegedly leaked cables. The FBI was not prepared to comment when asked about Manning.
Army spokesman Gary Tallman was unaware of the investigation but said, “If you have a security clearance and wittingly or unwittingly provide classified info to anyone who doesn’t have security clearance or a need to know, you have violated security regulations and potentially the law.”
Manning’s arrest comes as Wikileaks has ratcheted up pressure against various governments over the years with embarrassing documents acquired through a global whistleblower network that is seemingly impervious to threats from adversaries. Its operations are hosted on servers in several countries, and it uses high-level encryption for its document submission process, providing secure anonymity for its sources and a safe haven from legal repercussions for itself. Since its launch in 2006, it has never outed a source through its own actions, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
Manning came to the attention of the FBI and Army investigators after he contacted former hacker Adrian Lamo late last month over instant messenger and e-mail. Lamo had just been the subject of a Wired.com article. Very quickly in his exchange with the ex-hacker, Manning claimed to be the Wikileaks video leaker.
“If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?” Manning asked.
Bradley Manning (Facebook.com)
From the chat logs provided by Lamo, and examined by Wired.com, it appears Manning sensed a kindred spirit in the ex-hacker. He discussed personal issues that got him into trouble with his superiors and left him socially isolated, and said he had been demoted and was headed for an early discharge from the Army.
When Manning told Lamo that he leaked a quarter-million classified embassy cables, Lamo contacted the Army, and then met with Army CID investigators and the FBI at a Starbucks near his house in Carmichael, California, where he passed the agents a copy of the chat logs. At their second meeting with Lamo on May 27, FBI agents from the Oakland Field Office told the hacker that Manning had been arrested the day before in Iraq by Army CID investigators.
Lamo has contributed funds to Wikileaks in the past, and says he agonized over the decision to expose Manning — he says he’s frequently contacted by hackers who want to talk about their adventures, and he’s never considered reporting anyone before. The supposed diplomatic cable leak, however, made him believe Manning’s actions were genuinely dangerous to U.S. national security.
“I wouldn’t have done this if lives weren’t in danger,” says Lamo, who discussed the details with Wired.com following Manning’s arrest. “He was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air.”
Manning told Lamo that he enlisted in the Army in 2007 and held a Top Secret/SCI clearance, details confirmed by his friends and family members. He claimed to have been rummaging through classified military and government networks for more than a year and said that the networks contained “incredible things, awful things … that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC.”
He first contacted Wikileaks’ Julian Assange sometime around late November last year, he claimed, after Wikileaks posted 500,000 pager messages covering a 24-hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. ”I immediately recognized that they were from an NSA database, and I felt comfortable enough to come forward,” he wrote to Lamo. He said his role with Wikileaks was “a source, not quite a volunteer.”
Manning had already been sifting through the classified networks for months when he discovered the Iraq video in late 2009, he said. The video, later released by Wikileaks under the title “Collateral Murder,” shows a 2007 Army helicopter attack on a group of men, some of whom were armed, that the soldiers believed were insurgents. The attack killed two Reuters employees and an unarmed Baghdad man who stumbled on the scene afterward and tried to rescue one of the wounded by pulling him into his van. The man’s two children were in the van and suffered serious injuries in the hail of gunfire.
“At first glance it was just a bunch of guys getting shot up by a helicopter,” Manning wrote of the video. “No big deal … about two dozen more where that came from, right? But something struck me as odd with the van thing, and also the fact it was being stored in a JAG officer’s directory. So I looked into it.”
In January, while on leave in the U.S., Manning visited a close friend in Boston and confessed he’d gotten his hands on unspecified sensitive information, and was weighing leaking it, according to the friend. “He wanted to do the right thing,” says 20-year-old Tyler Watkins. “That was something I think he was struggling with.”
Manning passed the video to Wikileaks in February, he told Lamo. After April 5 when the video was released and made headlines Manning contacted Watkins from Iraq asking him about the reaction in the U.S.
“He would message me, Are people talking about it?… Are the media saying anything?,” Watkins said. “That was one of his major concerns, that once he had done this, was it really going to make a difference?… He didn’t want to do this just to cause a stir. … He wanted people held accountable and wanted to see this didn’t happen again.”
Watkins doesn’t know what else Manning might have sent to Wikileaks. But in his chats with Lamo, Manning took credit for a number of other disclosures.
The second video he claimed to have leaked shows a May 2009 air strike near Garani village in Afghanistan that the local government says killed nearly 100 civilians, most of them children. The Pentagon released a report about the incident last year, but backed down from a plan to show video of the attack to reporters.
As described by Manning in his chats with Lamo, his purported leaking was made possible by lax security online and off.
Manning had access to two classified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRNET, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level.
The networks, he said, were both “air gapped” from unclassified networks, but the environment at the base made it easy to smuggle data out.
“I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga’, erase the music then write a compressed split file,” he wrote. “No one suspected a thing and, odds are, they never will.”
“[I] listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history,” he added later. ”Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis… a perfect storm.”
Manning told Lamo that the Garani video was left accessible in a directory on a U.S. Central Command server, centcom.smil.mil, by officers who investigated the incident. The video, he said, was an encrypted AES-256 ZIP file.
Manning’s aunt, with whom he lived in the U.S., had heard nothing about his arrest when first contacted by Wired.com last week; Debra Van Alstyne said she last saw Manning during his leave in January and they had discussed his plans to enroll in college when his four-year stint in the Army was set to end in October 2011. She described him as smart and seemingly untroubled, with a natural talent for computers and a keen interest in global politics.
She said she became worried about her nephew recently after he disappeared from contact. Then Manning finally called Van Alstyne collect on Saturday. He told her that he was okay, but that he couldn’t discuss what was going on, Van Alstyne said. He then gave her his Facebook password and asked her to post a message on his behalf.
The message reads: “Some of you may have heard that I have been arrested for disclosure of classified information to unauthorized persons. See CollateralMurder.com.”
Ex-hacker Adrian Lamo (Ariel Zambelich/Wired.com)
An Army defense attorney then phoned Van Alstyne on Sunday and said Manning is being held in protective custody in Kuwait. “He hasn’t seen the case file, but he does understand that it does have to do with that Collateral Murder video,” Van Alstyne said.
Manning’s father said Sunday that he’s shocked by his son’s arrest.
“I was in the military for 5 years,” said Brian Manning, of Oklahoma. “I had a Secret clearance, and I never divulged any information in 30 years since I got out about what I did. And Brad has always been very, very tight at adhering to the rules. Even talking to him after boot camp and stuff, he kept everything so close that he didn’t open up to anything.”
His son, he added, is “a good kid. Never been in trouble. Never been on drugs, alcohol, nothing.”
Lamo says he felt he had no choice but to turn in Manning, but that he’s now concerned about the soldier’s status and well-being. The FBI hasn’t told Lamo what charges Manning may face, if any.
The agents did tell Lamo that he may be asked to testify against Manning. The Bureau was particularly interested in information that Manning gave Lamo about an apparently-classified military cybersecurity matter, Lamo said.
That seemed to be the least interesting information to Manning, however. What seemed to excite him most in his chats, was his supposed leaking of the embassy cables. He anticipated returning to the states after his early discharge, and watching from the sidelines as his action bared the secret history of U.S. diplomacy around the world.
“Everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed,” Manning wrote. “It’s open diplomacy. World-wide anarchy in CSV format. It’s Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It’s beautiful, and horrifying.”
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/#ixzz0q8URPBwN
Excerpt from Trance-Formation of America by Cathy O'Brien and Mark Phillips
During Christmas vacation of 1974, my father flew us all to Disney World by route of Tampa, Florida. Ignorant of geography, it did not occur to me that Tampa was out of the way to Disney World until my father drove the rented van to the gates of MacDill Air Force Base. Military personnel met me there and escorted me into the base TOP SECRET high tech mind control conditioning facility for "behavioral modification" programming. This was the first in what became a routine series of mind control testing and/or programming sessions on government installations that I would endure throughout my Project Monarch victimization.
Whether I was in a military, NASA, or government building, the procedure for maintaining me under total mind control remained consistent with Project Monarch requirements. This included prior physical and/or psychological trauma; sleep, food, and water deprivation; high voltage electric shock; and hypnotic and/or harmonic programming of specific memory compartments/ personalities. The high tech equipment and methodisms I endured from that time on gave the U.S. government absolute control of my mind and life. I had been literally driven out of my conscious mind and existed only through my programmed subconscious. I lost my free will, ability to reason, and could not think to question anything that was happening to me. I could only do as I was told.
In the summer of 1975, my family drove all the way from Michigan to the Teton Mountains of Wyoming. I was ordered to ride in the back storage area of the family Chevy Suburban since I was forbidden to associate or communicate with my brothers and sister. So I dissociated into books, or into the metaphorical, hypnotic suggestions from my father and tranced deeper as I watched the prairie's seemingly endless sea of "amber waves of grain" streak past my window. Once when we stopped at a gas station, my father took me inside to show me a stuffed "jackalope" mounted on the wall. Due to my tranced, dissociative state and high suggestibility level, I believed it was indeed a cross between a jack rabbit and antelope. It was 100+ degrees in the Badlands when it cooled down at night. The intense heat of the day accentuated my ever increasing thirst. My father was physically preparing me though water deprivation for the intense tortures and programming I would endure in Wyoming.
Dick Cheney, then White House Chief of Staff to President Ford, later Secretary of Defense to President George Bush, documented member of the Council on Foreign relations (CFR), and Presidential hopeful for 1996, was originally Wyoming's only Congressman. Dick Cheney was the reason my family had traveled to Wyoming where I endured yet another form of brutality -- his version of "A Most Dangerous Game," or human hunting.
It is my understanding now that A Most Dangerous Game was devised to condition military personnel in survival and combat maneuvers. Yet it was used on me and other slaves known to me as a means of further conditioning the mind to the realization there was "no place to hide," as well as traumatize the victim for ensuing programming. It was my experience over the years that A Most Dangerous Game had numerous variations on the primary theme of being stripped naked and turned loose in the wilderness while being hunted by men and dogs. In reality, all "wilderness" areas were enclosed in secure military fencing whereby it was only a matter of time until I was caught, repeatedly raped, and tortured.
Dick Cheney had an apparent addiction to the "thrill of the sport." He appeared obsessed with playing A Most Dangerous Game as a means of traumatizing mind control victims, as well as to satisfy his own perverse sexual kinks. My introduction to the game occurred upon arrival at the hunting lodge near Greybull, Wyoming, and it physically and psychologically devastated me. I was sufficiently traumatized for Cheney's programming, as I stood naked in his hunting lodge office after being hunted down and caught. Cheney was talking as he paced around me, "I could stuff you and mount you like a jackalope and call you a two legged dear. Or I could stuff you with this (he unzipped his pants to reveal his oversized penis) right down your throat, and then mount you. Which do you prefer?"
Blood and sweat became mixed with the dirt on my body and slid like mud down my legs and shoulder. I throbbed with exhaustion and pain as I stood unable to think to answer such a question. "Make up your mind," Cheney coaxed. Unable to speak, I remained silent. "You don't get a choice, anyway. I make up your mind for you. That's why you're here. For me to make you a mind, and make you mine/mind. You lost your mind a long time ago. Now I'm going to give you one. Just like the Wizard (of Oz) gave Scarecrow a brain, the Yellow Brick Road led you here to me. You've 'come such a long, long way' for your brain, and I will give you one."
The blood reached my shoes and caught my attention. Had I been further along in my programming, I perhaps would never have noticed such a thing or had the capability to think to wipe it away. But so far, I had only been to MacDill and Disney World for government/military programming. At last, when I could speak, I begged, "If you don't mind, can I please use your bathroom?"
Cheney's face turned red with rage. He was on me in an instant, slamming my back into the wall with one arm across my chest and his hand on my throat, choking me while applying pressure to the carotid artery in my neck with his thumb. His eyes bulged and he spit as he growled, "If you don't mind me, I will kill you. I could kill you -- Kill you -- with my bare hands. You're not the first and you won't be the last. I'll kill you any time I goddamn well please." He flung me on the cot-type bed that as behind me. There he finished taking his rage out on me sexually.
On the long trip back to Michigan, I lay in a heap behind the seats of the Suburban, nauseated and hurting from Cheney's brutality and high voltage tortures, plus the whole Wyoming experience. My father stopped by the waterfalls flowing through the Tetons to "wash my brain" of the memory of Cheney. I could barely walk through the woods to the falls for the process as instructed, despite having learned my lessons well from Cheney on following orders.
The next year when our "annual" trip to Disney World rolled around, my father drove, pulling his new Holiday Rambler Royale International trailer. My father dropped me off en route at the Kennedy Space Center in Titusville, Florida where I was subjected to my first NASA programming. From then on, I was "obsessed" with following the "Yellow Brick Road" to Nashville, Tennessee. Moving to Nashville was all I could talk about. If anyone asked me the question I could not think to ask myself "Why?", I would respond by reiterating it was something "I had to do."
BEIJING — China and the United States opened three days of high-level meetings here on Monday meant to broaden and deepen the ties between the world’s largest developed and developing economies.
But the opening session instead laid bare a recurring theme between Beijing and Washington: the United States came with a long wish list for China on both economic and security issues, while China mostly wants to be left alone to pursue policies that are turning it into an economic superpower.
President Hu Jintao, welcoming the 200-strong American delegation in the Great Hall of the People, praised the “mutually beneficial and win-win cooperation” between the United States and China. Such coordination, he said, had helped speed the recovery from the 2008financial crisis.
On the crucial issue of China revaluing its currency — something the Obama administration had pushed for — Mr. Hu repeated China’s past promises to make its effectively fixed exchange rate respond more to the market, but the fact that the country’s top leader mentioned reform at all suggested it is on the leadership’s agenda.
Still, Mr. Hu also repeated that Beijing would move “under the principle of independent decision-making, controllability, and gradual progress.” Translation: China alone will determine the timing of any such move.
Economists said the deepening debt crisis in Greece, which came up immediately in the discussions on Monday, would make Beijing more reluctant to allow its currency to appreciate in value in the immediate future.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner did not mention China’s currency in his opening remarks, and the United States did not broach it in the first working session. The administration has decided not to prod Beijing at this meeting, officials said, concluding that it would resist outside pressure.
The United States is hitting similar hurdles on security issues. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clintonpressed China to support measures against North Korea following the strong evidence that it torpedoed a South Korean warship in March. But China has been skeptical of North Korea’s role and is reluctant to punish the North, with which it has close ties.
And while China agreed to a watered-down United Nations resolution on Iran’s nuclear program, it has not signed off on amendments against specific Iranian citizens and companies. With big planned investments in Iran’s oil and gas industry, China may well be in business with some of them.
In her speech to the opening session, Mrs. Clinton cited Iran and North Korea as issues in which Beijing and Washington must find common cause. “Today, we face another serious challenge provoked by the sinking of the South Korean ship,” she said. “So we must work together, again, to address this challenge and advance our shared objectives of peace and stability.”
A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Ma Zhaoxu, was noncommittal, saying of the Korea crisis, “We hope all the relevant parties will exercise restraint and remain cool-headed.”
Some of this is cultural, to be sure. Chinese officials tend to speak far less directly than Americans. Mr. Hu did not mention Iran and North Korea, referring to regional “hot spots.” The fact that he frankly addressed the exchange rate of China’s currency, the renminbi, surprised some observers, and lent itself to varying interpretations.
For some experts, Mr. Hu’s pledge to “steadily advance the reform mechanism of the RMB exchange rate,” without repeating his previous references to the rate being “basically stable,” was a sign of conciliation. “It’s important, the fact they haven’t mentioned it,” said Ben Simpfendorfer, the China economist for the Royal Bank of Scotland.
But others interpreted it as a pre-emptive move to take the issue off the table. Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell University, noted that the crisis in Greece had rattled the Chinese on two levels. It was likely to curb their exports to Europe, and it had strengthened the renminbi relative to the swooning euro, which makes Chinese goods more costly in foreign markets.
“That double hit on China’s exports almost certainly means that they’re not going to move forward unless there is evidence of stabilization in the euro and stabilization in Europe’s recovery,” Mr. Prasad said.
A senior Chinese official said that Beijing would keep a “high alert and attention on the euro zone sovereign debt crisis.” He noted that it could affect not only Europe’s economic recovery but also Chinese exports. China exports more to the European Union than to the United States.
The United States needed a 48-vehicle motorcade to ferry its delegation to this second round of the so-called strategic and economic dialogue. Among the prominent names: the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, the commander of the military’s Pacific Command, Adm. Robert F. Willard, and the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius.
Some of the topics under discussion veered far from economics and security. Mrs. Clinton singled out Melanne Verveer, the State Department’s ambassador at large for women’s issues, who is meeting with Chinese women’s groups to discuss their progress in women’s rights.
Mr. Geithner lobbied against Chinese government procurement rules giving preference to products with intellectual property developed in China. American businesses, particularly in technology, say this handicaps them and deprives China of state-of-the-art products. “Innovation flourishes best when markets are open, competition is fair, and strong protections exist for ideas and inventions,” he said.
The Chinese have their pet issues as well: Beijing is pushing Washington to loosen controls on exports of high-technology equipment with potential military applications. A raft of questions from reporters for state-run Chinese media organizations suggested a coordinated campaign.
If American officials seemed likely to leave China with many of their wishes unfulfilled, there was one notable difference in this year’s meeting compared to the one last year in Washington: the American economy is growing again, which gave Mr. Geithner a rare chance to crow a bit.
Rather than identify the United States with the troubled economies of Europe, Mr. Geithner said the United States was holding its own with emerging economies like Brazil, India, and China.
“Economic growth in the U.S. and China is broader and stronger than many had anticipated, even a few months ago,” he said.
Michael Wines contributed reporting from Beijing, and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong.
