Former Senator Bob Graham Urges Obama to Reopen Investigation into Saudi Role in 9/11 Attacks

By Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman - Posting #168

Former Florida governor and senator Bob Graham is calling on President Obama to reopen the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks after new information has emerged about the possible role of prominent Saudis in the 9/11 plot.

Yea Bob - Sure: WTF! - Zelikow Appointed to Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board - WTF!

According to recent news reports, a wealthy young Saudi couple fled their home in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida, just a week or so before Sept. 11, 2001, leaving behind three cars and nearly all of their possessions. Indira Singh Testimony 2004

The FBI was tipped off about the couple but never passed the information on to the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks, even though phone records showed the couple had ties to Mohamed Atta and at least 10 other al-Qaeda suspects. Graham joins us to discuss the news he’s called "the most important thing about 9/11 to surface in the last seven or eight years." As the former chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a post he held on September 11, 2001, Graham chaired the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the attacks.

He’s just written a novel called "Keys to the Kingdom,” which follows a fictitious former senator and co-chair of the 9/11 congressional inquiry who is murdered near his Florida home after he uncovers an international conspiracy linking the Saudi Kingdom to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Graham says he chose to write the novel after his 2000 non-fiction book, "Intelligence Matters," was heavily censored.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References:

Recently Deceased Crown Prince Sultan and his son Bandar “Bush” Epitomize Highly Questionable Saudi 9/11 Connections

Zelikow: 9/11 Master Criminal Appointed By Obama

Report: Intelligence Unit Told Before 9/11 to Stop Tracking Bin Laden

EXCLUSIVE: New Documents Claim Intelligence on Bin Laden, al-Qaeda Targets Withheld From Congress' 9/11 Probe

New Documents Suggest DoD Watchdog Covered Up Intelligence Unit's Work Tracking 9/11 Terrorists

New Documents Suggest DoD Watchdog Covered Up Intelligence Unit's Work Tracking 9/11 Terrorists

By Jeffrey Kaye and Jason Leopold - Posting #167

Senior Pentagon officials scrubbed key details about a top-secret military intelligence unit's efforts in tracking Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from official reports they prepared for a Congressional committee probing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, new documents obtained by Truthout reveal.

Moreover, in what appears to be an attempt to cover up the military unit's intelligence work on al-Qaeda and Bin Laden prior to 9/11, a September 2008 Defense Department (DoD) Inspector General's (IG) report that probed complaints lodged by the former deputy chief of the military unit in question, the Asymmetrical Threats Division of Joint Forces Intelligence Command (JFIC), also known as DO5, about the crucial information withheld from Congress, claimed "the tracking of Usama Bin Ladin did not fall within JFIC's mission."

But the IG's assertion is untrue, according to the documents obtained by Truthout, and the discrepancy undercuts the official narrative about who knew what and when in the months leading up to 9/11.

Much of JFIC's work on al-Qaeda and Bin Laden remains shrouded in secrecy and has not been cited in media reports revolving around pre-9/11 intelligence, which has focused heavily over the past decade on CIA and FBI "intelligence failures." Only a few details about the military intelligence unit have surfaced since then, notably in two previous reports published recently by Truthout.

JFIC was the intelligence component of United States Joint Forces Command (JFCOM). In 2005, it was renamed the Joint Intelligence Command for Intelligence. Last month, JFCOM was shuttered, reportedly the victim of Pentagon budget cuts, and as a subcommand, JFIC was believed to have been disbanded along with it.

Truthout had previously reported that the deputy chief of the Asymmetrical Threats Division, who is identified in government documents by the code name "Iron Man," alleged his unit was told to stop tracking Bin Laden as well as suspected al-Qaeda terrorists and members of the Taliban some months prior to 9/11.

Iron Man, whose unit developed original intelligence on al-Qaeda targets, which included the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, documents show, further claimed that the orders his unit received, as well as the work it conducted, was knowingly withheld from investigators working for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, who were tasked with probing the circumstances behind the 9/11 attacks.

When the DoD prepared its report based on Iron Man's complaints, the IG concluded Iron Man's most explosive allegations were unfounded. But a close look at the report reveals numerous flaws.

Although the IG did confirm that Asymmetrical Threats Division analysts were told to stop tracking Bin Laden, suspected al-Qaeda terrorists and members of the Taliban, the watchdog determined that the Asymmetrical Threat Division had "not completed original intelligence reporting" and that "JFIC did not" specifically have a "mission to track Usama bin Ladin or predict imminent US targets." (Emphasis added.)

Furthermore, the appendices in the IG's report shows significant changes were made to JFIC's original responses to Congressional investigators about its pre-9/11 intelligence work on al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Bin Laden. The information regarding the military unit's work turned over to Congress described a substantially attenuated picture of JFIC's operations.

The report also determined "operational information in response to the 9/11 Commission" about Asymmetrical Threats Division had not been withheld. Yet, Iron Man had charged the information was withheld from Congressional investigators probing the 9/11 attacks, not the independent 9/11 commission. The IG's report repeatedly confused the two investigative bodies.

A Pentagon spokesman and officials who helped prepare the report did not return calls for comment.

New Documents Challenge Watchdog's Conclusions

Iron Man, who requested anonymity in order to protect his family's privacy, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2006 seeking a copy of the complaint he filed with the IG and other documents pertaining to JFIC's duties. He received a copy of his complaint in April, just a few weeks prior to the death of Bin Laden. That document, as well as the IG's findings, formed the basis of Truthout's two previous reports on JFIC's activities. But over the past month, Iron Man provided Truthout with documents he received in March 2010 in response to his FOIA request that shed additional light into JFIC's work and called into question the veracity of the IG's investigation into the charges he leveled.

Indeed, one batch of documents Truthout obtained from Iron Man consists of a slide presentation for a briefing to be held for the head of counterintelligence and counterterrorism at the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). The date of the meeting could not be confirmed, but appears to have taken place sometime in 2000 or earlier.

The slides, "NCIS Support to Joint Forces Intelligence Command and NCIS Field Office, Norfolk," describe the duties assigned to an NCIS transfer of one of its counterintelligence, counterterrorism (CT) agents, who was made deputy chief of JFIC's Asymmetric Threat Division. This slide appears to be a description of Iron Man's responsibilities.

Contradicting the IG's conclusion on JFIC's work, one of the slides explicitly states, "JFIC routinely supplements national agencies with original intelligence on UBL [Usama Bin Ladin] and Afghanistan." (Emphasis added.)

The slide presentation further notes that the Asymmetrical Threats Division has "primary division focus" on both counterterrorism and military "force protection." Moreover, the briefing slides state that JFIC's "Primary CT/force protection concerns" as "UBL [Usama Bin Ladin] and associated terrorist groups," adding that its goal was to determine when Bin Laden and other terrorists would strike, "How they will strike" and "Where they will strike."

According to the documents, Asymmetrical Threats Division personnel monitored open-source intelligence, national imagery data and sensitive compartmented intelligence, as well as worldwide counterterrorism and counterintelligence communications, including communications and electronic intelligence databases from the National Security Agency (NSA).

The information from the briefing backs up what Iron Man previously told Truthout: that Asymmetrical Threats Division "worked closely" with the counterterrorism office at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which collects, analyzes and distributes geospatial intelligence related to national security, or that, "upon request," it provided information on terrorist movements to the CIA.

According to the slide briefing, the Asymmetrical Threats Division had what is known as "gamma" security clearance, indicating analysts had access to extremely sensitive classified information, according to a description of the classification level by Matthew Aid in an unrelated New York Times report.

Another document Iron Man turned over to Truthout is a January 2001 confidential "Point Paper" that describes the Asymmetrical Threats Division as having "prepared numerous assessments of those cities most likely to be targeted by international and domestic terrorists," confirming Iron Man's claims that part of his unit's work did consist of producing intelligence on domestic targets by terrorists.

Definition of "Hijackers"

In attempting to refute Iron Man's claims about JFIC's work, the IG's report stated, "the 9/11 Commission questions were very specific and asked for information which involved the 'imminent attack' or 'hijackers involved.' Evidence indicated that the JFIC did not have knowledge regarding imminent domestic targets prior to 9/11 or specific 9/11 hijacker operations."

Truthout has learned that the definition of "hijackers," as perceived by the military intelligence unit, was overly restrictive. The definition of "hijackers" only referred to the hijackers in the planes and not the alleged planners, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or Bin Laden.

In his complaint to the IG, Iron Man wrote that the Asymmetrical Threats Division had produced "numerous original reports, with original imagery, measurements & signatures intelligence, or electronic intelligence, identifying probably [sic] and possible movements and locations of Usama bin Ladin and Mullah Omar." The intelligence included "bin Ladin's likely residence in Qandahar ... evidently the house in which Khalid Shaykh Muhammed planned the 9/11 attacks."

In summer 2000, the Asymmetrical Threats Division briefed "a DIA senior intelligence officer" on "The Search (for UBL Usama Bin Ladin]) - A CINC [Commander-in-chief] Level View." According to the complaint letter to the IG, "The briefing provided numerous examples and suggestions of how UBL was being hunted by JFIC and could be hunted by the IC [intelligence community]."

Iron Man would not provide the names of the individuals that the Asymmetrical Threats Division briefed because that information is classified. But the personnel included intelligence officials from CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, NCIS, NSA and high-level command officials at JFIC. The most senior official briefed appeared to be Vice Adm. Martin J. Meyer, the deputy commander-in-chief of Joint Forces Command.

Vice Admiral Meyer, as Truthout previously reported, told Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, the commander of the Continental United States North American Aerospace Defense Command Region (CONR) and other high-level CONR staffers two weeks before the 9/11 attacks that "their concern about Osama bin Laden as a possible threat to America was unfounded and that, to repeat, 'If everyone would just turn off CNN, there wouldn't be a threat from Osama bin Laden.'"

Since Meyer was specifically briefed on al-Qaeda's interest in attacking targets in the United States and in particular New York and the Pentagon, it is difficult to understand why he would call threats related to Bin Laden as "unfounded."

Significant Changes Made to JFIC's Official Response

Perhaps the most salient issue with the IG's report is that it completely conceals the information that was withheld from Congressional investigators.

According to the report, on March 11, 2002, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Thomas R. Wilson tasked JFCOM to provide it with information concerning its activities "in support of the 9/11 Commission." As the IG's report points out, the public law creating the 9/11 Commission was not effective until November 2002, so Vice Admiral Wilson can only be responding to a request from the Congressional joint inquiry and not the 9/11 Commission.

The IG's report indicates JFCOM sent a "tasker" to JFIC two days later, indicating it was an urgent matter and the 13 items "derived from the original DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] tasker" were due by March 22.

A "JFIC senior naval officer," the report states, gathered the information from the different departments within the military unit. The responses were then returned to JFCOM, where the Intelligence Director "reviewed the JFIC's input prior to release" to the DIA Congressional Affairs Office on March 25, 2002.

The original JFIC response was scanned and printed as Appendix B of the IG report. According to the IG, the "original questions and answers to 13 questions that USJFCOM [United States Joint Forces Command] forwarded" to the Defense Intelligence Agency were also scanned and are printed as the report's Appendix C. The scanned questions and answers that ultimately were sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency's Congressional Affairs Office and presumably on to Congressional investigators, are preceded by ten pages of superfluous material relating to JFIC actions taken after 9/11.

But the original questions and answers JFIC officials produced prior to March 22 (Appendix B) are not the same as the edited version that was sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency and Congress (Appendix C). Four questions and answers from Appendix C were deleted and one subsection and some of the other responses were scrubbed.

The IG report failed to highlight the difference and, indeed, the report still maintains the JFCOM version has "13 questions," though four questions were omitted after another "review."

There is no indication the scanned documents were redacted, which would have helped explain the omission, since the original material that was deleted and/or rewritten shows up unredacted in Appendix B.

According to the executive summary of the IG's report, JFIC's replies "were accurate and substantiated by our extensive review of available documentation and our 14 personnel interviews at all levels of Joint Forces Intelligence Command. We concluded that the Joint Forces Intelligence Command provided a timely and accurate reply in response to the 9/11 Commission. The United States Joint Forces Command forwarded the response to the Defense Intelligence Agency's Congressional Affairs Office."

JFlC's original responses "were forwarded to the USJFCOM [United States Joint Forces Command]. The USJFCOM Intelligence Director reviewed the JFIC's input prior to release to the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency]."

The report, however, fails to note that the JFCOM review removed substantial portions of JFIC's replies to Congress.

What Was Missing

The missing portions largely relate to aspects of JFIC's mission that had to do with the breadth and depth of its anti-terrorism work. For instance, in item one, JFCOM deleted the original JFIC reply that it conducted "in depth discussions about potential terrorist attacks since Dec. 00."

The second item in the inquiry asked whether JFIC had information prior to 9/11 about "international terrorist cells operating in the United States." While JFIC answered this question in the negative, in their original response JFIC indicated they maintained "global situational awareness for areas such as CONUS [Continental United States] outside of the USJFCOM [United States Joint Forces Command] AOR [area of responsibility.]" They briefed pertinent information" at morning briefings, "but we did not track it." JFIC indicated the information "generally consisted of CIA and NSA reports."

In the altered version of the response sent to Congress, the words "such as CONUS" are deleted, as is the reference to CIA and NSA reports. The edited version completely eliminates the fact that JFIC was keeping track of NSA and CIA reports of terrorist activity as it related to the United States. Indeed, later in the report, the fact that JFIC also maintained a "24-hour watch floor," whose responsibility included monitoring of "worldwide events and terrorist issues," was also deleted.

According to the original JFIC response, after 9/11, it officially did take on responsibility for tracking "potential threats to CONUS." "As far as we know," the JFIC original responses state, "JFIC is one of the few DoD entities attempting to track potential terrorist activities within CONUS."

One of the missing items in the version of the JFIC answers sent to Congress concerned the names and positions of JFIC counterterror personnel. This was not redacted for classification purposes, as they appear in the IG report, Appendix B. Instead, back in 2002, the lack of any such names meant there was no one identifiable from JFIC to call as a witness.

At other points in the edited version of the JFIC responses, descriptions of the unit's analytic work, in particular aspects that seem pertinent to Asymmetrical Threats Division's work, are left out. It is noteworthy that even in the original JFIC response to the questionnaire, the mission Joint Forces Command was given was distorted.

According to the original inquiry response (and left out of the final version), "Prior to Sept. 11, JFIC did not have a robust counter-terrorism mission. We did do some analysis, but since it did not directly support Joint Forces Command's AOR [area of responsibility], the analysts were directed to stop. As a result of this and normal military rotation, we did not have a large counter-terrorism analysis base to build on" after 9/11. (Emphasis added.)

Yet, in another portion of the original JFIC response and also deleted in the final version of the response, JFIC discusses its "process." According to JFIC, while they do "not conduct unilateral collection" of intelligence in the United States, nor liaison with "foreign counterparts," they do receive reports from "other agencies." "JFIC's process is to fuse all of the information that we have visibility on into one all-source threat picture," the questionnaire stated, noting JFIC reviewed 2,275 messages daily from intelligence and military sources.

Subsequently, JFIC personnel decide what to do with this information, noting that sometimes they may "try to do further analysis (connect the dots, possibly produces a special analytic product), or ... follow-up with the reporting agency."

In a section erased from the JFIC response to Question 12 from Congressional investigators, JFIC describes their process as one of fusing "all of the information that we have visibility on into one all-source threat picture." This is similar to Iron Man's description of the Asymmetrical Threats Division in his complaint to the IG, when he described his former unit as "a forerunner of current all-source fusion centers.... able to develop and use all-source, original analysis in a manner probably then unprecedented within the intelligence community."

If the report's narrative sequence can be trusted, the JFCOM director either directly, or under his or her supervision, significantly altered the reply to Congressional Joint Inquiry investigators. Furthermore, due to the fact that items 7, 9, 11 and 13 are missing from the final document sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency it would have had to be apparent to the individual(s) reading that a chunk of information was missing.

While Congressional investigators were not provided with this intelligence on JFIC's work, there were still other opportunities to pass the information along. In Spring 2002, a colleague informed Iron Man that none of the documents that could verify Asymmetrical Threats Division's work was being sent to Congress.

The former deputy chief and later "Acting Chief" of Asymmetrical Threats Division contacted the Defense Intelligence Agency's Congressional Affairs Office himself and offered to personally send the documentation, including the slides and "point paper."

Those materials were instead sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency. Whether it made its way to Congress is unknown. The December 2002 unclassified Congressional Joint Inquiry report never mentions US Joint Forces Command, JFIC, or Asymmetrical Threats Division or their work, nor does the 9/11 Commission Report published several years later.

Current and former lawmakers who worked on the Congressional committees probing the 9/11 attacks, including former Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida), did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment about whether they received any briefings about the military intelligence unit's counterterrorism work pertaining to al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the Taliban.

Iron Man told Truthout, however, that he and his colleagues would "damn sure comment" on JFIC's work if given the opportunity to speak with lawmakers.

But, Iron Man said, "the only manner in which any former DO5 [another name for JFIC] personnel could probably comment would be if requested by Congress/Congressional staff and permitted by DoD."

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References:

IronMan Slides

IG Report

Intelligence on Bin Laden, al-Qaeda Targets Withheld From Congress'9/11 Probe

Dignitaries, brass to officially dissolve JFCOM today

Profile: Martin Mayer

Intelligence Unit Told Before 9/11 to Stop Tracking Bin Laden

Geospatial Intelligence

Summary: ZDNet's USA PATRIOT Act series

By Zack Whittaker -- Posting #166 -- A little dated, but, good info :)

A summary of four extensively detailed posts, of how the Act can access data held outside the United States.

This executive summary recaps a series of posts and a year’s worth of research on how the USA PATRIOT ACT impacts cross-border clouds, and considers whether data is safe from the risk of interception or unwarranted searches by U.S. authorities; even European protected data.

Although this is a U.S.-oriented site and I am a British citizen, the issues I surface here affect all readers, whether living and working inside or outside the United States.

In short:

U.S. law enforcement could use the USA PATRIOT Act on a U.S.-based organizations – like Microsoft, Google, Intel or Amazon, for example — to force its local subsidiary companies across the world into handing over user data to U.S. authorities.

EU data once may have ‘had to stay in Europe’, but this is on the most part untrue. The Safe Harbor framework, designed to protect EU data in the United States, protects merely the transfer of data from Europe to U.S. soil. But as soon as it arrived on U.S. soil, Safe Harbor can be superseded by America’s counter-terrorism law.

U.S. corporations survive by having subsidiary or smaller companies in foreign locations, to communicate and collaborate with their clients on the ground in their locale. These subsidiary companies are wholly owned and controlled by their U.S. parent. If a U.S. parent company receives a request from the U.S. government to inspect data held by a subsidiary company in a foreign location, the subsidiary would therefore have no choice but to hand over the data to their U.S.-based parent.

As a result, universities, businesses and organizations which hold vast quantities of student and citizen data in the European cloud, are not protected against the U.S. counter-terrorism laws, which arguably infringe the freedoms and liberties of non-U.S. citizens.

No company or organisation can wholly guarantee that data in European data-centers will under no circumstances leave European soil. Until a company comes forward and unequivocally states otherwise, then this series of posts stands true.

The ‘cloud’ is an abstract concept to newcomers: Access is granted from any device anywhere in the world. It stores files under your name, from photos to video and work documents. But in reality, these files are on a server in a data-center — on sovereign territory, somewhere, where a government’s law applies.

Though the notion of ‘privacy’ in itself has become diluted with social networking settings and the loss or theft of mobile devices, privacy in itself relates directly back to the individual. As previously discussed, there is no such thing as “I have nothing to hide”.

More often than not, this will be the United States; even if you live elsewhere in the world. The vast majority of ordinary citizens will think nothing of this conundrum. They should start paying attention along with the businesses that control vast quantities of citizen data.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: Ten years later: IT and life lessons from the South Tower

Ten Years Later: Surveillance in the "Homeland"

Microsoft admits Patriot Act can access EU-based cloud data

Part 1: USA PATRIOT Act and the controversy of Canada
The controversy of Canada, cloud computing and an act of law which holds America’s closest neighbor to data protection ransom.

Part 2: Safe Harbor: Why EU data needs ‘protecting’ from US law
An overview of the Safe Harbour principles, which allow data to flow freely between Europe and the US; but not without caution.

Part 3: Case study: How the USA PATRIOT Act can be used to access EU data
A case study examining how European universities, and organizations even further afield, are risking their students’ and customers security by outsourcing to the cloud.

Part 4: USA PATRIOT Act: The myth of a secure European cloud
Concluding thoughts of the consequences of the USA PATRIOT Act on EU cloud data.

Pentagon Frets Over Wasted Billions (Ignores Missing Trillions)

By James Corbett - Global Research TV - Posting #165

An investigative committee released a report this week estimating that the US Government has lost as much as $60 billion to waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade.

The report is the work of the Wartime Contracting Commission, established by Congress in 2008 to investigate funds and contracts in support of US military operation. Rather than advocating a reduction in a ballooning military budget that has nearly doubled since the false flag terrorist incident of 9/11, however, the report makes the case that budget cuts to the Department of Defense will actually increase the wastage and instead argues that massive increases in spending need to be maintained.

Touted as a team of “independent investigators,” the report is being hailed as a serious attempt to get a handle on the budget of the government agency most notorious for waste, fraud and corruption.

What is not being noted is that the commission includes such members as Dov Zakheim, the comptroller of the Pentagon under the first George W. Bush administration when a DOD Inspector General report established that the Pentagon was unable to account for over 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions.

Zakheim was a member of the neocon Project for a New American Century and a signatory to their 2000 document, Rebuiding America’s Defenses, which called for a “new Pearl Harbor” to justify a transformation of the US military.

Prior to taking over the Pentagon’s finances, Zakheim was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor which specialized in advanced technologies, including systems for remotely controlling aircraft.

Earlier this summer, Zakheim wrote an op-ed in Foreign Policy lamenting proposed defense spending cuts and arguing that any such cuts should be made to veteran’s health benefits and pensions.

Despite the fact that the Pentagon has been unable to account for trillions of dollars, it has not been subject to an audit by the Government Accountability Office in the modern era.

Donald Rumsfeld was asked about the status of the Pentagon’s missing trillions for the first time this year, not by a newspaper or television reporter, but by a group of citizen journalists who post their videos to YouTube.

The new report on the wasted billions blames the problem on corruption, bribery and profiteering, amongst other factors, and comes out just as a new investigation from The Center for Public Integrity has revealed that defense spending on no-bid contracts has tripled in the last 10 years. The Pentagon now spends over $140 billion a year on no-bid contracts to private contractors like KBR, compared to $50 billion in 2001.

The modern era of military contracting began in 1992, when then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney offered Halliburton subsidiary KBR $9 million to conduct a study on the use of private companies to provide civil logistical support to the US military. KBR concluded that private contracting was in the US’ interest. Cheney awarded the first contract under the KBR study proposal to KBR itself, and three years later he became Halliburton’s CEO.

Cheney was also a signatory to the PNAC document calling for a new Pearl Harbor and was Vice President when that Pearl Harbor incident occurred on 9/11/2001. Subsequently, KBR was awarded 10s of billions of dollars in sweeping military contracts to provide civil logistics in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US government is currently suing KBR (LOL) for $100 million for fraud and overspending related to these contracts.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: TCR-Episode 198 – Further Down the 9/11 Money Trail

Halliburton Watch

Windfalls of War

Flight Termination System

Commission On Wartime Contracting

Federal Contracts

GSA Contract/GSA Schedule

Government RFPs & Bids

$4(3) Million From Seven Foundations Helped Fuel the Rise of Islamophobia in America

By Faiz Shakir - Posting #164 :o

Following a six-month long investigative research project, the Center for American Progress released a 130-page report today which reveals that more than $42 million from seven foundations over the past decade have helped fan the flames of anti-Muslim hate in America.

The authors — Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matt Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and myself — worked to expose the Islamophobia network in depth, name the major players, connect the dots, and trace the genesis of anti-Muslim propaganda.

The report, titled “Fear Inc.: The Roots Of the Islamophobia Network In America,” lifts the veil behind the hate, follows the money, and identifies the names of foundations who have given money, how much they have given, and who they have given to:

* THE FUNDERS

* THE AMOUNT

* THE RECIPIENTS

1. Donors Capital Fund

$20,768,600

Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), Middle East Forum (MEF), Clarion Fund (Clarion), David Horowitz Freedom Center (Horowitz)

2. Richard Scaife Foundations

$7,875,000

Counterterrorism & Security Education and Research Foundation (CTSERF), Center for Security Policy (CSP), Horowitz

3. Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

$5,370,000

MEF, CSP, Horowitz

4. Russell Berrie Foundation

$3,109,016

IPT, CTSERF, MEF

5. Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund

$2,818,229

IPT,CTSERF, MEF, CSP, Clarion, Horowitz

6. Fairbook Foundation

$1,498,450

IPT, MEF, CSP, Jihad Watch, Horowitz, American Congress for Truth

7. Newton and Rochelle Becker Foundations

$1,136,000

IPT, CTSERF, MEF, CSP, Clarion, Horowitz, American Congress for Truth

Total

$42,575,295

The money has flowed into the hands of five key “experts” and “scholars” who comprise the central nervous system of anti-Muslim propaganda:

FRANK GAFFNEY, Center for Security Policy – “A mosque that is used to promote a seditious program, which is what Sharia is…that is not a protected religious practice, that is in fact sedition.” [Source]

DAVID YERUSHALMI, Society of Americans for National Existence: “Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization…the Muslim peoples,BOLDthose committed to Islam as we know it today, are our enemies.” [Source]

DANIEL PIPES, Middle East Forum: “All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.” [Source]

ROBERT SPENCER, Jihad Watch: “Of course, as I have pointed out many times, traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.” [Source]

STEVEN EMERSON, Investigative Project on Terrorism: “One of the world’s great religions — which has more than 1.4 billion adherents — somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine.” [Source]

These five “scholars” are assisted in their outreach efforts by Brigitte Gabriel (founder, ACT! for America), Pamela Geller (co-founder, Stop Islamization of America), and David Horowitz (supporter of Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch). As the report details, information is then disseminated through conservative organizations like the Eagle Forum, the religious right, Fox News, and politicians such as Allen West and Newt Gingrich.

Over the past few years, the Islamophobia network (the funders, scholars, grassroots activists, media amplifiers, and political validators) have worked hard to push narratives that Obama might be a Muslim, that mosques are incubators of radicalization, and that “radical Islam” has infiltrated all aspects of American society — including the conservative movement.

To explain how the Islamophobia network operates, we’ve produced this video to show just one example of how they have mainstreamed the baseless and unfounded fear that Sharia may soon replace American laws:

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: Muslims Didn't Do 9/11!

First They Came

Cover Letter - The Ominous Parallels 07.03.07

Who Are The Real Terrorist?: America’s FBI Goes Rogue

The Real Terrorist: The Informants

MUSLIM FOR 30 DAYS part 1

The Wahhabi Movement

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold

Religious Oppression And Intolerance In China

Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots

By Jim Fetzer - Posting #163

One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known… nothing of significance, that is.– E. Martin Schotz, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US

9/11 appears to have been a classic “false flag” operation in which an attack is planned by one source but blamed upon another. In this case, the evidence suggests neo-cons in the Department of Defense and their allies in the Mossad were actually responsible for the execution of the atrocities of 9/11. That story was buried, however, in a surfeit of alternative explanations for which the evidence was far more tenuous but which were of much greater political utility. And in each case, qualified experts uncovered evidence that induced sincere but false beliefs that they were “the real deal”.

The situation encountered with regard to 9/11 turns out to be far more sophisticated than the efforts that were made to divert attention from the conspirators in the case of the assassination of JFK, where “Track #1”, as we might call it, implicated Lee Harvey Oswald as “the lone assassin”. Track #2 suggested that he working for Fidel Castro and that Cuba had done it. Track #3 was redirected domestically to encompass the mob, while Track #4 targeted the Soviet Union. But these were superficial distractions for which most of the evidence was flimsy and inconclusive. 9/11 presents a greater challenge to unpack, because in this case, planted evidence was more extensive and appeared to be real.

Deep black covert operations, of course, are by their very nature shrouded in layers of secrecy, protected by the “need to know” and sensitive compartmented information (SCI). Since WWII, however, major covert operations have become increasingly sophisticated and new models have been developed which take full advantage of the extensive national security laws and practices guaranteed under the National Security Acts of 1947 and 1952. The experts who create these plots are specialists in PSYOPS, which entails accessing, stimulating and manipulating the subconscious minds of the target population as a single unit in order to create beliefs and instill motivations in the public mind that are necessary to support of their actions but would normally be viewed as unacceptable.

This is related to Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”. When basic primal survival fears are activated in the “group mind” of the masses, this fear induces the motivation for a population to willingly give up their rights and liberty even for merely the promise of more protection from the boogeymen. This principal is the basis for successful PSYOPS. The use of multi-track intermeshed, deep-black covert operations also creates massive cognitive dissonance among federal investigators, private researchers and the public, which typically eventually results in folks abandoning the issue and going away in “quiet desperation”, which is the actual intended result of those who plan and activate them.

Deep Black/False Flag Ops

The “shroud of secrecy” they afford provides perfect cover to plan and carry out these sophisticated multi-track deep black covert operations and keep them secret–even from those operatives who are involved as well as the government’s own agents who do the investigations. The “national security” cover can be dropped on any matter that is at risk of being disclosed to the public and then can be invoked again at any time. Thus, alphabets who discover what really happened can be silenced and the media can be gagged with the delivery of a “national security letter”.

One of the greatest advances in deep black, false flag/stand-down covert operations has been the development of a new, more complex design, best referred to as “multi-track, enmeshed”. This involves using a complicated design with independent covert operations, each of which could individually do the job if they were actually “taken live”. These operations, however, are designed to be enmeshed at the nexus of the actual target, at which point some are de-activated and one or more taken live.

This can completely confound even the most seasoned investigators, thus creating so much conflict among researchers that these emergent conflicts between them provide the best cover possible for what was actually done and how it was done. Multi-track and interwoven deep black covert operations are therefore designed from the very start to obfuscate the actual operation that is selected and taken live, thereby denying most intel and government officials as well as the public any real knowledge of the actual operational purpose and information about the covert operation or why a particular covert operation was taken live as the predominant op.

As an illustration, when we attempt to peel the 9/11 onion, we discover there are at least five different alternative theories for which evidence has emerged, where each of them has sincere supporters who falsely believe that they have found critical evidence about that happened on 9/11. Each of these is actually one plot of many plots, which were deliberately contrived to creating sufficient confusion that everything about 9/11 turns out to be believable and nothing is knowable. Such deep black cover op designs can thereby provide sufficient “after the fact” cover to keep the truth buried in confusion forever.

Palestinians Did It

Cover Story #1: Palestinians Did It! Efforts were being made before the Twin Towers were destroyed to imply Palestinian responsibility for commandeering those planes and committing those crimes, which may have taken the lives of as many as 3,000 citizens and employees. Those who were watching closely saw archival footage of Palestinians rejoicing on a festive occasion being broadcast as though it were contemporaneous to convey the impression—meant to be indelible—that the Palestinian people had taken pleasure at inflicting misery on America.

An early report from CNN even asserted that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility for 9/11—and that was before Flight 175 had hit the South Tower! So during that brief interval between the first hit on the North Tower at 8:46:40 and the second on the South Tower at 9:03:11, a propaganda operation to implicate the Palestinians was well under way. The immediate availability of this report and video footage indicates the direction in which responsibility for these attacks was originally intended to be cast

And that might have become the official cover story, were it not for observant residents near Liberty State Park in New Jersey who watched as five young men, dressed in Arab garb, filmed the destruction of the Twin Towers, cheering and celebrating, which came across as odd behavior, under the circumstances. When they were apprehended in a white van from Urban Moving Systems, the driver would inform the arresting officer that they were not the problem: “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”

They were found to have $4,700 in cash, box cutters, and foreign passports in their possession. Urban Moving Systems would subsequently be identified as a Mossad front. After 71 days of incarceration, the Dancing Israelis would be released and return to Israel, where three of them would go on TV there and explain that their purpose had been to document the destruction of the Twin Towers. Once they had been arrested, however, the story was quietly dropped. It was just too revealing that Israel had been profoundly involved in the events of 9/11.

Arab Hijackers Did It

Cover Story #2: 19 Arab Hijackers Did It. If these attacks could not be blamed on the Palestinians without revealing Israeli complicity, the fall back was effortless. We know “the official account”—that nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan. It would turn out that 15 of the 19 alleged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq.

But that would not matter in the grand scheme of things, where Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would push 9/11 as a justification for attacking Iraq. Not only was the public being fed false information about weapons of mass destruction and collusion with al Qaeda, but the national press was oblivious to the obvious question that remained unaddressed by government officials or the main stream media: If 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the UAE, one from Lebanon and Egypt, then why were we attacking Iraq?

Even our own FBI would eventually acknowledge that it had no “hard evidence” that Osama bin Laden had had anything to do with 9/11. But the range of evidence that exonerates al Qaeda and implicates the Bush/Cheney administration in these crimes has become as broad as it is deep. Elias Davidsson, for example, has shown that the US government had never produced evidence that the alleged “hijackers” were even aboard those four planes. Muslims. David Ray Griffin, the leading expert on 9/11 in the world today, has shown that the alleged phone calls from those planes were faked, where even our own FBI has confirmed that Barbara Olsen never spoke to her husband, Ted.

Leslie Raphael has offered reason after reason for concluding that the Jules Naudet film was staged. The evidence that no planes crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon is beyond reasonable doubt, where others have shown that the videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are fake, which may have been a brilliant stroke to generate dissension within the 9/11 Truth movement, since the truth of video fakery has proven to be politically divisive. The scientific evidence disproving the official account is also abundant and compelling. Given what we know now, anyone who continues to believe the “official account” of 9/11 is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired.

Pakistan/Turkey/Saudi Arabia

Cover Story #3. The Pakistanis Did It. This track was based upon the supposition that well-financed Pakistani intel were able to buy expensive “K Street” lobbyists and gain influence with high officials in the government and Department of Defense, who had much to gain from a “staged terror attack” such as 9/11. It was the next layer of the onion to be peeled when and if the Arab hijackers story wouldn’t work any longer and was initiated by the revelation that Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, had wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, allegedly the lead hijacker, at the direction General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). As Michael Meecher has observed, it is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. It certainly raises the prospect that the ISI was deeply involved and possibly responsible for the events of 9/11. Even if it were true, however, it cannot begin to account for the causal nexus that brought about 9/11 or identify those who were “pulling the strings”.

“Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers,” Meecher writes, “was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to “retire” by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn’t the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?” Although a number of reasons have been advanced for not taking this story seriously, Meecher mentions a number of sources who have information that might or might not implicate the ISI and expose those who were behind 9/11, the most important of whom appears to be former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, who has recently been speaking out.

Edmonds, a 33-year-old Turkish-American linguist, who is fluent in both Turkish and Azerbaijani, has tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. While Sibel has been under gag orders forbidding her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or of the countries involved, she has said. “My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information … if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] … and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up”.

Revelations claimed to emerge from her case have been described as being explosive, including “that foreign operatives" who were working in the translation department been tried to recruit her for their operations; that there exists a nuclear spy ring aided and abetted by high ranking US government officials who have been selling America’s nuclear secrets on the black market; that foreign language intelligence directly pertaining to 9/11 was deliberately withheld from FBI agents in the field; that Osama bin Laden had an ‘intimate relationship’ with the United Stages government right up until 9/11.” While most of this is probably true, the theory of the case that she appears to imply—that Turkey (with assistance from actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia) had been using Bin Laden and the Taliban as a proxy terrorist army to promote its own agenda—may be true in its own right, but based upon the totality of what we know now, does not begin to approach an explanation for the stand-down by NORAD, for example, or of how the demolitions were situated or the post-attack cover-ups.

The US “Let it Happen”

Cover Story #4: It was allowed to happen. The distinction between “LIHOP” (let it happen on purpose) and “MIHOP“ (made it happen on purpose) has been powerfully reinforced by the “Able Danger” contretemps. As a highly classified, anti-terrorist intelligence operation, Able Danger fell under Special Operations (SOCOM) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) control. When claims arose that the US had had advanced knowledge of 9/11 and had allowed it to happen, a 16-month investigation by the Senate Intelligence committee reported in December 2006 that there had been no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks by US authorities.

The evidence, however, indicates that was not the case—and, indeed, that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated and staged by elements within the Department of Defense with help from their friends in the Mossad. As the 10th observance of 9/11 approaches, we know that there were a minimum of two independent deep cover covert operations which were operating on dual track, parallel and also interwoven. The first one was the creation and tracking—principally by the Mossad—of some “low tech” terrorist cells, which were set up, financed, and trained by US and other intelligence agencies.

“Able Danger” discovered this low-tech terror cell sub-track, which we can call “Track A”. The operation was designed to be discovered to create false cover, so that when 9/11 succeeded, it could be shown by information discovered by a bona fide intelligence group that this terror cell was responsible. That would be the role played by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, other members of the “Able Danger” team, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI in Minneapolis. Track A, however, was designed to be discovered and then the investigation stopped, creating the image of high-level US incompetence that had allowed this terror cell to succeed in hijacking aircraft with box-cutters and then flying those aircraft into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

When the folks from “Able Danger” swear that they uncovered “a real terrorist cell plot”, they are telling the truth. It was set up this way as a false track. When Coleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not obtain a search warrant for the hard drive of Zacarias Moussaui because he was involved in this terror cell, she was telling the truth. But Track A was set up as a false track to be terminated before the 9/11 attacks to provide a convincing cover story for the highest levels of US intelligence and make the government appear to be merely hugely incompetent. After all, how could government officials of this incompetence have staged a successful and effective covert operation?

The US “Made it Happen”

Actual Story: The US “Made it Happen”. Track B, by comparison, was a high-tech track designed to use readiness exercises on 9/11, including some 17 anti-terrorist drills on 9/11 that disrupted communication and coordination between NORAD and the FAA, by taking some of them live and substituting high-tech weapons and in order to target the Twin Towers and the Pentagon by that means. Track B involved the use of numerous different demolition means, including incendiaries and multiple modes of destruction, most of which alone would be insufficient cause for the detonation of the Twin Towers, which was arguably used to induce false leads confusing investigators and researchers.

A perfect example turns out to be the “hard science” 9/11 Truth group’s insistence that nanothermite was the principal element used in the demolition of the Twin Towers. This position, which has assumed a status akin to that of a dogma within the 9/11 movement, turns out to be unsustainable in light of research that has established that nanothermite is non-explosive—or, at best, a feeble explosive—and cannot have been responsible for blowing the towers apart, for ejecting massive steel assemblies hundreds of feet, or for the pulverization of concrete or the destruction of steel by means of shockwaves. To a bona fide explosives expert, the claim that nanothermite provided the explosive energy or enough shockwave velocity to perform these tasks had to be an obvious deception. If it was deliberately planted to divert research on 9/11 along an ultimately unproductive line, it may have succeeded beyond the wildest intel dreams as a classic “red herring”.

Another example, surprisingly, is the Pentagon attack, where some of those within the 9/11 community have argued strenuously for not going there, because the Department of Defense might spring a new video on the public that proves a Boeing 757 actually did hit the building. The evidence contradicting that contention is abundant and compelling, however, including the expert assessment of Major General Albert N. Stubblebine, USA (ret.), perhaps the world’s leading expert on image analysis and interpretation, who has concluded that no plane hit the Pentagon. When you take all the evidence into account, the case against a plane is staggering, but internal dissension has precluding using it— and other powerful proofs of governmental fakery —and has taken this evidence out of the public domain:

“From the photographs I have analyzed very, very carefully,” Stubblebine has explained, “it was not an airplane.” During an interview in Germany, he explained that there should have been wing marks on the façade of the Pentagon. “If it had wings, it would have left wing marks. [There are] those who claim that the plane tilted and hit the ground first and lost a wing. But airplanes have two wings, and he could not find indications of any wing in any of those photographs.” Regarding the Twin Towers, he added, “Look at the buildings falling—they didn”t fall down because of an airplane hit them. They fell down because explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God’s sake.”

Whistleblowing as Deception

The politics of 9/11, however, are far more murky than the science. So when folks from Able Danger swear that they uncovered a real terror cell plot, they are telling the truth. It was set up this way as a false track. When a Colleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not get a search warrant for Moussaui’s hard-drive because he was involved in this terror cell, she is telling the truth. When a Sibel Edmonds is gagged by court order and tries to tell how certain how administration officials were communicating with this terror cell, she is telling the truth. Indeed, the effort to mislead our own experts even extended to Richard Clarke, who has explained that he himself had been given the false impression that, apart from a few analysts, the CIA had been unaware of what was going on prior to 9/11, which was intended to support the theory of US incompetence.

Clarke, who was the nation’s leading anti-terrorism expert, recently observed, “It’s not as I originally thought, which was that one lonely CIA analyst got this information and didn’t somehow recognize the significance of it,” Clarke said during an interview. “No, fifty, 5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these guys were in the country was the CIA director. … We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information. … It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around that restriction … These are only theories about the CIA’s failures to communicate vital information to the bureau … Perhaps the agency decided that Saudi intelligence would have a better chance of recruiting these men than the Americans. That would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well.”

Indeed, as Ian Henshall has observed, if you substitute the Mossad for the Saudis, you have the explanation for the dancing Israelis, who were apprehended for filming and celebrating during the destruction of the Twin Towers and were released later under orders from Michael Chertoff, then an advisor Attorney General John Ashcroft and a dual US-Israel citizen, who would become Director of the new Department of Homeland Security—which leads directly to reports like those from Dr. Steve Pieczenik that 9/11 was indeed “an inside job” and studies like those from Alan Sabrosky, Ph.D., who has explain that 9/11 involved complicity between neo-con Zionists in the Department of Defense and the Mossad, where Israel had very powerful motives for 9/11 and, along with the Bush/Cheney administration, has been its primary beneficiary.

But Israel cannot have done this alone. The NORAD “stand down” and the attack on the Pentagon required complicity at the highest levels of the Department of Defense. And the benefits to the Bush/Cheney administration have likewise been enormous. As Patrick Martin has observed, “Without 9/11, there would be no US occupation of Iraq, putting an American army squarely at the center of the world’s largest pool of oil. Without 9/11, there would be no US bases across Central Asia, guarding the second largest source of oil and gas. And without 9/11, the Bush administration would have been unable to sustain itself politically, faced with a deteriorating economy and widespread opposition to its tax cuts for millionaires and social measures to appease the fundamentalist Christian Right.”

The Fourth Reich

Indeed, the extreme motivation of a small number of radical Israelis and their lobbies like AIPAC to manipulate US foreign policy in the Mideast may have created huge future trap for them in their role as “classic cutouts”, which can be later exposed in a limited hangout admission in order to direct blame toward the Mossad and the small number of radical Jews involved, who do not represent most Jewish folks at all, thus directing blame away from from those who used them in their cutout role and who were actually at the top of the command structure. This limited hangout disclosure could then later be used to blame all Jews and add them to the large and growing Homeland Security watch-list list of possible domestic terrorists such as Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists and tax protestors, and member of any current social group that is trying to gain exposure and cessation of rampant government corruption and creeping tyranny of the government at all levels, which of course encompasses those dedicated to 9/11 Truth.

Attn: Jon Gold - [by Jpass on Mon, 2009-04-13: 'FOOTNOTE 44' - More Fake Truth?]

theepitbull@ August 13th, 2011 at 7:33 pm [Censored Comment]

1. Submitted by gretavo on Wed, 2009-04-15 19:38.: Breitweiser focuses on Footnote 44 of the Commission report, which "proved that the CIA deliberately withheld information from the FBI about two of the terrorists who would go on to become 9/11 hijackers." The footnote indicates a CIA desk officer instructed an FBI agent not to send a cable with information about Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi to his colleagues at FBI headquarters.

2. Submitted by gretavo on Wed, 2009-04-15 19:46.: I'd like to give Ms. Breitweiser the benefit of the doubt, but she needs to make clear that what Footnote 44 is most likely concealing is the fact that the arabs in question were being "saved for later" when they would be falsely accused. NOT that they were being helped to carry out their "real mission" of "hijacking commercial aircraft on 9/11", which is simply put an unproven and highly suspect allegation.

3. Submitted by theepitbull@ August 13th, 2011 at 7:33 pm : For emphasis, this latest revelation thread spreads the "meme" that the FBI didn't know, puts in place a "false" paradigm of blame between the CIA and FBI and sensationalizes this latest revelation for other purposes than just truth.

Sorry, but, I ain't buying it!

In my humble opinion

(((3)))

PS: Link of the week: http://www.positivelypresent.com/2010/06/start-thinking-clearly.html

It does not take a PSYOPS expert to discern the pattern here when Richard Clarke resuscitates the incompetence theory, according to which the US “let 9/11 happen”. Even on the assumption that he is sincere, we have a fall-back position intended to minimize concern for complicity by the Bush/Cheney administration and its friends in the Mossad—who, moreover, do not necessarily represent the highest level of control over the atrocities of 9/11.

"Because Clarke was in the crucial position of being the nation’s anti-terrorism czar, his affirmations about incompetence between agencies, such as the CIA and the FBI, come across to the public and can be widely promoted as admirable and courageous acts of whistle blowing, when their role in deceiving the public drowns amidst the anguish and concern that “if only we had done better” and “we must not let this happen again”, oblivious of the role that his reports are playing in burying the truth about 9/11".

We have now reached the point in America where any citizen or group wanting to obtain needed social justice, or the cessation of undeclared, unprovoked, and unConstitutional wars, in violation of international law and the UN Charter, are now placed on a secret watch list and considered as “potential domestic terrorists” by Homeland Security, which some—with ample justification—view as “The New American Gestapo.” If the US has been hijacked by offshore corporate and banking interests, which have their own anti-American agenda and are now in the process of Nazifying America, as some astute researchers have suggested, then certainly this could lead to a “Fourth Reich” run by offshore banks and large international corporations and we could see a replay of the unlimited persecution of minorities and special scapegoats such as specific groups such as Muslims, Jews and Christians who dissent from The New Tyranny.

So If you have wondered why covert operations like 9/11 are so difficult to unravel or why it is all but impossible to convince the feds who investigated it that this was actually a US false flag/stand-down/inside-job, deep-black covert operation, the answer to that question appears to be that the plan was designed from conception to obfuscate what happened, not only regarding the public but also the government’s own experts, who would be assigned to investigate them—and even to keep most of those who had an actual part in those operations in the dark, so only those at the highest levels of the government knew what happened and, even among them, only a few probably knew the full dimensions of the plan. The objective throughout, accordingly, has always been to keep the public in a state of uncertainly, where everything about these events is believable and nothing is knowable—which is the ultimate objective of disinformation.

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a former Marine Corps officer and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Preston James is the pseudonym of a Ph.D. in social psychology, who has become an expert on psy-ops, “false flag” and covert operations by the US government.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: 9/11 Unveiled (part 1 of 10): Attack, Response

9/11: The Clarke/Tenet Deception Gambit :o

Able Danger

Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11 :o

There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11

Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners

Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged

Inside Job: Seven Questions About 9/11

New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11

Overview of New 9/11 Research

Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity

Pakistan's ISI Link to 9/11 Funding

FBI Translator Access to Wiretaps of Surveillance Targets with Whom She Has Links

FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Invited by Co-Worker to Become Member of Group that Is Under Federal Investigation

US State Dept Official Helped Pass Nuclear Secrets to Turkey, Pakistan, Israel

Sibel Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege Gallery :o

Translator Alleges FBI Agent Is Deliberately Deceived Regarding Skyscraper Warning

A Sibel Edmonds 'Bombshell' - Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Until 9/11 :o

Is “9/11 Truth” Based Upon a False Theory?

Major General Albert Stubblebine: Towers Fell Down Because of Explosives

White House Whistleblower Richard Clarke - PsyOps 101

More Evidence of Government Complicity in 9/11 Attacks :o

Clarke Airs Suspicions Over Sept. 11 Intel Failures - PsyOps 101

" Arbeit Macht Frei " Jailing Immigrant$ I$ Big Busine$$

By Gabriel Lerner - Posting #162

LOS ANGELES -- At dawn on July 19, nearly 40 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Immigration (HSI) agents burst into the home home of Carmen Bonilla, 44. The agents were searching for "Robert" an alleged drug dealer, but ended up terrifying Bonilla and her son Michael, 16, daughter Josefina, 23, daughter-in-law Leticia, 28, and her granddaughters.

According to Jessica Dominguez, the family's lawyer, and Jorge Mario Cabrera, spokesperson of the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), the family was subjected to "different levels of physical and verbal abuse," including screaming, "kicking, beating and aggression." Their treatment was documented last week by HuffPost LatinoVoices' Jorge Luis Macías.

What happened to the Bonillas has happened to thousands of immigrant families. Immigration authorities -- both local police and federal ICE agents -- have embarked on a program to seek out "criminal illegal aliens" and, whether they find them or not, have often rounded up entire families for deportation.

Even though the Bonilla family members do not have criminal records, they face removal proceedings before an immigration judge. The family was able to find legal representation and general public support, enabling their release from ICE custody, but undocumented immigrants who are less lucky are routinely sent to prisons and detention centers where ICE will process their paperwork and decide whether they may be released.

"If they have a criminal record, particularly a drug or security-related conviction, or a felony or violent crime, or crime of moral turpitude, they will likely have to remain in custody until their trial before the [immigration judge]," explained Aggie R. Hoffman, an immigration attorney.

The Department of Homeland Security pays between $50 to $200 per day per person to local, county and state prisons to house apprehended aliens. A few years ago, a series I wrote for La Opinión showed how prisons in general, and California's prisons in particular, benefit from the largesse of the federal government and vie for a piece of this lucrative business. At that time, I visited a detention center in Lancaster, Calif., run by the Sheriff of Los Angeles, where immigrants rounded up in raids were housed until their deportation or legal proceedings. The process is supposed to take just a few days, but some of the detainees rushed to tell me that they had been kept there for more than two years.

"This happens frequently because the courts are so backlogged; not enough judges to hear the cases of those being held", explained Hoffman.

But the incarceration trend is not limited to public prisons. Thanks to a concerted lobbying push from the corrections industry, growing numbers of undocumented immigrants could end up in private detention facilities.

Over the past three years, immigration politics has seen more restrictive legislation at the state level and the unprecedented enforcement of current laws by the Obama administration. Together, the laws and the stepped up enforcement have the potential to bring tens of thousands of individuals into for-profit jails.

The recent animated video "Immigrants for Sale" by the activist group Cuéntame illustrates some facts behind the connection between the ongoing crackdown on illegal immigration and the for-profit corrections industry.

The video follows the trail of money and political power behind this piece of the national immigration debate. Its creators say it's an attempt to uncover what lies behind the positions and ideologies in a discussion in which statements and accusations made at maximum volume have long replaced the open exchange of ideas and opinions.

"Cuéntame means 'tell me your story,'" said the group's founder, producer/director Axel Woolfolk Caballero. He said the organization works to make an impact through short videos, docu-series, media campaigns and "interviews from the street or in our studio or sent to us by others." Cuéntame is part of the Brave New Foundation, which focuses on social justice media.

The video states that behind the words and laws, there is an alliance of businesses and politicians called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Some of ALEC's members are both the most ardent proponents of anti-immigration laws and representatives of the industries that will benefit directly from having more people behind bars. At least 12 companies involved in the corrections industry are members of the alliance.

ALEC was created in 1978 and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. According to the group's mission statement, it is "a non-profit, private organization dedicated to principles of free markets, limited government, federalism (the proper balance of federal and state government), and individual liberty." ALEC achieves these aims through a exchange of ideas between state politicians and business leaders, facilitating the legislative process around certain causes dear to the latter. Through one of ALEC’s eight committees, lawyers and business experts actually write laws that are later enacted almost verbatim.

Each year, ALEC produces approximately 1000 legislative proposals, 20 percent of which eventually become laws, according to the group. The Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch reports: "98% of ALEC's funding comes from corporations like Exxon Mobil, corporate 'foundations' like the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, or trade associations like the pharmaceutical industry's PhRMA."

Cuéntame focuses on ALEC members' use of political pressure to achieve more restrictive immigration laws, which require longer detentions and a larger number of detainees.

Some of ALEC's model bills include the "three Strikes" law, changes in mandatory minimum sentences and "truth-in-sentencing," which would further eliminate the possibility of parole for many inmates.

Yet ALEC rejects the idea that it promotes increased construction of private prisons. In a statement last October, the group said, "ALEC’s position on prison overcrowding ... is to reduce the non-violent prison population in order to save taxpayer costs."

One of the best known legislative members of ALEC is State Senator Russell Pearce, a proponent of Arizona's very restrictive immigration law, SB 1070. According to an investigation by NPR, Pearce took his version of the legislation to an ALEC meeting, where it was then revised and adapted by members of the corrections industry, obtaining their unqualified support.

SB 1070 has been imitated by similar laws -- some even stricter and more encompassing -- in at least five other states. These include HB 56 in Alabama, Utah's Compact / HB 497, Indiana's SB 590, Georgia's HB 87 and South Carolina's S 20.

ALEC is now working on a series of laws concerning prisons, including The Housing Out-of-State Prisoners in a Private Prison Act; The Prison Industries Act; The Inmate Labor Disclosure Act; A Resolution on Prison Expenditures; a Model State Bill Prohibiting Wireless Handsets in Prisons; the Targeted Contracting for Certain Correctional Facilities and Services Act; and the Prevention of Illegal Payments to Inmates Incentives Act, details of which are restricted to ALEC members only.

One of ALEC's members is Corrections Corporation of America, the country's largest for-profit prison company, founded in 1983. CCA designs, builds, manages and operates correctional facilities and detention centers on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the United States Marshal Service in nearly half of all states, according to the company's website.

According to Cuéntame, CCA houses about 60 percent of the almost 100,000 -- up from 14,000 in 2006 -- immigrant detainees at any given time.

In 2008, the New Yorker published an expose drawing attention businesses involved in the imprisonment of families with children in the T. Don Hutto Detention Center in Texas, a CCA facility.

CCA, together with other prison companies GEO Group and Management and Training Corporation, owns more than 200 private prisons with 150,000 beds and makes an annual profit of $5 billion, Cuéntame found.

"Private prisons profit like a hotel," the video states. "The more occupants they can throw in, the more money comes out."

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: Companies Use Immigration Crackdown to Turn a Profit Thanks Senator For This:)

Prison-industrial complex [The MotherLoad]

Privatized Prisons...Criminal in a Democracy

How Prisons Imperil Black Voting Power in Post-Katrina Louisiana

HoW CoMpAnIe$ MaKe MoNeY OfF PrI$OnEr$ - " ArBeIt MaChT FrEi "

The Prison Industrial Complex Part I

The Prison Industrial Complex – Part II