Update: Well, we did it. iWatch News corrected the order. Now Ron Paul is third from the top-as he should always have been. Not only that, they were ‘forced’ to correct the numbers as well, and use the correct quarter.The only thing left: changing that picture!

Update: Thanks to vigilant readers and their pressure, iWatch News has been scrambling since 3:00 PM EST, and the numbers on the post have been mysteriously changing …of course not the ‘order’ of listing, or the picture selection, or any explanation for such colossal belligerence …

Yesterday, as part of my daily news comb, I visited “iWatch News,” one of several dozen websites on my list of news outlets on government related scandals-revelations. I usually skim the headlines and stories to see whether anything gets my attention as coverage-worthy. Well, their top headline yesterday fit what I was looking for: “Candidate Super PACS.” It was brief, but boldly showcased data on how much money each major presidential candidate has raised and how much each has spent to date. I was happy to find an important but quick and hassle-free read without too many embellishing words or subjective spicing. So I began reading the list. Starting from the top they had the number 1 candidate based on money raised and spent:

 Barack Obama: Total Raised-$88.3 million Total Spent-$28.8 million  

Then came candidate number 2:

 Mitt Romney: Total Raised-$32.6 million Total Spent-$17.5 million  

After that came the third on the list, Number 3:

Newt Gingrich: Total Raised-$2.9 million Total Spent-$2.5 million  

Gingrich was followed by Number 4:

 Rick Santorum: Total Raised-$1.3 million Total Spent-$1.1 million  

And finally, there came the last one, the one all the way at the bottom, candidate Number 5, and naturally, I expected to see the loser of the bunch, the candidate with the least money raised and spent, in other words, the least viable candidate when it comes to raising money, which is one of the major indicators of the winner to come:

 Ron Paul: Total Raised-$12.7 million Total Spent-$9.1 million  

I was ready to get out of the site and move on to the next news site for my daily internet news surf, but then, my eyes caught the numbers listed as raised and spent for Ron Paul. As you know I usually don’t use cuss words, but the only way I can describe my strong reaction-surprise is ‘having a serious WTF!’ moment.

This list starts chronological, based on the amount of money raised and spent by each major candidate. The chronological ordering works as it is supposed to: starting with Obama with the biggest bucks raised, then to Romney with the second biggest money raised, and then something happens. What? They forget the number 3 candidate in the amount of money raised and spent, and instead list Gingrich as the Number 3 – who happens to have raised only a quarter of the amount raised by Ron Paul! Then, their chronological ordering starts working again, and they list the candidate with the least amount of money raised and spent- about 10% of Ron Paul’s amount. And finally, everything turns almost upside down: they list Ron Paul as the 5^th candidate, the last one, the bottom of the barrel, in raising money!

Not only that. I want you to look up and checkout the candidates’ photos above. I took these pictures from that same iWatch News story. Please do it. What do you see? A tough and confident looking number 1-Obama. A happy, confident and relaxed smiling Romney. Lip smacking and beaming Newt Gingrich. A typical silly male bimbo on his way out of the race, but too silly to realize it, thus semi-smiling-Santorum. And then, there comes the candidate they list as the last in money raising, bottom of the barrel, the one on the loser-spot – a real worried, grim and sour looking-Ron Paul.

Reality in this case: As far as raising money for the campaign goes, Ron Paul is the third candidate in the race overall, As far as Republican candidates are concerned, Ron Paul is number 2 in both raising and spending money.

We’ve been reading everyday on the establishment media’s belligerent attitude towards Ron Paul and all their attempts to avoid providing coverage when it comes to him. But this? At this level? Come on. This goes way beyond belligerence. It reaches ultimate pathetic levels and makes them look like fools. Or a better way to say it: their role as the establishment’s jokers. 

*You may want to check iWatch News’ fund-ers here to make a better sense of things. Here are two to give you an idea on what I mean by ‘establishment’:

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations

Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Originally inspired in part by the “Arab Spring,” this movement has drawn strength from popular anger against economic conditions, and more fundamentally, concern that the playing field is stacked against the little guy.  Like the Tea Party before it, the early success has attracted powerful special interest groups hoping to capitalize.  Time will tell if corrupting forces like this end up undermining the Occupy impact.

Here is a question for anyone trying to grapple with the fundamental roots of the movement — are they after capitalism, per se, or crony capitalism specifically?  Certainly, special interest groups like unions as well as bona fide socialists are trying to inculcate themselves in the movement, and exercise their vocal cords to latch onto the underlying concerns.  “Jobs, not Profits,” read some of the signs.  “No More Corporate Money in Politics,” read some of the others.  It is hard to see many signs yet saying things like “No More Union Money in Politics,” or “Union Money Married Wall Street Money to Elect Obama, and Lead the Bailouts.”

From those on the right, there has been a mixed, largely scornful reaction.   You hear things like “they need to take a bath, and look for a job.”  But there have been some more thoughtful communications too.  Recently, asked about his take on the movement, Rep. Ron Paul (TX) summarized “I think it’s a very healthy movement.”  Paul identified common concerns he and others concerned about the responsibility of government, not just “capitalism,” had for our current economic state of affairs.

Yesterday’s Occupiers – the “Bonus Army”

Today’s “Occupy” movement has some very interesting historical precedent.   Back in 1932, as the early stages of the Great Depression gathered steam, industrial production fell dramatically while joblessness soared.   A group of jobless, hungry World War I veterans calling themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force (shortened to the Bonus Army) organized themselves and their families, and developed a demand that the government accelerate a bonus payment they had been promised, but not to be paid until 1945.

Then, they marched on Washington.   Over 40,000 people camped out near the U.S. Capitol, pitched tents, and didn’t leave.  During the day, they would mass in front of the capitol, and occupied much of the space on the stairs going up to the doors.

How did D.C. respond?  They didn’t have pepper spray back then, but they did have tear gas, as well as other tools.

A sympathetic superintendent of police and war veteran, Pelham Glassford, actually tried to maintain a supportive environment for awhile.  But as legislative efforts to accommodate their demands stalled, and as the Bonus Army continued to occupy the area, they wore out their welcome.  Troops, not police, would end up dealing with this situation. 

When the boiling point was reached, the U.S. Secretary of War directed the D.C. police to evacuate some buildings that had been occupied.  The police became the object of sticks, bricks, and other objects of affections.   Glassford’s superiors appealed to President Herbert Hoover to call out the troops.

An assault led by Gen. Douglas MacArthur (assisted by other famous military leaders like then-Major Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton) ensued, with troops supplied with machine guns, tear gas, and bayonets.  In a mid-crisis incident, Gen. MacArthur, foreshadowing later behavior, apparently ignored higher civilian authority calling for restraint.  The assault ended up leaving over 100 casualties, including deaths, including deaths for babies.  After the Bonus Army was forced out, the real Army leveled and set fire to the camp.   The Bonus Army dissipated, joining millions of other less-well organized citizens ‘on the road’ in the Great Depression.

Today’s Occupy movement isn’t the only recent development that has historical precedent from the Great Depression.  In light of the government’s response to the Bonus Army, recent claims that the “US is a battlefield,” and the debate over efforts to assert a military role in jailing suspects of terrorism on U.S. soil, including U.S. citizens – well, history never repeats itself exactly, but it rhymes, the saying goes.

Will Winter Chill Our Own “Arab Spring?”

Today, as temperatures fall ahead of the winter months in much of the nation, so too are many of the Occupy crowds.  Some are dismissive of the movement’s staying power in general, citing in part the upcoming winter.  But there are other places to Occupy.   They didn’t have the Internet back in the Great Depression, and the social media presence for the Occupy movement has been growing robustly in recent weeks.

We are going to continue to keep an eye on the Occupy movement, and how people are reacting to it, in the months ahead.

# # # #Bill Bergman has 10 years of experience as a stock market analyst sandwiched around 13 years as an economist and financial markets policy analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He earned an M.B.A. as well as an M.A. in Public Policy from the University of Chicago in 1990. Mr. Bergman is currently working with Social Movement Sciences LLC, a new enterprise developing evaluation and funding services for not-for-profit organizations.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.; Rollback:  Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse; Regnery Publishing, Inc. (2011)

In Rollback, Thomas Woods provides a thoughtful, clearly written wake-up call.  The breadth of the topic is a bit ambitious, particularly for such a portable read, but Woods provides numerous, wide-ranging examples that will lead readers to reconsider some of their assumptions and expectations.  At times, one might be left a bit confused whether Woods thinks government fiscal collapse is inevitable, or if we still have time to forestall that collapse by ‘repealing big government.’  Either way, however, he leaves no doubt he believes we have large-scale upheaval ahead of us, and that the architecture of much of our federal as well as state government faces a forced and forceful diet. 

Woods is a fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.  The Mises Institute was founded in 1982 by Lew Rockwell, former chief of staff for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.  The Institute has been a center for academic scholars dedicated to the principles of the “Austrian School” of economics as well as classical liberalism more generally.  The Austrian school is so named due to the influence and collaboration of founding members like Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Carl Menger.  In the United States, Murray Rothbard became one of the leading Austrian voices, which rejected much of the mathematical and statistical foundations of mainstream economics and their application in government economic programs.  The Austrian school stands out for its dedication to free markets and a sharply curtailed role for government in society, and Woods’s Rollback clearly reflects this perspective.

Woods opens Rollback with two neat quotes, including a long running truth from a Roman senator and historian named Tacitus – “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” This idea is fleshed out most explicitly in Rollback’s Chapter 6, “The Myth of Good Government,” where Woods looks carefully at the asserted justifications and politically practical sources of demand for a variety of government programs and extensive regulatory practices.  One common thread to those examples is the notion of regulatory capture, where regulation is sought out and developed by the industries being regulated, at the expense of consumers and the common good.

But the fiscal challenges we face arise from a broader set of political influences, including general public laziness and acquiescence in programs based, in Woods’ eyes, on fiscally unsustainable promises.  He takes a closer look at Medicare and Social Security, and depicts demographic icebergs likely to sink the ship. 

Some fun facts from Rollback’s opening chapter include:

A May 2010 poll found that an incredible 85% of graduating college students planned to move back in with their parents after graduation, facing an average of $23,000 in debt before they even start working.

Many states are ‘going bust;’ seven states likely to see their pension systems fail by 2020, and thirteen more by 2025.

Dozens of cities are contemplating bankruptcy.

Washington D.C. has seen demand for new homes rise faster than another other large American city, and it also has the highest median household income of any of the 25 largest metropolitan areas.

This last item is related to Wood’s opening quote about ‘the more corrupt the state, the more numerous its laws.’  Included along with the 50 states, Washington D.C. has by far the highest income per capita, and it also has by far the largest numbers of lawyers per capita.  When you want to get cynical, one way to think about DC is as a factory full of lawyers and lobbyists, who make laws and programs enriching their clients and themselves at the expense of the rest of us.

In Chapter 2, Woods turns to Barack Obama and the “Change We Can Believe In,” finding not much change nor little to believe in, particularly in the new Administration’s health care programs.  The chapter’s strongest and most interesting elements, however, deal with the stimulus programs for the weak economy, their pork-barrel origins, and their unseen costs that can actually retard recovery. 

From there, Woods broadens his perspective to a general review of the role of government in economic crisis, with particular reference to the origins and solutions developed for our Great Recession in recent years.  Woods provides a careful review of housing market finance and the consequences of government programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their interplay with monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. 

Woods and others have strong words, in hindsight, for what they assert were artificially low interest rates arising from Fed monetary policy in 2002-2006 as seeding the recent housing crisis.  This perspective may be a little too easy, in hindsight, and it can also deflect attention from other worthy sources of investigation into regulator behavior, including the Fed’s outsourcing of capital and other financial regulations to the anointed set of credit rating agencies.  This proved a critical point of failure, Fed advertising that it promotes financial stability to the contrary.  But to his credit, Woods at least notes the credit rating interaction with capital regulation problem.  And those that think the effective repeal of the Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was a central element of our latest meltdown would do well to look at Woods’ argument here.  It wasn’t the repeal of Glass-Steagall, for example, that allowed banks to invest so heavily in well-rated but disastrous mortgage-backed securities.  They were allowed to do so before the Glass-Steagall repeal, as well. 

Woods has harsh words for the financial regulators and their claims to expertise and foresight before our latest crisis.  In turn, more and better regulation, the argument goes, is not the solution for our financial system down the road.  Fewer public guarantees and government programs could be a better route.  Along these lines, Woods cites economist and historian Robert Higgs, who has said of the regulators:

“Had they been given even greater powers, budgets, and staffs, what enchantment would have transformed the regulators into smart, dogged champions of the public interest, rather than the time-serving drones and co-conspirators with the regulated firms that they have always been?”

Woods also includes one of my favorite economists, George Stigler, in his argument here.  Stigler was a Nobel prize winner and a central leader in the University of Chicago economic and business schools, and the ‘Chicago School’ of regulation.  Stigler has provided some of the most important foundations for the ‘capture theory’ of regulation, how regulators get co-opted by special interest groups.  

“If Stigler is correct, then we have here another reason to consider it simplistic, even childish, to foist major tasks of economic stabilization onto regulatory bodies in the superstitious hope that this race of supermen will identify and act upon problems before anyone else perceives them, and always with an eye to the public interest.”

If you thought Woods was too already too harsh on the Federal Reserve, well, the next chapter is dedicated to the Fed.  Woods and others of the Austrian school are sharply critical of central banking generally, and Chapter 5 provides a brief and accessible review of their reasoning.   The dollar has lost roughly 95% of its value since the Fed was created in 1913, depending on how you measure that, anyway, while Woods and others make a pretty good case that, from a longer-term perspective, our banking system has been more unstable with a central bank than it was without it.  Woods is pleased by a revival in critical interest in the Federal Reserve in recent years, and tries to make a case that the Fed hasn’t just been a failure in his eyes – it has been a failure on its own terms, as well.

If special interest groups capture government programs designed and/or advertised to promote financial stability, but these programs actually destabilize and threaten us, what if that is also operating in the case of government’s role in promoting national security?  This could be a little frightening, perhaps, but also a way of taking the blinders off and seeing the world realistically.  (For that matter, what if our law enforcement authorities are captured by the criminals?  A topic for another day).  In Chapter 5, Woods turns to the Pentagon, with the main thesis arising from his assertion that “beyond a certain limit, military spending constitutes the classic example of parasitic growth.”  Woods cites operations research professor Seymour Melman, from Columbia University, and Melman’s use of the term ‘overkill’ to capture how many resources we have dedicated to the military sectors that have been taken and diverted from other opportunities.   One fun fact in this discussion includes the fact that the U.S. strategic aircraft and missiles were capable of unleashing the equivalent of six tons of TNT for every person Earth even by the 1960s.  Woods provides a wide variety of other sobering statistics about the cost and consequences of our global military establishment.   Obama and Company took their share of criticism earlier in the book, but Woods, to his credit, certainly doesn’t leave the Republican party unscathed, particularly on this score. 

In Chapter 6, Woods pulls back for a more general perspective on the role of government, and concludes with a chapter reinforcing his early ideas that fiscal strains will inevitably force examination of policies restricting government down the road.  Some of Woods’ personal prescriptions include ‘opt-outs’ for Social Security and Medicare, across-the-board cuts in federal spending, currency competition as an alternative to our current central banking system (citing Ron Paul, who has introduced legislation along these lines), state nullification of unconstitutional federal measures, a ‘repeal amendment’ allowing states to annul specific federal laws if two-thirds of the states see fit, creative Internet-based mechanisms to ‘crack through the media monopoly’ (Go Boiling Frogs!), and a very interesting if narrower proposal called ‘jury nullification.’

All in all, Rollback is a good read — provocative, clear and educational.  You may not always agree with him, but you can learn from him.

Bill Bergman- Senior Financial Analyst, ‘Follow the Money with Bergman’ at Boiling Frogs Post
Bill Bergman has 10 years of experience as a stock market analyst sandwiched around 13 years as an economist and financial markets policy analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He earned an M.B.A. as well as an M.A. in Public Policy from the University of Chicago in 1990. His favorite course there was titled “The Economics of Regulation,” and the lessons learned in that course and elsewhere help illuminate his cautious if not cynical and concerned perspective when told that government is looking out for us. Mr. Bergman is currently working with Social Movement Sciences LLC, a new enterprise developing evaluation and funding services for not-for-profit organizations. He is married, with three kids, and lives in Chicago. His objective with this column is to provide insight into financial and economic conditions, public policy framing money and financial markets, the history underlying our financial infrastructure, and monetary aspects of investigations and scandals.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

“All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is surrender. For it is all give and no take.” – Mohandas Gandhi

This is real life where there are compromises and there are pitfalls of being compromised. There is the question of flexibility, and then the notion of fundamental principles to stand by. There exists a fine line separating ‘bending the rules’ from actually breaking them. The question is where one begins to draw the line to separate compromise from being compromised, to hold to one’s fundamental principles while remaining flexible, and to bend core rules without actually breaking them.

When it comes to American politics the above dilemma has had but one answer. The same consistent answer throughout the past century: one can’t, and one won’t – that is, for those who seek viability for their candidacy and political campaigns. The fundamental rules every single political candidate in search of viability and a chance for success adheres to are: readily submit to being compromised, prepare to revise and change your fundamental principles and beliefs, and be ready to break without hesitation every rule you once adhered to.

Political candidates rise to lead the masses only to quickly turn to serving the interests of the very few- the few that count when it comes to gaining needed ‘viability’ and becoming a candidate with a ‘chance.’

Political actors must go through a crash course in learning the real art of compromise, which translates into willingness to part with core fundamental principles they once adhered to.

Wanna-be political leaders have to submit to training in becoming masters of breaking the rules while making it look as if they are only bending them.

The closer American political candidates get to the finish line where the ‘viable’ are separated from the ‘nonviable’, the more willing they become to give up old sentimental notions of principles and integrity- the greed that naturally flows from their intense desire and inflated egos now tied to the outcome: to win or to lose.

Everyone knows what is meant by becoming the devil’s advocate. Many have seen the film with that title. However, only a few are familiar with a slightly modified application of that term: the willingness to have the devil as the advocate; a familiar pattern showing up with every ‘viability seeking’ political candidate in the US. Just take a quick look at the last few presidents’ candidacies and you’ll see exactly what I am talking about.

We have already seen it vividly with Obama’s candidacy and presidency – appealing to the masses while placing his main focus on appealing to the few that held the key to his ultimate viability test and a real chance to win. What better way to do this than bringing in a few devils as the advocates! He wanted the support of and the green light from the powerful Israel lobby, so he brought in the dual citizen Israeli agent Rahm Emanuel as his advocate. Checkmark that. He wanted the nod from the Neocons so he brought an advocate or two from their camp and promised a key seat to one of their agents, Hillary Clinton. He sought the approval of the corrupt financial megas, so he brought in an advocate from their turf. Very quickly, with the real devils on board, Obama became a ‘viable candidate’, not withstanding his racial disadvantage, his lack of experience, and his less than stellar record.

With the interests of the very few, to name a few – the financial and military industrial complex and the Israel lobby, represented and check-marked, Obama was declared ‘viable’ and guaranteed the securing of the unknowing masses’ vote.

Let’s look at a recent candidacy resorting to advocacy by devils that is developing before our eyes as I type this article. I have written a series on the recent addition of Bruce Fein to the Ron Paul campaign as Paul’s Chief Legal Advisor. I am not going into too much detail here since I have covered the highly troubling case, but you can read more here.

Despite letters, e-mails and phone calls from Paul’s grassroots supporters to the campaign, and despite warnings and advice from Paul’s current and previous senior advisors, the campaign headquarters has refrained from removing Fein from this very key and sensitive position. The justification, more like an excuse, provided by the campaign heads, is the following: we are aware of Mr. Fein’s past and present conflicts but he has been a vocal advocate of the First Amendment and no one can deny his ability to help us expand our base by bringing in American Jewish communities and influential neocons…

This is a perfect example of the repeated pattern exhibited and practiced by US political candidates:  bringing in devils as advocates to seek ‘viability’ and to attempt to increase their chances to win. In Ron Paul’s case it becomes even more glaring. We are looking at a candidate who managed to remain outside the usual beltway corrupt machine yet succeeded in holding on to his office year after year. We are talking about a representative who had stayed away from foreign lobbyists and influence peddlers’ sphere of influence. We are speaking of Ron Paul, the man who had consistently opposed the US war machine, thus the bread and butter of the few MIC whose interests count tremendously when it comes to candidate viability. Ron Paul, who unabashedly has opposed the Israel lobby and its influence over US politics. Why?

According to insiders it is not Ron Paul but two key campaign managers who have become way too greedy and ambitious, and seek to expand at all cost and gain viability at any price. These men must have quickly forgotten the reasons in the first place for Ron Paul’s popularity among those rightfully disillusioned by the establishment candidates, and those who value integrity and honesty above the establishment glitz marketed by the US mainstream media. Bringing in a devil as an advocate comes with a high price. Has the ambition to become mainstream and viable made this price acceptable to Ron Paul?

Here in the United States we know we have a viable political candidate when principles quickly become ultra flexible, and when the art of compromise becomes the willingness to become compromised. And you know the path you are on when the devil becomes the advocate – It is the road leading to hell.

And with that, I will leave you with the following powerful quote from the movie ‘The Devil’s Advocate’:

“You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies, until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own God… and where can you go from there?” – John Milton, ‘The Devil’s Advocate’

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

A Few Foreign Nation Clients

Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Turkey
Sudan

A Few Clients from the Banking & Fed Megas Pool

Bank of America
Morgan Stanley
Standard Charter Bank

Oil Industry

Exxon Mobile
BP
Chevron Texaco

Military Industrial Complex

Boeing
General Electric

International-Imperialistic- Parasitic Organizations

World Bank
IMF
United Nations

You see, there exists no conflict of interest among these Fein clients. When it comes to imperialistic and exploitative operations, the target puppet nations, the greedy oil and military industrial complex players, and the corrupt-criminal mega banking industry work hand-in-hand. Are you with me so far?

On the other hand, last time I checked Ron Paul challenged the Fed & the corrupt mega bankers. Last time I heard, Ron Paul unequivocally was voicing his disdain for US led international and imperialistic institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. Last time I looked, Ron Paul was on the ‘no-no list’ for the Military Industrial Complex lobby.

Now Ron Paul is Bruce Fein’s client. The above predators are also Bruce Fein’s clients. So what are we talking about here?

A Gigantic Conflict of Interest?

Compatible Interests?

If you think it is neither, which one of these clients’ interest comes first? Let me give it a bit of perspective with one example:

The Turkish clients paid Bruce Fein $500,000 in less than two years for him to represent their interests. How much is the Ron Paul campaign willing to pay Bruce Fein in order to surpass Turkey’s  client value to Fein? How much must th Paul campaign pay Bruce Fein for its interests to be put before those of Saudi Arabia, all those mega banks, MIC…?

These questions are yours to answer, and you may want to ask Bruce Fein directly. On September 12, Monday, at 12:30, Bruce Fein will be at Busboys & Poets (2021 14^th Street NW, Washington, DC 20009).  Please let me know what answers you find.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Today is Day 7 on the campaign to raise awareness and alert re Bruce Fein, the greatest threat to the Ron Paul Camp to date. It may be my last one depending on the public response and feedback we receive from the already active and vigilant ‘true’ Paul supporters. I am going to start with one last response to Bruce-Mattie Fein agents who have hijacked several websites to deflect attention from the facts and the real issues. If you go and read the propaganda written by the Feins’ agents you’ll see why I refer to them as ‘agents.’ Either due to certain omega fatty acid deficiencies or natural genetic misfortune, these guys slip and make clear their close associations with both Bruce and Mattie Fein. Now, allow me to provide you with a concrete rebuttal to some of this misinformation that is being spread and planted by Feins’ agents:

“So what if he is representing foreign agents, foreign governments or foreign groups. He is an attorney after all, and it is his job to represent these people?”

Last time I checked attorneys represented their clients in courts. Last time I checked legal cases were not brought by attorneys before the CIA. Last time I checked lawyers did not argue their clients’ cases before State Department operatives. And last time I checked legal representation did not extend to going to Congress, wining and dining representatives, and funneling money into their pockets. Did I miss something when I checked all this last time?! Because this is what Bruce Fein writes and markets about the services he provides for foreign agenda clients, and if you read you hardly, if ever, come across any mention of legal-attorney representation:

“The Lichfield Group features unrivalled government, media, and business experience. Exemplary is the Group’s high level connections with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Central Intelligence Agency, on the one hand, to The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and nationwide broadcast or cable networks on the other.

Whether a client is a giant corporation handcuffed by ill-conceived United States government policies or a foreign government anxious to influence the decisions of Congress, the President, agencies, the judiciary, or State governments, The Lichfield Group is armed with the skills and contacts indispensable for success.”

Just to show my generosity and kindness towards the IQ-challenged Fein agents I am going to recap: Bruce Fein is a foreign agent-lobbyist and that has nothing to do with ‘legal representation.’ He represents foreign agendas before the CIA, the State Department, the Congress, and the White House… Courts ain’t got nothing to do with this in-name-only ‘attorney.’ Where did you guys ever hear of cases being brought before the despicable Central Intelligence Agency-CIA?! What exactly are this Bruce Fein’s ties and close connections to the CIA and State Department he keeps bragging about?!

“Bruce Fein is a fine attorney. Regardless of his shady foreign ties and businesses, as the Chief Legal Advisor to Ron Paul Campaign he is bringing his highly regarded attorney expertise and services!”

As I am writing this piece, as has been the case since the ruling issued by the Congressional Ethics Committee, there is a fine group of legal experts who are working on getting the Bar Association to investigate and hopefully suspend Mr. Fein’s attorney license. This is a gigantic public scandal, not an allegation, people:

“In a statement released on August 5, the House Ethics Committee ruled that Rep Jean Schmidt has received multiple improper gifts totaling $500,000 from the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) between 2008 and 2010. The Committee ruled that Schmidt must pay the money back, However, she will not face sanctions by the House as she was able to pin the blame for her behavior on her attorneys Bruce Fein and David Saltzman.”

After investigating the case, the Ethics Committee says it was Bruce Fein who intentionally misled his client Rep. Schmidt and funneled half a million dollars of foreign lobby money to the Congresswoman. As I stated before, there are only two possible scenarios here:

His two possible explanations for this case would be: 1- I did not tell my client that my legal representation of her case was part of foreign lobby money funneling to her; 2- My client was fully aware of the foreign lobby bribery nature of my legal representation and services, but to protect her and my foreign bosses I took the blame. Under either explanation one glaring point remains clear, and that is the lack of ethics on behalf of the involved attorney-Bruce Fein.

Feins’ agents are out there trying to persuade the Paul Camp to ‘forget Fein’s foreign lobbyist status and businesses’;  that ‘you’ve got a darn good attorney as your chief legal advisor.’ It is not any of my ‘allegations’ they are countering here; it is the official findings by the House Ethics Committee. How is it going to look for Ron Paul and his supporters if and when it is announced that Bruce Fein is being barred from legal practice due to unethical practices as an attorney?! Who is going to defend Ron Paul for picking this kind of an attorney for this kind of high-official position?! What will the public say? The presidential candidate who picked a crusty foreign lobbyist and a barred attorney as his chief legal advisor?!

I did not have to invent Bruce Fein’s Foreign Lobbyist status. It is in Mr. Fein’s resume and his past and present practices, showcased by him right here. Mr. Fein’s intimate associations with the CIA, the State Department and the White House are not based on any allegations; it is in his resume as written by him. Mr. Fein’s position and membership in the Neocon Nest AEI is a fact that is highlighted and used by him when needed. The ruling on Mr. Fein’s foreign lobby money funneling scheme is not some rumor; it is in an official congressional report.

And finally, it is very hard for me to believe that the propaganda, misinformation and personal attacks on me recently could possibly be coming from any ‘true’ Ron Paul supporter. We are talking about libertarians, and libertarian-leaning people who refuse to stop the critical thinking process and readily summit to any authority. Take a look at the following propaganda example from the Daily Paul website, and tell me if this jibes with the Paul Camp motto:

“I’m all for questioning things, but in the context of a presidential campaign, our leader is Ron Paul. His decision is to keep Fein. Back him up, despite your opinions.”- Road Runner on Wed, 08/31/2011 – 13:40.

Since when do Ron Paul people advocate for a monarchy-kingdom where followers must follow their king/leader blindly without question? This is disgusting. A disgrace to any libertarian minded person! Here is another one:

“An adviser may not be central in the campaign, and could be there to simply “bolster the appearance of the management team”, just like they do with company investment portfolios. It even might be for the purpose of gaining some acceptance from neocons by having the AEI adviser, even though RP is not neocon oriented and might not even take any advice from him. In the end, I have to consider RP to be capable of making these decisions. He is experienced and may have some reasons and knowledge that we do not see.” - Big T Wed, 08/31/2011 – 12:25.

What are these people saying? It is totally okay if Ron Paul hired this guy in order to expand his base to include neocons?!

Okay, I am not going to waste my time with mind-boggling quotes attacking me personally, advocating a dictatorship style following, planting misinformation, and most importantly attributing all that to Ron Paul supporters. Instead, here is my message to all in the ‘true’ Paul Grassroots network:

It is okay to think highly of Bruce Fein’s speeches-writings on State Secrets Privilege and some First Amendment related topics. I’ve read some of those, and I happen to like the content. Fein has been in and around the Paul Camp, giving speeches and interviews since 2008. I had no problem with that. Have the man, pay the man, to write and publish articles. That’s fine. But do NOT let this man inside as a strategically positioned insider. Do not let this man become Ron Paul’s Chief Legal Advisor. A crusty foreign lobbyist, an unethical attorney involved in money-laundering-funneling for foreign agents, a CIA-State Department Insider, a known AEI Neocon, a covert Israel supporter, a man who has been playing all sides-from the ACLU to AEI to Turkey to Pakistan to Israel to Ron Paul…Well, that kind of man has NO place in the Ron Paul campaign as an insider, and has no place with Ron Paul.

I believe I have said and done my part for now. I have been in this particular fight for way too long. Causes to fight for have not decreased but increased. I believed this to be one of those causes worth fighting for, including taking vicious attacks and insults from Paul imposters. However, the decision is now yours to make and the next step is yours to take. In the end, it all boils down to sincerity and principle. Please let me know, and until then.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

The internal discussions over the recent ‘Fein’ selection continue inside the Paul camp. Loyal and vigilant Paul supporters have been doing their part. And a few Fein publicists and friends have been hard at work planting misinformation, propaganda and false accusations on the net right and left. I guess this is a positive indicator – we have Fein and his publicists nervous. When false fronts get nervous they tend to expose themselves even further. And that’s good.

Fein publicists and propaganda planters have been  mainly targeting Ron Paul related sites and forums, and attacking everyone who even dares to question Bruce Fein’s highly questionable businesses and associations. For example: they claim Fein worked for AEI in 1981, and then left. Fein’s bio contradicts this. AEI contradicts this. Even Fein’s business advertisement geared towards his foreign governments contradicts this!

Here is what AEI says about their dear Fein, ‘Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar at AEI,’ and says this as of today, September 2, 2011.

When you look at Bruce Fein’s biographical information listed and promoted by him at his ‘very recently erased’ company website, you see this: “Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute.”

Another interesting development: the Feins have been trying very hard to delete-erase their various companies’ websites and past information. Nervous Bruce and Mattie Fein quickly ran and got rid of their business website for ‘the Lichfield Group’, trying very hard to erase information on their actual businesses. However, as many of you know, nowadays it is very hard to get rid of past online information, and here is what we retrieved on Fein’s relationships and ongoing work as advertised at his company website and brochures seeking additional lobbying positions:

The Lichfield Group features unrivalled government, media, and business experience. Exemplary is the Group’s high level connections with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Central Intelligence Agency, on the one hand, to The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and nationwide broadcast or cable networks on the other.

Whether a client is a giant corporation handcuffed by ill-conceived United States government policies or a foreign government anxious to influence the decisions of Congress, the President, agencies, the judiciary, or State governments, The Lichfield Group is armed with the skills and contacts indispensable for success.

As you can see the Fein couple is not selling good ole boring attorney appeal here. They say they are close to the CIA and State Department and Congress, and willing to influence them for foreign entities if the right dollar amount is paid.

Also, it is very interesting to see how twisting and misrepresenting facts in a not very ethical manner, apparently a ‘Fein’  trademark, shows itself in his representation of his marital status! The Fein publicists, since my article exposing the couple’s ‘Israel Lobby’ agenda,  have begun advertising the Feins as divorced, and concluding that ‘so Mattie Fein’s activities and associations do not in any way apply to Bruce; they are divorced!’ I did check my facts, and I did talk with credible sources: They did file for divorce a few years back, but with all sorts of business partnerships and strategic benefits in politics at stake they changed their mind, and nullified their filings. They are legally married. They are business partners. They have businesses together, and Fein has been his wife’s supporter in every single meaning of the word ‘support.’

I am not going to waste my time, and your time, countering every single bit of false information, accusation and propaganda that is going to be planted by Fein’s publicists. I believe those with a positive agenda who want to see this great threat to the Paul Camp gone are informed and vigilant enough to counter these recent false information planting operations on their own. As you can see, Fein is very nervously busy trying to erase his past; so are his publicists. Instead, I want to remind you that today is Day 4 of our countdown to remove Mr. Fein, the greatest ‘insider’ threat to the Paul campaign to date, and we are counting down.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

 We are on Day Three and still no conclusive word from the Ron Paul campaign. I have received hundreds of e-mails and comments from objective and vigilant Paul supporters who are equally alarmed and troubled by Mr. Fein’s recently granted inside position. I have also received a few e-mails from Paul supporters who are trying very hard to justify this new troublesome addition. I want to quote from two such e-mails and respond to both:

‘Ron Paul is out in a sea full of sharks. He needs ruthless sharks like Bruce Fein to survive the other sharks. I think it is a good move and I don’t like people like you second guessing it.’

And here is another comment:

‘This was a brilliant and well-calculated strategic move by Paul. In order to expand his base and movement he needs to bring on board people like Fein. Would it be bad if we gain the support of some of those neocons? Would it be bad to have ACLU liberals or Jewish communities stop attacking Paul, and join him instead because of Fein. I think this was a wise choice by Ron Paul. The mainstream media loves Bruce Fein and he knows how to play and please the media…’

Please take a moment and reflect on these comments and this line of thinking. Have we heard this before? I believe we have. For many decades we have justified moves and actions like this by our candidates of choice instead of drawing the lines where they should be drawn. Because where would you draw the line? Why not try to recruit Karl Rove and bring him on board to lead Paul’s campaign press office? Why not hire Bill Kristol to bring in heavy weight neocons? Why not get a manager or two from AIPAC or JINSA to convert the pro Israel lobby Zionist voters? Why not?

Isn’t this the same ‘the end justifies the means’ mentality we’ve been fighting against? Isn’t this what we justifiably accuse the establishment of doing? Isn’t this a solid example of hypocrisy?

I remember the days when Obama supporters were assuring each other of their candidate having to have to make a few pacts with a few devils in order to win, and once he won he was going to boot them all out and make his supporters’ dreams come true. I recall how the Obama apologists were justifying Rahm Emmanuel’s appointment, and after him Gates, and after him Dennis Ross, and after him…until they began to lose count. Oh, I remember, don’t you?

What I am saying is this: One of the greatest strengths and appeal of the Ron Paul movement has been its grassroots quality, straight-forward approach, uncompromising attitude towards the compromised, and most importantly, steering clear of shady-corrupt-infested traps no matter the outer appeal or glitz.

Bruce Fein, the foreign lobbyist for several nations and foreign groups, the AEI nest’s neocon tenant, the reported compromiser of legal ethics …does not belong in the Ron Paul Camp. It’s time for the Paul Camp to draw the line on ‘Fein,’ and keep it there. Don’t let those lines get blurry and eventually disappear altogether. This is ‘Day Three’ in our countdown to remove Mr. Fein, the greatest ‘insider’ threat to the Paul campaign to date, and we are counting down.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

This where John Bolton supported Fein(s) stand on Israel and war propaganda against Iran:

In 2010, Fein’s wife, Mattie Fein, began expressing the couple’s views on Israel and Israel’s interests openly. Some attribute that to Mattie Fein’s desperate need and her fierce competition with Harman over Israel lobby dollars. Here is Mattie’s response to the test question by the Zionist community:

7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?

The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran.

Bruce Fein has many homes, including the Neocon Nest AEI. The Ron Paul Camp does not need Mr. Fein as an occupant. It certainly doesn’t.

This is ‘Day Two’ in our countdown to remove this occupant, Mr. Fein, a Ron Paul Camp new occupant and the greatest ‘insider’ threat to his campaign to date, and we are counting down.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

 Last week, right after publishing my article on Congresswoman Schmidt and Bruce Fein’s brilliant foreign lobby money rechanneling-laundering scheme, and to my shock, I found out about this:

The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced today that constitutional and international law expert Bruce Fein will join the campaign as senior advisor on legal matters.

“Bruce Fein’s participation adds to our campaign’s already intellectual heft, enabling us to more broadly engage the conversation about constitutionality, civil liberties and the dangers to national security of an increasingly interventionist foreign policy,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

While some at Rep. Paul’s Camp were busy celebrating and cheering the announcement as a brilliant strategic move, I was frantically gathering cases and research notes, corresponding with current and former colleagues from the intelligence community who had come to support Rep. Paul, and communicating with a few friends with Rep. Paul’s Campaign who were equally troubled by this development.

I understand the ‘cheering’ side of Paul’s camp as they have been excited and impressed by the in- writing-and-words-only side of Bruce Fein. Not so different than those who were fired up and sold on the in-words-only rhetoric and promises staged by President Obama. The Constitutional Scholar Fein and the Constitutional Expert Obama. A Great Penman Fein and the Great Orator Obama…and of course the contradicting realities and the contradicting facts.

However, in this case, there are already too many established facts and too much history on Mr. Fein, and way too many rational and realistic people among Paul supporters to ring the alarm bells and counter this great threat before it’s too late. I will go as far as calling the penetration of the Ron Paul camp by Bruce Fein ‘the greatest threat to Paul’s camp to date,’ and will make a solid case for this characterization based on glaring and alarming facts; facts and concerns shared by several loyal Paul advisors today.

Who is the real Bruce Fein? Why there are so many different versions of Fein – one contradicting the other? How do his real actions and intimate associations stand in stark contrast to Ron Paul? What is the most likely plot in planting Mr. Fein within Paul’s campaign?

Foreign Lobby & Influence Peddling

Ron Paul has been consistent and exemplary in his strongly held principles on the Foreign lobby and influence peddling; a rarity in the US Congress. He has displayed intense disdain for foreign lobbying and foreign influence. He even considers congressional ‘junkets’ as another means to be compromised: stressing that he would not travel abroad on agenda-driven foreigners’ dime: “I just think it’s unnecessary for congressmen to travel overseas, and the people in our district were on my side,” he said in an interview. “You don’t need to go to Bosnia to understand we have no business there.”

With Bruce Fein you have exactly the opposite stand. He has been a crusty foreign lobbyist making millions of dollars peddling his foreign bosses’ interests and influence in Congress and government agencies. For Fein it has never mattered who the foreign client or what their agenda. He does not care whether his foreign clients are criminals or terrorists or dictators. As long as they pay him handsomely he’ll sell their agenda and interest no matter what they may be. The words ‘principle’ or ‘taking a stand’ have never entered this foreign lobbyist’s dictionary or comprehension:

One minute, on behalf of one set of his foreign designated ‘terrorist’ bosses, Bruce Fein is busy selling the need for a genocide declaration by the US Congress against one nation:

“For the past year I have written about Bruce Fein in many articles that have been widely published and circulated. He is reportedly paid $100,000 per month to tell lies in Washington about the Government of Sri Lanka… Who are the American individuals backing this group? Where are they getting their money to pay Bruce Fein? Does former US Ambassador Blake have something to do with them…”

The next minute, on behalf of another well-known foreign mob boss, Bruce Fein is busy peddling influence and selling Congress his foreign bosses’ anti-genocide agenda:

“In 2007, Ayasli transferred $30 million in stock to fund a new endeavor, the nonprofit Turkish Coalition of America. The organization is headquartered in a Washington suite that has also been listed as the address for the Turkish Coalition USA PAC, the lobbying firm of Lydia Borland (who has represented the Turkish government), and the law firm of Bruce Fein and Associates (Fein comprises half of the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund)…”

“materials put out by the Turkish Coalition of America and authored by a lawyer, Bruce Fein, who now represents Schmidt in the complaint, say that Congresswoman Schmidt has on numerous occasions voiced her opposition to such resolutions and maintains that the historical question is not appropriate for Congress to legislate. The congresswoman, based on her independent research, does not believe the tragic events constitute genocide…”

Bruce Fein sees no problem with representing foreign groups like this:

Fein hit the jackpot in 1991 when he signed on to represent Mozambique’s notorious guerrilla army, RENAMO, which was seeking to overthrow its country’s leftist government. When Fein came on board, RENAMO’s reputation has hit bottom…

…

Even the Reagan and Bush administrations kept their distance from RENAMO, despite their anti-Communist rhetoric…

…

Fein, however, eagerly signed up to flack for Dhlakama’s terror army. Like most foreign lobbyists, he bilked his client for huge sums of money while performing virtually no work.

Mr. Fine, who now fakes and preaches non-interventionism and anti-influence peddling only to echo Ron Paul, in real life has been practicing the exact opposite:

“Now, Fein has returned to lobbying and is working for a client that has the dubious distinction of making RENAMO look good: The Sudan. That country’s government is barred from receiving U.S. foreign aid because of its support for terrorism and because of its revolting human rights record. Amnesty International reports that the Sudanese government not only assassinates and tortures its “enemies,” but that paramilitary forces have kidnapped scores of children, who are believed to be held in domestic slavery by their abductors or taken to camps in remote rural areas, where they are trained for military service”

Here is another on-the-spot description of Real Bruce Fein as a crusty “Beltway Prostitute”:

“Well, well, well. Wasn’t Bruce Fein just recently condemning the Government of Sri Lanka for trying to put an end to the LTTE? But this time he’s defending a sovereign government for protecting itself – rather than slandering it using falsehoods. Now you see what I mean when I earlier referred to Mr. Fein as a “Beltway prostitute.” He will accept money from anyone who can pay the price – regardless of where that money came from, or who his legal and public relations services might unjustly hurt. What an embarrassment to the US legal profession.”

You see, for Mr. Fein pimping the Congress on behalf of foreign clients is about dollars. Nothing more; nothing less. Whether it is advocating additional foreign aid for one country while our nation is being bankrupted, or dragging our Congress to get involved with domestic meddling and the affairs of another foreign country, Bruce Fein has never been about the United States’ interests; just the opposite. Give Fein the dollars and he’ll sign up to lobby for any one: terrorists, corrupt foreign governments, mobsters, assassins …

Long pocketed as a ‘lobbyist’ by Pakistan, Sudan, Turkey, Tamil, and others, Bruce Fein is the exact antithesis to Ron Paul’s principled position on issues related to foreign lobby, corruption and influence peddling in government.

Overt Neocon Ties & Covert Israel Pedigree

Ron Paul has been in staunch opposition and a counter to Neocon agendas and field players. Whether on the Israel lobby and agenda driving the hawkish currents in our nation today, or the corporate war machine interests guiding our foreign policy practices, Paul has consistently stood firm and unrelenting.

Mr. Fein’s public pedigree makes it fairly easy to spot his overt ties and links. For example: he has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). By now I think the majority of Americans know about AEI’s claim to fame:

“AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas.[10] Irving Kristol, widely considered a father of neoconservatism, is a senior fellow at AEI, and many prominent neoconservatives—including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, and Joshua Muravchik—spent the bulk of their careers at AEI.”

A well-known couple of facts about AEI:

1- In order to be accepted by AEI, to become one of their scholars, proven neoconservative inklings and ties are the never-waivered prerequisites.

2- AEI seeks candidates who put Loyalty and Allegiance to Israel above all.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt state in their controversial bestseller, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, that the tone of the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby results from the influence of the leaders of the two top lobby groups: AIPAC, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. They go on to list, as right-leaning think tanks associated with the lobby, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the American Enterprise Institute.

Acceptance to the tightly knitted and guarded AEI Neocon community also extends to family members and religious affiliations. Bruce Fein has passed both litmus tests in becoming a highly-regarded member of AEI. His wife, Mattie Fein, has been a vocal hawk, neocon propaganda distributor, and a very familiar face within the Beltway neocon community:

In 2007, Fein penned an opinion piece in the Washington Times calling on the United States to pledge military support to Iranian dissidents in the event of an uprising. Fein, whose father is of Iranian descent, was identified in the piece as the founder and president of the Institute for Persian Studies.

While Fein’s AEI and neocon connections and strong ties are overtly stated, his loyalties and allegiance to Israel and the Israel lobby are not; that is, until you start digging. A former AEI member who now works as a congressional aid stated, ‘Bruce Fein was liked and trusted there as ‘one of them,’ a real Jewish man loyal to Israel and its interests.’

Fein has been successful in playing both sides of this field, and keeping his Israel related activities and ties mainly covert. However, in 2010, Fein’s wife, Mattie Fein, began expressing the couple’s views on Israel and Israel’s interests less covertly. Some attribute that to Mattie Fein’s desperate need and her fierce competition with Harman over Israel lobby dollars. Here is Mattie’s response to the test question by the Zionist community:

7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?

The United States should support whatever Israel believes is justified by national security worries over Iran.

And here is Bruce Fein’s buddy from AEI, the scandalous John Bolton, who’s been backing the Fein couple including Mattie Fein’s fundraising and campaign:

I was privy to some of the logistics involved in setting up the fundraiser that Bolton held for Mattie’s campaign. It amazed me how quickly some establishment Republicans tried to steal the thunder of Bolton’s appearance through various subterfuges and poaching, and it is a credit to the man’s character and timber that he refused to be a part of it. He was there to endorse Mattie Fein against Jane Harman, and he wouldn’t let third parties screw that up.

Mattie Fein’s established Neocon pedigree, her hawkish propaganda and activities nicely echoes Bolton’s own.  Some liken the relationship to mentor-protégé dynamics that began with the marriage to Fein and entry into the AEI circle.

The Question of Ethics …or Lack of

Even Ron Paul’s foes would admit that he has been a man of principle throughout his life; both inside and outside his congressional career. Those who may disagree with his political platform and stand would acknowledge his adherence to ethical practices, whether in his personal-family life or career.

Bruce Fein’s career on the other hand, in contrast to his writings and well-played public role, has been driven by lucrative foreign lobbying deals, influence peddling in the halls of Congress, the State Department and the CIA, and all that mostly for foreign agendas directly in conflict with those of Americans. Not only that, his regard for ethics as an attorney appears to be nonexistent. In his most recent scandal involving indirect funneling of foreign lobby dollars to Rep. Jean Schmidt, he was determined to have been intentionally misguiding his client on the sources of $500,000 dollars in legal fees:

In a statement released on August 5, the House Ethics Committee ruled that Rep Jean Schmidt has received multiple improper gifts totaling $500,000 from the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) between 2008 and 2010. The Committee ruled that Schmidt must pay the money back, However, she will not face sanctions by the House as she was able to pin the blame for her behavior on her attorneys Bruce Fein and David Saltzman

You can read the full report by the House Ethics Committee here. It remains to be seen whether anyone will go after Bruce Fein and his license for this highly scandalous case and ethics violations. His two possible explanations for this case would be: 1- I did not tell my client that my legal representation of her case was part of foreign lobby money funneling to her; 2- My client was fully aware of the foreign lobby bribery nature of my legal representation and services, but to protect her and my foreign bosses I took the blame. Under either explanation one glaring point remains clear, and that is the lack of ethics on behalf of the involved attorney-Bruce Fein. On the other hand, Mr. Fein appears to have had practice in riding ethics related scandals and waves. At least in the scandalous ethic violations case  involving Bruce Fein and his partner Ephraim Chukwuemeka Ugwuonye, Esq.

I started with that famous quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero because it applies to this report and the plots delivered from within. When it comes to Ron Paul’s Campaign no one would ever have to worry about known snakes and neocons like Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle. The enemy sent to you will be one who talks just like you; speaks your words and shouts your slogans. And does so very convincingly.

I have tried to be brief with carefully and well-sourced facts and cases to provide a factual profile for the real Bruce Fein. Considering the facts and who Mr. Fein is, and has been, why would he methodically go about attaching himself to Ron Paul and his campaign? After consulting with several well-respected and trust-worthy sources, the troubling answer was summed up in two possibilities:

1- This is a commonly used ploy by the establishment to penetrate Ron Paul and his camp which has been gaining momentum. This is where the plant carries inside information and strategic plans to the establishment, and simultaneously tries to exert negative influence over decision making and strategy-setting processes.

2- The plant willingly and knowingly becomes the fall-guy bringing down the target candidate. Highly damaging and scandalous information about the plant would be strategically released to the media-public, and the candidate suffers the ultimate consequences.

Personally I am leaning more towards the second possibility and here is why:

I was privy to the extensive rap sheet maintained on Mr. Fein, his foreign mob bosses and their operations at J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. Mr. Fein is well aware of this rap sheet and the FBI’s long-maintained operations. I know with certainty that if released by the FBI, whether partially or completely, it would be used as ongoing front-page headlines by the media, to bring down the entire Paul campaign before the primaries.

Ron Paul already has a highly-respected constitutional scholar who is articulate, eloquent, passionate, and most importantly, trust-worthy, clean, and from outside the poisonous capital beltway. That person is Tom Woods. Paul does not need this man Fein. He does not need this glitzy-oily foreign lobbyist who stands in total contrast to Paul’s platform.

I like Ron Paul. I support his stand on foreign policy related matters and his objectives on what need to be changed. I applaud Paul’s stand on our liberties, and I back his quest for a much smaller government. I have done so for years. Please don’t let the establishment succeed in their plot. Bruce Fein is the greatest threat to Paul’s movement to date. He would be a stain – a taint; not one easily removed after the fact. Please begin the countdown, and have Ron Paul remove this man from the campaign as a trusted advisor and insider. Let the countdown begin today; at this hour -at this very minute. Before it is too late.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

BFP Nightly Quote

“If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom: and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too.” - W. Somerset Maugham

International Newsworthy

Spinning Iran’s Centrifuge

NATO & Turkey Support Armed Rebels in Syria 

NATO Report: US Raids in Afghanistan Tripled Since 2009 

Report: Libyan Rebels, Government Hold Talks in Tunisia 

Azerbaijan: Baku Hedging Its Economic Bets 

Israeli Black Hole in Kosovo 

Israel Seeks 20 More F-35 Stealth Jets 

UK: Concern Social Networks Targeted as BlackBerry Helps Police Identify Rioters 

* * * *

National Newsworthy

The Pentagon’s New China War Plan 

Boeing Spends $4.4 Million on Government Lobbying During Second Quarter 

FBI Investigation Reveals DOD Contractors Stole Iraq Artifacts

Obama’s Vineyard Vacation will Cost Taxpayers Millions of Dollars 

America’s 14 Most Ready to Riot Cities 

The People’s Ponzi Scheme

Officials Pressed by GOP to Release Defense Budget Review

Does FBI Investigation of Gulen Include Louisiana RSD?

New SEC Whistleblower Rules

* * * *

 Noteworthy Editorials

The CIA, Lies & Intelligence

Whither the Antiwar Movement?

Imperialist Freedom

The Greatest Elected Body that Money Can Buy 

Why Does Mainstream Media Disrespect Ron Paul?

How China Sees English Riots

* * * *

BFP Nightly Funnies

“After all the rioting in London this week, officials are worried that it could mean security problems for the Olympics next year. On the bright side, the guy running with the torch will just blend right in.” –Jimmy Fallon

* * * *

BFP Nightly Video Potpourri 

Senator Durbin Disses Reporter’s Downgrade Question

Hitler Lives: 1945 Propaganda- Still Alive today

The Media Admits to Ignoring Ron Paul

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

During the latest downturn, the national unemployment rate went from about 4.5% to 10%, and remains above 9% at the latest reading.  A recovery has been underway over the last year and a half, led, until recently anyway, by the manufacturing sector.  But the jobs picture has remained very bleak.  Since 1960, we never had a three-year interval where U.S. private sector employment fell at an average annual rate over 1%.  In 2009, that happened for the first time since the Great Depression, and again in 2010.

As the financial crisis was gathering steam in 2008, and as millions of people were losing their jobs, the Federal Reserve lent extraordinarily large amounts of money to large financial institutions.  The assistance was provided to banks as well as other parties not normally able to access central bank credit directly, including American International Group (AIG), one of the largest insurance enterprises in the world.  Loans to nonbanks arose under provisions in Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act that allow the Fed to lend to ‘individuals, partnerships, and corporations,’ e.g., not just banks, in ‘unusual and exigent circumstances.’  The Fed’s emergency lending also included huge loans for foreign financial institutions.  The Fed extended over $1 trillion in emergency credit, at peak levels.  And the Fed’s balance sheet also mushroomed as it embarked on a buying spree of ‘mortgage-backed’ and other securities.

The Fed has asserted that the extraordinary recent expansion of its lending activity generally, and its emergency lending specifically, had been necessary to avoid an even wider calamity.  Putting aside the Fed’s (shared) responsibility for getting us into calamity in the first place, critics have also been angered how many ‘private’ parties that were responsible not only for their own near-demise, but the widespread economic crisis as well, were able to receive so much cheap survival money from our public central bank – particularly in light of the close relationships these larger private organizations have had with leadership in the Fed.  Were they effectively backed by cheap public capital, reaping the fruits on the upside and sticking us with the downside?   And critics have also been suspicious whether the Fed was receiving fair prices for the securities purchases it has undertaken in its ‘quantitative easing’ and other monetary policy transactions.  So, in fits and starts, financial reform legislation passed by the Congress in 2010 finally included a directive that the General Accountability Office (GAO) audit the Fed’s emergency lending during the crisis, and to also undertake a second audit examining Federal Reserve bank governance practices.

On July 21, the GAO issued its first of two reports on its auditing of the Fed’s emergency lending in the crisis.  A bruising 266-page read, it provides a lengthy factual overview of the complex set of circumstances underlying these programs, documents the timing and extent of the lending, and provides some occasionally mild criticism and recommendations for shoring up procedures under which conflict of interest and other management challenge are managed in the future. 

I’ve read the report through once, and am still reflecting on it.  I’ll be reviewing several elements of that report soon, including a few things that aren’t in there that don’t appear to have drawn attention elsewhere, either.  But I’d also like to start setting the stage for Boiling Frogs readers for Part II of the GAO audit(s) mandated by Dodd-Frank – the audit of Federal Reserve governance.  That report is due in October.

Specifically, what will that second audit cover? 

There are four main elements identified for the second GAO audit under Dodd-Frank.  They include:

• an examination of the extent to which the selection of Reserve Bank directors results in boards that effectively represent ‘the public’ as required under the Federal Reserve Act,

• an examination whether there are actual or potential conflicts of interest arising in executing supervisory responsibilities when Reserve Bank directors are elected by member banks,

• an examination of the lending programs covered in the first audit with specific reference to Reserve Bank governance, and

• a requirement that the GAO ‘identify changes to selection procedures’ for Federal Reserve Bank directors, and other Fed governance procedures, that would ‘improve public representation, eliminate conflicts of interest in bank supervision, increase the availability of information useful for monetary policy, or … increase the effectiveness or efficiency of reserve banks.’ 

It is possible the final ‘or’ leaves some wiggle room for the GAO to abstain from making explicit findings or recommendations if it so chooses, but we shall see.

Just stepping back for a moment, however, it is worth noting that the topic of Federal Reserve bank governance and accusations of favoritism and conflicts of interest during the bailouts provided some of the more spectacular grist for the mill during the meltdown.  The GAO’s second audit report may yet provide newsworthy support for anyone looking for greater accountability, and reform, of the fundamentals underlying our banking system.

In my next article, I’ll take a closer look at the whos, whys and hows of Federal Reserve bank governance now under scrutiny by the GAO, and also look for some perspective for the upcoming GAO report from a 1976 study by the House Banking Committee titled “Reserve Bank Directors:  A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence.”

Broader Audit Authority — Still In the Works?

Significant resistance to the current GAO audit(s) arose within the Fed and among its friends in high places.  Those parties have been asserting a need to preserve the Fed’s independence within government.  In the face of this opposition, the House still passed an early version of what became enacted as ‘Dodd-Frank’ that contained surprisingly vigorous audit provisions, only to see them shriveled by later compromise.  Some of those championing broader general audits of the Fed’s actions remain disappointed, and concerned, about the scope of GAO authority.

In early 2011, Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 459, the “The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011.”  This is a new version of the broader audit bill he and others were looking for back in 2010.  Rep. Paul’s remarks while introducing the measure in early 2011 can be read here.  This legislation would direct the GAO to conduct a more general audit of Fed operations, including transactions with foreign central banks and monetary policy operations such as the large-scale purchases of suspect mortgage-backed securities where GAO scrutiny had been constricted. This new bill has attracted over 160 co-sponsors, but still faces meaningful opposition from the Fed and its defenders in Congress. A website focused on H.R. 459 (and the Senate version, S. 202) can be viewed here.

The actual text of Rep. Paul’s bill accomplishes the goal of extending GAO audit authority by eliminating previous statutory restrictions in 31 U.S.C. 714(b) that foreclosed GAO audits of Fed transactions with foreign governments, central banks, or ‘nonprivate international financial organizations.’  The bill would also eliminate constraints on GAO audits for monetary policy matters including open market operations and traditional discount window lending, and transactions under the direction of the FOMC more generally. 

The Fed and its defenders have fended off efforts like these thus far, citing among other things academic studies suggesting that countries with central banks with greater independence also enjoy better economic performance.  But the Fed had greater political independence in the 1920s than it has today, and the Fed still helped contribute to the worst financial and economic disaster in our nation’s history in the Great Depression.  In turn, it seems hard for the Fed to point to our conditions in recent years as providing any ringing endorsement for defending or cementing Fed independence, at least as it has evolved to date. 

The latest GAO audit report may put too much stock for its own conclusions in the validity of the Fed’s existing reporting and auditing controls.  We need closer scrutiny for its actions in recent years, particularly any choices designed or with the effect of benefitting the few at the expense of the many.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

BFP Nightly Quote

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before morning.”- Henry Ford

International Newsworthy

Official: ‘Associate’ Killed Karzai’s Brother, Not the Taliban 

Afghan Civilians Pay Lethal Price for New Policy on Air Strikes

CIA Pakistan Station Chief Clashed with Ambassador Munter

Iran: Authorities Say Gas Pipeline Bombers Killed, Arrested

Iraq’s Maliki to Buy 36 F-16 Fighters from US

Report: Iraq Deadlier Now Than a Year Ago

Turkey Seeks Solution to Army Resignation Crisis

Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin’s Arrest: A Warning to the Growing Online Media

US-Russia ‘Reset’ Faces Biggest Challenge

Europe’s Right-Wing Populists Find Allies in Israel 

* * * *

National Newsworthy

Getting Bin Laden: What Happened that Night in Abbottabad

Dual Classification of Open Source Information

Here is how US Spies will Find you through your Pictures

Shhhhh! Spooks Want Drones as Silent as Owls 

The Collapse of America’s Middle Class

When a Cut is Not a Cut

Debt Deal a Partial Solution at Best?

* * * *

Noteworthy Editorials

The Essential Rules of Tyranny

Grappling with the Banality of Evil

Obama Administration’s Secret Law to Spy on Americans

John McCain: Ever Confused, Always for War

The US Debt Ceiling Deal

Ron Paul’s Challenge to the Left

Are the US & Taliban Ready to Tango?

* * * *

BFP Nightly Funnies

“Democrats warned that if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, the government would cease to function. How would you be able to tell?” —Jay Leno

Al-Qaeda: US Mass Transportation Infrastructure Must Drastically Improve Before Any Terrorist Attacks!

Hot Deal in Georgia: Buy One TV Tower, Get 36 Towers Free. True!

* * * *

BFP Nightly Video Potpourri 

Video 1: Smart Meters & Your Right to Privacy

Video 2: Human Rights Group Warn of Severe Water Crisis in the Gaza Strip

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

BFP Nightly Quote

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”- President Woodrow Wilson

International Newsworthy

Edging Towards the  Partition of Libya?

Another Stinging Blow for the Libyan Rebellion

McCain Tells Libyan Rebels: End Abuses or Risk US Support

US Accuses Iran of “Secret Deal” with Al-Qaeda

Harrowing Exhibition Reveals Damage Done by Drones in Pakistan

Israelis Torture Palestinians with Impunity, similar to US Prisons

Palestinians Fear as Israel Destroying West Bank Water Sources

Turkey: Court Forbids Corruption-Busting Journalist from Writing

* * * *

National Newsworthy

Censorship of War Casualties in US

US Cannot Say How Many Had Communications Watched

Senators Want Secret Warrantless Wiretap Renewal

First Presidential Campaign Finance Reports Show Clout of Wall Street, Retirees

White House Recruits IMF Communications Chief

Senate Extends FBI Director Mueller’s Term

Obama’s scare tactics to get Democrats to vote for his Republican Wall Street plan

TSA Readying New Behavior Detection Plan for Airport Checkpoints  

Lockheed Martin Wins $72,000,000 Contract to Install Body Scanners

DOD Full-Spectrum Cyberspace Budget Lunacy

* * * *

Noteworthy Editorials

The War on Libya: An Imperialist Project to Create Three Libyas

Obama Drug Policy: Yet another Broken Promise

Become a Conspiracy Realist

America’s Rural Ghost Towns

The “Towers of Basel”: The World’s Biggest Central Bank Has Private Shareholders

Disastrous Outcomes from an Orchestrated Economic Crisis

The Looting of America: The Federal Reserve Made $16 Trillion in Secret Loans to Bankster Friends & the Media is Ignoring the Eye-Popping Corruption that Has Been Uncovered

* * * *

BFP Nightly Funnies

“I think I know now why we are occupying Iraq. In case we have to sell America and move to a smaller country.” —Bill Maher

“Texas governor Rick Perry said God is calling on him to run for President. But Michele Bachmann said that God is calling on her to run for President. You know, if God is that indecisive, he’s probably for Mitt Romney.” —Jay Leno

* * * *

BFP Nightly Video Potpourri 

Video 1: Ferengi Discusses Earth Economics (Star Trek)

Video 2: Coal Lobby Warns Wind Farms May Blow Earth Off Orbit

Video 3: Ron Paul “What’s a Dollar?”

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Newsworthy

US War Planes Attack Southern Iraq

Yemen Conflict: Generating More Child Soldiers

Carrots for India, Sticks for Pakistan

The Role of UN Security Council in Unleashing an Illegal War against Libya

Dubai Murder-Accused Had Kiwi Link?

A Brief List of Israeli Mossad’s Most Audacious Plots 

****

Pakistan Gave 4 Million Dollars to Illegal Kashmiri Lobby Group in Washington

Obama Top Recipient of Murdoch’s News Corp Donations?!

FBI ‘Anonymous’ Raid on Brooklyn Loft over DDOS Attack

Adding Up Human Cost of Iraq-Afghan Wars

****

How to Lobby for a Foreign Government & Not Get Arrested

Religious Wars in the Balkans was Orchestrated by USA & NATO

Idle Kingdom: Saudi Arabia’s Increasing Jobless Youth

****

Video- Ron Paul: ‘Freedom is a Young Idea & we are Throwing it Away’

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Once upon a time an evil witch visits a kingdom and poisons the central well with a potion that drives people mad. The next morning all who drink from that well go crazy. The king, however, knew about this in advance, and didn’t drink from the communal well. The next day, those who drank the poisoned water came to the king and accused him of being the crazy one. The king, aware of what had transpired, was faced with a dilemma: drink from the well and lose his sanity like the rest of his subjects, but remain king; or don’t drink, remain sane, but be swept from power by those who would view his very sanity as madness.

Today in our nation those who refrain from drinking from the well poisoned by the establishment witches are categorized, marginalized, and labeled extremists, crazies, conspiracy theorists, and other adjectives along the same lines:

The political candidate who choose to run as a ‘people’s candidate,’ not the establishment candidate representing this special interest or that foreign interest’s agenda, is referred to as an extremist.

Those groups who fight for accountability and demand justice are dismissed as radicals.

Those in government who dare to come forward, speak up, and tell the truth are labeled as disgruntled whistleblowers.

Those activists who dare to ask for ‘real’ investigations in matters such as 9/11 are grouped and stuffed in a bucket as insane conspiracy theorists.

We have the witches of the establishment pouring the poisoned concoction into the communal wells. Maybe a little bit of pseudo patriotism mixed with a fair amount of fear-mongering laced with dependency-inducing barbitals topped with fluffy fantasy puffs. Maybe three portions of false security shaken with two portions of false prosperity hallucinogenic elixir blended with a shot of apathy-enhancing liquor. Maybe all of the above and more.

Equally if not more importantly we have the poison-water bearers. After all, the objective of poisoning the majority is too important to be left to chance. What if some decide to collect rainwater instead of going to the well? What if some chose river water over well water? You see, for the poisoned well plot to work, most if not all should drink from the poisoned wells, so what better way to ensure than having water bearers deliver to most if not all. The mainstream poison-water-bearers do just that: take the water poisoned by the establishment witches, put it into easy-to-swallow portions and easy-to-drink containers, and then deliver it to as many people as they can. Think establishment witches’ 9/11-national security state-wars concoction, and then think New York Times and Washington Post. You see how it works? Right. You take the establishment poisons, mainstream media poisons-bearers, and you get a whole a lot of poisoned people acting crazy as hell. And if by any chance you have refrained from drinking, then you better be ready to be singled out, pointed to, and called a nut and a crazy.

In a recent article at LWR Tom woods addresses this issue extremely well:

Extremism is a sacred word in the bipartisan lexicon, solemnly reserved for willful and persistent deviations from the holy mainstream. For that reason, it is not extremism to favor a policy that led to 2 million deaths in Vietnam. Our mainstream politicians supported that, you see. It is not extremism to have favored the indefensible war in Iraq, which led to at least hundreds of thousands of deaths and four million people displaced. How could it be? Why, the Washington Post and the New York Times favored it!

How about a sanctions policy that led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children? Even if this statistic were false, American officials, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former US Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, said half a million dead Iraqi children were “worth it.” No mainstream outlet I am aware of has referred to Albright and Richardson as extremists.

For that matter, no one has been called an extremist for thinking it’s all right for people to stick their hands down your pants at the airport. This is a matter of public policy, citizen.

…

You can read the entire article here and watch his related YouTube clip here.

The potent concoction for the 2012 elections is almost ready. What you see right now is the aperitif being served by the mainstream-poison-water-bearers to stimulate the thirst and appetite for the coming potion. I am going to pass, and then pass again. Would you care to join the sane crowd and be called crazy by crazies and dare to hope to have the majority with you this time around?
 

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

It has been over two weeks since the orchestrated ever-changing Bin Laden Death. The question of what happened remains the same except it doesn’t seem to matter any longer. The US media is done after making their initial splash, and the majority is left with one conclusion: the SOB is dead, and who gives a da… how it happened. Whether Osama held an AK-47 while using some damsel in distress as a shield, whether there was a real fight or not, whether it was really Osama’s body in an organic edible shell we fed to the endangered sharks, whether the full credit goes to the CIA or the White House or the Pentagon …no longer seems to matter. Dizzy-fying confusion induced by dozens and dozens of lies and discrepancies and denials has given way to post-adrenaline-rush exhaustion. The question of what happened has been classified as moot and irrelevant. Right or wrong I’ll leave that question behind, at least for now, and instead, go back to focus on the more important question- the question of ‘why and why now.’

As I stated during the first few days of covering the Bin Laden Death Script, when it comes to DC dirty politics, when it comes to the new world order machine, and when it comes to US presidents, timing is everything and there are no such things as coincidences:

Considering the mainstream media’s sensationalism and propaganda tactics and their cemented role as an extension of the establishment, one must step back and take in the entire landscape, the context, connections, and of course the timing. Only after that, after putting the pieces together instead of dumbly staring at the images spread before us by the media, we have a chance to get a grasp of the reality-facts; or at least a chance to come up with real questions.

In the past two weeks, after talking with many experts and sources, both nationally and internationally, Pakistan has been surfacing as the common thread holding the most rational explanation of ‘why and why now.’ Interestingly, I came across the following statement by Rep. Ron Paul during his interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

“The helicopters that landed in Abbottabad won’t be the last to put American troops on the ground in Pakistan, I see the whole thing as a mess, and I think that we are going to be in Pakistan. I think that’s the next occupation and I fear it. I think it’s ridiculous, and I think our foreign policy is such that we don’t need to be doing this.”

I was planning to write a comprehensive piece based on information and analyses I have gathered from my solid intelligence and Pentagon sources. However, after watching the interview with Ron Paul (And he has his credible sources), I decided to go ahead and write a fairly quick commentary on why the question of ‘why and why now’ keeps pointing to Pakistan as the next probable occupation target for our never-dying neocon objective-makers. Actually the following is more of significant developments and a timeline than a subjective interpretation or commentary. I am going to put them together and have us look at the pattern and where these points point to, and that’s exactly what I meant by “one must step back and take in the entire landscape, the context, connections, and of course the timing.”

Let’s start with Project for the New American Century (PNAC) which was launched in 1997 and became known for leading the public campaign to oust Saddam Hussein both before and after the September 11 attacks. As many of my highly aware readers know, those neocons, their objectives and activities, never go away. They may change names or change a few front faces, but like a leech they always hold on to the system; the system they help put in place in the first place:

The blandly-named Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) – the brainchild of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, neo-conservative foreign policy guru Robert Kagan, and former Bush administration official Dan Senor – has thus far kept a low profile; its only activity to this point has been to sponsor a conference pushing for a U.S. “surge” in Afghanistan.But some see FPI as a likely successor to Kristol’s and Kagan’s previous organisation, the now-defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which they launched in 1997 and which became best known for leading the public campaign to oust former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein both before and after the Sep. 11 attacks.

…

So what’s their mission statement, and what have these neocons been cooking up with the new face, their new president, Obama? The following is from an article by Jim Lobe in 2009:

The mission statement opens by listing a familiar litany of threats to the U.S., including “rogue states,” “failed states,” “autocracies” and “terrorism”, but gives pride of place to the “challenges” posed by “rising and resurgent powers,” of which only China and Russia are named.

…FPI intends to make confrontation with China and Russia the centrepiece of its foreign policy stance. If this is the case, it would mark a return to the early days of the Bush administration, before 9/11, when Kristol’s Weekly Standard took the lead in attacking Washington for its alleged “appeasement” of Beijing… FPI has chosen to push for escalating the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan. The organisation’s first event, to be held here Mar. 31, will be a conference entitled “Afghanistan: Planning for Success”.

…

For now, this is what I want you to take from the above on Obama’s Neoconistic objectives: fiercely counter China-Russia when it comes to establishing US hegemony, especially in Central and South Asia, with emphasis on Afghanistan. Next, let’s look at the strategic importance of the same region for China [All emphasis mine]:

In order for China to sustain its status as the emerging economic superpower, it must take all the necessary steps required in order to have sufficient energy resources for the near future. According to Pakistani think tank, BrassTacks, Chinese interests in the Indian Ocean became visible in 2002, when they invested heavily and began work on the Gwadar Port, located in Baluchestan, a province of Pakistan.

The Gwadar Port has its benefits for both Pakistan and China. According to Abdus Sattar Ghazali, executive editor for American Muslim Perspective, “The cost benefits to China of using Gwadar as the port for western China’s imports and exports are as evident as the long-term economic benefits to Pakistan of Gwadar becoming a port for Chinese goods.” Not only does Gwadar enable China to fulfill its energy needs, but it will also provide a strategic military footprint in the Arabian Sea, which has the United States worried.

…

Okay, now you have Obama’s Neoconistic objectives with China as its main target and competitor, and you have China competing for the same strategic area, Pakistan, to fulfill its energy needs and establish a strategic footprint in the Arabian Sea, and in the middle of it, the point where US-China strategic objectives intersect: Pakistan.

In order to halt this, the globalists need to block China’s access to the Arabian Sea by way of Gwadar. According to BrassTacks, to do this, “there needs to be a ‘new Pakistan’ as indicated in Operation Enduring Turmoil.” Operation Enduring Turmoil is PNAC’s plan to disassemble Pakistan into three parts. According to a “game plan” drawn out by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, in a 2006 article of the Armed Forces Journal, “Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren [and] would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining ‘natural’ Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.” With this done, what was once the NWFP, a province of Pakistan, is now part of Afghanistan, and what was once Baluchistan, a province of Pakistan, is now its own state, Free Baluchistan. This would force China to impossibly go through Afghanistan and Free Baluchistan in order to reach the Arabian Sea. Such an arrangement would cut China’s route to the Arabian Sea.

…

Now, please focus on our three main actors- China, US and in the middle, the strategically important Pakistan. Let’s use our common sense minus logic-clouding details, and consider what happens when the strategically crucial actor in the middle starts straying away from one main actor and moving toward the other.

This is from November, 2009:

China has sent out an interesting signal ahead of US president Barack Obama’s scheduled visit to Beijing by offering a set of advanced fighter jets to Pakistan. It has agreed to sell $1.4 billion worth of jets to Islamabad days ahead of the planned visit of the US president Barack Obama to Shanghai and Beijing on November 15-18.

The move is expected to jolt the US administration as it works on notes and talking points for Obama’s meetings with Chinese leaders. He is expected to discuss Beijing’s relationship with India and its role in internal conflicts in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Beijing is keen to reduce US influence on Pakistan, which will make it easier for it to deal with India, sources said. Washington’s recent decision to extend massive financial assistance to Islamabad is seen in some quarters as a policy setback for China.

…

A year later, in October 2010, the following interesting perspective on how things were heating up between the US and Pakistan is published by Margolis:

The neoconservative far right in Washington and its media allies again claim Pakistan is a grave threat to US interests and to Israel. Pakistan must be declawed and dismembered, insist the neocons. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is reportedly being targeted for seizure or elimination by US Special Forces. There is also talk in Washington of dividing Afghanistan into Pashtun, Tajik and Uzbek mini-states, as the US has done in Iraq, and perhaps Pakistan, as well. Little states are easier to rule or intimidate than big ones. Many Pakistanis believe the United States is bent on dismembering their nation. Some polls show Pakistanis now regard the United States as a greater enemy than India.

…

It is important to remember how Obama passed AIPAC neocons’ test on Pakistan during his presidential campaign in 2007. Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government,”If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.

Now, let’s fast-forward to early April 2011:

Pakistan’s ambassador to China used a recent celebration of his country’s Republic Day to give a rhetoric-filled talk about Beijing-Islamabad relations. If March 23, 1940, was the day the Muslim League decided to establish Pakistan, then the anniversary would be a time to declare that relations with China will define the way forward. ‘We shall take our bilateral relations to new heights,’ Masood Khan proclaimed. [...] Pakistan has been moving into China’s sphere of influence for decades and the countries routinely refer to each other as ‘all-weather’ partners.

This year will mark the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations. ‘Even when I was there in 1981, ’82, I could see Chinese military factories going up,’ says Stephen Cohen, a Pakistan expert at the Brookings Institution. Now, Pakistan represents a major market for China’s nuclear and military technology. According to SIPRI, a Swedish think tank, over 40 per cent of Chinese arms exports go to Pakistan—the largest share of any country China sells to.”

Obviously Obama’s day in day out bombing of Pakistan, his ‘let’s drone the hell out of them’ policy, had backfired, producing the opposite effect for his Neoconistic global hegemony objectives. Now, things begin to really heat up; this is from April 17, 2011:

President Obama’s rhetoric in Delhi had no substance except to rile the Pakistanis. The Delhi card didn’t quite work. The Chinese Premier visited Islamabad and pledged $20 billion in investment in Pakistan during the next five years. How about them apples? The Pakistani retort is what it has always been we need “Friends Not Masters”.

Britain as a colonial power practiced “Divide and rule” pitting religious and ethnic differences in the Middle East to rule continents. Bhutto famously theorized that the post-colonial powers were working on a “unite and rule” strategy forcing Pakistan to work with India against China.

“The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent and that of cooperation with India, with the object of promoting tension with China, equally repugnant.” Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

…

Most Pakistanis don’t want closer relations with Washington–they want to build closer relations with Beijing, and work on creating the Muslim Union (similar to the European Union) in Central Asia. Links with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey are key to the future of Pakistan.

Islamabad is moving ever closer to China, both militarily and economically– and that’s a fact Jack.

…

By mid April things start going downhill; very fast.

The transactional relationship between Washington and Islamabad is coming to an end. While US-Pakistani transactional relations are fraying at both ends, the opposite is true of Sino-Pakistani relations.

Pakistan supported China when she was recognized only by Albania, and built the bridge to the USA. This fact cannot be forgotten by the Chinese who mention it in every summit and mentioned it in this summit also

…

There is renewed energy to pace up the development of Gwadar Port to provide China a shorter route and easy excess to world markets to dispatch its goods to Europe and America.

“The Gwadar port project will transform Pakistan’s Navy into a force that can rival regional navies. The government of Pakistan has designated the port area as a “sensitive defense zone.” The Gwadar port will rank among the world’s largest deep-sea ports. The port provides China a strategic foothold in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Located at the entrance of the Persian Gulf and about 460 kms from Karachi, Gwadar has had immense Geostrategic significance on many accounts. The continued unstable regional environment in the Persian Gulf in particular as a result of the Iran/Iraq war, the Gulf war and the emergence of the new Central Asian States has added to this importance. Considering the Geo-economic imperative of the regional changes, the ADB’s Ports Master Plan studies considered an alternate to the Persian Gulf Ports to capture the transit trade of the Central Asian Republic (CAR) as well as the trans-shipment trade of the region.

…

And finally, on April 27, according to my sources, the following catalyst prompts the Obama team to execute the Kill Osama Bin Laden Script. This is the pivotal point in the Bin Laden Death Operation Script as a catalyst for the soon to come Pakistan Occupation:

Pakistan is lobbying Afghan President Hamid Karzai against building a long-term strategic partnership with the United States, and urging him instead to look to Pakistan and its ally, China, for help in striking a peace deal with the Taliban and rebuilding the economy, according to Afghan officials.

…

Washington”s relations with Pakistan have reached their lowest point in years following a series of missteps on both sides, and Pakistani officials say that they no longer have an incentive to follow the American lead in their own backyard, the report added.

“Pakistan is sole guarantor of its own interest,” said a senior Pakistani official, adding: “We”re not looking for anyone else to protect us, especially the US. If they”re leaving, they”re leaving and they should go.”

…

The next day, on April 28, , a senior Pakistani government official said that the Export-Import Bank of China will loan Pakistan $1.7 billion to develop a city-wide train system in the eastern city of Lahore.

Since the holes-filled and never-explained ‘kill or capture’ operation, the presidential PR machine, the US media and their extension guised under ‘alternative’ have been beating the war drums. After all, as with any wars of ours, public opinion must be shaped, and public backing must be garnered. This is one of the latest reflecting just that: 

After the killing of Usama bin Laden in Pakistan, few American voters believe that country is an ally of the United States in the war against terrorism. Moreover, most doubt Pakistan is worthy of continued U.S. foreign aid.

That’s according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Nearly three out of four voters — 73 percent — say the United States should stop sending foreign aid until Pakistan demonstrates a deeper commitment to the war against terrorism. Some 19 percent would continue to provide funding.

…

With the discovery that bin Laden apparently had been living in Pakistan for years, the consensus is Pakistan is not a friend (74 percent). A small 16 percent minority of voters views Pakistan as a strong U.S. ally in the war against terrorism.

…

You must be thinking: Pakistan must have tons in their own dossier to expose US government duplicities, lies, and nefarious activities. So why have they been relatively silent in all this? Why don’t they open the flood gate on ‘facts’ surrounding Bin Laden, his supposed role in 9/11, his supposed journey since 9/11, and his supposed death recently? And I have an answer for that: neither party has played all their cards yet. Just take a look at how Gates has been playing both sides carefully while measuring the outcome of various factors in play:

Gates reiterated the accusation that elements within the Pakistani government knew about the location of Osama bin Laden and were keeping that information from the United States. Bin Laden was killed in a US raid earlier this month.

At the same time, Gates echoed comments by other officials, conceding that the US has absolutely no evidence to that effect and that it is “pure supposition on our part.” The repeated accusations, despite being based on “pure supposition” have done major damage to US-Pakistan ties, and have spawned calls from Congress to suspend all aid to Pakistan to punish them.

Gates, who attended the conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, also said that the US raid that killed bin Laden had “humiliated” the Pakistani government, and that they had “paid a price” for bin Laden’s presence. Mullen added that the US ability to attack Pakistan with impunity was “a humbling experience” for the Pakistani military.

…

The White House neocons are in the midst of age-old diplomatic games, bluffing, and hedging their bets. They have the ‘foreign & military aid’ card. They have the ‘ISI dirt files’ card. They have the ‘ultimate China leaning’ card. And of course, they have the ‘mighty power of preemptive occupation war’ card which is always blessed and supported by NATO and overlooked by their butlers in the UN.

China has its own set of cards; whether it is their biggest market for dumping goods, or carrying the US debt, or who knows what else. For now they are using the ‘talk’ card with no real strings attached:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao assured his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani of China’s “all-weather friendship” on Wednesday, during a visit that sharply contrasted with anger between Washington and Islamabad.

“I wish to stress here that no matter what changes might take place in the international landscape, China and Pakistan will remain forever good neighbours, good friends, good partners and good brothers,” Wen told Gilani at the start of a meeting in central Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.

Suffice it to say that not all cards have been placed on the table. As the famous Kenny Rogers’ Gambler lyrics go:

You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.

As for us the people, we’ll be sitting and waiting for the three parties to conclude this stage of their global hegemony game. We’ll be reading and watching and listening to their PR machine in the media give us one concocted fantasy after another. As in all other wars of ours we will have zero to say, zilch to gain, and plenty to lose. They have the cards, and we are the piled up tokens on the table.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

We all tend to associate places with people or things. I guess it is part of human nature. When it comes to viewing or thinking about Texas I’ve had my ups and downs. My first encounter with the state, more than two decades ago, before I was even old enough to drink, had tons of ups: the world’s greatest BBQ (hands down!), my first and dearest pair of cowboy boots (I still have them!), and gentlemanly guys holding the door and saying ‘after you, ma’am’ (I’ve never been too feministic to not like good gentlemanly manners!). I know my criteria may sound vain and shallow, but hey, I’m being honest here, and that was ‘me’ two decades ago (I still love TX BBQ, cowboy boots and gentlemanly men). Then came the George Bush the Terrible years. It was impossible to separate Texas from the man; the state that voted for and liked him as their governor. Again, I know it is terrible to generalize like that, but I’m being ultra honest here – subconsciously I kept tying Bush the Terrible to Texas. You know, like I do with that revolting Senator named Lieberman and the ignorant majority in Connecticut that keeps electing him! That’s right; they’ve got the revolting Senator and no great BBQ or cool looking boots to compensate! (I can see my subscriber’s number going down on the CT front, but I hope some are patient enough to finish the piece before their farewell .

Sometimes we get wiser as we get older. As we get older and a bit wiser we tend to start to see many more colors between absolute black and white. By this I don’t mean the wishy-washy positions some people tend to arrive at and settle in. I am talking about the wisdom to not generalize and not stereotype. The state that voted for and supported George Bush happens to be the same state that has been electing one of the greatest US representatives- Ron Paul. The state that keeps reelecting Lieberman has had some of the best and most active organizers who have been pushing against the assaults on our civil liberties; some of whom happen to be my good friends.

Today I want to note, showcase and applaud one of the greatest moves taken by elected representatives in defense of our liberties. These men and women represent the State of Texas, and I want to applaud them for the following patriotic move:

Texas moves to ban TSA pat-downs

By Keith Laing, the Hill

Texas state lawmakers are on the verge of approving a bill to outlaw controversial airport pat-downs. The legislation makes it illegal for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents to perform hand searches at airport security checkpoints unless there is probable cause. The agents could be charged with a misdemeanor crime and receive a $4,000 fine and one year in jail.

“H.B. 1937 is a significant step forward in the protection of our constitutional and civil liberties,” Texas Rep. David Simpson (R), a sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. “Groping innocent citizens does little to enhance security, but it does much to reduce our freedom and dignity. I am very thankful that members of both parties have joined together to defend our citizens’ dignity against the TSA’s egregious screening methods.”

…

If the bill becomes law, it will likely be challenged in court. Simpson has sponsored a separate bill to ban TSA body scanners, but that measure has not been voted on yet.

…

Kudos to my Texan friends and their representatives. Keep up the good work. We hope more states will follow your lead in defense of our liberties, and do it soon!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

U.S. Government Will Adopt Gold Standard in the Next Five Years, Forbes Predicts

Return to the gold standard by the United States within the next five years now seems likely, since that move would help the nation to solve a variety of economic, fiscal and monetary ills, Steve Forbes predicted during an exclusive interview Monday with Human Events.

The only probable 2012 U.S. presidential candidate who has championed a return to the gold standard so far is Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. But the idea “makes too much sense” not to gain popularity as the U.S. economy struggles to create jobs, to recover from a housing bubble induced by the Federal Reserve’s easy-money monetary policies, to stop rising gasoline prices and to restore fiscal responsibility to U.S. government’s budget, Forbes explained.

…

You can read the rest of this article here, but what really got my attention was the irony. For years, if not decades, the mainstream media has been ridiculing Representative Ron Paul’s reasoned arguments on monetary policy, the pitfalls of fiat money and the urgency of returning to ‘backed money’-the Gold Standard. Even the idea of returning to the Gold Standard has been greeted with a gasp, the life-vest of irrational gangs- the labeling game and name calling, and foaming mouths spitting mockery and or profanity-filled adjectives:

“Soon every citizen will have the right to have their own pot of gold as we convert America to a Leprechauny! Here to advocate for this bright future, please join me in welcoming live via satellite, Congressman Ron Paul…”

Here is Megan McArdle, in 2007, ridiculing Ron Paul’s categorization of certain financial-banking institutions as ‘shadowy’ in defense of the Banking institution:

Fiat money inflation benefits those shadowy figures who receive access to artificially inflated money before the inflationary effects kick in [Ron Paul]. Those shadowy figures being the bankers who loaned it to you so that you could buy your house [Megan McArdle]…

That’s right, and those shadowy figures were also the ones who brought about the massive foreclosures of your houses! McArdle, while foaming at the mouth, called Paul’s categorization of these banking institutions, the shadowy entities, wrong, ridiculous and with few or no support within the mainstream economist colony. Oh boy, only a year later, in a June 2008 speech, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then President and CEO of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, placed significant blame for the freezing of credit markets on a “run” on the entities in the shadow banking system by their counterparties!

Well, let’s see if the mainstream will be quick to get all over Steve Forbes and many others who have been joining the Gold Standard choir. For years they had a punching bag who remained consistent in his view of the desperate need for turning our sickly monetary policy upside down and considering a return to the Gold Standard. They called it wacky, nutty, a lone wolf howling …you name it. Now I want to see them take on the expanded group of believers in the face of the mess we’ve been sinking in deeper and deeper every day. Will it happen? You tell me.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

During the last two years I have been engaging in a certain ritual each time I get together with friends or acquaintances. Usually this is how it goes: we chat about how much ‘worse’ things have gotten since Obama became president, on issues from expansion of our imperialistic wars to illegal domestic spying to fiasco-ridden bailouts to the continuation of torture and assassination programs… At some point during these intense discussions I lean over the table, look directly in my companion’s eyes and say the following: ‘Come on, admit it, and admit it loud and clear, with no ifs or buts. Say it; say I wasted my vote.’ The reaction is usually something like this: ‘I really had hopes for this guy,’ or ‘considering the other evil I didn’t have much of a choice,’ or something along these lines. But as you may know I don’t give up that easily, so I press harder: ‘whatever the reason, do you now see your vote as completely misplaced and wasted?! If so, just say it.’ To make a long story short, I usually succeed. I get them to admit, loud and clear, with each syllable emphasized: Yes! I wasted my vote.

Let me explain my intentions before you take me as someone who gets some sort of a perverse pleasure in being proved right, or, rubbing people’s noses in their mistakes. Because I don’t take any pleasure whatsoever from this particular ritual, neither do I consider myself some sort of winner in a competition. I engage in this ritual because I truly believe in ‘admitting to our fallacies’ as the first step in getting over them and or not repeating our past mistakes. It is one thing to be objective enough to criticize one’s chosen candidate, but it is a totally different ball game when we take responsibility and own up to our own role in creating or putting in place the wrong candidate. And I believe three major mistakes we as a nation repeatedly commit are the following:

1-     Buying into our Media’s Marketing Scam in Creating a ‘Viability’ Illusion

2-     Believing in & Repeating the Myth of Wasting One’s Vote

3-     The Lesser of Two Evils Mentality

Two years ago I wrote the following on the self-defeating lesser of two evils mentality, and I still stand by it:

On the issue of casting votes, one of the points I keep hearing, over and over, is that ‘I knew it even back then, but I had to choose and vote for the lesser of two evils.’

Don’t you consider this, at least to a degree, to be acceptance of ‘no hope for real change’ when it matters the most, during elections? First, to readily accept that we are limited to only choices that have been declared as ‘viable’ by the same MSM and establishment we seek to change.
Second, to helplessly adopt a mindset that says ‘evilness’ is an inevitable prerequisite for ‘viable’ candidates.

When it comes to ‘evilness,’ there is no reliable standard of measurement. Let’s say, for example, that the pre-selected options are: Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain. How do you measure their degree of ‘evilness?’ For arguments sake, let’s say there is a standard of “evilness” measurement, and when applied to these candidates you get the following data: on a scale of ‘0 to 100’ on the evilness measurement index (‘100’ being absolute evil, ‘0’ being no evil qualities), McCain ranks 98, Clinton 96, and Obama 94. Based on this do people feel justified in voting for the lesser of the ‘given’ three, even though that candidate still ranks extremely high in ‘evilness’?

And in that same article I summed up the myth of wasting one’s vote:

The second issue I want to bring up has to do with the notion shared by many: I didn’t want to ‘Waste’
“I know there are other candidates who are ‘much less evil’ and have much better track records. However, as you see, they don’t have a chance. The MSM and the establishment have either marginalized them or never acknowledged them in the first place. They have no chance, thus, I won’t ‘waste my vote and will choose between the ‘viable’ candidates declared ‘electable.’”

We don’t give those ‘better’ candidates a chance even when we believe in them and their competence. What if every one of us who’ve been active and pushing for ‘real changes’ disregarded the ‘established’ etiquette of candidate viability, went out and actually voted for the candidate we trusted ? What if by doing this that ‘nonviable’ candidate ended up with, lets’ say 15% of total votes? Granted he or she has not become the ultimate winner, elected, but what do you think that 15% would mean in the next election? Would it encourage more people to do the same, cast their vote based on what they really believe? Would it motivate better people to rise up and take on leadership? Would it help the current landscape of the MSM – promoting coverage of a ‘people’s candidate’? And finally, what if two election seasons later we get to see a ‘people’s candidate’ with 50% or more of votes cast?

Now, let’s talk about our ‘dependent’ media’s viability criteria when it comes to political candidates, since this may very well be the major factor shaping the other two fallacies. After all, they, the media, package, market and sell the two candidates deemed and stamped as viable by their bosses. I am saying ‘let’s talk about,’ since I want this to be a discussion with you as participants. I want us to look at previous ‘viable candidates’ we put in high office guided by the media’s systematic vote-shaping marketing scams, and I would like us to take note of how they currently are setting the stage for their bosses’ choice of ultimate finalists this time around. We are going to list ingredients that go into the establishment’s chosen viable candidate, and dissect the anatomy of a viable candidate. I’ll start the discussion and let you continue and expand upon it.

Last February I came across a selectively picked and rather contained quasi debate posted at the Politico site on the viability of Republican candidates post CPAC. What caught my attention was not so much the quasi experts and agenda-driven analysts who are in on this marketing scam, but the terminology and adjectives long-used by our media to systematically shape the direction of election votes. I am talking about words and adjectives that become glued to candidates to create the myth or illusion of viability or non-viability which then, after being repeated thousands, no millions of times, become accepted reality by the unknowing majority. For this case, I am going to use Ron Paul as the perfect example. Here are a few phrases of ‘non-viable’ rhetoric with catch-words emphasized:

Paul’s occasional embrace of seemingly bizarre issues has created the impression among most voters that he is a fringe candidate… Dr. Paul would be hard pressed to be viewed as a viable candidate for president.

These voters see Dr. Paul as an outsider holding fringe views. Although the voters probably have more in common with Dr. Paul than not, they already have a soured view of him – a condition that isn’t likely to change.

…

He clearly has a niche among the electorate… I wouldn’t expect him to be the GOP nominee

…

Of course Ron Paul can never be elected president. He’s a quirky, schoolmarm-ish eccentric whose quixotic tangents – like a return to the gold standard – are too far removed from the average person’s day-to-day concerns. And he looks more like the clerk at a hardware store than a president.

…

No one can argue that Ron Paul had a real following in pockets of the country, but he has no chance in another presidential run…

…

He has a track record of wacky statements going back 30 years, and bizarre and racist associations… It’s tragic that the national hopes of libertarian conservatism are lodged in such an imperfect vessel as Ron Paul…

…

Ron Paul has some strong and populist views on issues that are unlikely to sweep him into office.

…

Ron Paul would make a great Republican presidential candidate…if he was running in 1924. Come to think of it, he does have that dry Calvin Coolidge routine down pat.

…

In the next year or so we’ll witness the following adjectives being attached to Ron Paul over and over, every day, and a hundred or more times a day: Not Viable, Fringe, Marginal, Eccentric, Nutty, Quack, Old, Ugly, Racist, Extremist, Radical, Sexist…

There are certain qualities that go completely against the opinion-shapers’ viability propaganda rules. Let’s list a few;

Consistency

Consistency is a major no-no when it comes to candidate viability as determined by the establishment and its media. A flip-flopping and contradictory statement-action record is viewed as a Must; it is considered a necessary characteristic of a good politician. Obama’s inconsistency is viewed and presented as a sign of him being a savvy politician. As a senator he supports NSA illegal wiretapping and protects the participating businesses, then he says he will stand against it and stop it as a president, and then, as president he continues and expands it. There you have it: a masterful politician. Now, Ron Paul has been exhibiting the opposite, and that is a problem; that makes him not politician-like and a fringe. How could he be so courageous (Radical) as to stand against the PATRIOT ACT and other similar police state practices when doing so was so politically unpopular! And, remain that way?! That is just craziness! Now apply that to the same consistent positions on NSA illegal wiretapping, FBI National Security Letters …How so boring, thus not viable!

War & The Military Industrial Complex

Let’s admit it: if you are not indebted to the Military Industrial Complex, thus, not committed to war, interventionism and imperialistic expansion, you are simply crazy, unrealistic, and simply not presidential material. Those drones, the bombs, the F-16s, tanks and armor cannot sit on shelves as un-liquidated inventory surplus, or even worse, unmade. That’s the position of the Military Industrial Complex and its tentacles and advocates in the US media. Now, you get a man who has consistently opposed wars, throughout his political career, who has been known as Anti War throughout his life, a man who calls war a racket, and you have a man considered not viable. To not make it sound what it is, anti-war, since that has some positive connotations, they’ll simply make him out to be a nutcase.

Powerful Foreign Lobby Influence-Israel

An absolute commitment to US interests and respect for all human life regardless of ethnicity or race is not tolerated if it gets in the way of certain powerful nation’s interests and lobby, and this applies mainly to Israel. No viable candidate in his or her right mind would criticize or speak against the interests of Israel that are in conflict with American’s interests. This is considered one of the most important 10 commandments of political viability, and those who dare to challenge it are stamped as Anti-Semitic Radicals. Ron Paul has dared, and dared this viability commandment consistently; in words and in actions, and that my friend is another sacred no-no no establishment candidate may cross.  

Constitutionality, Small Government & True Americanism

Today, our founding fathers, our first few presidents, would be considered absolutely Not Viable. Think about it, how could the men who said and did everything in their power to restrain government’s powers, advocated and fought for small government, and warned against the danger of big government and government becoming the domestic enemy of our Constitution, be considered viable by the military industrial complex, financial institution-federal reserve, powerful foreign lobbies, and of course, the government itself?! The same people, these same opinion shapers, who call Ron Paul a radical anarchist, would have used those same exact adjectives against the architects of our Constitution, and declared them all non-viable.

I am not going to try to make too many points, and I am not sitting here advocating and campaigning. You can switch the name to Kucinich or Nader, and see similar adjectives and labeling come pouring. Too short, too ugly, too strict, too naïve, way too radical, not politician enough, crazy, nutcase, eccentric, anal, ugly, old, uncharismatic…Instead, let’s flip this trend, and list what goes into a ‘viable’ candidate’s anatomy as far as the establishment, the same establishment that has gotten us into perpetual wars, illegal domestic spying practices, trillions in deficit and a tanking economy… is concerned.

I’ll start the list and have you add your items in the comments section:

Inconsistent & Convenient Flip Flopper

A Good Actor & a Great Pathological Liar (Think ‘Change, Change, Change’;-)

Indebted to the Military Industrial Complex

Committed to Perpetual Wars & Imperialistic Foreign Policy Practices

A Major Advocate of Big Government

Approved & Supported by the Israel Lobby

Polished & Groomed by the Political Marketing Industry

Disregard for the Constitution and or Savvy in Bypassing the Constitution

Trusted & Counted On by Financial Conglomerates & the Secret Federal Reserve 

There. You now have my initial list of US Political Market’s Viability Criteria. Please treat it as a starter, and add yours.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Tom Woods joins us to discuss his latest article on the Phony Arguments for Presidential War Powers which has triggered intriguing reactions from the media on both sides of the isle. He provides us with historical background and a ‘real’ constitutional view of war making powers vested in US presidents, and tells us why the mainstream, left and right, usually proclaims the congressional power to declare war  “obsolete.” Dr. Woods defines ‘State Nullification,’ provides us with examples and an historical context for this power vested in the states, and counters uninformed arguments and generalizations spread by the mainstream on this topic. He talks about the Federal Reserve and the disastrous government bailout, the polarized and sound-bite oriented media, the labeling of critics of the status quo,  the case of the states and medical marijuana, the man most responsible for the beginning of the  imperial presidency in the US, and more!

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is the author of eleven books, most recently Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse and Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. His other books include The New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, as well as Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (with Kevin R.C. Gutzman). Dr. Woods’ writing has appeared in dozens of popular and scholarly periodicals, including the American Historical Review, the Christian Science Monitor, Investor’s Business Daily, Modern Age, American Studies, New Oxford Review, Catholic World Report, and Journal of Libertarian Studies. He is presently a contributing editor of The American Conservative magazine, and a contributor to six encyclopedias. He publishes regularly at his website http://tomwoods.com.

Here is our guest Tom Woods unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Isn’t it good to see a joint focus on macro issues and real diseases? Even better, to see micro differences and lame sideshows put aside for the badly needed greater good? What do ‘you’ think?

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

My last ‘Boiling Frogs Beltway Buzz’ seems to have caused some unexpected reaction. First, it started several e-mails from the media asking whether they could contact my sources on Jefferson-Franklin being placed on the DHS-TSA Watch List, or, whether I’d recorded my interview with John Pistole. I mean serious inquiries people! Next, I was bombarded with hundreds of e-mails from readers asking whether this was a satirical piece or factual, or, expressing outrage over our Founding Fathers being placed on the Terror Watch List. I was truly taken aback. I didn’t know whether to laugh or to sit down and sob!! I even e-mailed a few BFP partners and asked whether I should add an update spelling out the nature of my ‘Boiling Frogs Beltway Buzz’ series; a mixture of hard facts and satirical comments too close to the ugly truths involving the sorry state of our nation’s governance. Finally this: A Personal Appeal from Wikipedia editors and authors:

Sometimes checking sources when reviewing a contribution isn’t enough. This one fooled the contributing editor and me:

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/11/22/boiling-frogs-beltway-buzz-dhs-tsa-terror-watch-list-includes-dead-long-dead-us-citizens/ –96.20.108.210 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

…

It’s not a legitimate article, that is the bottom line. Are these articles published by any legitimate publication, or just by her, on her website (hint: that means it’s a blog).

This article is unacceptable the same way The Onion shouldn’t be used to source news. Now, either you don’t see that and really think this is legitimate, or you have a conflict of interest, in which case you should not be editing articles that would be affected by that interest in a manner such as this.

…

I won’t get into the debate over whether her blog is in general an appropriate source for Wikipedia, but that particular post is clearly tongue-in-cheek and should not be used as a source. –GenericBob (talk

I emailed the author, this was her response:

In a message dated 11/27/2010 4:48:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jp_boucher@hotmail.com writes: Is the article on Jefferson and Franklin being on the US terror watch list a satire?

Greetings,

The part on Franklin & Jefferson, and the interview: satire. The rest, including the part with names of US dead people not being removed (updated) from watch lists: is real. –96.20.108.210 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Best, Sibel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.108.210 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As embarrassing and diminishing the above is, I thought I should share this anyway, my apologies to those I’ve doubted in this matter. Rest assured however that no vandalism was intended. –96.20.108.210 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sorry if I came across as overly harsh, I just found it hard to believe that anyone could see that ‘interview’ as anything but satire. E. Fokker (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

…

I am glad all that was straightened out, but still, one minute I’m smiling-even chuckling about it, and the next minute I shake my head in sadness and wonder about all the implications.

The introduction and the part about dead US persons’ names remaining on the list(s) as a result of lack of an updating mechanism and oversight is absolutely factual. I just took it one step further using the fitting national security state rationale: today, many if not all US Founding Fathers would be considered threats to the government and what it pretends to be ‘national security.’ Today those men would be facing FBI National Security Letters, and subjected to all sorts of harassments, including placement on various terror watch lists.  The saddest part: this is our (rightfully so) level of distrust in our current police state rulers, yet, we are still sitting and taking it. Today, if the Franklin-Jefferson points were to be a proven truth, outside some frustrated moaning and remarks we’d be doing nothing; absolutely nothing in terms of any action. And, that’s the part that makes me want to sit and sob.

……………………………………………………………………….

A Brief Field Report from Reagan National Airport on Nov 24 Opt-Out Day

Even though I was not flying, on Wednesday Nov 24 I showed up at Reagan National Airport to help hand out flyers and support those who were there to opt out. I’d contacted Steve Bierfeldt, one of the Opt-Out organizers, and was told to meet at 2:30 to receive flyers and obtain an airport permit. I got there on time, and spent two hours or so walking in circles in my ‘designated’ area between Terminals B & C while handing out 500 or so flyers. Guess who were the people who showed up taking up this task for this DC airport event during my shift? Not the ACLU groups. Not the members of various known NGOs we’ve been hearing from. No. Every single person I saw who participated in this particular Opt Out support & awareness activity was a member of Ron Paul activist groups. Yes. So let me say a few words about this impressive and dedicated group before I provide you with a very brief summary of my firsthand experience:

This was not my first encounter or experience with Ron Paul activists in my region. I had attended a few of their meetings in 2007-2008. In this recent encounter I was again so very impressed by these dedicated, passionate and articulate people; they help revive my sense of long-dimming optimism. They met every single ‘P’ factor in the effective and positive activism recipe book. What do I mean by ‘P’ factors? Here is a list of a few:

Planning: Despite the short time frame the group organized meeting(s) and communication lines for the event.

Prompt: The organizer showed up when he said he was going to show up, so did the group members.

Prepared: They had the material organized and printed out (in sufficient quantities). They had reviewed airport rules, and prepared accordingly.

Professional & Polite: Whether during communication with airport officials or media representatives or the passengers (flyer recipients every one adhered to a professional and polite protocol; at all times.

I can keep going and add other equally applicable ‘P’ factors such as ‘passionate’ and ‘persistent,’ but I am sure you get the picture; at least my impression(s) of Ron Paul Revolution activists. Those of you who know me well know that I am highly critical with fairly high expectations when it comes to people, groups, organizations, NGOs, etc. Those of you who are semi-familiar with me, by now you must have a pretty good idea as to my nonpartisan stand and my refusal to subscribe to any particular brand. So I hope you realize that I am not writing my genuine impression of this group as either a recruiter, or, an advertiser, or, a favor, or… I am just sharing my experience and observations. In addition, remember the piece I wrote a few months ago on ‘Pretty Words & Same-O-Same-O’?? Okay, I am going to take back a little bit of what I wrote there:

The problem is, at least to me, that almost the entire membership of our current irate minority has assumed one title, and one title only: educators. Activism has been narrowed and reduced to one line of activity – producing words: writing-blogs, alternative means of communication, and, talking. Words, words, many words; pretty words, good words, big words, intellectually enriched words, academically induced words, mumbo words, jumbo words…words words everywhere.

…

Okay, back to me being tired; make it exhausted. I am surrounded with good friends and acquaintances who have been talking and writing, and of course, reading and listening to other comrade talkers and writers. Most of them are great people, and I like them. A few of them are less likable due to their own doings – disposition-intellectual snubs – but nonetheless, they mostly make sense in their writing-talking presentations. So I’ve been reading their work, one after another, and, I’ve been listening to them. I find many of their analyses, whether on civil liberties or foreign policy or whatever, to be sound, right on target, or at least interesting and worth considering. But every time I am exposed to their audience-readers, I keep seeing the same people: the already-knowledgeable vigilant small group of sods – which includes colleagues who also write-speak similar words. And, that circle of audience ain’t growing. Neither is the dynamic moving towards, getting translated to any action, or anything even resembling any action. And, we are where we are; in a place worse than it was a year ago, and far worse than where it was three years before that.

…

I am taking a little bit of those statements back, because these people, at least the Ron Paul activists I have observed, are doing more than talk-talk-talk or write-write-write or blog-blog-blog. They’ve been working hard and have been consistent and persistent. I applaud them, more importantly, I do support many of their novel causes and related activities when it comes to civil liberties and to a certain degree foreign policy objectives.

Now, the short bit about my experience at DCA, starting with the depressing aspect:

Give or take a few I provided 500 flyers to 500 or so people. Many quickly discarded the flyers while guiltily looking around for all those uniformed TSA bystanders who interestingly congregated around those who were handing out flyers. I’d say at least 15 people openly accused me of either being a terrorist myself, or, supporting the terrorists. To quote a few:
 

‘You people are terrorists!’

‘Shame on you…shame on you for supporting and helping terrorists’

‘Do you realize you are helping those terrorists out there by doing this?!’

‘Shame on you!’

Only two individuals stopped by to provide positive feedback; to say ‘Right on! Thank you for doing this,’ and ‘please keep it up.’

Now you have to understand this is Washington DC we are talking about. Just remember the millions who are either working for the Federal government or as their contractors; okay? Easier said than done, ey?! I was a bit depressed (to put it mildly), but then, then came the positive part(s). Based on what I read afterwards the number of air travelers for TG Day showed a fairly substantial decline. I had noticed the lack of chaos and incredibly light traffic at DCA, but had no way of establishing any conclusion based on my few hours’ worth of observation. I guess this was a way for some Americans to join our Opt Out; they chose not to fly- a very good choice, indeed.

Note- Many of you have been asking me about the recent Wikileaks points, especially those on Turkey. I’ve been reading; reading a lot and going over as many documents as I can. So far I have not seen anything worth analyzing or talking about. I think it is too soon. They haven’t released most of these communications…so let’s wait and see what transpires.  Sibel

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

 Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation’s airports. We have seen the videos of terrified children being grabbed and probed by airport screeners. We have read the stories of Americans being subjected to humiliating body imaging machines and/or forced to have the most intimate parts of their bodies poked and fondled. We do not know the potentially harmful effects of the radiation emitted by the new millimeter wave machines.

Imagine if the political elites in our country were forced to endure the same conditions at the airport as business travelers, families, senior citizens, and the rest of us. Perhaps this problem could be quickly resolved if every cabinet secretary, every member of Congress, and every department head in the Obama administration were forced to submit to the same degrading screening process as the people who pay their salaries.

You can read the rest here.

Here is the video clip:
 

And here is an excellent clip summing up the Police State USA for American Travelers:
 

Just a reminder: I’ll be at Reagan National Airport on November 24^th. Let me know if you are planning to be there. I am looking forward to meeting you in person!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Here is a clip from a recent speech by Congressman Ron Paul on the CIA:

There’s been a coup – have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything! They run the military .. and they’re every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. And yet, think of the harm they have done since they were established at the end of World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators… We need to take out the CIA!

I don’t remember ever hearing any politician, elected official, putting these points out so very boldly, unapologetically, and fearlessly.

Let’s face it: Has there ever been anything good, anything positive, associated with this dark agency? Some may say ‘Hey, we don’t get to know of the good they do, or have done, because it would be all secret!’ Really? I mean really? Despite all the secrecy we’ve gotten to know about hundreds of flops, abuses, shady businesses, atrocious murders and assassinations, human rights violations – torture, kidnappings, renditions…With that sort of no logic-logic, you’d think their intended secrecy would prevent us from knowing about these horrendous disasters and the criminal conduct they commit around the world in our name and with our money. And, that they’d leak all sorts of heroic and good deeds (if they ever existed) to gloat about and take credit for. No?

If you were to go around the world and take a survey on what is it that most people hate about the United States, you’d hear the word ‘CIA’ as the answer given by many. Or if the answer is ‘US Foreign Policy’ and that answer is probed further, you’d see that mainly it comes down to the CIA and their dark operations conducted around the world in the last 6 decades or so. I know a little bit about this, having lived in various countries. It’s never been ‘the Americans,’ or ‘the American way of life,’ or … So do we really see this agency and its dark conduct as the representation of who we Americans are, what we believe, and how we want to treat the rest of the world? Do you?

Okay, now it is your turn. Please tell us what you think?

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

And here we are: 2010. Hope you had a pleasant and peaceful holiday season, and Happy New Year to all of you.

I had a fairly quiet and peaceful few days: fireplace, music, and trying to catch up with my reading – which means juggling 3 or 4 books simultaneously. Of course everything, almost every minute, was centered around my now 17-month old daughter (thus, the picture . I also was able to read one fiction book; from beginning to end, and that was so very refreshing. I know some of you are frowning and thinking: why in the world would she consider reading fiction refreshing?! Fair enough. I say refreshing because for the last…many years I’ve been busy reading, and reading, only nonfiction, and mainly political and legal books. Although needed, enlightening, and highly informative, they are mostly…how should I put it…GRIM; high dosages of realism, but nonetheless grim. So in a way it felt liberating to grab a fiction work guiltlessly and immerse myself in a so-not-real world of fiction. What did I read? Well, I won’t tell you, because the label of ‘shallow-book-reader’ may be used against me one day!!

Our production team will start their work on our video project on January 11.  I think we should have our first experimental piece up by early February, if not sooner. I also know they’ll be reading this last sentence and jump to e-mail me with ‘How is that for a little pressure?!!!’ Truly exciting.

Next Friday I’ll post our interview with Dan Ellsberg; a great interview (due to Dan, not me!).I am really looking forward to your reaction. We covered several interesting issues, and you’ll find out if Dan Ellsberg believes he was conned into voting for President Obama, and whether that makes Obama a con man. You see, very interesting, indeed!

As usual there have been so many disasters, scandals, and hot developments, and only one of me to go over as many as possible, leave out those overly-covered, dispose of the ones not worthy of getting side-tracked on, ignore the few put out there as partisan baits, and save many for another day(s). Here are a few to ponder and hopefully exchange views on:

CIA Black Sites: As if there’s ever been any other color associated with the CIA!

Towards late December the Lithuanian Parliament finally released its findings into a probe of CIA dark activities in Lithuania, and confirmed that the agency operated two ‘Black Sites’ inside the Lithuanian Capital City Vilnius.

The probe also confirmed that at least five CIA planes landed in the city and that Lithuania’s spy agencies didn’t let their border guards inspect those planes. Lithuania’s government is still denying that they were informed of these activities in advance, and Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius called it a “matter of great concern.” Of course, so far the US government has declined to provide any confirmation or comments.

Last August a little bit of description of these sites and the treatment given to these detainees were published in an article:

Their transformations took place in a sensory cocoon: aboard a CIA aircraft, shackled in place, deprived of sight and sound by blindfolds, headsets and hoods.

…

The prisoners’ arrival — almost always in diapers — was engineered to achieve that end

…

They were stripped, shaved and shoved against walls the moment they arrived. What came next was an escalating menu of interrogation options, culminating in a method used in the Inquisition — waterboarding — to make them think they would drown.

…

Follow-up sessions would start with the prisoner standing with his back against a wall and a towel or collar to prevent whiplash wrapped around his neck. He could be thrown against the wall just once “to make a point, or 20 to 30 times consecutively.”

Prisoners so abhorred the repeated slamming that they would remain in so-called stress positions, such as painful kneeling postures, for hours to avoid a return to the wall, according to one Dec. 30, 2004, memo that amounts to a CIA blueprint for breaking a detainee’s will.

…

The purpose, of course, was to make them talk. The Bush administration said the United States was in danger of additional assaults after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. CIA interrogators were under orders to get a lot of information, fast. Whether the harsh interrogation methods were necessary to gather the intelligence is still a matter of dispute.

The only glimpse?

The secret overseas “black sites” where the CIA conducted the interrogations are empty now, if not already dismantled. They were never examined by a congressional committee, nor inspected by the international Red Cross.

…

The black sites not only imprisoned men but reduced them to a near helpless state. The aim, as outlined in one document, was to teach every detainee “to perceive and value his personal welfare, comfort and immediate needs more than the information he is protecting.”

I don’t have to go any further on the human rights abuses and shameful conduct in not only the ‘black’ facilities in Lithuania, but many others we’ve known about, such as those in Thailand, Poland, and Romania, and others that haven’t been publicized – yet.

Based on Wikipedia, Black Sites are defined as: In military terminology, a black site is a location at which a black project is conducted. Recently, the term has gained notoriety in describing secret prisons operated by the CIA, generally outside of U.S. territory and legal jurisdiction. It can refer to the facilities that are controlled by the CIA used by the US government in its war on terror to detain alleged unlawful enemy combatants.

In August 2007, the New Yorker reported that the CIA has operated black site secret prisons by the direct Presidential order of Bush right after 9/11, and that extreme psychological interrogation measures based at least partially on the Vietnam-Era Phoenix Program were used on detainees. These included sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, keeping prisoners naked indefinitely and photographing them naked to degrade and humiliate them, and forcibly administering drugs by suppositories to further break down their dignity. According to Mayer’s report, CIA officers have taken out professional liability insurance, fearing that they could be criminally prosecuted if what they have already done became public knowledge.

Okay, there you have the CIA and its Black Projects, Black Operations, Black Sites, Black Budget…Has there ever been any shade other than dark, any color other than black associated with this filthy hornets’ nest thriving in the swamps of our foreign policies? Really, has there ever?

Speaking of these black measures of black operations in black sites brings to mind our conduct in Vietnam, and with that, the following:

CIA & the Vicious Cycle of Offenses-Defenses-Offenses-Defenses-Offenses…

The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan continues to rise. The latest attack in Helmand province this week killed at least 8 civilians, and at least three of those victims were children.

Here are a few excerpts and links of the disturbing facts, based on statements given by NATO which keep changing:

Initially NATO officials insisted there were no operations going on in Kunar at all, though later they privately admitted US special forces were in the area. This story morphed into claims that it was a US military operation that killed an “IED cell” and that they had no proof of any civilian deaths.

Now, NATO says the operation was not military in nature, but rather was a “sanctioned” operation conducted by “non-military Americans” and that the children were all killed in self defense.

Whether “non-military Americans” entails contractors, like Blackwater, or CIA agents as were attacked yesterday in Khost remains to be seen. It is clear however that there is more than meets the eye to these killings, which locals insist involved the killers dragging the children out of bed and even handcuffing some of them before shooting them.

Maybe when one engages in these kinds of ‘offenses’ one ends up getting these types of ‘defenses’ in return:

The CIA base attacked by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan this week was at the heart of a covert program overseeing strikes by the agency’s remote-controlled aircraft along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, officials familiar with the installation said Thursday.

…

What do you think? Maybe? Then, how about this: When one engages in these kinds of ‘offenses’ one ends up getting these types of ‘defenses’, which then makes one engage in even ‘more offenses.’ Here is what I mean:
 

Even as the C.I.A. expands its role in Afghanistan, it is also playing a greater role in quasi-military operations elsewhere, using drone aircraft to launch a steady barrage of missile strikes in Pakistan and sending more operatives to Yemen to assist local officials in their attempts to roll back Al Qaeda’s momentum in that country.

…

When he took office in January, President Obama scaled back the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism mission, but only to a point. He ordered that C.I.A. prisons be shut and that C.I.A officers no longer play a role in interrogating suspects accused of terrorist acts.At the same time, the administration has accelerated the C.I.A.’s drone campaign, using Predator and Reaper aircraft to launch missiles and rockets against militants in Pakistan.

In early 2009, the White House approved a C.I.A. plan to expand the drone operations in Pakistan into Baluchistan, where top leaders of Afghanistan’s Taliban militia are thought to be hiding. The agency has also recently begun sending more operatives into Pakistan to, among other things, gather target intelligence for the drone program.

So where and when will this offenses-defenses-offenses-defenses…cycle stop?

The Case of the Mysterious Foreign Helicopters

The following interesting story was brought to my attention by our regular commenter Metem, whom I’ve grown to depend upon when it comes to getting a heads up on interesting but usually buried stories:

For several weeks now, Afghanistan has been consumed by stories of mysterious “foreign helicopters” ferrying Taliban fighters to a new front in northern Afghanistan. These helicopters are alleged by no less than President Karzai to belong to “foreign powers” such as the United States and its allies. The helicopters are said to land in remote regions, but their activity has supposedly been noted by nomads who travel through the deserts of Baghlan and Kunduz province (Hasht-e Sobh, October 13).

Without mentioning guilty parties or offering evidence, President Karzai suggested the reports of helicopters delivering terrorists to north Afghanistan were true, saying, “We have received reliable reports from our intelligence service. We have received reliable reports from our people, and today I received a report that these efforts [to transfer Taliban fighters] are also being made mysteriously in the northwest. The issue of helicopters has also been proved. We do not make any more comments now and investigations are under way to see to whom and to which foreign country these helicopters belong” (Tolo TV, October 11). According to Karzai, the “unknown” helicopters had been taking Taliban fighters to Baghlan, Kunduz and Samangan provinces in northern Afghanistan. The president’s remarks were quickly followed by a call from the Lower House speaker, Muhammad Yunis Qanuni, for a government debate on the issue. “When the president of Afghanistan, as the first man of the country, is raising a fact and a problem, then it shows that the problem is important and serious.”

…

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai’s former rival for the presidency, accuses the Afghan government of being behind the transfer of Taliban fighters to the northern provinces. “They have sent to the north of the country the most evil people, the most notorious and criminal people who are involved in killing the people of Afghanistan and crime against the people of Afghanistan… I have the names of these people; they sent them to the north by helicopters so that they carry out their mission. Is this a government?” (Tolo TV, October 11).

…

It’s a very interesting article. I suggest you visit the site and read the entire piece, and let us know what you make of it. And, as always, many thanks to Metem!

Video: Congressman Ron Paul

Here is Ron Paul on the latest assaults on our civil liberties using the latest incident as an excuse, our offenses in Yemen, our hypocrisy-ridden foreign policy, and more:

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Not much in terms of site updates on this week’s Boiling Frogs Round Up. If you haven’t listened to our interview with Pepe Escobar, please do; click here.

Last week I failed to bring to your attention an interesting and noteworthy interview:

Peter B Collins interviewed David Krikorian, challenger to GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt of Ohio, on Schmidt’s efforts to squelch Krikorian’s First Amendment rights and the infamous Turkish Lobby’s covert and overt influence of Schmidt’s campaign. Krikorian ran against Mean Jean in 2008 and got 17% of the vote as an independent. After he announced he would challenge her again in 2010 as a Democrat, Schmidt filed legal actions over Krikorian’s sharp criticism of her support from Turkish interests. Schmidt’s lawyer is Bruce Fein, an erstwhile friend of the PBC show for his support of impeachment for Bush and Cheney; Fein is counsel to the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund and an apologist for Turkey’s denial of the Armenian genocide.

This is a very interesting, and informative interview. You can listen to it here at Peter B Collins’ website. I’m looking forward to your feedback on this; many of you know why.

Rep. Ron Paul on the Escalation in Afghanistan

Congressman Ron Paul has written an excellent editorial piece on our war in Afghanistan and President Obama’s escalation plans now in full action. As always he makes his points clearly and sincerely: No beating around the bush, no gobbledygook stuff, and no special interests or agenda to serve.

Dr. Paul hits some of the most important key words and phrases: Perpetual War, seeking out monsters to destroy abroad, Military Industrial Complex, the War Lobby, bypassing the Constitution, nebulous & never-ending conflicts, domestic liberties, nation-building, war-racketeers…Here are a couple of excerpts:

If anyone still doubted that this administration’s foreign policy would bring any kind of change, this week’s debate on Afghanistan should remove all doubt. The president’s stated justifications for sending more troops to Afghanistan and escalating the war amount to little more than recycling all the false reasons we began the conflict. It is so discouraging to see this coming from our new leadership, when the people were hoping for peace. New polls show that 49 percent of the people favor minding our own business on the world stage, up from 30 percent in 2002. Perpetual war is not solving anything. Indeed continually seeking out monsters to destroy abroad only threatens our security here at home as international resentment against us builds. The people understand this and are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being heard by the decision-makers. The leaders say some things the people want to hear, but change never comes.

We now find ourselves in another foreign policy quagmire with little hope of victory, and not even a definition of victory. Eisenhower said that only an alert and informed electorate could keep these war racketeering pressures at bay. He was right, and the key is for the people to ensure that their elected leaders follow the Constitution. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress in order to legitimately go to war. Bypassing this critical step makes it far too easy to waste resources on nebulous and never-ending conflicts. Without clear goals, the conflicts last forever and drain the country of blood and treasure. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war precisely because they feared allowing the executive unfettered discretion in military affairs. They understood that making it easy for leaders to wage foreign wars would threaten domestic liberties.

I don’t know about you but I for one always seem to find myself agreeing with Dr. Paul’s view on our foreign policy and the destructiveness of the long-in-power war party. You can read the brief but effective piece here. What do you think?
 

President Obama: Staunch Supporter of our Domestic Enemies?

It certainly appears that way. He’s been vehemently supporting the Patriot Act and its architects & defenders; he’s been relentlessly protecting the previous administrations’ wrongdoers and culprits involved in rendition and torture…And now this: White House wants suit against Yoo dismissed

The Obama administration has asked an appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing former Bush administration attorney John Yoo of authorizing the torture of a terrorism suspect, saying federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers who advise the president on national security issues.
…

Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor, worked for the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003. He was the author of a 2002 memo that said rough treatment of captives amounts to torture only if it causes the same level of pain as “organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.” The memo also said the president may have the power to authorize torture of enemy combatants.

We’ve been writing and talking about many cases, issues, and points where Obama has been supporting, defending, and continuing the Bush administration’s practices and abuses. Now can we think of any cases, examples, or issues where he, Obama, has actually been opposing or challenging the previous administration’s decisions, policies, or practices? In the Human Rights area? Our civil liberties? War(s)? I didn’t think so either…

The Revolving Doors Keeps Revolving

The revolving door phenomenon has always ranked high among my list of core issues at the heart of diseases that have been inflicted on and metastasized in our nation. A while ago I wrote a piece on this issue titled: The Auctioning of Former Statesmen & Dime a Dozen Generals . Well, here is a recent relevant article on this same disease:

The Army used a loophole in federal ethics law to award lucrative contracts to two recently retired generals, departing from its standard practice for hiring senior advisers, according to public records and interviews.

During the past two years, the Army wanted to bring back two former generals, John Vines and Dan McNeill, to advise commanders as part of its “senior mentor” program. But the service’s program is run by a defense contractor, Northrop Grumman, and federal ethics law prohibits newly retired senior employees from representing a company before their former agency for one year.

That “cooling off” period is designed to prohibit “acts by former government employees which may reasonably give the appearance of making unfair use of prior government employment,” according to ethics regulations. The Army found a way around the rule. Instead of hiring them as defense company subcontractors, as it does for roughly two dozen other Army mentors, the service contracted directly with McNeill and Vines. McNeill received his contract after the Army wrote specific bid solicitations that applied to him and perhaps a few other retired generals. Vines received contracts without competition, records show.

All told, the Army paid McNeill $281,625 from December 2008 through August 2009, federal records show. McNeill told USA Today he also consults for defense firms but declined to name them. He isn’t required to tell the Army about them, either.

Anyway; here is the link to the rest of this Army Times article.

Down the Police State Lane

On Monday I’ll be posting my belated Part IV of The Makings of a Police State series. Meanwhile, here is another item, an additional ingredient, to be added to our boiling pot: Homeland Security Embarks on Big Brother Programs to Read Our Minds and Emotions:

This past February, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) awarded a one-year, $2.6 million grant to the Cambridge, MA.-based Charles Stark Draper Laboratory to develop computerized sensors capable of detecting a person’s level of “malintent” — or intention to do harm. It’s only the most recent of numerous contracts awarded to Draper and assorted research outfits by the U.S. government over the past few years under the auspices of a project called “Future Attribute Screening Technologies,” or FAST. It’s the next wave of behavior surveillance from DHS and taxpayers have paid some $20 million on it so far.

Conceived as a cutting-edge counter-terrorism tool, the FAST program will ostensibly detect subjects’ bad intentions by monitoring their physiological characteristics, particularly those associated with fear and anxiety. It’s part of a broader “initiative to develop innovative, non-invasive technologies to screen people at security checkpoints,” according to DHS.

The “non-invasive” claim might be a bit of a stretch. A DHS report issued last December outlined some of the possible technological features of FAST, which include “a remote cardiovascular and respiratory sensor” to measure “heart rate, heart rate variability, respiration rate, and respiratory sinus arrhythmia,” a “remote eye tracker” that “uses a camera and processing software to track the position and gaze of the eyes (and, in some instances, the entire head),” “thermal cameras that provide detailed information on the changes in the thermal properties of the skin in the face,” and “a high resolution video that allows for highly detailed images of the face and body … and an audio system for analyzing human voice for pitch change.”
…

 
I’ll stop quoting here and urge you to go and read about this mind boggling plan. Once, if, when, it kicks in you may want to think twice before consuming your daily triple shot lattes before your departures. Ladies, you may want to plan departure dates based on your monthly cycle, since some of us know how our body temperature and blood pressure tend to fluctuate crazily during certain times of the month; those of you going through pre-menopause or menopause, you may want to consider not flying all together… I mean come on people; is this for real??!!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Around 1:00 p.m. on March 9, 2009 I stood in front of the US Air ticket counter in Ft Myers, Florida, and sighed with relief. I had just checked in two suitcases and had an hour and fifteen minutes before boarding my plane to Washington, DC. I was relieved because it is no simple task to make it this far with a teething seven month old baby, two suitcases, a carry on bag, and a diaper bag. However, I was counting my chickens too early.

I joined a fairly long line at the entrance of the TSA security screening station, and did a quick inventory of preparations needed to make it to the other side: My infant girl was securely nestled against my chest inside her baby carrier; I had no liquids in the diaper bag or elsewhere, and that included the bottled water I would need to fix her formula later while on the plane (I had enough time to purchase the water on the other side); I was wearing fairly easy to remove trainers, knowing the difficulty of removing shoes while carrying my infant and holding my boarding passes and drivers license…Basically, based on the Transportation Security Agency’s (TSA) posted rules, I was all set, or so I thought.

I bent over, removed my trainers and placed them on the screening belt. By this time I could sense my infant daughter’s tension from the way she was holding on to me. I couldn’t blame her; with the suffocating congestion of hassled and rushed people in the line closing in on her, the sound of screaming TSA officers reciting the rules at the security check point’s entrance ‘make sure you remove your shoes…’ ‘place all your liquid containers in clear plastic bags…,’ and with her mommy almost squashing her to bend over and remove my shoes, how could I blame her?!

As I approached the metal detector portal I looked ahead and sighed with relief one more time. A few more seconds, and I’d be there; among ‘the checked and let through’ on the other side; one of the lucky crowd who’d made it through.

My daughter and I went through the detector smoothly and silently – the darn thing didn’t blow it’s darn ear-scratching siren. However, waiting on the other side with hands on her plump hips was a badge wearing TSA officer. She pointed at me and sternly yelled, ‘Ma’am, go back again! Remove that baby carrier, put it on the belt, and come through the detector again.’

Confused, I looked at her and asked, ‘But why? I didn’t set off the detector! There are no metal pieces on this carrier, and as you see, it is fabric with no pockets or bags attached…’

The Badge-Woman yelled even louder, ‘Ma’am, you are holding up the line. Just go back and do as I say! We don’t allow wearable baby carriers through the detectors…’

I knew that was not true. I had traveled with my child several times and had gone through screening stations at several airports while carrying my child in the carrier attached in the front, same as here. But I didn’t want to hold up the lines and add hassle to the already hassled crowd waiting in line right behind me. Those of you who are parents and have traveled with infants don’t need me to tell you, but for those of you who have not experienced it let me put it this way, ‘it’s no easy task’! I tucked the boarding pass and my license under my chin. Next, I unbuckled the side-fasteners of the carrier, while watching carefully where I was stepping, because the tiled floor was smeared with some syrupy soda making it slippery. Then, I wiggled my daughter out if the carrier, tucked her under my left arm, while unfastening the rest of the carrier from my waist and shoulder…By this time my baby was wailing; from top of her lungs.

I passed through the detector again with the wailing baby tucked under my arm. Now I had to retrieve my shoes, my hand bag, my carryon, the baby carrier, the diaper bag, which were all piled up at the other end of the security screening belt. Have you ever done this while holding a baby? I don’t think I have to tell you what hell that is…

After I gathered my stuff, with sweat pouring from every pore, I turned around and made my way towards the badge-woman. I stopped right in front of her, looked her in the eye, and said,‘I would like to know why you put me through that when I was cleared first time through. I have gone through five airport security points with my child in a carrier, and no one ever asked me to remove the carrier. I believe TSA rules are supposed to be uniform.’

She snapped back ‘Move on. I don’t have to answer your question.’

I tried very hard to remain calm, and responded, ‘Yes you do. You need to provide me with a response; with an answer…’ She took out her hand-held radio and called her supervisor, ‘We have a big problem here. Someone is disrupting our procedure…’

In less than two minutes two female supervisors clad in suits showed up. The older one with hair glued in the air with two cans of hairspray and make-up two inches thick listened as I repeated my question, then she responded,

‘I am afraid we cannot provide you with an answer. We can’t share our security criteria with you. They are all classified.’

I almost gasped, ‘Why?’

She responded: ‘Because to announce our criteria, our rules, would tip off the terrorists.’

I countered that: ‘You have a list of rules at the check point entrance regarding liquid, shoes, lighters and matches…There is no section there referring to baby carriers. And, I have been through several airports, and none had any issue with the carriers. Are you saying there is a rule on carriers but it is considered secret and classified?’

She blinked several times with eyelashes bending downward from the weight of gunky mascara mud clumped on top of them. Next, with a voice raised about two notches higher she responded ‘Okay. It is not in the actual classified rules. We do things based on ‘Discretion.’ This is one of those. We have discretion.’

I asked again, ‘Okay. I would like to see the guidelines governing this discretion. That way I’ll know how to prepare for security in the future, as I did with your rules on shoes, water, liquid baby formula…’

She snapped back, ‘we have unlimited discretion. There are no rules. And we don’t have to answer your questions…’

I didn’t move, and I repeated my question, and added ‘Unlimited discretion? You mean you can also take us in and do a cavity search based on this discretion? This sounds like unlimited authority, and as a citizen, as a taxpayer, I have the right to know…’

At this point she took out her radio and called the airport police while I stood there looking and listening in disbelief. When two uniformed local airport police showed up, the TSA supervisor told them, ‘This lady insists on seeing our internal rules and classified procedures. I believe she poses a threat at this point and would like to have you either arrest her or keep her under observation until we decide to clear her for travel…’

That’s right. As a petite 5’4, 105 pound mother with an infant I was either being placed under arrest or observation as a security threat because I dared to question my rights and my government’s rules on security screening of its citizens.

The police officer, a gentlemanly young man, looked disgusted with the TSA supervisor. He turned to me and said,

‘Ma’am, why don’t you stop asking these questions and just proceed to your gate? We don’t want to be forced to act on this.’

I calmly responded, ‘Officer, I will proceed as soon as I am provided with an answer. If this is a cause for arrest now, and if you think you can back it up with probable cause, then please go ahead. You know and I know that this is not lawful.’

At the end of the security screening belt, as these events were unfolding, people were rushing past us towards their gates. Most of them were avoiding eye contact; maybe it was too much for them to actual see the reality and the state of their mobility on display before them. Some were shooting quick wondering glances. A very few brave ones actually slowed down or paused to whisper things like, ‘This is disgusting,’ or ‘they have no right to treat people like this,’ or, ‘this is a shame,’…

The TSA supervisor, seeing that her bluff did not have the desired effect and a bit nervously, changed her tune,

‘All we are doing is protecting you and everyone else from the terrorists. These procedures, these measures, are all for your own good; for your own safety.’

I repeated myself one more time, ‘And how do baby carriers pose a threat? How about the endangerment you caused my infant by having me walk across the slippery floor while holding her, handling my belongings…?’

She gave her best line of reasoning, ‘If I remember correctly some one, in some country, tried to hide explosives in a baby toy, or a baby stroller, or something like that…You know how the terrorists used airplanes and lack of airport security to blow up and kill thousands of our people…’

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at this lame and irrational excuse, ‘Okay, in Bali and in India terrorists blew up resorts and hotels, and people got injured and killed. Does this mean we now have to stack up barriers in front of our hotels and resorts, and have government security agents march in front of them? The terrorists hit some fast food chain joint in Turkey; does this mean we now have to have metal detectors and guards in front of our restaurants? With this line of reasoning where will we stop? Will we ever stop?’

By this time I had already missed my plane. Disgustedly I walked towards the US Air counter to get my refund, go rent a car, and drive 20 hours back home. As I walked away with the two police officers accompanying me, the young male officer said sympathetically,‘Ma’am, I am so sorry for that. Even we can’t argue with these TSA guys. Now they are carrying badges and guns, and we see all sorts of abuses, dumb calls, but they are high with a sense of power…’

I don’t know how but I managed to smile, and said ‘I know. My organization has 50 or so DHS/TSA whistleblowers, and I’ve heard stories worse than this…They are able to assert these abusive powers and practices because most people, the majority, just like you, would rather back off and put up with their abuse of power…Does this sound American to you?’

Before I turned the corner I stopped, turned around, and looked at the line moving forward at the security check point. The imagery was almost symbolic. People stopping by the security belt; bending over humbly, as if before Roman Gods or Pharos, to remove their shoes. Then, like a herd of sheep, while holding up their IDs and boarding passes, they took little steps towards the detectors while looking at the other side, hoping soon they’d be ‘cleared’ and ‘allowed’ to join the others who’d ‘made’ it.

The No Fly List, also called the terrorist watch list, is a secret list created and maintained by the US government of people who are not permitted to board a plane for travel in or out of the country. The list includes at least 1 million names as of now, up 32% since 2007 as reported by USA Today in March 2009. On September 11, 2001, the FBI’s ‘no transport’ list had the names of 16 people were considered to present a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.

Let’s look at TSA’s definition of No Fly and Selectee list from their own website:

What are the watch lists?

Historically, nine government agencies maintained watch lists with names of known or suspected terrorists and criminals. Two of these lists, the “No Fly” and “Selectee” lists were maintained by TSA. The “No Fly” list is a list of individuals who are prohibited from boarding an aircraft. The “Selectee” list is a list of individuals who must undergo additional security screening before being permitted to board an aircraft. After 9/11 the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) was created through a Presidential Directive to be administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, in cooperation with the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, and Treasury, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency. The purpose for the TSC is to consolidate terrorism based watch lists in one central database, the Terrorist Screening Center Database (TSDB), and make that data available for use in screening. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies nominate individuals to be put on the watch list based on established criteria, with the list maintained by the TSC. TSA’s “No-Fly” and “Selectee” lists are subsets of the TSDB and are maintained by the TSC.

According to a report issued by the General Accounting Office, the “no fly” list is just one of 12 terrorist and criminal watch lists maintained by the federal government.

In the sub header of this piece I refer to this list and the entire system as a ‘black hole’ because the list is sort of a secret, how you end up there is sort of a secret, their criteria for the list is sort of a secret, and if or how an innocent citizen can get off this list also happens to be a secret. Pay attention to the vague, ambigious definition by the TSA cited above. Go to and comb through their entire site and you’ll still come up empty handed as to how or why you may end up on their list, or how you can find out about it, or how you can get yourself off of their list.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) issued a report after it obtained limited information on the No Fly and Selectee lists through FOIA:

“Since the TSA took over, the watch list “has expanded almost daily as Intelligence Community agencies and the Office of Homeland Security continue to request the addition of individuals to the No-Fly and Selectee lists.” (TSA Watchlists memo) The names are approved for inclusion on the basis of a secret criteria. The Watchlists memo notes that “all individuals have been added or removed … based on the request of and information provided, almost exclusively by [redacted].”

There are two primary principles that guide the placement on the lists, but these principles have been withheld. The documents do not show whether there is a formal approval process where an independent third party entity is charged with verifying that the names are selected appropriately and that the information is accurate.”

As one of our readers, Jean Carbonneau, brought to our attention, one of the main reasons people don’t react as they should to such a Kafkaesque police system is that they don’t consider themselves ‘affected.’ They may get a bit grumpy at those long lines in the airports, or the patting and probing, but many consider it just ‘necessary added security,’ move on, and get used to it. When these people, the majority, read about these lists they brush it off as tools directed towards real criminals and terrorists suspects; you know, a tool to protect us against those darn hairy dark-skin foreigners who spend their lives planning to blow us up… They need to see and hear and read about tens if not hundreds of thousands of good ole Americans with spotless records who for one reason or another have ended up in the DHS’ black hole, and most likely due to some ‘discretion.’ Sure, the mainstream media has covered it a tiny bit; certainly not enough; at least not as much as they’ve been covering and exagerating the threats of vague terrorists and boogiemen.

If you come across those, which I am sure you do every single day, have them read the story of a Former US Diplomat John Graham, who actually received an award by the first President Bush for his NGO work, and who somehow ended up in the black hole. Let them read Graham’s own words:

“I’m being accused of a serious–even treasonous–criminal intent by a faceless bureaucracy, with no chance (that I can find) to refute any errors or false charges. (…) Whether it’s a mistake or whether somebody with the power to hassle me really thinks I am a threat, the stark absence of due process is unsettling. The worst of it is that being put on a list of America’s enemies seems to be permanent. The TSA form states: “the TSA clearance process will not remove a name from the Watch Lists. Instead this process distinguishes passengers from persons who are in fact on the Watch Lists by placing their names and identifying information in a cleared portion of the Lists” (which may or may not, the form continues, reduce the airport hassles).

In protecting ourselves, we can’t allow our leaders to continue to create a climate of fear and mistrust, to destroy our civil liberties and, in so doing, to change who we are as a nation. What a victory that would be for our enemies! And what a betrayal of real patriots, and to so many in the wider world who still remember this country as a source of inspiration and hope.”

…or have them check out many stories of US veterans, nuns, doctors, starred generals, librarians…who found themselves in this nightmare of being listed by their government, and learned that there isn’t much they can do to clear themselves:

Bill McDonald, 60, a retired Air Force colonel has a chest full of ribbons and enough frustration with the TSA to fill a bucket.

“With my two tours in Vietnam and active service in support of Desert Storm I find myself a terrorist suspect?,” McDonald says. “Seemingly not even my Top Secret, nuclear and satellite related clearances plus over 26 and half years of service mean much,” he says. “You can surely imagine my disgust at being identified on a terror watch list.”

Although McDonald has flown several times since 9/11, it wasn’t until just last year that he started having problems checking in. McDonald and his wife were fond of online check-in procedures but were rejected and told to report to the ticket counter. “That was our first clue something was wrong.”

When a ticket agent told McDonald he was on the watch list, he was stunned. He took out his military I.D. card that he always carries, but it was of little help. He missed that flight because of the added security.

“I was just kind of flabbergasted that I had to play this game, but decided that I wasn’t going to be reactive,” he said.

He has pulled together all the needed information to apply for clearance, but says he’s hesitating submitting the forms because of all the information they require.

“Somehow, hearing about the wrongful use of info by the TSA does not give me a comfort zone,” McDonald said. “I say this despite the fact that I know I am all over the data bases in the government.”

…or have them watch the following video of the TSA detention, harassment, and abuse of a Ron Paul organization official which was caught on tape at a St. Louis airport:

YouTube Clip:

…tell these people that they or their family members or their friends can easily end up on a secret list for secret reasons by secret persons working behind the walls of their government secret’s agencies. And, that there ain’t a darn thing they can do, or anywhere or any person to go to, even if there were, they wouldn’t know about it, since that too would be secret.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.