Is Trump Planning a Korean Peace Surprise? And Can the Deep State Stop Him?

North Korea’s got nukes.  And it’s got ICBMs.  Even so, US hawks have pushed the Korean peace process into a dead end.  But can they keep it there?  Not just Russia and China want negotiations.  Maybe Donald Trump wants to negotiate too!  Is the deep state going to push back?  What do you think?  It already has!  And why didn’t Seth Rogen melt off Kim Jong Un’s face?

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Watch Episode Preview

Watch Members Only Full Episode Here

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to see the full video





Featured Video MP3 Audio Clip

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio


Show notes

Nikki Haley to UN on North Korea: “Enough is enough”

U.S. Seeks U.N. Consent to Interdict North Korean Ships

Trump may have to settle for deterring, not disarming, North Korea

We’re at the Tipping Point on North Korea…and Who’s Lying About that Aircraft Carrier?

Trump may offer tactical nukes to Seoul, says NBC

Japanese defence figures: US prepared to use military action against North Korea

A grand bargain with China could remove North Korea’s nuclear threat – but it would destroy America’s global influence

How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea

How the CIA secretly published Dr Zhivago

U.S. military apologizes for ‘highly offensive’ leaflets it distributed in Afghanistan

JFK: Victim of the National Security State

Following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, President Kennedy announced he would ban the testing of nuclear weapons. He called for an end to the Cold War and the removal of troops from South Vietnam. Kennedy also put an end to the Pentagon's plan to invade Cuba and refused to provide air support for the Bay of Pigs invasion. It was the last straw when he forced the resignation of Allen Dulles, the director of the CIA. The National Security State said Kennedy had to go. They said he was a threat to national security. Ignored by the corporate media and establishment historians is the distinct possibility a coup d’état was launched on November 22, 1963. The establishment continues to insist Kennedy was killed by the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald despite ample evidence to the contrary.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Watch Episode Preview

Watch Members Only Full Episode Here

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to see the full video





Featured Video MP3 Audio Clip

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio


Show Notes

U.S. War Plans Would Kill an Estimated 108 Million Soviets, 104 Million Chinese, and 2.6 Million Poles: More Evidence on SIOP-62 and the Origins of Overkill

The U.S. National Security State

Did CIA Director Allen Dulles Order the Hit on JFK?

Exit Strategy: In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam

The Russian Obsession Goes Back Decades

Vietnam Withdrawal Plans

Unveiled CIA report reveals internal warfare over blame for Bay of Pigs failure

The Bay of Pigs Invasion and its Aftermath, April 1961–October 1962

Figuring Out The Kennedy Assassination

Military Industrial Congress Complex

Freedom for the Speech We Hate: The Legal Ins & Outs of the Right to Protest

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” — Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

There was a time in this country, back when the British were running things, that if you spoke your mind and it ticked off the wrong people, you’d soon find yourself in jail for offending the king.

Reacting to this injustice, when it was time to write the Constitution, America’s founders argued for a Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that he wrote the First Amendment to protect the minority against the majority.

What Madison meant by minority is “offensive speech.”

Unfortunately, we don’t honor that principle as much as we should today. In fact, we seem to be witnessing a politically correct philosophy at play, one shared by both the extreme left and the extreme right, which aims to stifle all expression that doesn’t fit within their parameters of what they consider to be “acceptable” speech.

There are all kinds of labels put on such speech—it’s been called politically incorrect speech, hate speech, offensive speech, and so on—but really, the message being conveyed is that you don’t have a right to express yourself if certain people or groups don’t like or agree with what you are saying.

Hence, we have seen the caging of free speech in recent years, through the use of so-called “free speech zones” on college campuses and at political events, the requirement of speech permits in parks and community gatherings, and the policing of online forums.

Clearly, this elitist, monolithic mindset is at odds with everything America is supposed to stand for.

Indeed, we should be encouraging people to debate issues and air their views. Instead, by muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans—many of whom have been labeled racists, rednecks and religious bigots—who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

Remember, the First Amendment acts as a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

The attempt to stifle certain forms of speech is where we go wrong.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment...that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” For example, it is not a question of whether the Confederate flag represents racism but whether banning it leads to even greater problems, namely, the loss of freedom in general.

Along with the constitutional right to peacefully (and that means non-violently) assemble, the right to free speech allows us to challenge the government through protests and demonstrations and to attempt to change the world around us—for the better or the worse—through protests and counterprotests.

As always, knowledge is key.

The following Constitutional Q&A, available in more detail at The Rutherford Institute (www.rutherford.org), is a good starting point.

Q:        WHAT LAWS GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO PROTEST?

A:         The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Protesting is anexercise of these constitutional rights because it involves speaking out, by individual people or those assembled in groups, about matters of public interest and concern.

Q:        WHERE CAN I ENGAGE IN PROTEST ACTIVITY?

A:         The right to protest generally extends to places that are owned and controlled by the government, although not all government-owned property is available for exercising speech and assembly rights. However, beyond public or government property, a person cannot claim a First Amendment right to protest and demonstrate on property that is privately owned by someone else. This also applies to private property that is generally open to the public, such as a shopping mall or shopping center, although these areas sometimes allow demonstrations and other free speech activity with permission from the owner. You are also entitled to engage in protest activities on land you own.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not forbid homeowners from posting signs on their property speaking out on a political or social issue.

Q:        WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS TO PROTEST IN A TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM?

A:         Places historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks and parks, are traditional public forums and the government’s power to limit speech and assembly in those places is very limited. The government may not impose an absolute ban on expression and assembly in traditional public forums except in circumstances where it is essential to serve a compelling government interest.  However, expression and assembly in traditional public forums may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner regulations. Examples of reasonable regulations include restrictions on the volume of sound produced by the activity or a prohibition on impeding vehicle and pedestrian traffic.  To be a valid time, place and manner regulation, the restriction must not have the effect of restricting speech based on its content and it must not be broader than needed to serve the interest of the government.

Q:        CAN I PICKET AND/OR DISTRIBUTE LEAFLETS AND OTHER TYPES OF LITERATURE ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS?

A:         Yes, a sidewalk is considered a traditional public forum where you can engage in expressive activities, such a passing out literature or speaking out on a matter of public concern. In exercising that right, you must not block pedestrians or the entrances to buildings. You may not physically or maliciously detain someone in order to give them a leaflet, but you may approach them and offer it to them.

Q:        CAN MY FREE SPEECH BE RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY, EVEN IF IT IS CONTROVERSIAL?

A:         No, the First Amendment protects speech even if most people would find it offensive, hurtful or hateful. Speech generally cannot be banned based upon its content or viewpoint because it is not up to the government to determine what can and cannot be said. A bedrock principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not prohibit expression of an idea because society finds it offensive or disagreeable. Also, protest speech also cannot be banned because of a fear that others may react violently to the speech.  Demonstrators cannot be punished or forbidden from speaking because they might offend a hostile mob. The Supreme Court has held that a “heckler’s veto” has no place in First Amendment law.

Q:        HOW DO THESE RIGHTS APPLY TO PUBLIC PLACES I TYPICALLY VISIT?

A:         Your rights to speak out and protest in particular public places will depend on the use and purpose of the place involved.  For example, the lobbies and offices of public buildings that are used by the government are generally not open for expressive activities because the purpose of these buildings is to carry out public business. Protesting would interfere with that purpose.  Ironically, the meetings of a governmental body, such as a city council or town board, are not considered public forums open for protest activities because the purpose of the meeting is generally to address public business that is on the agenda.  However, some government councils and boards set aside a time at the meeting when the public can voice their complaints.

The grounds of public colleges and universities are generally considered available for assembly and protest by students and other members of the institution’s community.  However, those who are not students, faculty or staff of the institution may be denied access to the campus for speech and protest activities under rules issued by the school.

Public elementary and secondary school grounds also are not considered places where persons can engage in assembly and protest.  However, students at these schools do not lose their right to free speech when they enter the school. The First Amendment protects the right of students to engage in expressive acts of protest, such as wearing armbands to demonstrate opposition to a war, that are not disruptive to the school environment.

Q:        DO I NEED A PERMIT IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A PROTEST?

A:         As a general rule, no. A person is not required to obtain the consent or permission of the government before engaging in activities that are protected by the First Amendment.  One of the main reasons for that constitutional provision was to forbid any requirement that citizens obtain a license in order to speak out.  The government cannot require that individuals or small groups obtain a permit in order to speak or protest in a public forum.

However, if persons or organizations want to hold larger rallies and demonstrations, they may be required by local laws to obtain a permit.  The Supreme Court has recognized that the government, in order to regulate competing uses of public forums, may impose a permit requirement on those wishing to hold a parade or rally.  Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly according to their discretion, but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. Such time, place and manner restrictions can take the form of requirements to obtain a permit for an assembly.

Whether an assembly or demonstration requires a permit depends on the laws of the locality.  A permit certainly is required for any parade because it would involve the use of the streets and interfere with vehicle traffic. A permit to hold an event in other public places typically is required if the gathering involves more than 50 persons or the use of amplification.

Q:        DO COUNTER-DEMONSTRATORS HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS?

A:         Yes, they do. Just because counter-demonstrators oppose you and the viewpoint of your demonstration does not mean they have any less right to speak out and demonstrate. However, the same rules apply to counter-demonstrators as apply to the original assembly. The group cannot be violent and must assemble and protest in an appropriate place and manner.

Q:        WHAT CAN'T I DO IN EXERCISING MY RIGHTS TO PROTEST?

A:         The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly. The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct a gathering at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic on public streets or other immediate threat to public safety. Laws that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment.

Q:       AM I ALLOWED TO CARRY A WEAPON OR FIREARM AT A DEMONSTRATION OR PROTEST?

A:         Your right to have a weapon with you when you protest largely depends on what is allowed by state law and is unlikely to be protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee to freedom of speech. Not all conduct can be considered “speech” protected by the First Amendment even if the person engaging in the conduct intends to express an idea. Most courts have held that the act of openly carrying a weapon or firearm is not expression protected by the First Amendment.

The right to possess a firearm is protected by the Second Amendment, and all states allow carrying a concealed weapon in public, although most require a permit to do so. Some states allow persons to openly carry firearms in public. However, it is not yet settled whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a firearm in public. Thus, the right to carry a firearm at a demonstration or protest is a matter that depends on what is allowed under state law. Carrying other weapons, such as stun guns, which are not firearms also is subject to restrictions imposed by  state law. Possession of weapons also may be prohibited in certain places where demonstrations might take place, such as a national park.

Even if possession of weapons is allowed, their presence at demonstrations and rallies can be intimidating and provocative and does not help in achieving a civil and peaceful discourse on issues of public interest and concern. Demonstrations often relate to issues raising strong feelings among competing groups, and the presence of counter-demonstrators makes conflict likely.  In these situations, where the purpose of the gathering is to engage in speech activities, firearms and other weapons are threatening, result in the suppression of speech and are contrary to the purpose of the First Amendment to allow all voices to be heard on matters of public importance.

Q:        WHAT CAN’T THE POLICE DO IN RESPONDING TO PROTESTERS?

A:         In recent history, challenges to the right to protest have come in many forms. In some cases, police have cracked down on demonstrations by declaring them “unlawful assemblies” or through mass arrests, illegal use of force or curfews. Elsewhere, expression is limited by corralling protesters into so-called “free-speech zones.” New surveillance technologies are increasingly turned on innocent people, collecting information on their activities by virtue of their association with or proximity to a given protest. Even without active obstruction of the right to protest, police-inspired intimidation and fear can chill expressive activity and result in self-censorship. All of these things violate the First Amendment and are things the police cannot do to censor free speech. Unless the assembly is violent or violence is clearly imminent, the police have limited authority under the law to shut down protesters.

Clearly, as evidenced by the recent tensions in Charlottesville, Va., we’re at a crossroads concerning the constitutional right to free speech.

As Benjamin Franklin warned, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

It must be emphasized that it was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peoplewhen we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.

Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. For instance, in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.”

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

If ever there were a time for us to stand up for the right to speak freely, even if it’s freedom for speech we hate, the time is now.

# # # #

 

John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. He is the president and spokesperson of the Rutherford Institute. Mr. Whitehead is the author of numerous books on a variety of legal and social issues, including Battlefield America: The War on the American People.  He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Arkansas and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Arkansas School of Law, and served as an officer in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971.

Newsbud Exclusive- Distracted by Charlottesville as America is Destroyed by an Economic Takedown_

Once again, the establishment media has taken us down a diversionary path. The tragedy of Charlottesville, where two factions of the political spectrum clashed with deadly consequence, has dominated the headlines. President Donald Trump has been trounced for his response while former president Barack Obama is hailed and a tweet he sent out—a regurgitation of a quote by Nelson Mandala—has become the most-liked tweet in Twitter history.

An endless series of stories—from the hyped threat of North Korea to the opioid crisis and ongoing culture war—dominate the news cycle while the nation slowly yet steadily disintegrates. “The one guaranteed source of doom is our broken financial system,” writes Charles Hugh Smith. “Anyone who thinks our toxic financial system is stable is delusional.”

Smith rightly points out the crises hyped by the establishment media “are not causes of discord: they are symptoms of the inevitable consequences of a toxic financial system that has broken our economy, our system of governance and our society.” [READ MORE]

*If you are a Newsbud Community Member, you must log in to view full content.

**If you are not yet a Newsbud Community Member, just click on "SUBSCRIBE" to view subscription enrollment options.

After Operations Gladio A & B Exposures, NATO Launches Operation Gladio C!

In this twenty-seventh edition of the Russian Newspapers Monitor, Professor Filip Kovacevic discusses the articles from four Russian newspapers: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Izvestia, and Pravda. He discusses the U.S-NATO ad for the Russian language speakers to participate in NATO exercises in Germany, the U.S.-German public row over military spending increases, the potential motives for the terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, the Russia-Belarus special forces and intelligence coordination against NATO Gladio C covert operations, and the Russian Communist party critique of both the Western-funded Russian opposition AND the Russian government.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Show Notes

Rossiyskaya Gazeta – March 31, 2017

Nezavisimaya Gazeta – April 3, 2017

Izvestia – April 4, 2017

Nezavisimaya Gazeta – April 5, 2017

Pravda – April 4, 2017

Nothing Is Real: When Reality TV Programming Masquerades as Politics

A Phenomenon Called “Humilitainment”

“There are two ways by which the spirit of a culture may be shriveled. In the first—the Orwellian—culture becomes a prison. In the second—the Huxleyan—culture becomes a burlesque. No one needs to be reminded that our world is now marred by many prison-cultures…. it makes little difference if our wardens are inspired by right- or left-wing ideologies. The gates of the prison are equally impenetrable, surveillance equally rigorous, icon-worship pervasive…. Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours…. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.”— Professor Neil Postman

Donald Trump no longer needs to launch Trump TV.

He’s already the star of his own political reality show.

Americans have a voracious appetite for TV entertainment, and the Trump reality show—guest starring outraged Democrats with a newly awakened conscience for immigrants and the poor, power-hungry Republicans eager to take advantage of their return to power, and a hodgepodge of other special interest groups with dubious motives—feeds thatappetite for titillating, soap opera drama.

After all, who needs the insults, narcissism and power plays that are hallmarks of reality shows such as Celebrity Apprentice or Keeping Up with the Kardashians when you can have all that and more delivered up by the likes of Donald Trump and his cohorts?

Yet as John Lennon reminds us, “nothing is real,” especially not in the world of politics.

Much like the fabricated universe in Peter Weir’s 1998 film The Truman Show, in which a man’s life is the basis for an elaborately staged television show aimed at selling products and procuring ratings, the political scene in the United States has devolved over the years into a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.

Indeed, Donald Trump may be the smartest move yet by the powers-that-be to keep the citizenry divided and at each other’s throats, because as long as we’re busy fighting each other, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny in any form.

This is the magic of the reality TV programming that passes for politics today.

It allows us to be distracted, entertained, occasionally a little bit outraged but overall largely uninvolved, content to remain in the viewer’s seat.

The more that is beamed at us, the more inclined we are to settle back in our comfy recliners and become passive viewers rather than active participants as unsettling, frightening events unfold.

Reality and fiction merge as everything around us becomes entertainment fodder.

We don’t even have to change the channel when the subject matter becomes too monotonous. That’s taken care of for us by the programmers (the corporate media).

For instance, before we could get too worked up over government surveillance, the programmers changed the channels on us and switched us over to breaking news about militarized police. Before our outrage could be transformed into action over police misconduct, they changed the channel once again to reports of ISIS beheadings and terrorist shootings. Before we had a chance to challenge what was staged or real, the programming switched to the 2016 presidential election.

“Living is easy with eyes closed,” says Lennon, and that’s exactly what reality TV that masquerades as American politics programs the citizenry to do: navigate the world with their eyes shut.

As long as we’re viewers, we’ll never be doers.

Studies suggest that the more reality TV people watch—and I would posit that it’s all reality TV—the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between what is real and what is carefully crafted farce.

“We the people” are watching a lot of TV.

On average, Americans spend five hours a day watching television. By the time we reach age 65, we’re watching more than 50 hours of television a week, and that number increases as we get older. And reality TV programming consistently captures the largest percentage of TV watchers every season by an almost 2-1 ratio.

This doesn’t bode well for a citizenry able to sift through masterfully-produced propaganda in order to think critically about the issues of the day, whether it’s fake news peddled by government agencies or foreign entities.

Those who watch reality shows tend to view what they see as the “norm.” Thus, those who watch shows characterized by lying, aggression and meanness not only come to see such behavior as acceptable and entertaining but also mimic the medium.

This holds true whether the reality programming is about the antics of celebrities in the White House, in the board room, or in the bedroom.

It’s a phenomenon called “humilitainment.”

A term coined by media scholars Brad Waite and Sara Booker, “humilitainment” refers to the tendency for viewers to take pleasure in someone else’s humiliation, suffering and pain.

Humilitainment” largely explains not only why American TV watchers are so fixated on reality TV programming but how American citizens, largely insulated from what is really happening in the world around them by layers of technology, entertainment, and other distractions, are being programmed to accept the brutality, surveillance and dehumanizing treatment of the American police state as things happening to other people.

The ramifications for the future of civic engagement, political discourse and self-government are incredibly depressing and demoralizing.

This not only explains how a candidate like Donald Trump with a reputation for being rude, egotistical and narcissistic could get elected, but it also says a lot about how a politician like Barack Obama—whose tenure in the White House was characterized by drone killings, a weakening of the Constitution at the expense of Americans’ civil liberties, and an expansion of the police state—could be hailed as “one of the greatest presidents of all times.”

This is what happens when an entire nation—bombarded by reality TV programming, government propaganda and entertainment news—becomes systematically desensitized and acclimated to the trappings of a government that operates by fiat and speaks in a language of force.

Ultimately, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peoplethe reality shows, the entertainment news, the surveillance society, the militarized police, and the political spectacles have one common objective: to keep us divided, distracted, imprisoned, and incapable of taking an active role in the business of self-government.

If “we the people” feel powerless and apathetic, it is only because we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that the duties of citizenship begin and end at the ballot box.

Marching and protests have certainly been used with great success by past movements to foment real change, but if those marches and protests are merely outpourings of discontent because a particular politician won or lost with no solid plan of action or follow-through, then what’s the point?

Martin Luther King Jr. understood that politics could never be the answer to what ailed the country. That’s why he spearheaded a movement of mass-action strategy that employed boycotts, sit-ins and marches. Yet King didn’t march against a particular politician or merely to express discontent. He marched against injustice, government corruption, war, and inequality, and he leveraged discontent with the status quo into an activist movement that transformed the face of America.

When all is said and done, it won’t matter who you voted for in the presidential election. What will matter is where you stand in the face of the injustices that continue to ravage our nation: the endless wars, the police shootings, the overcriminalization, the corruption, the graft, the roadside strip searches, the private prisons, the surveillance state, etc.

Will you tune out the reality TV show and join with your fellow citizens to push back against the real menace of the police state, or will you merely sit back and lose yourself in the political programming aimed at keeping you imprisoned in the police state?

# # # #

John W. Whitehead, Newsbud Contributing Author & Analyst,  is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. He is the president and spokesperson of the Rutherford Institute. Mr. Whitehead is the author of numerous books on a variety of legal and social issues, including A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Arkansas and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Arkansas School of Law, and served as an officer in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971.

Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA’s Overt Threats against Trump

A march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and ‘in`telligence’ hierarchy!

The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over ‘Al’ Gore in 2000.

But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the ‘defeated’ candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.

Regime Change in America

In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington’s quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama’s administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine - under an unofficial doctrine of ‘regime change’.

The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.

Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.

The decisive shift to ‘regime change’ at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.

Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.

Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016 election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump’s victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office - by claiming Trump was an ‘enemy agent’.

The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.

Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a ‘tool of Moscow.’ The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump’s overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason.

The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate ‘dodgy dossiers’ linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or ‘vulnerable to KGB blackmail’. The CIA’s phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance ’security’ contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to ‘take the bite’ on the ’smelly’ dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain (’war-hero’ and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government ‘act on these vital revelations’!

Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the ‘CIA dossier’ was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former ‘British official - now - in - hiding…!’ Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA’s ‘dirty pictures hatchet job’ to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d’état.

CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous ‘regime changes’ overseas had brought his skills home - against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ‘just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump’s policies) on the United States could be profound…”

Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.

From a Scratch to Gangrene

The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the ‘progressive’ websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated ‘regime change’.

Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many - they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and ‘in`telligence’ hierarchy.

Mass propaganda, a ‘red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason (’Trump, the Stooge of Moscow’) resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany. A broad ‘coalition’ has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.

# # # #

Professor James Petras, Newsbud contributing analyst and author, is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. He writes a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, La Jornada, and previously, for the Spanish daily, El Mundo. Dr. Petras received his B.A. from Boston University and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. You can visit his website here.

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- “The War on Terror Sham: Mindboggling Comparison of Scales & Proportions!

This will be a brief presentation on the sham called The War on Terror and the involved costs- in terms of scales in methods, dollars and lives. The price tag for the US War on Terror sham is placed at over $4 Trillion. We’ll be looking at mindboggling facts presented via comparison of scales and proportions when it comes to US Military-Intelligence vs. The Supposed Borderless Terrorists in the Middle East. A massive never-ending war against a fantastical network of technologically and militaristically dwarfed terrorists. Don’t you see who wins in this synthetically created perpetual war?

* Please do ‘Your’ share: Pledge and help us activate others to make Newsbud- A 100% People-Funded Media with Integrity a reality.

Listen to the full audio version here (BFP Subscribers Only):

Show Notes

The $5 Trillion War on Terror

Exactly How Big Is This So-Called Al Qaeda?

For Afghan troops, donkeys are the new helicopters

The IED: The $30-Bombs That Cost The U.S. Billions

1,600 US bombs dropped in Syria and Iraq during March cost $8.5m a day

About M1 Abrams Tanks

Cost of Camels

Cost of Donkeys

Do the Math: Global War on Terror Has Killed 4 Million Muslims or More

Timeline: Terror Attacks Linked to Islamists Since 9/11

NSA recording 'nearly all' phone calls in Afghanistan

Five Reasons Why Drones Are Here to Stay

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- “Kill First, Ask Later … Wait! Never mind! Don’t Ask or Answer Whatsoever!”

In this episode I provide a brief presentation on our dangerous and Kafkaesque world where our nation claims a 100% right to kill with no reason or explanation needed, a 100% right to kidnap and torture, and a 100% right to blacklist and surveil without having to show any justification. We are going to talk about a US code of operation that confidently says “Kill First, Ask Later … Wait! Actually never mind! Don’t Ask or Answer Whatsoever!” We’ll discuss our murders by drones, our secret no fly lists, secret surveillance target lists, and much more. You may consider yourself immunized from these factual absurdities, but I can assure you: You Are Wrong!

* Please do ‘Your’ share: Pledge and help us activate others to make Newsbud- A 100% People-Funded Media with Integrity a reality.

Listen to the full audio version here (BFP Subscribers Only):

Show Notes

Almost 2,500 Now Killed by Covert US Drone Strikes Since Obama Inauguration

Nearly 90 Percent of People Killed in Recent Drone Strikes Were Not the Target

Naming the dead: Only 10 of scores killed by US drones in Pakistan last year have been identified

Terror Suspects Are Frequent Targets of U.S. Drones

U.S. ‘Reasonably Certain’ Drone Strike Killed ‘Jihadi John’

‘Am I on the ‘No Fly’ List?’—and Other FAQs to the FBI

Why the no-fly list was declared unconstitutional

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds: Syria & the Real Winners of a Synthetic Conflict

In this episode we are going to briefly discuss synthetic conflicts. In particular we’ll be looking at the real gains and the real winners- rather than getting lost in the distortion maze that has been designed by the deep state, and implemented via their propaganda tentacles-Media. With all the talk on the ISIL conflict, and with all the speculations surrounding Russia’s in-and-out of Syria maneuver, it is time to put aside the lenses provided by the media (aka the deep state propaganda machine), bring out the magnifier, and search for the truth of these matters by following the money.

With every war, battle and conflict we must engage in the following inventory-taking process: what will be gained, by whom; what are the dollars involved and who gets these dollars. Join me and let us explore the answers to these questions.

* Please do ‘Your’ share: Pledge and help us activate others to make Newsbud- A 100% People-Funded Media with Integrity a reality.

Listen to the full audio version here (BFP Subscribers Only):

Show Notes

Syrian Campaign Pays Off as Moscow Lands Military Contracts

How much money will Russia make off operations in Syria?

Who Will Profit From the Wars in Iraq and Syria?

Bombs Away! Lockheed Expanding Missile Factories, Quadruples Bomb Production for ISIS Long Haul

Book: The Lone Gladio- By Sibel Edmonds

Operation Gladio B

Corbett Report: Operation Gladio B Series with Sibel Edmonds

Secret Warfare Operation Gladio & NATO’s Stay Behind Armies

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- False Flag Ops, the Morning After & the Profiteers

Terrorism: The Needed Juice that Expands Wars, Police-Surveillance State

This is our third episode in our coverage of the recent Belgium Bombing as another synthetic terror event carried out under Operation Gladio B. In this episode we’ll begin looking at reactions, events and actions that are taking place since the execution of this recent plot, and the ones that took place before that. We’ll look at objectives that are being pursued and pushed, and who benefits from it all.

We look at the chain of events following a synthetically created terror action. And with that we see the needed juice that expands our wars, and expands our police and surveillance practices. The existence and expansion of the Military and Intelligence industrial Complexes depend on terrorism. And what wouldn’t they do to ensure that we have plenty of that?

* Please do ‘Your’ share: Pledge and help us activate others to make Newsbud- A 100% People-Funded Media with Integrity a reality.

Listen to the full audio version here (BFP Subscribers Only):

Show Notes

Ex-Brussels mayor: We need a pan-European FBI to counter terror threat

How the Brussels attacks affect the global fight against terror

Terror Threats Thaw Budgets Across Europe

Brussels attacks rekindle privacy vs. security debate in Europe

How private firms have cashed in on the climate of fear since 9/11

The End of the Rainbow: The Intelligence-Industrial Complex

Booz Allen Hamilton: 70% of the U.S. Intelligence Budget Goes to Private Contractors

Operation Gladio B

 

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Belgium Bombing: All the Gladio’s Protected Terror Men

Full-immunity for & protection of terror implementers combined with scripted forewarnings issued by Operation Gladio hubs

This is a follow-up to our previous overview of the recent Belgium Bombing carrying every single hallmark of Operation Gladio B. I present one of the common trademarks present in all Gladio B synthetic terror operations since 9/11, and illustrate how Gladio’s terror operations always come with multiple forewarnings, and how, despite all the scripted and on-the-record forewarnings, the operatives are allowed to travel, communicate, and execute the intended and synthetically-created terror plots.

There will be more to discuss and analyze on this latest Operation Gladio B synthetic terror event. In our next episode I’ll be looking at what has already been taking place since the execution of the plot, which objectives are being pushed, and who benefits from it all.

* Please do ‘Your’ share: Pledge and help us activate others to make Newsbud- A 100% People-Funded Media with Integrity a reality.

Listen to the full audio version here (BFP Subscribers Only):

Show Notes

Operation Gladio B

Corbett Report: Operation Gladio B Series with Sibel Edmonds

Belgian Stay Behind Network

Secret Warfare Operation Gladio & NATO’s Stay Behind Armies

Algerian Killed in Belgium Terror Raid Matches ISIS Recruitment File

Khalid & Brahim El Bakraoui: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Ibrahim El Bakraoui was on US counterterrorism watch list before Paris attacks

Belgium terror incompetence laid bare

Who is Salah Abdeslam and who were the Paris terrorists? Everything we know about the Isil attackers

Corbett Report- Sibel Edmonds Shines A Light on the Brussels Attacks

Sibel Edmonds of Boiling Frogs Post & Newsbud.com joins us to discuss the Brussels attacks. We discuss Belgium's central role as the base of NATO/EU/Gladio headquarters and how the script of this event follows the script of previous false flags almost precisely. We also talk about the public's reaction to these events and how both the mainstream and alternative media are being divided and conquered to keep people from questioning the true roots of these events.

*SHOW NOTES & MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=18217

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Belgium Bombing: The Missing Context, Facts & Interests

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Belgium Bombing: The Missing Context, Facts & Interests

This is a brief presentation on several important angles and facts on the recent bombings in Belgium. As always, the deep-state-mouth-piece media is presenting the entire incident with twists and omissions, so I am going to bring up at least a few things quickly here, and later, follow up with more in-depth analyses. There are, and will be, lots to discuss and analyze on this latest Operation Gladio B synthetic terror event. Also, keep in mind, what will take place afterwards, whether it is expanding the existing wars or starting new ones, whether it is furthering police state practices, is equally if not more important than the bombing itself.

* Please do ‘Your’ share: Pledge and help us activate others to make Newsbud a reality.

Listen to the full audio version here (BFP Subscribers Only):

Show Notes

Operation Gladio B

Corbett Report: Operation Gladio B Series with Sibel Edmonds

Belgian Stay Behind Network

Secret Warfare Operation Gladio & NATO’s Stay Behind Armies

Belgium Has Become Center for Extremists

Belgium Warned of Attacks

Who’s Behind ISIS?

Brussel Attack Suspects’ Images

Processing Distortion with Peter B. Collins: 13 Questions About San Bernardino Bloodbath

Key points of the official narrative of the December 2 incidents in San Bernardino produce critical questions, or are contradicted by other information. The FBI director and a lawyer for the family of the suspects agree that “a number of things in this case don’t make sense”. But that hasn’t stopped James Comey from using unverified Facebook posts or unproven claims that the couple were “radicalized” before they married to define them as inspired, but not directed by Daesh. Live coverage presented at least 2 eyewitnesses who described 3 tall, white, male shooters, but the corporate media accepts the police version of two shooters, including a 5-foot-3, 90-pound female. My 13 questions are listed below, with links to source material.

13 Big Questions

What happened to the 3rd shooter described by eyewitnesses during live coverage?

Eyewitness accounts of 3 tall, male, white shooters seem to eliminate Tashfeen Malik, who was 90 pounds and about 5-foot-3? Video clips are here and the amateur “false flag” reporters’ video is here

How did the “active shooter” drill transform into a massive deployment of law enforcement, was it related to active shooter drill 11/30 at Victor Valley College? Local newspaper report here

The Facebook post where Malik allegedly “pledged allegiance” to al-Baghdadi is treated as fact, based on anonymous government and Facebook sources…can we see proof?

We’re told the FB post was made at or near the start of the shooting, but we are also told that Malik had a burner phone without apps or internet access…how’d she do it?

With no evidence, FBI Director Comey asserts that the couple was “radicalized” before Malik came to the US and married Farook. Will they disclose the sources?

News chopper video of final scene is very different from dramatic photos with hood raised and shot up windshield….where are the dashcam videos? Newschopper video is here

Why do photos show Farook lying dead, face down, with handcuffs on?

Corporate media is following up on Farook’s friend Enrique Marquez, Walmart worker who bought the 2 semi-automatic rifles, why does it ignore other issues?

Family attorney David Chesley joins FBI Director Comey in saying “It doesn’t add up” and mentions Sandy Hook as a precedent; corporate media dismisses Chesley’s Sandy Hook reference as “truther” bullshit, obscures his key objections. Why?

Corporate media detailed the apparent conflict between Farook and co-worker Nicholas Thalasinos as a “pro-Israel messianic Jewish Christian…really?

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (Open to all):

You can subscribe below to listen to all other podcasts on our site.

SUBSCRIBE