What is the personality type of people employed by an agency tasked with being COVERT WHILE SPYING with goals of undermining global Wall Street?
LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, NO ETHICS OR MORALS, NO ATTENTION TO RULE OF LAW, NO GOD'S NATURAL LAW, FAR-RIGHT PRAGMATIC NILISM.
The CIA instills the values of global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.
So, when our candidates for President started to be former CIA agents of various kinds VOILA we bring that ethos into our highest government offices with government appointments with the same ethos. This is what brought the decline of America these few decades of ROBBER BARON fleecing of America.
Let's look at the Federal statutory laws surrounding CIA----we know they were created to protect empire-building global corporations and pave the way to markets around the world. We know they started having no jurisdiction inside the US and were not to interfere with US internal governance and economics. Fast-forward to 1980s after Reagan was exposed as totally corrupting all CIA mission and ethos with a Bush Sr as VP and here we have that same Bush Sr and Congress passing law because of PUBLIC OUTRAGE and this article shows how we have the start of PRETEND LEGISLATION having no intention of enforcing. An inspector General separate from the CIA agency appointed by former CIA agency Presidents.
'As it turned out, Hitz was to serve in that position for the next eight years, and, notwithstanding the Bush administration's earlier trepidation, not once during Hitz's tenure did any of the DCIs he served see the need to invoke the authorities provided by the 1989 law to curtail his activities'.
This is like creating an EXTERNAL review board for Baltimore Police Department to correct corruption and having all the faces bucking for appointments being the same global Wall STreet Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' players working for a global Johns Hopkins who creates the bad policing environment -----
THE SOLUTION IS GETTING RID OF THE GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND THEIR 5% TO THE 1% PLAYERS=====
This is a long article please glance through.
A Unique Vantage Point
Creating a Statutory Inspector General at the CIA
L. Britt Snider
The CIA has had an Inspector General (IG) since 1952. But it was only in 1989 that Congress enacted legislation creating an "independent" IG at CIA, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.1 Before that, IGs were appointed by the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI).
"Statutory" IGs had been installed at most departments and agencies of the federal government pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, but CIA was exempted from that particular law. The legislation that was enacted in 1989 was modeled after the 1978 Act, but in some respects the CIA IG was more constrained than the IGs of other agencies.2 While providing independence for the IG remained an essential ingredient, Congress did not want an IG at the CIA who was so "independent" that he or she might jeopardize the Agency's operations.
I happened to have been the General Counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) when this legislation was passed and had a key role in its development and ultimate enactment. Nine years later, after I had left the SSCI, I became the second person appointed under the statute. While Hill lore is rife with stories about congressional staffers who write laws creating jobs for themselves, let me assure the reader that this was the furthest thing from my mind at the time.
Nevertheless, having become the IG by quirk of fate, it seemed incumbent upon me to record what I recall about the peculiar way the legislation creating this position came about. There is an old adage that making law is a lot like making sausage--one does not want to know exactly how it is done. Knowing how this particular sausage was made, however, provides a better understanding of what Congress intended it to be.
Creating an independent statutory IG at the CIA did not gain political momentum until after the Iran-contra scandal of 1986-87, although all the investigations of the CIA that took place in the mid-1970s had pointed out serious defects in the IG function.
In 1975, the Rockefeller Commission reported that the CIA IG had only five professionals on its staff, and that the scope of its work as well as its access to information was limited. The Commission recommended expanding the staff and improving its caliber, as well as requiring that its reports be provided to executive branch offices outside the CIA, such as the National Security Council.
A year later, the Church committee similarly found that the IG had been denied access to vital information; that it had otherwise been prevented from doing its job; that its recommendations were being ignored; and that it was not making reports of suspected illegalities to the Attorney General. To address these problems, the committee recommended enactment of a statute that guaranteed the IG's right to Agency information and access to its operations. Congress would be notified if the IG were prohibited from looking into a particular matter. The committee also recommended illegalities be reported to the Attorney General and that the Congress be notified of such referrals. Annual reports from the IG to Congress were also recommended.
The Pike committee went beyond its Senate counterpart by recommending legislation to create an Inspector General for Intelligence who would have jurisdiction over the entire Intelligence Community, including the CIA.6
None of these proposals was enacted into law at the time. The intelligence "charter" legislation introduced in the Senate in 1978 would have implemented a number of the Church committee recommendations pertaining to the IG, but the Carter administration ultimately withdrew its support for the bill, which then sank of its own weight.
The Iran-Contra Affair
When the CIA's role in the arms sales to Iran came to light in November 1986, a team of investigators from the CIA IG's office swung into action. Two months later, they produced a report based upon their review of Agency records and interviews with knowledgeable employees. While the report was accurate as far as it went, it paled in comparison to the information developed by the congressional and independent counsel investigations that followed.
In its final report, the combined House and Senate investigating committee took note, commenting that the CIA Inspector General "did not appear to have the manpower, resources, or tenacity to acquire key facts uncovered by the other investigations."7 While this criticism may have been unfair given the circumstances, it nonetheless led a majority to recommend that the CIA have an independent statutory IG like other agencies, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Specter Takes Up the IG Issue
Following the Iran-contra affair, the SSCI leadership, Chairman David L. Boren and Vice Chairman William S. Cohen, was seized with correcting the systemic problems apparent from the Iran-Contra affair. Most of their attention was devoted to the problem of ensuring that the oversight committees were notified of covert actions "in a timely fashion," as required by existing law. Cohen, in fact, introduced legislation in the fall of 1987 to require that the President notify the committees, without exception, within 48 hours of approving a covert action. While Boren and Cohen were aware of the recommendation of the Iran-Contra committees urging the creation of a statutory IG at CIA, it was well down their list of priorities.
Senator Arlen Specter, on the minority side of the SSCI at the time, also decided to sponsor legislation to deal with the problems evident in the Iran-Contra issue. At the request of Specter's staff assistant, I put together an omnibus package of proposals in the fall of 1987 which Specter introduced as S. 1818. The last proposal in the bill called for the creation of an independent statutory IG at the CIA. The proposal was modeled after the Inspector General Act of 1978, but it contained important differences, which, in the interests of brevity, I will not go into here.
Boren and Cohen recognized that Specter's omnibus bill was substantive, and, having encouraged members to involve themselves in the committee's work, could hardly ignore it. At the same time, it was clear that no legislation would be reported by the committee that did not have the support of Boren and Cohen, and, despite the fact that they had signed the final report of the Iran-Contra committee, both remained cool to the idea of a statutory IG for the CIA. At this point, neither was willing to endorse Specter's IG proposal or co-sponsor his omnibus bill.
Boren, in particular, was concerned that an IG who was too independent could pose a threat to the Agency's operations. He also worried that an independent IG might play too powerful a role in the oversight framework, perhaps even competing with the congressional intelligence committees. He wondered whether the IG was the appropriate place for such power to reside.
The misgivings of the chairman were reinforced by the uncharacteristically hostile stance taken by DCI William Webster towards the Specter proposal. In private conversations with Boren and Cohen, Webster made clear his opposition to installing a political appointee in the IG position, someone who might not understand, or be willing to accommodate, the needs of the Agency and someone whom the DCI did not completely control. In November 1987, in an apparent effort to head off the legislation, Webster advised that he had created a senior steering group within the CIA to find ways of strengthening the IG function.
In the meantime, the SSCI held public hearings in late 1987 on the broader issues raised by the Iran-contra affair. Although Specter's bill ostensibly formed the basis for the hearing, the IG issue took a back seat to the weightier separation-of-powers issues confronting the committee. In light of this, Specter asked for, and was given, a commitment that the committee would hold a hearing on the IG proposal during the next session.
1988: The IG Issue Percolates
When the 100th Congress reconvened in January 1988, the SSCI members found a letter from DCI Webster waiting for them, advising of the "sweeping" changes he had made to the IG's office to correct the deficiencies noted by the Iran-Contra committee.
Boren announced at roughly the same time the creation of an "audit staff" within the existing SSCI staff to bolster the committee's capability to identify financial irregularities at the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Although Boren never said it in so many words, he saw the new committee audit staff as a counterweight to Specter's statutory IG.
Several months later, on 1 March 1988, the committee honored its commitment to Senator Specter by holding a public hearing on the IG provisions of his bill. Testimony was received from the Comptroller General, the State and DoD IGs, and, finally, DCI Webster.8 Few members showed up, however, and Boren signaled at the outset his ambivalence towards the proposal.
Webster tried to make the case that the Agency could have an effective IG without legislation. Indeed, he asked the SSCI for more time to allow the actions he had taken to strengthen the CIA IG bear fruit. More investigators would be hired, he said; more training would be required; and greater professionalism would be brought to the work. Indeed, Webster painted a rather grand vision of the IG, telling the SSCI that he saw the IG as more than a "watchdog," but rather a place where the top leaders and managers of the Agency would be cultivated. He said he intended to make a rotational assignment to the IG part of the career development of the Agency's best and brightest.
A statutory IG, on the other hand, could only complicate things, said Webster, threatening his ability as DCI to protect intelligence sources and methods.10 He noted that potential sources might be reluctant to work with CIA for fear that an independent IG might disclose their identities. Foreign partners might worry their relationships with the Agency might be exposed. Specter responded by asking whether sensitive information had been compromised by the statutory IGs at State and Defense, but Webster demurred.
By the end of the hearing, it was clear to me that Boren had no intention of moving the Specter bill. Besides being unsure of its merits, he wanted to accommodate the DCI. At the same time, he wanted to give Specter something if only to discourage him from striking out on his own.
The solution we came up with was to include in the SSCI's markup of the FY 1989 intelligence authorization bill a requirement that the DCI make certain reports to the committees regarding the operation of the IG's office. The DCI would be required to file semiannual reports summarizing the activities of the IG for the preceding six-month period as well as one-time reports whenever the DCI selected or removed an IG, or whenever he prohibited the IG from undertaking an investigation, audit, or inspection, or otherwise hindered the IG in the execution of his duties.
These reporting requirements did not entirely satisfy Senator Specter but kept him at bay. In the meantime, the SSCI staff, and in particular, Senator Specter's staff assistant, began to track the reports being issued by the CIA IG. In the following months, the SSCI obtained two such reports that were, on their face, wholly inadequate, regardless of which side of the IG debate one happened to be on. I recall that one of these reports, which had been specifically requested by the committee, had obvious lines of inquiry that had not been pursued; key witnesses who had not been interviewed; and analysis that was shoddy and unpersuasive. On being shown this particular report by his staff assistant, Senator Specter made a beeline for the Senate floor to express his outrage. I raced over there myself when I heard what was going on but arrived too late to hear the Senator's remarks.
The poor quality of these reports, though, had an impact on the committee beyond Senator Specter. For many on the staff, who had previously viewed the statutory IG debate largely in terms of principled arguments, now began to believe the CIA IG might lack the necessary professionalism.
Whatever change may have occurred in the staff's sentiments over the summer of 1988, the Senate committee's language requiring various DCI reports relating to the IG survived virtually intact when the two committees met in conference on the authorization bill later in the fall.
Senator Glenn Joins the Fray
Until this point, Senator John Glenn, who was a member of the SSCI as well as chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (with jurisdiction over the Inspector General Act of 1978), had deferred to Boren's handling of the CIA IG issue.
In the fall of 1988, however, after the committee had acted on the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 1989, Glenn's Governmental Affairs staff sent to the SSCI draft bill language that would place the CIA IG under the Inspector General Act of 1978. Glenn's staff indicated that he planned to introduce the bill in the next session or propose it as an amendment to the FY 1990 intelligence authorization. Among other things, the bill would have required the CIA IG to report to the governmental affairs committees in each body rather than the intelligence committees. A call to Glenn's staff confirmed that this was indeed what he intended.
This significantly changed the situation as far as Boren was concerned. Glenn was a good friend who Boren sought to accommodate if he could. But he could not agree with the CIA IG's reporting to other than the intelligence committees. Still, it was apparent that if Glenn were to follow through with his plans to introduce the bill or offer a floor amendment to the next authorization bill, it would pass in a nano-second. As far as Congress is concerned, oversight of the executive branch is motherhood. Oversight of the CIA is motherhood, apple pie, and the 4th of July wrapped into one. Senators would not be able to get on the bandwagon fast enough.
Given this development, Boren asked that I draft competing legislation for him to sponsor. The only specific guidance I received was that the bill should provide for the CIA IG to report to the intelligence committees, although I perceived from his comments months earlier that Boren would also want the bill to take into account his misgivings about an "all-powerful" IG.
I developed language for the bill in late fall 1988. While it contained a number of the elements I had put into Senator Specter's bill, such as presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, I took pains to ensure there were differences. At the same time, I knew it would be important to incorporate more features from the 1978 Act than the Specter bill to deflect criticism from the Governmental Affairs Committee.
I shared my draft with Glenn's committee staff, but not surprisingly, they preferred their own.
The 101st Congress
When the new Congress convened in January 1989, Senator Specter introduced a revised bill, S. 199, limited to the IG issue, and made it clear he planned to pursue the legislation in the next session. Given my own recent efforts to develop a competing bill for the chairman, Senator Specter's staff assistant worked with the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel (which provides drafting assistance to members) to come up with a somewhat different proposal than the one I had drafted earlier.
Glenn, on the other hand, chose not to introduce his bill when the new Congress convened, and for several months we waited to see how the issue would play out. Then, one afternoon in early spring 1989, I was summoned to Glenn's office to discuss the Boren draft. When I arrived, I found two chairs placed in front of his desk. I sat in one and his staff director on the Governmental Affairs committee sat in the other. There ensued a mini-debate between the two of us, going over the competing proposals point by point. Senator Glenn asked a lot of questions, and at the end of the discussion, to my astonishment, told the two of us he had decided to support the Boren alternative, provided Boren was serious about moving it. I assured him Boren was.
The SSCI Markup
With Glenn's support, Boren was now in a position to move his version of the IG legislation through the committee, although the possibility that the administration would oppose the bill (given DCI Webster's aversion to the whole idea) still loomed before us.
The committee's markup of the legislative items in the annual authorization bills was usually perfunctory, with the issues (if there were any) having been worked out in advance. At these sessions, as counsel, I would ordinarily describe the proposed legislative items to the committee, and the chairman would move their adoption as a package.
The markup of the IG legislation was different. Indeed, it stands out in my mind as the most unusual in my nine years with the committee. It occurred on a Thursday evening when the Senate had votes stacked up until about 2:00 a.m. The Senators had nothing to do between votes, so that is when the markup was held. The session was held in a secure room in the Capitol so members would not have far to walk when the votes were called. Because it was late in the evening, no one had any other place else to go. Virtually the entire committee was present. Rather than the committee's summarily adopting the proposal, I was asked to walk through each provision, and the members voted on them one by one.
A few of the bill's provisions, such as whether to give the CIA IG subpoena power, were hotly debated. (Ultimately, subpoena authority was voted down.) Some also wondered whether the concept of an independent IG really was appropriate for the CIA. While they were in the minority, their comments did force the proponents to come to grips intellectually with the fundamental issue. We adjourned about 1:00 a.m., and I remember walking back to the office tired but exhilarated. It was the way the founding fathers must have contemplated the Senate would operate, only nowadays there was never enough time.
On the Senate floor a few weeks later a spirited opposition was mounted to the IG proposal, led by Senator Fritz Hollings, but it was clear that with Boren and Cohen providing bipartisan support for the measure, opponents stood little chance of success.12 The IG legislation survived a motion to table by a vote of 64-34.
Facing a Possible Veto
Despite the convincing vote on the floor, Boren knew that, unless he could assure the House committee that the IG provision would not bring on a presidential veto of the bill, it would be difficult to get through conference.13 When the bill was on the Senate floor, President Bush as well as DCI Webster had sent letters to the Senate leadership opposing enactment of the IG provisions. But did opposition to the IG provisions necessarily translate into an administration veto of the authorization bill? The question seemed to hinge upon how seriously the Bush administration regarded the DCI's concerns.
To gauge this issue, Senator Boren reached out to Bob Gates, who was at that point deputy to National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. Boren and Gates had become good friends when Boren assumed the chair of the SSCI in January 1987, and one of his first duties had been to preside at Gates's confirmation hearings to be the DCI. Gates withdrew his nomination about a month into the process because he realized he was likely to remain under the scrutiny of the independent counsel for Iran-contra for some time to come. While Boren understood Gates's decision, he regretted not having the opportunity to work with him as DCI.
In August 1989, Gates ultimately provided Boren assurance that the President would not veto the authorization bill if the IG language were included. I do not know precisely how this came about. I was not privy to the discussions between Boren and Gates, nor was I privy to the conversations I later learned Boren had had with DCI Webster on the subject. I suspect General Scowcroft also had to have been involved, but I do not know this for a fact. Boren handled this on his own and told me only that he had assurances the administration would not veto the bill over the IG provision, and that I should work with DCI Webster to take care of certain specific problems he had with the language that had passed the Senate.
Those problems did not prove to be substantial. I was able to accommodate CIA's suggestions without doing damage to the bill, and, working with the HPSCI staff, was able to present an "agreed-on" version of the language to the conference committee. While House members can usually be counted upon to be cynical when it comes to approving additional positions for Senate confirmation (as a rule, they fail to see the "stature" bequeathed by the Senate's anointing lesser officials), they accepted the IG proposal with little discussion. By this point, it was a done deal.
CIA had not helped itself by causing the committees to doubt the efficacy of DCI Webster's actions to strengthen the IG, but, in the end, the statutory IG became law not because the intelligence committees were especially keen to impose this solution on the CIA, but rather to head off what was likely to be less desirable legislation. If this deal had not been struck, Boren would have faced proposals by Senators Glenn or Specter, or both, in the next Congress, weakened by his failure to have gotten his own bill through in the previous session.
In the ensuing weeks, the conference report went back through both houses without a hitch, and, on 30 November 1989, President Bush signed the IG provisions into law as part of the FY 1990 Intelligence Authorization Act. The signing statement issued by the White House was hardly a ringing endorsement, however, with the President stating that he expected the DCI to exercise his statutory authority, where needed, to protect sensitive intelligence information, presumably from the "out-of-control" IG he feared the law permitted.
Not surprisingly, moreover, the Bush administration was slow to appoint someone to fill the position. Almost a year went by before Frederick P. Hitz was sworn in as the first IG under the new law.
As it turned out, Hitz was to serve in that position for the next eight years, and, notwithstanding the Bush administration's earlier trepidation, not once during Hitz's tenure did any of the DCIs he served see the need to invoke the authorities provided by the 1989 law to curtail his activities.
We see below Truman was the President creating the CIA and not long after----indeed soon after a Kennedy assassination----Truman tells us the CIA has failed to meet its original mission.
DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT!
Above is my organization's motto and if we have over these few decades seen a Federal agency that is ROGUE and we know other Presidents have shouted for its dismantlement then WE THE PEOPLE must step in----it is our civic duty to DISMANTLE the CIA and not simply sit and say OH THEY ARE BAD APPLES. How do we do that?
WE GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS FOR WHOM THE CIA WORKS.
Above we saw a number of CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSIONS
one of which was the ROCKEFELLER COMMISSION writing public policy on CIA reform. Raise your hand if you know the Rockefeller family are that global corporation corrupting the use of CIA!
'That is the context of the torture debate. As Truman understood, the CIA was dangerous and should be broken up or, in Kennedy's words, "splinter[ed] into a thousand pieces and scatter[ed] to the winds". That was 50 years and nine presidents ago and since John F Kennedy, no president has challenged the CIA'.
Rather than engage as citizens WE THE PEOPLE allowed Presidents and pols connected with global Wall Street and CIA take more and more control of our Democratic and Republican Parties. Below we see that transition during the FAKE CIA REFORM BY BUSH ERA CONGRESS----and indeed what CIA Director said below is what occurred------just as our Wall Street Federal finance agency oversight commissions and committees became REVOLVING DOORS between banking and Federal oversight agencies----so too was this INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE seen as a tool for training future CIA leadership. That is what Webster is saying below and we can believe those Congressional committees pretending to want to reform the CIA felt the same way.
'Indeed, Webster painted a rather grand vision of the IG, telling the SSCI that he saw the IG as more than a "watchdog," but rather a place where the top leaders and managers of the Agency would be cultivated'.
Is it not time to dismantle the CIA?
A former US president wanted to break up the CIA after it strayed from its mission, engaging in 'strange activities'.
CIA's intelligence activities have clearly continued to be a low priority, writes Rosenberg [AFP]
In a Washington Post column one month after the assassination of President Kennedy, former President Harry Truman, who established the intelligence agency, called for dismembering it. He wrote that he had created it solely to gather information not to engage in “cloak and dagger” and other non-intelligence related operations.
It’s not as if we weren’t warned us about the CIA. Some 50 years before the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its 500 page report on torture, former President Harry Truman, published an opinion piece in the Washington Post asserting that the Central Intelligence Agency was out of control and calling for it to be broken up. Truman’s column appeared on December 22, 1963, a month to the day following President John F. Kennedy’s assassination
It's not as if we weren't warned about the CIA. Some 50 years before the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its 500-page report on torture, former President Harry Truman published an opinion piece in the Washington Post asserting that the CIA was out of control and calling for it to be broken up.
Truman's column appeared on December 22, 1963, a month to the day following US President John F Kennedy's assassination and 11 years after he himself moved out of the White House.
Truman argued, as the president who authorised its establishment in 1947, that the CIA had strayed from the mission he had intended for it.
He had favoured creation of the CIA so that a president would have one agency providing him with objective foreign intelligence, rather than having to rely upon the often conflicting information being served up by the Departments of State, Defense, and others who "slanted to conform to established positions of a given department".
CIA's job description
"I wanted and needed the information in its 'natural raw' state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the president into unwise decisions ..."
Viewing intelligence gathering as its sole mission, Truman was disturbed "by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government." He said he had "never had any thought" that the CIA would involve itself in "cloak and dagger operations". But it had which "has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas".
Viewing intelligence gathering as its sole mission, Truman was disturbed 'by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment'.
It is clearly of some significance that Truman published his piece just one month after Kennedy's assassination. Although there is no evidence that Truman was suggesting CIA involvement in the assassination, it is impossible to believe that the late president's difficulties with the CIA were far from Truman's mind.
As a former president who the Kennedy White House regularly briefed on foreign policy issues and decisions, Truman knew how the CIA essentially steamrolled Kennedy into the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba (and other anti-Castro actions), leading Kennedy to tell a friend that he wanted "to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds".
Kennedy never had the chance to follow up on that idea but it was essentially what Truman suggested a month after Kennedy's death.
"I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the president, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field - and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere."
Obviously, Truman's recommendation had no effect. In fact, the Washington establishment apparently took action to see that Truman's piece disappeared almost without a trace (easier in those pre-internet days).
According to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the Washington Post only published the piece in its morning edition, pulling it from view after that (a peculiar way to treat an opinion piece by a former president, especially on such a weighty issue).
McGovern also reports that former CIA Director Allen Dulles, who Kennedy fired after the Bay of Pigs debacle, actually flew down to Truman's home in Independence, Missouri to get the former president to retract.
Place of 'strange activities'
Although Dulles reported back to his friends that Truman had indeed recanted, he clearly never did. In fact, six months after publishing the column in the Post, Truman wrote to the managing editor of Look Magazine that he intended the CIA as an intelligence gathering agency only and not a place where "strange activities" would be launched.
No doubt, the Bay of Pigs and Cuba, in general, were not the only examples of CIA interventions that disturbed Truman. In the years between the end of Truman's administration and his Washington Post column, the CIA had orchestrated the overthrow of governments in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964). Within a year following Truman's death, the CIA successfully brought down the Allende government in Chile (1973).
Inside Story - CIA torture: Who knew what?
As for its activities since, its intelligence activities have clearly continued to be a low priority (it has gotten Iraq wrong from the start, culminating most recently in its failure to predict the rise of ISIL) while, what Truman called its "cloak and dagger" operations, have proliferated.
According to historian William Blum, writing in Foreign Policy Journal, in the last 69 years, the CIA has (often in conjunction with the military) "(1) attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of which were democratically-elected, (2) attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries, (3) grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, (4) dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries, (5) attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders."
And now there are the horrific reports of torture and, equally appalling, the defense of CIA torture by former CIA driectors, other top CIA officials and, most enthusiastically, former Vice President Dick Cheney who famously told NBC five days after 9/11 that it was now time for US intelligence agencies to operate on the "dark side".
That is the context of the torture debate. As Truman understood, the CIA was dangerous and should be broken up or, in Kennedy's words, "splinter[ed] into a thousand pieces and scatter[ed] to the winds". That was 50 years and nine presidents ago and since John F Kennedy, no president has challenged the CIA.
Perhaps each of them have understood there are battles that not even a president could win.
'In his 1956 book The Power Elite, C. Wright Mills outlined the origins of power and its development in the United States. Mills' conclusions were that by the mid-twentieth century, American power had become concentrated into three major divisions; the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and the Pentagon. Prior to President Eisenhower's coinage of the term 'military-industrial complex', its existence and impact on American politics and governmental policy were well developed and recognized by Mills'.
There were plenty of articles written outing Obama as far-right wing global Wall Street and tying him to the CIA and the Bush family on his mother's side as he was campaigning in 2008 and our National Public Media was selling Obama as a left social Democratic progressive supporting all of FDR's social policy. This is when it was clear the fix was in===there was no way to get a candidate not tied to global Wall Street---Hillary vs Obama was Clinton vs Bush. This led to Obama's terms being called THE THIRD BUSH TERM.
This is why REAL Bernie Sanders supporters shouted BERNIE OR BUST.....it was not that we didn't know Bernie was global Wall Street as well---it was that need to FIX ELECTION RIGGING AND FRAUD.
Below we see ground zero for the massive subprime mortgage fraud AIG tied to Clinton and Obama.
So now the same global corporations funding CIA operations outside of Federal funding are funding Presidential candidates.
'The Bank of Hawaii has, according to published reports, been linked to a number of CIA-connected operations in the Asia-Pacific region, including links to the Indonesian Lippo Group and Mochtar Riady’s contributions to the presidential re-election campaign of Bill Clinton; American International Group (AIG) — bailed out by Obama';
Did you know this in 2008 during the Democratic primary elections because if not then you are listening to CAPTURED MEDIA OUTLETS.
What kinds of candidates do we think a Clinton machine and now an Obama machine will recruit? That is why those 5% to the 1% are now posing as FEELING THE BERN. THE FAKE REVOLUTIONARY LEADERS.
Obama’s CIA Pedigree
By Yanira Farray on August 7, 2010
CIA and President Obama
By Wayne Madsen in OpinonMaker
WMR [Wayne Madsen Report] previously reported on President Obama’s more than one year employment by a CIA front operation, Business International Corporation, Inc. (BIC) of New York after his graduation from Columbia University in 1983.
However, the State Department’s recent revelation in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that the pre-1965 passport files of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham Soetoro, were destroyed in the 1980s, has re-ignited suspicions that Obama’s mother worked for the CIA under non-official cover (NOC) cover in Indonesia while married to Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, a retired colonel in General Suharto’s CIA-backed ranks. Soetoro and Dunham married in 1965 after meeting at the University of Hawaii. That same year, the CIA-backed Suharto launched an anti-Communist coup that saw leftist President Sukarno eventually ousted from power and up to one million suspected Communists, including many ethnic Chinese Indonesians, massacred by government troops. Obama recently lifted a ban on U.S. military support for the Indonesian Red Beret KOPASSUS special operations forces imposed after the unit committed human rights abuses in East Timor in the late 1990s. The 12-year ban, imposed by the Clinton administration, was maintained by the Bush administration.
In 1967, Dunham moved with six-year old Barack Obama to Jakarta. In 1966, as Suharto consolidated his power, Colonel Soetoro was battling Communist rebels in the country. Dunham moved back to Hawaii in 1972, a year after Obama left Indonesia to attend school in Hawaii, and she divorced Soetoro in 1980. Soetoro was hired by Mobil to be a liaison officer with Suharto’s dictatorship. Soetoro died in 1987 at the age of 52. Ann Dunham died in 1995, also at the age of 52. Obama, Sr. died in an automobile accident in Kenya in 1982 at the age of 46. Obama, Sr. attended the University of Hawaii courtesy of a scholarship arranged by Kenyan nationalist leader Tom Mboya. Obama and Dunham married in 1961, however, Obama, at the time, had a wife back in Kenya. Obama and Dunham officially divorced in 1964, the same year Dunham married Soetoro.
Obama, Sr. met his old friend Mboya, the Kenyan Minister of Economic Planning and Development, shortly before Mboya was gunned down by an assassin in Nairobi in 1969. Kenya’s autocratic president Jomo Kenyatta was viewed as being behind the assassination of Mboya, a would-be rival for the presidency. Mboya was 39 when he was assasinated. Obama, Sr. testified at the trial of Mboya’s accused assassin and shortly thereafter, Obama, Sr. was the target of an attempted hit-and-run assassination attempt.
Files released by the State Department on Dunham’s name-change passport application lists two dates and places of marriage to Soetoro: March 5, 1964, in Maui and March 15, 1965, in Molokai — almost a year’s difference. In her 1968 passport renewal application, Barack Obama’s name is listed as Barack Hussein Obama (Saebarkah). In passport renewal and amendment applications filed from Jakarta, Dunham uses two different names: Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro and Stanley Ann Soetoro.
Dunham again applied for a passport from Jakarta in 1981 while working for the Ford Foundation. Her New York-based boss at the time was Peter Geithner, the father of Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Dunham also worked in rural villages in Java for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which was and remains notorious for conducting CIA operations around the world.
Ann Dunham and President Obama’s father, Barack Obama, Sr., a native of the British colony of Kenya, met in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii in 1959. The teaching of Russian in Hawaii, which hosted a number of US military bases and intelligence operations, is significant since a Russian language class during the height of the Cold War would normally attract a majority of U.S. intelligence professionals.
At the time Dunham met Obama, Sr. in Russian-language class at the University of Hawaii, the CIA was engaged in major covert operations in Asia, including attempted assassinations of Asian leaders. In an August 1975 article in Penthouse by former New York Times reporter Tad Szulc reported on two high-level planned CIA assassinations that were turned down by the ‘highest levels’ at the White House in the late 1950s: ‘. . . senior CIA officials proposed the assassination of Indonesian President Sukarno as part of a broader plot to overthrow his left-leaning government. At least one American pilot, employed by the CIA, was captured by Sukarno’s forces during the coup attempt. To kill Sukarno, the CIA, according to intelligence sources, planned to fire a shell from a ceremonial 105-mm cannon in front of the presidential palace while Sukarno spoke from a balcony.’ The CIA finally succeeded in ousting Sukarno in 1965, with the help of Barack Obama’s step father.
Szulc also wrote: “In 1958, a plot was concocted to kill China’s Premier Chou En-lai during a visit to Rangoon, Burma. This was at the beginning of the Soviet-Chinese split, and apparently the CIA reasoned that Chou’s death would aggravate the developing split. The notion was that Chou was a moderate and thus posed an obstacle to a possible Soviet-Chinese confrontation. Furthermore, intelligence sources said, the CIA planned, by the dissemination of ‘disinformation’ through intelligence channels, to lead the Chinese to believe that Chou was killed by the Russian KGB. This murder plot, which was also stopped by Washington, provided for a Burmese CIA agent to place untraceable poison in a rice bowl from which Chou was expected to be eating at a government dinner in his honor. This particular kind of poison, intelligence sources said, would have acted within forty-eight hours and there would be no trace of it if an autopsy were performed. The plan was countermanded at the last moment.”
As WMR previously reported, “At the same time he was attending Occidental [College in Los Angeles, 1979-81], Obama, using the name Barry Soetoro and an Indonesian passport issued under the same name, traveled to Pakistan during the U.S. buildup to assist the Afghan mujaheddin. WMR has learned from informed sources in Kabul that Obama has been extremely friendly, through personal correspondence on White House letterhead, with a private military company that counts among its senior personnel a number of Afghan mujaheddin-Soviet war veterans who fought alongside the late Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood.
In 1981, Obama spent time in Jacobabad and Karachi, Pakistan, and appeared to have an older American ‘handler,’ possibly a CIA officer. WMR previously reported that Obama also crossed the border from Pakistan and spent some time in India. At the time of Obama’s stay in Pakistan, the country was being built up as a base for the anti-Soviet Afghan insurgency by President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and later by President Reagan’s CIA director William Casey. Obama has suspiciously refused to release his transcripts from Occidental or Columbia University and he has remained cagey about his post-Columbia employment with BIC.”
In early 2008, when employees of The Analysis Corporation, a CIA contractor headed up at the time by Obama’s current deputy national security adviser John O. Brennan, a former CIA official, were illegally accessing Obama’s State Department passport files, WMR reported: “An informed source has told WMR that Obama’s tuition debt at Columbia was paid off by BIC. In addition, WMR has learned that when Obama lived in Indonesia with his mother and his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, the 20-year-old Obama, who was known as ‘Barry Soetoro,’ traveled to Pakistan in 1981. He was hosted by the family of Muhammadmian Soomro, a Pakistani Sindhi who became acting President of Pakistan after the resignation of General Pervez Musharraf on August 18, 2008. WMR was told that the Obama/Soetoro trip to Pakistan, ostensibly to go ‘partridge hunting’ with the Soomros, related to unknown CIA business. The covert CIA program to assist the Afghan mujaheddin was already well underway at the time and Pakistan was the major base of operations for the CIA’s support.”
WMR also reported: “Dunham Soetoro was in Indonesia when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Barack Obama visited Lahore, Pakistan, where his mother worked as a ‘consultant,’ in 1981. According to a declassified Top Secret CIA document titled ‘Worldwide Reaction to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan,’ dated February 1980, Indonesia became a hotbed of anti-Soviet students demonstrations after Moscow’s invasion of Afghanistan. The report states, ‘Indonesian students have staged several peaceful demonstrations in Jakarta and three other major cities. They have also demanded the recall of the Soviet Ambassador because of remarks he made to a student delegation on 4 January and have called for a severance of Soviet-Indonesian relations.’”
Obama’s mother was in Lahore as a consultant for the Asian Development Bank, a perfect NOC job at the time the CIA, under William Casey, was beefing up its covert presence in Pakistan to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, known to Obama as “Toot”, began working for the Bank of Hawaii in 1960, a year after her daughter met Obama, Sr. and in 1970 she became one of the first female bank vice presidents. Madelyn Dunham retired from the bank in 1986. It is suspected that the Bank of Hawaii acted as a financial vehicle for CIA operations in Asia and the South Pacific.
The Bank of Hawaii has, according to published reports, been linked to a number of CIA-connected operations in the Asia-Pacific region, including links to the Indonesian Lippo Group and Mochtar Riady’s contributions to the presidential re-election campaign of Bill Clinton; American International Group (AIG) — bailed out by Obama; the CIA’s Nugan Hand Bank in Australia; another CIA-influenced bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and an affiliate bank in the Cook Islands, Commercial Bank of Commerce Cook Islands, Ltd. (CBCCI) in Rarotonga – which in the 1980s were funneling money to South Pacific islands to counter Soviet influence in the region; the USAID officer in Suva, Fiji, William Raupe, who was actually a CIA official cover agent; global bullion trader Deak International; European Pacific investments; and a CIA front company in Honolulu called Bishop Baldwin Rewald Dillingham Wong (BBRDW), Ltd., which maintained financial and political links to Asia-Pacific leaders, including Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India, Suharto in Indonesia, the Sultan of Brunei, the chiefs of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service – which acted on behalf of the CIA in South Pacific small island states, and maintained slush fund accounts in the Cayman Islands, the Cook Islands, Spain, and South America. The CIA cut-out, which took over the assets of the collapsed Nugan Hand Bank in Australia, also used actor Jack Lord, from Hawaii 5-0 fame, on its promotional material as a way to “open doors” and maintained close links with the US Pacific Command based in Hawaii.
In the 1960s, the Bank of Hawaii began opening up branches all over the Pacific: Palau, Guam, Yap, Ponape, and Kosrae. It also bought the Bank of American Samoa and the First National Bank of Arizona and had gained significant, if not fully controlling, financial stakes in the Bank of New Caledonia, Bank Indosuez in Vanuatu, National Bank of the Solomon Islands, Bank of Queensland, Bank of Tonga, and Bank Indosuez Niugini in Papua New Guinea, Bank Paribas Polynesia. The Bank of Hawaii also opened up branches in Suva, Saipan, and Tokyo. By the time Madelyn Dunham retired in 1986, the bank was also deeply connected to John Waihee, the first Native Hawaiian governor of Hawaii, elected in 1986. The CIA’s BBRDW and an affiliate, Canadian Far East Trading Corporation, also maintained close links with Waihee and Governor George Ariyoshi.
When Barack Obama graduated from the private Punahou High School in Hawaii in 1979 and transferred to Occidental College in Los Angeles, Eugene Welch was the CIA’s station chief in Hawaii. Punahou High School was also the alma mater of another US Senator, Hiram Bingham III of Connecticut, who was said to be the inspiration for Indiana Jones, the movie character popularized by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. At the time, the CIA was engaged in a major recruiting campaign, including on college campuses, after Admiral Stansfield Turner, the CIA director, was ordered by President Jimmy Carter to clean up the agency after previous scandals.
The CIA’s Hawaii-based Asia-Pacific financial operation appears to have been the brain child of retired CIA deputy director for intelligence Ray S. Cline, a proponent of the CIA’s paying pro-American strongmen around the world large sums of cash to ensure their loyalty, including Mobutu Seso Seko of Zaire, King Hussein of Jordan, Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan, General Lon Nol of Cambodia, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, and Marcos. Helping to assist these operations was Madelyn Dunham who was in charge of the Bank of Hawaii’s secretive escrow account business. During her grandson’s presidential campaign in 2008, Madelyn Dunham refused all media interview requests. She died in Hawaii two days before her grandson was elected president. With the death of Toot, the early chapters of the life of Barack Obama, Jr, his father, mother, and step-father also went to the grave.
At the time Obama’s mother and father met in Russian language class in Hawaii, the CIA was embarked on an aggressive covert campaign in Asia, one that involved starting a Soviet-Chinese war and aiming to assassinate Sukarno of Indonesia. The CIA was similarly involved in an aggressive covert war with the Soviets in Africa, vying for control of the continent’s newly-independent states. In the world of the CIA there are no coincidences.
Here is an article by a former National Security Agency employee basically playing the game of HIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL SPOOKS. We talked at length about the ties of REAGAN/CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA to old world MERCHANTS OF VENICE AND THEIR SECRET SOCIETIES and freemasonry====they all are tied to the same old world global 1%.
What WE THE PEOPLE must consider is the HYPE over the capture of our US governance by global Wall Street and this DEEP STATE because it is just that ---HYPE. That is what CIA and global Wall Street do---propagandize to confuse. This author is right---there is no attempt to overthrow Trump because he was installed with Hillary and Obama help. US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones is the policy that pushes CIA into our US cities in what WILL BE A DEEP STATE. It is that Homeland Security law under Patriot Act and NDAA that moved CIA into these FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
If a candidate is not shouting this they are global Wall Street players----if a media outlet has not educated on this---then they are a global Wall Street media outlet. Please take time to educate our children and grandchildren and set the example of CIVIC ENGAGEMENT.
MOVING FORWARD US CITIES AS SMART CITIES IS THE DEEP STATE GOAL.
Rebellion Brews in Washington—But American ‘Deep State’ Is Only a Myth
No secret entrenched bureaucracy is plotting to overthrow Donald Trump
By John R. Schindler • 02/22/17 8:45amU.S.President Donald Trump. Mike Theiler-Pool/Getty Images
As Donald Trump’s White House fumbles mounted in his first month in office, including several insults casually aimed at our Intelligence Community, something close to all-out war between the president and the country’s spies has broken through the surface. Faced with a commander-in-chief who compares them to Nazi Germany and accuses them of being “very anti-American,” intelligence professionals have fought back with leaks, per time-tested tradition.
In particular, IC sources have informed journalists--this one included—about signals intelligence intercepts of phone calls to the Russian embassy in Washington which led to the early downfall of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn. Additional SIGINT collected by the National Security Agency demonstrated that several members of Trump’s inner circle maintained contacts with Moscow in the months before the November 8 election. In neither case did anyone inform the media of the content of those calls, but the mere fact that they had been intercepted posed problems for the new administration.
These revelations have been highly embarrassing to the White House, and led to denunciations of leakers by the president on down, as well as assurances that the malefactors who talked to the press without authorization will be tracked down and punished. This drama has an unavoidably Nixonian flair, since that vindictive president, too, waged a war on leakers—ultimately leading to the break-in at the Watergate, which unraveled Richard Nixon’s presidency.
Many Trump backers have professed outrage at America’s leaky spies, whom they claim are acting out of loyalty to the previous administration. That charge is absurd, since there are hardly any political appointees in the IC. Save a few very high-ranking IC personnel, our spies are professionals—not donors appointed to cushy Washington jobs. In this sense, the Intelligence Community is very unlike other parts of the Federal government.
One charge, however, is more serious, and that is the claim from certain Trump supporters that the president is the target of a conspiracy hatched by the “deep state” in Washington. According to this take, the IC and related elements of our secret government have gone rogue and are acting beyond their remit. In this telling, resentful spies are spreading stories about President Trump, especially regarding his mysterious ties to Russia, in order to remove him from office.
When spies in Washington leak to the media, they do so to protect bureaucratic turf and to settle personal scores.
This viewpoint seems to be backed by the president himself, who last week at his one-of-a-kind press conference make it clear that he is the victim of “fake news” peddled by the mainstream media, and the entire Russia issue is a fraud. As Trump explained: “You can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a, you know, fake news, fabricated deal…Russia is fake news. Russia—this is fake news put out by the media.”
The issue of the alleged “deep state” in Washington has important political implications and requires a bit of unpacking. Of course, a Deep State of a sort exists in the United States, as it does in every country, even the most democratic and law-based ones. Everybody spies, therefore pretty much every country has intelligence services. Security agencies by their nature are secretive, and must remain so in order to function in the SpyWar. Their activities are not subject to the usual public releases of information that accompany nearly all other Federal activities in this country.
Moreover, the IC is run by career employees promoted up the ranks, without much interference from political appointees. In general, this is a good thing, since nobody sensible wants to put powerful intelligence agencies in the hands of politically motivated neophytes—or worse, hacks—without any background in the spy trade.
Not to mention that America’s spy agencies have plenty of oversight by elected officials in Congress. For more than four decades, intelligence committees in both the House and Senate have had full access to all IC activities, and have squashed spy operations that seemed potentially illegal or poorly thought out. This is yet another by-product of Watergate, when Congressional hearings revealed IC shenanigans that were curtailed for good in the mid-1970s. The current intelligence oversight system is that legacy.
Indeed, the term Deep State isn’t American or even Western in origin, rather Turkish. It’s called derin devlet in that language, and for decades it’s meant the military and intelligence officials who have worked behind the scenes in Ankara to maintain the country’s secular institutions and values, as enshrined by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Serving as a state-within-a-state, derin devlet reputedly has been the hidden hand which has thwarted efforts aimed at weakening Turkey and its secular Kemalist values. That Deep State has been at war with Islamists and Kurdish separatists for years, using subversion and propaganda—and on occasion, violence—to blunt enemies.
While some aspects of the derin devlet myth are based in reality, over time it’s become the all-purpose bogeyman for Turks unhappy with the Kemalist system. Its shadowy and sinister hand is easily detected behind any activity—no matter how trivial—that Islamists in particular dislike. It’s therefore no surprise that the Deep State has served as the ubiquitous enemy of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who during his 13 years of power in Ankara has waged repeated campaigns against this elusive and wily foe.
Erdoğan’s pervasive efforts to re-Islamize Turkey, thereby undoing Kemalism in fact if not in name, have been met with vociferous Deep State opposition, according to the government. To fight back, Ankara has purged the military and security services repeatedly, most notoriously in the so-called Ergenekon trials, which lasted from 2008 and 2013, and led to prison terms for several top generals, who were said by Erdoğan supporters to be the sharp end of the derin devlet. That this complex conspiracy to subvert the system seems not to have existed outside the regime’s imagination was immaterial in Ankara.
Similarly, last summer’s mysterious coup, said by Erdoğan to have been the last gasp of the all-but-defeated Deep State, offered the Islamists one more opportunity to purge the military, the security services, and the whole state apparatus of those it considered stumbling-blocks to its far-reaching, back-to-the-Ottoman-future domestic agenda. Whether or not the Deep State exists in Turkey—few doubt that it does in some form—its myth unquestionably has been a huge boon to Erdoğan in his ceaseless quest for enemies to crush in order to consolidate his power.
It would be terrible for the United States if the Trump administration convinces citizens that any sort of derin devlet in Turkish fashion exists in our country. Since it certainly does not. In the first place, American spies exhibit no political unity. There are Republicans, there are Democrats, there are Independents. Nearly every political viewpoint under the sun is represented in the IC, and while generalizations can be made—e.g. FBI agents are mostly conservatives while CIA analysts are largely liberals—they are so broad, and so marred by exceptions, as to be almost useless.
When spies in Washington leak to the media, they do so not out of any ideology, much less overt partisanship, but to protect bureaucratic turf and to settle personal scores. Mark Felt, the senior FBI official whose leaks to The Washington Post as the infamous Deep Throat made Watergate a national scandal, spilled the beans on the Nixon White House for entirely personal reasons. President Nixon repeatedly refused to appoint Felt—who was no liberal—the Bureau’s director, the top post that the bitter leaker felt he deserved. Exposing the Watergate scandal was Felt’s careerist vendetta.
Today, the Intelligence Community is deeply unhappy with President Trump. They dislike his repeated public insults and impugning of their professional integrity—something no president has ever done before. Many spies distrust the commander-in-chief, which is why some of our secret agencies are withholding highly classified intelligence from a White House they think is penetrated by Russian intelligence.
The Russia angle is most troubling to the IC. Behind closed doors, plenty of American intelligence experts believe that President Trump is the pawn of the Kremlin, wittingly or not, and assess that it’s only a matter of time before unseemly Moscow ties are exposed and the White House enters unsurvivable political crisis.
Rebellion is brewing in Washington. The resignation of the CIA’s spokesman, a career intelligence analyst, is a sign of how fragile IC morale has gotten under the new administration. If President Trump keeps upping the ante in his war on the spies, he can expect more damaging leaks to reach the media. Leaks happen in every administration, and Nixon’s ignominious fall ought to serve as a cautionary tale to any president who thinks he can find the right “plumbers” to fix the leaky faucet.
Here is an article that tells us when WE THE PEOPLE are REALLY captured by THE DEEP STATE-----that global Wall Street 1% with that pesky CIA and global military security network as our US city infrastructure. It is important we not believe we are already captured because we are not.
When I watch CODING AND DOD CYBER-SECURITY and our city council calling for CITY ID CARDS, SMART METERS/SMART CITY TECHNOLOGY I see MOVING FORWARD DEEP STATE pols. These are the policies we need to address NOW even as global Wall Street players try to have us marching on Trump and everything else.
Ushering In a Totalitarian Police State in Cashless “Smart Cities”
by Jeff Berwick, The Dollar Vigilante:
From Scandinavia to Amsterdam to India and elsewhere, the trend of going “cashless” is gaining traction.
We have been covering the shortcomings of what is rightly called the War On Cash here at TDV for a while now and have shown just how negative the effects can be on an unsuspecting nation’s people.
Chandigarh, India, which is the capital of the northern Indian states of Punjab and Haryana, is like one of India’s labrats. Indian officials are working hard toward making it into India’s first cashless city.
This initiative is part of the Prime Minister of India’s call for state governments to begin developing what he’s calling “smart” cities.
That means cities attached to the latest internet technology. However there is nothing intelligent about his plan.
One of the major changes being made to work toward that objective was the insistence of having all bills paid electronically at government offices within the city.
Similarly, in Panjim, the capital of Goa, India, the local government is attempting to incentivize the locals into paying digitally by offering them discounts on train tickets and other public transportation services if they pay electronically.
This is an extension of the ongoing cash battle which has been going on in India since November when Modi announced he was going to replace the 500 and 1000 rupee banknotes. However the government has not started replacements, only ensured the removal.
What followed the eradication of India’s largest denomination notes was a constricted Indian economy, particularly among the middle and lower classes who rely predominantly on cash transactions to conduct daily business.
There are a myriad of problems associated with this. Many street vendors, rickshaw drivers, and other small time merchants cannot afford the card readers necessary to conduct the transactions electronically.
In some cases the consequences have been starvation, suicide, and the inability to pay for medical expenses because of lack of access to funds or because of how difficult it is to exchange the 500 and 1000 rupee notes for lower denomination bills.
Also in Europe, in places like London, many stores and restaurants have stopped accepting notes or coins for payment and only allow their customers to pay with plastic.
It’s becoming common for Londoners to treat people using cash as second class citizens. In other words, it is becoming unfashionable to pay with cash according to the status quo.
The same is true for the people of Sweden, particularly in the cities of Stockholm and Gothenburg. Which is ironic considering that in 1661, the Scandinavian monarchy became the first country in the world to issue paper currency.
In Sweden this had forced people into storing their cash in bank accounts that come with negative interest rates – yes, the banks are charging them to save their money rather than rewarding them with positive yielding interest.
In Amsterdam, the homeless, many of whom survive by selling magazines, are increasingly hard pressed to find people willing to pay in cash as well. The problem is that even if the homeless had cheap cell phones with QR readers – which Amsterdam has talked about helping the homeless community to obtain – they still don’t have the bank accounts necessary to receive the payments.
Then there is Uruguay which doesn’t get much attention, but this small South American country was among the very first to announce it was getting rid of at least some cash transactions. Unlike some other counties, Uruguay’s cash reduction was couched in terms of helping the poor.
Soon the country plans to implement bank accounts for all payroll payments. It is supposedly doing this in order to make sure even the very poorest have bank accounts. In fact, this is not going to do much to help very poor people because they don’t have jobs to begin with. But it sounds good on paper.
All in all, the elimination of cash is being done under the guise of helping to combat terrorism, white collar crime, tax evasion, and criminals from hiding behind untraceable cash transactions.
Of course, the reality is that without cash, governments and banks gain the ability to run economies like totalitarian police states – tracking every transaction and parasitically siphoning wealth via income tax and other forms of taxation.
This is all part of a UN backed, globalist movement towards “smart cities” where people will own nothing and live in small boxes and everything will be transacted digitally via the government.
Baltimore and Johns Hopkins is like University of New Mexico ground zero for what will really become DEEP STATE with CIA at the helm.
Baltimore is filled with citizens who are not happy with MOVING FORWARD controlled by global Wall Street Baltimore Development and global Johns Hopkins but Hopkins keeps rotating global labor pool through the city with its own global employees creating that mix of 5% TO THE 1% controlling all corporate non-profits, media, education et al. Most areas of US do not have this concentration of capture so we are shouting-----this is the policy fight along with getting rid of global Wall Street pols and players!
CIA launches Signature School Program at The University of New Mexico
November 16, 2016
Categories: Latest News Provost’s Office Global and National Security Policy Institute
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has launched its first Signature School Program at The University of New Mexico. During a speech at UNM on Nov. 9 about future intelligence and security challenges, CIA Director John O. Brennan announced the new program designed to provide more opportunities for UNM students.
CIA "Signature School" is creating Smart Cities with thousands of cameras and microphones (Updated)
Pegasus Global Holdings (PGH) a Trademark of Mobile Arch Partners (MAP) is working with DHS, the CIA , the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) to create total surveillance Smart Cities.
The Center for Innovation Testing and Evaluation, the University of New Mexico (UNM) and numerous high-tech companies are helping design Smart Cities that will spy on everyone.
Two years ago, PGH announced their plans to spend $1 billion to build a full scale mock-up Smart City, complete with surveillance cameras, microphones, Bluetooth monitoring devices, License Plate Readers and probably Stingray cell phone surveillance equipment. (Click here to learn how Bluetooth monitoring devices spy on motorists and pedestrians.)
What this means is, the Feds have created a mock-up city specifically designed to perfect their surveillance of citizens.
Shotpoint's spying streetlights equipped with cameras and microphones in St. Louis
"Regent Power will be showcasing their Smart City Streetlight that features an integrated camera, Wi-Fi and gunshot localization system called ShotPoint, developed by intelligent sensing technology provider, Databuoy Corporation, in St. Louis on March 20 hosted by the St. Ann Police Department."
"ShotPoint is an acoustic sensor network that incorporates strategically placed nodes that located indoors or outdoors. The system will automatically identify and locate the source of gunfire and, when integrated with video systems, it will cue cameras to the exact time and location of a shot."
(Click here to find out more about ShotPoint's 'Databuoy' streetlights.)
CIA "Signature School" is designing Smart Cities
On November 10th, 2016, CIA Director James O. Brennan met with ten NSSP scholars following his announcement that UNM is to be designated the first IC-CAE 'Signature School.'
An article in Albuquerque Business First says, "the program will deepen cooperation between the CIA and UNM..."
This is unbelievable, a CIA "Signature School" is designing Smart Cities!
Just two weeks ago, it was revealed that DHS GE, Intel Corp and AT&T Inc., were installing more than 3,200 cameras and microphones in San Diego, making it the first large-scale use of Smart City surveillance. You can bet they used the mock-up Smart City in New Mexico before installing them in San Diego.
How did this happen?
Two years ago a CIA "Signature School" helped create a large-scale mock-up of a Smart City and now thousands of spying street lights are being installed in cities across the country.
Unfortunately my prediction that ShotSpotter and GE were working together to install spying street lights in cities across the country has come true.
A recent Fox News article warns "ShotSpotter is now partnering with Amazon Web Services and GE Current Lighting and expanding their reach."
UNM claims to have 100% job placement programs with the CIA, FBI, DHS and numerous other gov't agencies. UNM also has numerous Homeland Security courses and a Google search for the "University of New Mexico and Homeland Security" returned close to a million hits.
Why, is there no mass-media coverage about CIA run Smart Cities?
DHS is a key component in designing Smart Cities
According to PGH, Homeland Security is a key component to designing Smart Cities...
"Homeland Security is a key component of the plan for CITE, which will include a secure testing area for first responder technology with the benefit of proximity to the civil and commercial infrastructure."
According to 'The Future of Smart Cities', DHS is assisting in Smart City development, technologies and their physical infrastructure. DHS's Science & Technology website says, Smart Cities are a collaborative effort led by the DOT, and supported by the Department of Energy and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. DHS also has a Smart Cities Initiative program.
This is disgusting, the CIA/DHS and numerous Federal agencies are all involved in creating Smart Cities.
Smart Cities use commercialized military tech to spy on everyone
According to PGH's website, they're also a prime-vendor for the U.S. government and a manufacturer of defense equipment and technologies. PGH are also experts in commercializing military tech for the marketplace and the militarizing of global commercial technologies for the DOD and other U.S. Government Agencies. (Click here to find out how the Department of Defense funds MAP.)
What they're really saying is, PGH specializes in using military spying equipment in Smart Cities.
Brief list of companies working on Smart Cities:here & here to see a detailed list of companies working on Smart Cities. They're common goal, turn every city into a Smart City.
Corporations don't care about our privacy, they only want their piece of the projected $1.56 trillion dollar Smart City market.
Smart Cities are about surveillance drones
image credit Insideunmannedsystems
According to the Smart Cities Council, Smart City.com, Smart City Catalyst, Securing Smart Cities and GAIA Smart Cities Smart Cities are all about interconnected intelligence and surveillance drones.
A report by Securing Smart Cities called 'Establishing a Safe and Secure Municipal Drone Program' predicts police, firefighters and the DOT will use drones to spy on citizens. The report also warns, that drones will be used for widespread Beyond Line of Sight surveillance. Drone surveillance of citizens is projected to earn corporations $8.7 billion by 2025.
For more information about DOT drone surveillance read my article 'DOT's to use drones to spy on motorists.'
Will Smart Cities listen to everyone's phone calls?
Don't forget the Feds have also used DARPA and AQUAINT to spy on citizens for years, would you like to bet they''ll be used in Smart Cities?
A CIA "Signature School" working on Smart Cities, is this some kind of twisted joke? Smart Cities are about total government control and surveillance, period!
To find out more about Smart City surveillance read my story 'Smart Cities is really government spying on an unimaginable scale.'
As long as US citizens allow these economic structures be the only pathway to employment and education ----we are indeed on the road to DEEP STATE and Trump is just a clown compared to what third world authoritarian dictator states running global corporate campus factories is like.
IT'S NOT JUST ANY JOB FOLKS----MOVING FORWARD TO HYPER SECURITIZED SOCIETY IS NOT FOR THE 99% OF GLOBAL CITIZENS.
CIA launches Signature School Program at The University of New Mexico
November 16, 2016
Categories: Latest News Provost’s Office Global and National Security Policy Institute
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has launched its first Signature School Program at The University of New Mexico. During a speech at UNM on Nov. 9 about future intelligence and security challenges, CIA Director John O. Brennan announced the new program designed to provide more opportunities for UNM students.
Brennan emphasized that a diverse and talented workforce is critical to the success of the CIA’s global mission. He said the program will deepen cooperation between the Agency and UNM and result in more opportunities for students and faculty to engage Agency officers and learn about employment opportunities.
Brennan told the crowd of nearly 400 that the Agency needs exceptional employees with a broad range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, language expertise, and educational and life experiences to ensure the diversity of thought to operate effectively worldwide.
“Improving diversity at CIA is not simply a moral imperative — it is mission imperative,” Brennan said.
Collaboration and benefits through the Signature School Program
Emile Nakhleh, director of UNM’s Global and National Security Policy Institute, worked with the CIA to invite Brennan to campus and to create the new program. UNM’s GNSPI is an interdisciplinary educational and research program that addresses both global and national security issues and consists of established disciplines and programs related to national and global security at UNM. It involves collaborative research with federal agencies and companies and is focused on educating future leaders, personnel from companies and laboratories, as well as enhancing graduates’ competitive edge in the job market.
CIA Director John Brennan gives a speech to faculty, staff and students during a visit to UNM to announce the CIA's new Signature School Program.
"The CIA-UNM Signature School Program, the first of its kind in the nation, rests on two important factors: the rich academic programs at UNM across disciplines and fields of study, and the diversity of UNM students,” said Emile Nakhleh, Director of UNM’s Global and National Security Policy Institute. “It's win-win for our students and faculty because the program will strengthen the students' competitive edge in their search for careers in the federal government and in global and national companies and organizations.
Affiliated with the GNSPI, UNM has a successful Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence (IC-CAE) program. During the visit DCIA Brennan meet with a number of UNM National Security Studies Program (NSSP) scholars representing the IC-CAE program at UNM. Through the NSSP UNM students have obtained internships and positions in a number of global and national security agencies.
"UNM offers a rich tradition of diversity,” said Frank Gilfeather, Director of UNM's IC-CAE. Besides cultural and ethnic diversity, UNM offers the federal workforce geographic diversity." The Signature School Program will work closely with NSSP and with UNM's Career Services, who provide key support for UNM students seeking career opportunities such as the new program offers.
The CIA and UNM are developing cooperative activities through the Signature School Program, which will benefit both institutions. Included are a number of real and potential direct benefits to UNM students and academic programs. Some of the collaborative activities already exist and are expected to increase over time.
As part of the Signature School Program:
- The CIA will provide professionals for career advising during regular campus visits. Students appreciate such advice, especially in a non-recruiting environment, from Agency personnel as they consider job options in advance of a recruiting meeting.
- UNM students will have opportunities to engage in problem solving simulations and exercises involving critical thinking from professional CIA analysts and personnel. These exercises include illustrating analytic techniques, which apply to realistic analytic problems and provide insights into key tasks of the Intelligence Community.
- CIA analysts, with special knowledge and expertise, and UNM faculty will develop programs designed to support research projects in certain courses, including jointly selecting relevant global and national security problems as a class project or as team projects and then meeting with the analysts several times, either in person or remotely, to assess progress.
- CIA professionals will assist in preparing students to develop realistic written and oral briefings for presentation in courses, meetings, and regional and national conferences.
It is the centralization of our energy grid and all that is digital DONE BY CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA pols that creates that DEEP STATE control that a CIA would of course be involved. We saw with the Egyptian protests and removal of Mubarrak ---an election giving a Morsi---the use of the nation's energy grid---transportation----policing to capture the nation's economy and societal actions. Mubarrak and Egypt's generals have long been bought by global Wall Street making them billionaires. That was called DEEP STATE in which the military forced Morsi to leave office by shutting down all vital infrastructure in the entire nation.
This is what centralizing our energy grid by merger of all regional electric and gas corporations while building ONE GREAT BIG ENERGY GRID will bring to US. At the same time our local US city police and fire departments are well on their way to being handed to global fire and police security corporations often the same corporations across the US. BGE SMART METERS with VEOLA Enivronment water and sewage SMART METERS will give one centralized way to kill these vital services. Global corporations like VEOLA Environment, Exelon, policing and fire are folded into HOMELAND SECURITY to 'protect citizens from terrorists'.
This is DEEP STATE and we saw Turkey and Egypt actually experiencing that centralization. Here in America global Wall Street has this well on the way----but it is still in development. Let's not go there--we need to de-centralize vital energy and utilities---we need to get rid of CIA so we would not be expanding education and training ----and we DO NOT WANT TO PRIVATIZE OUR PUBLIC FIRE AND POLICE.
WikiLeaks appears to reveal classified CIA techniques
March 8, 2017, 7:05 AM| The CIA is saying next to nothing about a massive WikiLeaks dump of thousands of alleged highly-classified documents. But others compare it to the security breaches engineered by Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. The secret files apparently show how the CIA can hack into common electronic devices. Jeff Pegues reports.
In Egypt, ‘Deep State’ vs. ‘Brotherhoodization’
Bessma Momani Wednesday, August 21, 2013
And now, the impending decision on former dictator Hosni Mubarak’s release from prison will only give further political ammunition to the polarizing narrative in Egypt – and ultimately tip the balance in favour of one of these opposing arguments.
For almost a year, liberal-secularists had spoken out against what they saw as the “Brotherhoodization” of Egypt, with the Morsi government and its Muslim Brotherhood supporters exerting greater control over Egyptian state institutions. They pointed to the removal of General Mohamed Tantawi and the appointment of General Abdel Fattah el-Sissi as head of the armed forces; the rushed constitutional process; the appointment of Islamist state governors; and the sacking of the Cairo opera house’s director. Most importantly, liberal-secularists have complained against Brotherhood attacks on the judiciary, which started with the overthrow of the prosecutor-general and lowering the retirement age of judges in order to remove old members of the bench. These decisions have been noted as evidence that the Brotherhood wanted to forever change Egypt into a “Brotherhood dominion.”
Meanwhile, the Morsi government and its Brotherhood backers claimed they were forced to fast-track the constitution last December and were unable to implement reforms and policies because of the “deep state” – where powerful Mubarak-era cronies continued to dominate key Egyptian institutions. Throughout Mr. Morsi’s time in office, his supporters claimed that at every turn, the isolated President was unable to change the country because of fervent resistance from the judiciary, bureaucracy and liberal media. After taking office, they realized that the civilian government was a mere fig leaf for democracy; the real power-brokers were Mubarak-era business elites, the military, security and intelligence forces.
The day after Mr. Morsi was removed from power, Egypt’s fuel shortages were no more, its electricity supply went uninterrupted and traffic police suddenly went back to work.
Proponents of the “deep state” claimed that Mr. Mubarak’s financial cronies withheld domestic investment and co-ordinated their capital exodus to raise the carrying costs of Egyptian bonds. And that private newspapers and television stations spread (mis)information about the Morsi government.
Bureaucrats allowed the interruption of electricity and fuel supplies to create artificial shortages and line queues throughout the country. On rumours of energy shortages in liberal Egyptian media, fuel prices further skyrocketed causing panic buying and hoarding. The Morsi government, as a precondition to an International Monetary Fund loan, had tried to implement a smart-card system to better target subsidized fuel for the country’s poor. Fearing the government could track fuel supplies, corrupt petroleum ministry officials with ties to Mubarak-era cronies refused to implement it.
By the time Mr. Morsi had taken power, security and intelligence forces let law and order lapse, allowing for rival soccer fans to fight each other off the field and religious violence against Coptic Christians to go uninvestigated. Traffic police disappeared from Cairo streets, and notorious thugs called beltagaya were sent out by illusive forces to cause mayhem and incite further hatred toward the Brotherhood. Adding insult to injury, when demonstrations against Mr. Morsi began on June 30, Egyptian police stood by and watched the ransacking of the Muslim Brotherhood’s headquarters in Cairo.
The day after Mr. Morsi was removed from power, Egypt’s fuel shortages were no more, its electricity supply went uninterrupted and traffic police suddenly went back to work.
So who wins the debate in Egypt’s exchange of accusations between the “deep state” and “Brotherhoodization“?
The majority of Egyptians who supported the popular coup believe the “Brotherhoodization” needed to be countered with a new revolution. Well, the release of Mr. Mubarak, the deposed dictator imprisoned since the Jan. 25, 2011, revolution, would be a clear vindication of the existence of the “deep state.” To the Brotherhood – as Joseph Heller, author of Catch-22 poignantly once said – “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”