DA VINCI and GALILEO as DARK AGES scientists both worked for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS-----wanting the latest in WAR TECHNOLOGY----ergo, the CATAPULT and TELESCOPE.
'Da Vinci's Catapult
The Da Vinci Spring Leaf Catapult
Leonardo Da Vinci was a man who wore many hats: painter, sculptor, and innovator. In his spare time, he was known to sketch mechanized throwing devices. Although the essential catapult design had already been conceived and put to use for a great number of years before his time, Leonardo’s creative mind saw room for improvement nonetheless'.
'15 Mind Blowing Technologies Invented By The Nazis
15 Mind Blowing Technologies Invented By The Nazis.
Nazi Germany developed a huge amount of technology that was either suppressed after the war or became the stuff of conspiracy theories. Some of this Nazi technology, like guided missiles and stealth bombers, became part of today’s modern military. Others, like giant tanks and Sun Guns,...'
Today we are told PROGRESS or parish as technology simply cannot have an end to STABLE LASTING CIVIL SOCIETY----it cannot happen says global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS.
We had revolutions and wars to advance TECHNOLOGY.
After several centuries of AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN----we still have our STEM GENIUSES tied to apron strings of global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----just like DA VINCI and GALILEO both of whom wanted to escape this DARK AGES economic structure.
How is SCREWTAPE the devil----AKA global banking 1% STILL capturing our TECHNOLOGY GENIUSES to being WORMWOODS?
Do wars drive technological advancement?
by Jonathan Strickland
According to the late Edwin Starr, war is good for absolutely nothing. But how much of the technology we depend upon today began as a kind of military technology? Is it possible that if we were a peaceful species we wouldn't have developed technologies like microwave ovens or the Internet?
Wars put an enormous demand upon a nation's resources. Those resources include everything from materials to military personnel. It's expensive to wage war. And war places a burden upon a nation's citizens. As soldiers march off to battle, the people left behind must work even harder to keep the nation's infrastructure from collapsing.
But wars can also have beneficial effects on economic and technological development. In general, wars tend to accelerate technological development to adapt tools for the purpose of solving specific military needs. Later, these military tools may evolve into non-military devices.
A relatively recent example of this is radar. While scientists around the world worked on using radio antennae to detect distant objects during the early part of the 20th century, we credit Sir Robert Watson-Watt with building the first practical radar set in 1935. The British Air Ministry adopted his design and used it to detect aggressors during the early days of World War II [source: Wired].
Radar became an important tool in militaries around the world. In turn, radar's adoption required countries to adapt to new warfare strategies. It also prompted the United States to invest in research and development for new ways to confound radar. The result was stealth aircraft technology.
On the civilian front, radar played a different role. A scientist by the name of Percy L. Spencer made an interesting discovery while standing near a magnetron -- a device that powers radar sets. Spencer had a chocolate bar in his pocket. The bar began to melt when Spencer stood near the magnetron. This piqued Spencer's curiosity and he began to examine what was going on. This led to the invention of the microwave oven.
Next, we'll take a look at how the threat of war indirectly aided in the creation of the Internet.
Is the Internet a War Baby?
Sputnik, an early Soviet satellite, concerned Americans with the possibility that their rivals could launch space-based weapons in the future.
In a way, the Internet itself began as a military project. Beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Department of Defense funded a project called ARPANET. The purpose of the project was to develop the technologies and protocols necessary to allow multiple computers to connect directly to one another. This would allow people to share information with each other at unprecedented speeds.
A computer network could also have another benefit: national security. By creating a robust and flexible network, the United States could ensure that in the event of catastrophe, access to the nation's supercomputers could remain intact. ARPANET's protocols allowed information to travel across different routes. If something happened to a computer node along one route, the information could take another path to get to the right destination.
The foundation for the Internet is in the protocols and designs built by the ARPANET team. And while no war directly played into its development, the threat of future conflicts did. Today, the United States Department of Defense funds research and development (R&D) projects across multiple disciplines.
Another example of how the possibility of war affected technological development is the space race between the United States and what was then known as the Soviet Union. On Oct. 4, 1957, the Soviet Union succeeded in launching the first manmade satellite into the Earth's orbit. Its name was Sputnik, and it spurred on an intense, focused era of innovation. Part of that research went into projects like ARPANET. Much of it focused on getting the United States' space technology ahead of the Soviets'.
Several factors fueled this race. One was fear -- if the Soviets could launch a rocket with a payload the size of Sputnik into orbit, it was feasible the country could launch a missile attack on the United States from across the globe. Even though there were plenty of scientific reasons to pursue the space race, on one level it boiled down to saber rattling between the two nations.
While the motives behind the space race may not have been purely founded upon a desire to extend our scientific knowledge, that in no way diminishes the accomplishments made by both countries. The space race was a symbolic conflict between both countries and put pressure on the scientists and engineers developing the systems and vehicles necessary to put men and women into space. Some of this technology later evolved into other forms, and was eventually adapted to serve civilian purposes.
Not all our technologies were born out of war or the fear of war. It would take a cynic to suggest that we owe all our inspiration to conflicts with other people. Many inventions come to us independent of war, though they may be used in warfare later. Our world would look very different if we never waged war, but the lack of conflict wouldn't necessarily result in a lack of inspiration.
We discussed how CHINA and global banking 1% OLD WORLD European KINGS are building DEEP OCEAN COLONIES for WAR WEAPONRY. All R AND D tied to pretending to be GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL are tied to these WAR PLATFORMS. Below we see WAR IN SPACE----tied to filling the EARTH'S atmosphere with ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID----satellites, space elevators----drone platforms et al.
War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever
China, Russia and the U.S. are developing and testing controversial new…'
This has become the ENTIRETY of our US ECONOMY. This is how today our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens have all become tied to having a job with global corporations being OUTSOURCED MILITARY. How do we get GROUP SPEAK AND CHATTER? We allow all employment to be tied to global military complex.
Less than 72 hours to go until Trump starts WW3?
Are we on the eve of destruction?
April 11, 2018
Editor’s note: Expect the US to carry out airstrikes on Syria within the next 72 hours and unlike the last time when only cruise missiles were fired, expect aircraft flying from US bases in the region and US carriers in the Mediterranean and Red Seas to be involved.
Make no mistake, Trump is going to do it, it is why he was placed in office, it is why anyone who wasn’t on board with the war plan has been ditched in favour of war hawks like John Bolton.
The goal is to hit Syria hard enough that Russia simply has to get involved, most likely, Russian personnel will be targeted as the aim is provocation, slapping Russia in the face so hard that Putin has to respond militarily.
The pieces are moving into place, Trump has sent a carrier battle group to the Eastern Mediterranean and at least a portion of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is headed there too. The strike may be timed for when this carrier group arrives and it’s aircraft can participate.
It is now becoming clear to us that the goal of the war in Syria was not the destruction of the last stable, strong Arab state to oppose Israel and the creation of Greater Israel on the territories of shattered Syria and Iraq.
The goal is a far bigger, far more dangerous one – the destruction of Putin and Russia by embroiling it in a war it will find very hard to win. Russia is a goldmine of wealth and resources they want to be able to exploit like they did in the Yeltsin years before Putin came along and put a stop to their wholesale plunder.
Syria is badly placed in terms of easy supply and communications for the Russians, their lines of supply and communications are dependent on the cooperation of intervening nations such as Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Iran.
To bad to the difficulties of fighting a war in the Middle East, Russia also faces the troublesome prospect of having to also fight to defend it’s western borders from NATO, not just in Ukraine but also in the north where the Kaliningrad exclave would come under siege from NATO forces already in place in Lithuanian and Poland.
The fact that China appears to be ready to back Russia raises the possibility of this conflict turning into World War 3 in short order. A sizeable Chinese fleet including their aircraft carrier is already sailing to the South China Sea where it will confront an American carrier group that is also headed there in a show of force.
I hate to be the predictor of such gloomy events, but all the signs are pointing in the same direction, I hope I am wrong and it doesn’t come to war…. Ian Greenhalgh
Syrian Air Defense placed on high alert across Syria
BEIRUT, LEBANON (4:50 A.M.) – The Syrian Air Defense forces have been placed on high alert across the country amid reports of an imminent U.S. attack on Syria.
According to the latest military report from the coastal province of Latakia, the Syrian Air Force and their air defense teams have been ordered by their central command to stay on high alert until further notice.
The Russian military has also encouraged the Syrian military to remain on red alert, while also sharing intel reports on potential targets for the U.S. military.
However, despite reports of an ‘imminent’ attack, the Syrian military reports no unusual air activity around the eastern Mediterranean, adding that it has been quiet night.
A source from the Syrian military told Al-Masdar this week that they believe the U.S. will likely target one of their imperative airbases near the Damascus Governorate.
If the U.S. does choose to attack a base near Damascus, it will most likely either be the Mezzeh or Dumayr airports.
The Dumayr Airport would be an ideal location for the U.S. military, as it was frequently used by the Syrian Air Force to attack the East Ghouta; moreover, there are very little civilians in the area.
EASA issues alert for eastern Mediterranean due to potential airstrikes
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Issues rapid alert notification for “Eastern Mediterranean/Nicosia FIR Area” due to possible airstrikes on Syria in next 72 hours.
According to the agency, the alert was issued “due to the possible launch of airstrikes with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean/Nicosia FIR area”.
According to the European-based media reports, the initial alert notification was issued by the Network Manager Operations Centre (NMOC).
“The United States through the White House, through the State Department and others as well have been having conversations with our allies and partners overseas,” Nauert said. “We are looking for a coordinated response, whatever that response might be, to the situation in Syria.”
Meanwhile, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman has left from Norfolk, Virginia for a deployment in the Middle East and Europe, US media reported earlier. The guided-missile cruiser Normandy and guided-missile destroyers Arleigh Burke, Bulkeley, Forrest Sherman and Farragut also accompany the Harry S. Truman, Stars and Stripes reported earlier citing US Navy officials.
In addition, US Navy officials have said that about 6,500 servicemen with the carrier strike group would be deployed to the region.
Russian Envoy to the United Nations Vassily Nebenzia has told earlier on Tuesday at the UNSC’s meeting that the US would bear the responsibility if it launches the military operation against Syrian government ignoring the lack of UN Security Council approval.
“If you took the decision to carry out an illegal military adventure — and I do hope that you will come to your senses — well, then you will have to bear responsibility for it yourselves,” Nebenzia said.
We spoke of COLD WAR being simply a cover for US and RUSSIA gathering all of the EARTH'S uranium and SPACE FUEL rare elements. We have nuclear arsenals capable of imploding the EARTH 1000 times over because this WAR----was gathering materials for future TECHNOLOGY.
We were in WAR MODE for several decades under FALSE PRETENSES by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA ----which control USSR and US.
'Timeline: The Nuclear Age |
New Scientistwww.newscientist.com/article/dn9955-timeline-the... The Cold War, which started after World War Two, ends with the collapse of the USSR. Disarmament accords follow during the 1990s, ending the US-Soviet nuclear arms race'.
Now we have SPACE WAR. All of this is driven by the need to develop TECHNOLOGY for SPACE COLONIZATION ----TRAVEL.
War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever
China, Russia and the U.S. are developing and testing controversial new capabilities to wage war in space despite their denial of such work
- By Lee Billings on August 10, 2015
- Select Language
The world’s most worrisome military flashpoint is arguably not in the Strait of Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, Iran, Israel, Kashmir or Ukraine. In fact, it cannot be located on any map of Earth, even though it is very easy to find. To see it, just look up into a clear sky, to the no-man’s-land of Earth orbit, where a conflict is unfolding that is an arms race in all but name.
The emptiness of outer space might be the last place you’d expect militaries to vie over contested territory, except that outer space isn’t so empty anymore. About 1,300 active satellites wreathe the globe in a crowded nest of orbits, providing worldwide communications, GPS navigation, weather forecasting and planetary surveillance. For militaries that rely on some of those satellites for modern warfare, space has become the ultimate high ground, with the U.S. as the undisputed king of the hill. Now, as China and Russia aggressively seek to challenge U.S. superiority in space with ambitious military space programs of their own, the power struggle risks sparking a conflict that could cripple the entire planet’s space-based infrastructure. And though it might begin in space, such a conflict could easily ignite full-blown war on Earth.
The long-simmering tensions are now approaching a boiling point due to several events, including recent and ongoing tests of possible anti-satellite weapons by China and Russia, as well as last month’s failure of tension-easing talks at the United Nations.
Testifying before Congress earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper echoed the concerns held by many senior government officials about the growing threat to U.S. satellites, saying that China and Russia are both “developing capabilities to deny access in a conflict,” such as those that might erupt over China’s military activities in the South China Sea or Russia’s in Ukraine. China in particular, Clapper said, has demonstrated “the need to interfere with, damage and destroy” U.S. satellites, referring to a series of Chinese anti-satellite missile tests that began in 2007.
There are many ways to disable or destroy satellites beyond provocatively blowing them up with missiles. A spacecraft could simply approach a satellite and spray paint over its optics, or manually snap off its communications antennas, or destabilize its orbit. Lasers can be used to temporarily disable or permanently damage a satellite’s components, particularly its delicate sensors, and radio or microwaves can jam or hijack transmissions to or from ground controllers.
In response to these possible threats, the Obama administration has budgeted at least $5 billion to be spent over the next five years to enhance both the defensive and offensive capabilities of the U.S. military space program. The U.S. is also attempting to tackle the problem through diplomacy, although with minimal success; in late July at the United Nations, long-awaited discussions stalled on a European Union-drafted code of conduct for spacefaring nations due to opposition from Russia, China and several other countries including Brazil, India, South Africa and Iran. The failure has placed diplomatic solutions for the growing threat in limbo, likely leading to years of further debate within the UN’s General Assembly.
“The bottom line is the United States does not want conflict in outer space,” says Frank Rose, assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance, who has led American diplomatic efforts to prevent a space arms race. The U.S., he says, is willing to work with Russia and China to keep space secure. “But let me make it very clear: we will defend our space assets if attacked.”
Treaties offer little assurance
Chinese officials maintain that their military activities in space are simply peaceful science experiments, while Russian officials have stayed mostly mum. Both nations could be seen as simply responding to what they see as the U.S.’s clandestine development of potential space weapons. Indeed, the U.S.’s ballistic missile defense systems, its X-37B space planes and even its GSSAP spacecraft, though all ostensibly devoted to maintaining peace, could be easily repurposed into weapons of space war. For years Russia and China have pushed for the ratification of a legally binding United Nations treaty banning space weapons—a treaty that U.S. officials and outside experts have repeatedly rejected as a disingenuous nonstarter.
“The draft treaty from Russia and China seeks to ban the very things that they are so actively pursuing,” Krepon says. “It serves their interests perfectly. They want freedom of action, and they’re covering that with this proposal to ban space weapons.” Even if the treaty was being offered in good faith, Krepon says, “it would be dead on arrival” in Congress and would stand no chance of being ratified. After all, the U.S. wants freedom of action in space, too, and in space no other country has more capability—and thus more to lose.
According to Rose, there are three key problems with the treaty. “One, it’s not effectively verifiable, which the Russians and Chinese admit,” he says. “You can’t detect cheating. Two, it is totally silent on the issue of terrestrial anti-satellite weapons, like the ones that China tested in 2007 and again in July 2014. And third, it does not define what a weapon in outer space is.”
As an alternative, the U.S. supports a European-led initiative to establish “norms” for proper behavior through the creation of a voluntary International Code of Conduct for Outer Space. This would be a first step, to be followed by a binding agreement. A draft of the code—which Russia and China prevented from being adopted in last month’s UN discussions—calls for more transparency and “confidence-building” between spacefaring nations as a way of promoting the “peaceful exploration and use of outer space.” This, it is hoped, can prevent the generation of more debris and the further development of space weapons. However, like the Russian-Chinese treaty, the code does not exactly define what constitutes a “space weapon.”
That haziness poses problems for senior defense officials such as General John Hyten, the head of the U.S. Air Force Space Command. “Is our space-based surveillance system that looks out at the heavens and tracks everything in geosynchronous a weapons system?” he asks. “I think everybody in the world would look at that and say no. But it’s maneuverable, it’s going 17,000 miles per hour, and it has a sensor on board. It’s not a weapon, okay? But would [a treaty’s] language ban our ability to do space-based surveillance? I would hope not!”
Is war in space inevitable?
Meanwhile, shifts in U.S. policy are giving China and Russia more reasons for further suspicion. Congress has been pressing the U.S. national security community to turn its attentions to the role of offensive rather than defensive capabilities, even dictating that most of the fiscal year 2015 funding for the Pentagon’s Space Security and Defense Program go toward “development of offensive space control and active defense strategies and capabilities.”
“Offensive space control” is a clear reference to weapons. “Active defense” is much more nebulous, and refers to undefined offensive countermeasures that could be taken against an attacker, further widening the routes by which space might soon become weaponized. If an imminent threat is perceived, a satellite or its operators might preemptively attack via dazzling lasers, jamming microwaves, kinetic bombardment or any other number of possible methods.
“I hope to never fight a war in space,” Hyten says. “It’s bad for the world. Kinetic [anti-satellite weaponry] is horrible for the world,” because of the existential risks debris poses for all satellites. “But if war does extend into space,” he says, “we have to have offensive and defensive capabilities to respond with, and Congress has asked us to explore what those capabilities would be. And to me, the one limiting factor is no debris. Whatever you do, don’t create debris.”
Technology to jam transmissions, for example, appears to underpin the Air Force’s Counter Communications System, the U.S.’s sole acknowledged offensive capability against satellites in space. “It's basically a big antenna on a trailer, and how it actually works, what it actually does, nobody knows,” Weeden says, noting that, like most space security work, the details of the system are top secret. “All we basically know is that they could use it to somehow jam or maybe even spoof or hack into an adversary’s satellites.”
For Krepon, the debate over the definitions of space weapons and the saber-rattling between Russia, China and the U.S. is unhelpfully eclipsing the more pressing issue of debris. “Everyone is talking about purposeful, man-made objects dedicated to warfighting in space, and it’s like we are back in the Cold War,” Krepon says. “Meanwhile, there are about 20,000 weapons already up there in the form of debris. They’re not purposeful—they’re unguided. They’re not seeking out enemy satellites. They’re just whizzing around, doing what they do.”
The space environment, he says, must be protected as a global commons, similar to the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. Space junk is very easy to make and very hard to clean up, so international efforts should focus on preventing its creation. Beyond the threat of deliberate destruction, the risk of accidental collisions and debris strikes will continue to grow as more nations launch and operate more satellites without rigorous international accountability and oversight. And as the chance of accidents increases, so too does the possibility of their being misinterpreted as deliberate, hostile actions in the high-tension cloak-and-dagger military struggle in space.
“We are in the process of messing up space, and most people don’t realize it because we can’t see it the way we can see fish kills, algal blooms, or acid rain,” he says. “To avoid trashing Earth orbit, we need a sense of urgency that currently no one has. Maybe we’ll get it when we can’t get our satellite television and our telecommunications, our global weather reports and hurricane predictions. Maybe when we get knocked back to the 1950s, we’ll get it. But by then it will be too late.”
We spoke of COLD WAR being simply a cover for US and RUSSIA gathering all of the EARTH'S uranium and SPACE FUEL rare elements. We have nuclear arsenals capable of imploding the EARTH 1000 times over because this WAR----was gathering materials for future TECHNOLOGY.
We were in WAR MODE for several decades under FALSE PRETENSES by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA ----which control USSR and US.
'Timeline: The Nuclear Age |
The Cold War, which started after World War Two, ends with the collapse of the USSR. Disarmament accords follow during the 1990s, ending the US-Soviet nuclear arms race'.
Now we have SPACE WAR. All of this is driven by the need to develop TECHNOLOGY for SPACE COLONIZATION ----TRAVEL.
MEANWHILE, our several centuries of AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN---where PROMETHEUS the genius inventor like DA VINCI and GALILEO ----is being REBOUND taken back to DARK AGES OLD WORLD KINGS'---economy.
'In several European countries, the position of Grand Master has often been held by members of royal families or the high nobility.
In some Protestant northern European countries, the position was held by the King for a long time. In England and Wales, the current Grand Master is HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, who was elected in 1967 and has been re-elected each year since'.
When we think of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE in a sovereign nation which swore off ROYALTY----made them THE ENEMY-----how is it today all our US PRESIDENTS and CONGRESS are tied to FREEMASONRY?
The history of FREEMASONRY is tied to FALL OF VENETIAN EMPIRE when the merely rich merchants started to attack OLD WORLD KINGS.
MASONS are today's MASTER APPRENTICES AND CRAFTSMEN.
FREEMASONRY is OLD WORLD KINGS capturing those craftsmen and using them for wealth and power.
If we KNOW continuous wars since DARK AGES have been to global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH----and FREEMASONRY---why are PEACE groups---the NOBLE PEACE PRIZE-----international JUSTICE groups not SEQUESTERING these guys-----using all these NEWLY developed TECHNOLOGY?
History of Freemasonry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part of a series on
- Grand Lodge
- Masonic lodge
- Masonic lodge officers
- Grand Master
- Prince Hall Freemasonry
- Regular Masonic jurisdiction
- Continental Freemasonry
Views of Masonry[show]
People and places[show]
The history of Freemasonry encompasses the origins, evolution and defining events of the fraternal organisation known as Freemasonry. It covers three phases. Firstly, the emergence of organised lodges of operative masons during the Middle Ages, then the admission of lay members as "accepted" masons (a term reflecting the ceremonial “acception” process that made non stone masons members of an operative lodge) or speculative masons, and finally the evolution of purely speculative lodges, and the emergence of Grand Lodges to govern them. The watershed in this process is generally taken to be the formation of the first Grand Lodge in London in 1717. The two difficulties facing historians are the paucity of written material, even down to the 19th century, and the misinformation generated by masons and non-masons alike from the earliest years.
A complete history of Freemasonry is beyond the scope of a single article. This article traces the early development of Freemasonry from organised bodies of operative stonemasons to the modern system of speculative lodges organised around regional or national "Grand Lodges". Notable events and developments of the modern period are also briefly described. The history of specific subjects, rites and jurisdictions within the general heading of Freemasonry is dealt with in detail elsewhere, in their own articles.
The answer to ENDING CONTINUOUS WARS goes back to the movie OFFICIAL SECRETS where the WHISTLE BLOWER M-16 agent with a CONSCIENCE ------blew the whistle on these global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS-----KNIGHTS OF MALTA--TRIBE OF JUDAH in trying to AVERT the next round of wars.
We elected OBAMA after BUSH many expecting OBAMA to HOLD POWER ACCOUNTABLE for sacking and looting our US civil society--and BUSH/CHENEY WAR CRIMES for starting an illegal war in IRAQ and questionably tied to the 9--11 attacks many people feel was treasonous act to justify installing in our US SOVEREIGN nation -----a GLOBAL PRIVATE MILITARY COMPLEX called HOMELAND SECURITY.
Those UK citizens who filled the streets protesting this IRAQI WAR had counterparts here in US. We brought change through VIETNAM WAR PROTESTS as our US citizens were sickened with war back then.
Flash forward to today, and BUSH/CHENEY are responsible for SURROUND PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE AND for black market NOSY NEIGHBORS AND GANG----illegal surveillance making any US citizen thinking to stand up against MOVING FORWARD taking US to colonial status and coming WW 3 and CIVIL WAR inside US.
WE STOP CONTINUOUS WARS AND ECONOMIES BUILT ON THE IDEA THAT WARS ARE GOOD FOR DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGIES-----BROUGHT FROM 3000BC -----1000BC----1000AD by the same people we see in this photo.
So, if WESTERN EUROPEAN HOMELAND SECURITY met with US HOMELAND SECURITY to gather those global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH and place them on an beautiful island with lots of PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE some NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance inside people's living spaces-----WE COULD END ALL GLOBAL WARS.
This includes all those FAKE 5% freemason/Greek RELIGIOUS LEADERS pretending to be MUSLIM, JEWISH, CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, HINDI-BUDDHIST.
In our US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES we have all of this---black, white, and brown players-----FAKE Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim all working for the same GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS.
Department of Homeland Security History
Cabinet Agency Designed For 'Unified, Effective Response' to Terrorism
by Tom Murse
Updated January 15, 2018
The Department of Homeland Security is the primary agency in the U.S. government whose mission is to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil. Homeland Security is a cabinet-level department that has its origins in the nation's response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when members of terrorist network al-Qaeda hijacked four American commercial airliners and intentionally crashed them into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania.
'Unified, Effective Response' to Terror
President George W. Bush initially created Homeland Security as an office inside the White House 10 days after the terrorist attacks. Bush announced the creation of the office and his choice to lead it, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, on Sept. 21, 2001. ''He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come,'' Bush said.
Ridge reported directly to the president and was assigned the task of coordinating the 180,000 employees working in the nation's intelligence, defense and law enforcement agencies to protect the homeland. Ridge described the daunting role of his agency in a 2004 interview with reporters. "We have to be right a billion-plus times a year, meaning we have to make literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of decisions every year, or every day, and the terrorists only have to be right once," Ridge said.
One lawmaker, citing the biblical story of Noah, described Ridge's monumental task as trying to build an ark after the rain has already started falling.
Creation of Cabinet Department
Bush's creation of the White House office also marked the beginning of a debate in Congress to establish a Department of Homeland Security in the broader federal government. Bush initially resisted the idea of moving such an important responsibility into the Byzantine bureaucracy, but signed onto the idea in 2002. Congress approved the creation of The Department of Homeland Security in November 2002, and Bush signed the legislation into law that same month. He also nominated Ridge to be the first-ever secretary of the department. The Senate confirmed Ridge in January 2003.
22 Agencies Absorbed By Homeland Security
Bush's intention in creating the Department of Homeland Security was to bring under one roof most of the federal government's law-enforcement, immigration and anti-terror-related agencies. The president moved 22 federal department and agencies under Homeland Security, as one official told The Washington Post, "so we are not doing things in stovepipes but doing it as a department." The move was portrayed at the time as the largest reorganization of the federal government's responsibilities since World War II.
The 22 federal departments and agencies absorbed by Homeland Security are:
- Transportation Security Administration
- Coast Guard
- Federal Emergency Management Agency
- Secret Service
- Customs and Border Protection
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department of Commerce
- National Communications System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
- National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center
- Energy Assurance Office of the Department of Energy
- Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General Services Administration
- Federal Protective Service
- Office of Domestic Preparedness
- Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
- Integrated Hazard Information System of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- National Domestic Preparedness Office of the FBI
- Domestic Emergency Support Team of the Department of Justice
- Metropolitan Medical Response System of the Department of Health and Human Services
- National Disaster Medical System of the Department of Health and Human Services
- Office of Emergency Preparedness and the Strategic National Stockpile of the Department of Health and Human Services
- Plum Island Animal Disease Center of Department of Agriculture
Evolving Role Since 2001
The Department of Homeland Security has been called on numerous times to handle catastrophes other than those caused by terrorism. They include cyber crimes, border security and immigration, and human trafficking and natural disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 and Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The department also plans security for major public events including the Super Bowl and the president's State of the Union Address.
Controversies and Criticism
The Department of Homeland Security came under scrutiny almost from the moment it was created. It has endured stinging criticism from lawmakers, terrorism experts and the public for issuing vague and confusing alerts over the years.
- Terror alerts: Its color-coded alert system, developed under Ridge, was widely ridiculed and criticized for not being more specific about how the public should respond to elevated threats. The system used five colors - green, blue, yellow, orange and red - to inform the public in real-time about the threat of terrorism.
Appearing on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno in November 2002, Ridge was pressed by the comedian: ''I'm sitting at home in my underpants watching the game and, boop, we're in yellow. What do I do now?'' Ridge's response: ''Change shorts.'' Nonetheless, the color-coded alerts were a source of frustration among Americans who were being told to be on alert, but weren't sure about what to look for.
- Duct tape: So, too, was the department's 2003 directive that Americans stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal the windows and doors of their home in the event of a terrorist attack.
Harold Schaitberger, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, told the Chicago Tribune: "Most of the suggestions, I don't believe, are effective at all in really helping to protect anyone from many of these biological and chemical threats. I mean, duct tape and plastic? Where's the good air coming from? How's it going to be recirculated? Beyond the fact that we already know, for nerve gas and other elements, the plastic is totally ineffective."
Quipped Leno: ''This means the only people who are going to survive an attack are serial killers. Who else has duct tape and plastic sheeting in their car?''
- Going global: Homeland Security has also caused friction between the United States and some European countries for deploying about 2,000 special agents and immigration workers to more than 70 countries, as The New York Times reported in late 2017. The United States under President Donald Trump was accused of trying to "export its immigration laws," the newspaper reported.
- Katrina: Homeland Security came under the most intense fire, however, for its response to and handling of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the costliest natural disaster in American history. The agency was hammered for not developing a national response plan until two days after the storm hit.
"If our government failed so utterly in preparing for, and responding to, a disaster that had been long predicted and was imminent for days, we must wonder how much more profound the failure would be if a disaster were to take us by complete surprise," said Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who called Homeland Security's response "alarming and unacceptable."
Department of Homeland Security History
Here is a timeline of key moments in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
- Sept. 11, 2001: Members of the terrorist network al-Qaeda, acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden, orchestrate a series of attacks on the United States after hijacking four airplanes. The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people.
- Sept. 22, 2001: President George W. Bush creates the Office of Homeland Security in the White House, and chooses then-Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge to lead it.
- Nov. 25, 2002: Bush signs the Congress-passed bill creating the Department of Homeland Security in the federal government. "We are taking historic action to defend the United States and protect our citizens against the dangers of a new era," Bush said at the ceremony. He nominated Ridge to be secretary.
- Jan. 22, 2003: The U.S. Senate, in a unanimous, 94-0 vote, confirms Ridge as the first secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Bush issued a prepared statement afterward that read: "With today's historic vote, the Senate has demonstrated our shared commitment to doing everything we can to secure our homeland." The department initially has about 170,000 employees.
- Nov. 30, 2004: Ridge announces he plans to step down as secretary of Homeland Security, citing personal reasons. "I just want to step back and pay a little more attention to personal matters," he told reporters. Ridge served in the position through Feb. 1, 2005.
- Feb. 15, 2005: Michael Chertoff, a federal appeals court judge and former assistant U.S. attorney general credited with helping investigators link the terrorist attacks to al-Qaeda, takes over as the second Homeland Security secretary under Bush. He departed at the end of Bush's second term.
- Jan. 20, 2009: Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona, was tapped by incoming President Barack Obama to serve as Homeland Security secretary in his administration. She resigned in July 2013 to become the head of the University of California system after becoming embroiled in the debate over immigration; she was accused both of being too harsh in deporting those living in the United States illegally and not acting forcefully enough to secure the nation's borders.
- Dec. 23, 2013: Jeh Johnson, a former general counsel to the Pentagon and the Air Force, takes over as the fourth Homeland Security secretary. He served through the remainder of Obama's tenure in the White House.
- Jan. 20, 2017: John F. Kelly, a retired Marine general, and incoming President Donald Trump's pick, becomes the fifth Homeland Security secretary. He served in the position through July 2017 and became chief of staff to Trump.
- Dec. 5, 2017: Kirstjen Nielsen, a cybersecurity expert who worked in the Bush administration and as a deputy to Kelly, is confirmed as Homeland Security secretary to replace her former boss. The department has grown to 240,000 employees, according to published reports.
This media outlet is LIBERTARIAN---far-right wing global banking 1% -----LAISSEZ FAIRE----so, no real solutions coming from this PROFESSOR but, we like the attitude. One cannot be FREE MARKET in the midst of DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE.
We REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES KNOW that most of these HOMELAND SECURITY agencies employ MOST of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE. We call upon US HOMELAND SECURITY to stand up and fight for our US FREEDOM, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, AND WELL-BEING ---you work for our US 99 % WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown---REAL Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindi-Buddhist.
MOVING FORWARD and continuous wars have NOTHING to do with RELIGION----there is no JESUS or GOD tied to the goals of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ---THE FINAL SOLUTION.
'The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
About The Volokh Conspiracy
... is famously ...
Eugene Volokh |The Volokh Conspiracy | 9.10.2019 12:08 PM
… a very common name in Mexico, and I assume in many Spanish-speaking countries, as well as among Hispanics in the U.S. But my sense is that it's very rare in most other Christian countries, and apparently even quite rare (from a cursory Internet search) in Portuguese-speaking countries.
Nor is it just a Catholic thing; there seem to be extremely few Irish and Polish Jesuses, and I think Italian ones as well. Isa (generally seen as the Arabic equivalent of Jesus) is apparently a not uncommon name in at least some Muslim countries; but my question here is focusing on Christian countries, since Jesus would presumably have a special role there.
(Note that the name "Joshua" is related to the name "Jesus"; Yeshua is apparently a variant of Yehoshua. But today, I think, Joshua isn't really seen as that closely linked to Jesus, just as Jacob isn't really seen as that closely linked to James, despite their historical link, except when we're using historical references, such as the Jacobean period or the Jacobite rebellion.)
So what's the scoop? Inquiring minds want to know'.
We know this is not our early Christian religion---this is pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA.
The Department of Homeland Security Is a Mess of Misconduct and Ineptitude
Longstanding discipline problems at DHS provide a glimpse of what fans of bigger government on the right and left would inflict on us.
J.D. Tuccille | 9.10.2019 1:00 PM
With bigger government now popular on both the nationalist right and the progressive left, it's an appropriate moment to review what constitutes existing government. A recent inspector general's report may offers some crucial insights. The report shows that the inner workings at the most recently created executive department--the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—are a mess despite years of warnings about problems in its component agencies.
"The Department does not have sufficient policies and procedures to address employee misconduct," notes the new report from the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG), dated June 17, 2019. "Specifically, the Department's policy does not include procedures for reporting allegations of misconduct, clear and specific supervisor roles and expectations, or clearly defined key discipline terms used across the components."
As examples of what constitutes misconduct among DHS employees, the report mentions "being absent without leave, improper use of a government-issued credit card, and sleeping on the job." That sort of petty, but damaging, misbehavior probably represents the most common sort of misconduct. But bad behavior also includes much more serious issues, too.
Keeping a handle on that sort of misbehavior could potentially be a big job. "Although DHS has no department-wide misconduct allegation data, the Joint Intake Center for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) received more than 16,368 allegations of misconduct and other reportable information in fiscal year 2014 alone," notes OIG.
Unfortunately, there's nobody really in charge of making sure DHS employees don't run amuck. The "Employee Relations office has limited staffing to perform these functions and staff do not believe they are responsible for managing the allegation process," states the OIG report.
This is a pretty remarkable state of affairs 17 years after the Department of Homeland Security was established in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The department is now massive and includes such familiar agencies as CBP, ICE, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.
Agencies do have their own internal disciplinary procedures, as illustrated by the CBP and ICE misconduct numbers. Yet there's no DHS-wide standard for tracking or penalizing bad behavior by government employees. And the individual agencies can be very bad at policing themselves.
The Secret Service, for example, has a long and sordid record of scandals involving drinking on the job, abusing power, and simply dropping the ball. Employees also seem prone to looking for leverage over people who criticize that record. "A Secret Service database containing sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) pertaining to Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was accessed on approximately 60 occasions by Secret Service employees" after Chaffetz tangled with the Secret Service director during a hearing about agents' misconduct, the inspector general noted in 2015.
The Coast Guard also has problems that would seem to require external oversight. A whistleblower at the scandal-beset Coast Guard Academy suffered retaliation from her superiors after she reported racial and sexual harassment. An "investigation substantiated Complainant's claim that she was retaliated against on the basis of her complaints, in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act," the inspector general found.
The Coast Guard has also been remiss about "properly reporting service members who are prohibited from possessing a firearm"—a hot button issue at a time when politicians are constantly bloviating about the alleged evils of armed civilians.
Meanwhile, at CBP, data showed "that arrests for corruption of CBP personnel far exceed, on a per capita basis, such arrests at other federal law enforcement agencies," according to one 2015 report by the Homeland Security Advisory Council. A subsequent report cited a "broken disciplinary process," "endemic corruption," and "unlawful and unconstitutional use of force" at CBP. It recommended changes including shifting CBP personnel to "excepted service" status to streamline crackdowns on serious misbehavior. But that didn't happen, and the CBP remains beset by problems.
Across DHS agencies, a little adult supervision would seem to be in order. But it seems the department simply isn't up to the job of providing such oversight. The problems at the component agencies of the DHS, and at the DHS itself, have been headline fodder for years.
Jeh Johnson, the Obama administration's Secretary of Homeland Secretary, was openly frustrated with the hot mess over which he presided. But the most that came out of that frustration were committees acknowledging problems and recommending reforms which would fail to be implemented.
Nonetheless, there's a growing fetish on the nationalist right and the progressive left for a more active federal government. Both the nationalists and the progressives want federal authorities to reshape the economy and our personal lives, and both want to regulate our speech.
All that molding, reshaping, and regulating is going to require a lot of new government employees. And there's no reason to expect those employees would behave better than their colleagues in the various agencies under current executive departments.
Any new Departments of Telling You What to Do for Your Own Good are bound to produce instances of misconduct petty and great, just like the Department of Homeland Security does now. So, if you want to know what sort of fate the latest prophets of big government have in mind for us, peruse that inspector general's report on disciplining misconduct at DHS and look through all the reports that came before. And then brace yourself for a rough ride.
Amazingly, none of these global banking 1% OLD WORLD KING reviews of this movie mention anything about these OLD WORLD structures the MOVERS AND SHAKERS of continuous wars. This article interviewing the supposed reporter tied to THE OBSERVER having received this WHISTLEBLOWER secret-----seems to not understand that BUSH/CHENEY was working for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS-----which included UK OLD WORLD KINGS and banking. Yelling at BLAIR -----JUST A START.
Below we see the same from a global banking 5% freemason/Greek media player being MUSLIM working for an NGO called PEACEWORKS.
What's Happening In the Movement
Film ‘Official Secrets’ Reveals the Depth of Deception Behind the Iraq War
by Oregon PeaceWorks • September 2, 2019 •
By Sam Husseini'
'The Largest Protest Ever Was 15 Years Ago. The Iraq War Isn’t ...
Fifteen years ago, on Feb. 15, 2003, somewhere between 6 million to 11 million people turned out in at least 650 cities around the world to protest the United States’ push to invade Iraq. It was the largest anti-war protest and remains the largest one-day global protest the world has ever seen'.
"I think people are getting to the point where they have just had enough. They've had enough of what the [Bush] administration is doing," said Bond. "They've had enough of Democrats not doing anything to stop things. And people are very frustrated and they are glad to get out here."
My legal case against NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and video PORN inside my living space ------is indeed a direct consequence of BUSH era HOMELAND SECURITY-----as public surveillance controlled by HOMELAND SECURITY is the source of open secret conversations by these black market SEX TRADE porn cartels.
We have described these ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE spying cameras and videos as a $BILLION DARK WEB market----used by political machines to HIT and SILENCE activists against MOVING FORWARD global banking TALKING POINTS---to include------CONTINUOUS WARS.
'which are a kind of warrant that the Justice Department writes for itself, authorizing its agents to seize such things as records of money movements, telephone calls and Internet visits'.
Below we see a comment on THE PATRIOT ACT saying basically what I say as a REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE who is against WAR and global security corporations---this being likely one big reason I AM BEING HIT------BY NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG.
Without coincidence------my money movements are being monitored-----my telephone and computer movements are being monitored-----and I am exposed to open hostility and threats on HOMELAND SECURITY---PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE structures.
'In an even greater affront to the American people are the provisions of a law called The Patriot Act, and that should they run afoul of this new law they are forbidden to allow anyone to know about it, and as we can read as reported by the Seattle Times News Service:
"The [Patriot] act also expands the use of National Security Letters, which are a kind of warrant that the Justice Department writes for itself, authorizing its agents to seize such things as records of money movements, telephone calls and Internet visits. Recipients of a National Security Letter are not allowed to tell anyone about them, and so cannot contest them." '
This is yet another 'US' and 'THEM'.
Hmmmmm, 400,000-----500,000 protesters in NYC alone----wonder if they are being HIT---HIT HARD----made to stay in the HOUSE and be SILENT?
02/15/2018 07:24 pm ET Updated Mar 17, 2018
The Largest Protest Ever Was 15 Years Ago.
The Iraq War Isn’t Over. What Happened?Can anti-war protesters claim any success?
By Paul Blumenthal
Fifteen years ago, on Feb. 15, 2003, somewhere between 6 million to 11 million people turned out in at least 650 cities around the world to protest the United States’ push to invade Iraq. It was the largest anti-war protest and remains the largest one-day global protest the world has ever seen.
Today, there are still 5,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and continued war on terror operations in close to a dozen other Middle Eastern, Central Asian and African nations. The war is ongoing. The anti-war movement, practically speaking, is not. What happened?
One explanation is that the anti-war push of 2003-2007 was successful — not in ending the war, but in knocking out the political party that started it.
The anti-war movement was not purely an anti-war movement, as Indiana University professor Fabio Rojas pointed out. He described the anti-war protest movement as “two groups coming together”: the core peace movement and the larger group of people who were registered Democrats and opposed to the Iraq war and then-Republican President George W. Bush, in general.
“Once the Democrats win the White House,” he said, “the two groups start moving apart.”
Rojas studied the protest movement and its decline with University of Michigan political science professor Michael Heaney. After attending dozens of protests where they conducted more than 10,000 surveys of anti-war protest participants over the course of a decade, the two professors wrote a book, Party in the Street: The Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party After 9/11, to explain it.
“When you study a massive social movement there is never one single factor, but what we do argue is a big factor is the turnover in party,” Rojas told HuffPost.
To understand the decline of the anti-war movement, you have to look at the different stages of its development. The initial movement began as a relatively small group formed immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in opposition to the Oct. 7, 2001, invasion of Afghanistan. This was at a time when voicing anti-war sentiment was intensely unpopular and viewed in many quarters as outright treason.
“It was very dangerous for a while to be anti-war,” Phyllis Bennis, director of the Internationalism Project at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies, said, noting that Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the only lawmaker to vote against the war on terror authorization, needed added security due to an increased volume of death threats.
The shift to a broader anti-war protest movement occurred as the Bush administration made clear its intentions to invade Iraq, a country that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks. Over the course of 2002, protests in the U.S. and around the world drew larger and larger crowds, up to the peak of the Feb. 15, 2003 protests.
Those protests occurred as the U.S., Britain and Spain pushed for a second resolution from the United Nations Security Council to approve an Iraq invasion. Ten days earlier, Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, had made his notorious presentation outlining the evidence that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Powell’s evidence would later turn out to be entirely false.
For this reason, the site of the United Nations in New York City marked the center of the protest. In freezing temperatures, somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 protesters stretched along 30 or 40 city blocks on First Avenue. Organizers included the umbrella peace group United for Peace and Justice, the socialist group International ANSWER and a host of labor unions, environmental groups and progressive organizations like MoveOn.org.
Bennis connected protesters with the leadership of the United Nations to deliver their message. As the protest played out on the street, Bennis, actor and activist Harry Belafonte and Archbishop Desmond Tutu met with then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan inside U.N. headquarters. Here Tutu told his old friend Annan that, on behalf of the protesters, “We claim the United Nations as our own.”
REMEMBER, GLOBAL BANKING 5% FREEMASON/GREEK PLAYERS LOVE TO BE FAKE POPULIST LEADERS----SO, THIS ARTICLE NAMES MANY FAKE PEACE LEADERS.
The U.S. quickly dropped its push for a second resolution that would have provided legitimacy for a war. President George W. Bush said that he could care less about protests, which he dismissed as a “focus group.” The protest organizers cheered their success in preventing a second resolution at the U.N.
But 33 days later, the U.S. and its “Coalition of the Willing” commenced a “shock and awe” bombing campaign and invaded Iraq. In 2004, Annan declared that the war, which never gained a legitimate stamp of approval from the U.N., was “illegal.” High-intensity protest mobilization continued, plateauing in 2007 and then attenuating over the next few years.
“The anti-war movement was pretty well sustained from 2003 through about 2006,” Heaney, the University of Michigan professor, told HuffPost. “During that time there were multiple large demonstrations. There was also coordinated activity and lobbying. There were numerous active coalitions. Lots of grassroots mobilization in numerous cities. It was a pretty big movement.”
Whereas anti-war protests brought out thousands of participants while Bush was president, participation collapsed with the 2008 election of Barack Obama. In their surveys of protest participants, Heaney and Rojas found that protesters cited anti-Bush and anti-Republican Party sentiment as among the top three issues until Obama was elected. After, this partisan-inflected sentiment did not crack the top 20 in reasons people attended the protests. This can be attributed to the fact that the people who were there to protest Bush and the Republicans simply stopped coming to protests, leaving behind the core anti-war movement activists, according to Rojas.
It is not as though this reveals some deep hypocrisy on the part of individuals with a partisan affiliation with the Democratic Party. By and large these people did not just oppose the Iraq War because a Republican president waged it or suddenly switch their position when Democrats won.
“They did [left behind the protests] for any of a variety of reasons,” Heaney said. “It could be that they felt that Barack Obama would deal with the war. It could be that they were attracted to other issues, like immigration and health care.”
WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT OBAMA ERA EXPANDED THIS 'HITTING' ECONOMY AIMED AT ANYONE NOT WILLING TO SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL PRIVATE MILITARY COMPLEX.
Indeed, there were other developments around the time that the movement began to fizzle. The global economic crisis began in 2007, leaving many protesters with more immediate concerns — how to keep their job or house, for instance.
“One impact of the economic crisis, you have a whole set amount of people put their main political energy into the anti-war movement who suddenly were faced with an economic crisis they had never experienced,” Bennis said.
The prospect of unified Democratic control of the White House, and Congress also opened up possibilities for legislation on health care and immigration. In some cases, institutional support by groups linked to the Democratic Party ― labor unions, environmental groups and MoveOn.org ― was diverted from the anti-war cause to these issues. For many partisan Democrats, their attention shifted as well.
Meanwhile, Obama, who as an Illinois state senator voiced opposition to the war in Iraq at a protest in 2002, in many ways continued the war on terror policies of the Bush administration after he gained the presidency. He did eventually draw down troop levels in Iraq, but he increased them in Afghanistan, as he had promised to do in his 2008 campaign. He ramped up drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, which even killed an American teenager who had committed no crime.
You may be tempted to think, then, that the Feb. 15 protest and the movement around it were ultimately fruitless. Any number of commenters have said as much. Bennis argued that that isn’t quite right.
“There was a lot of talk afterwards that this just proves protest is useless,” Bennis said. “I think that was really wrong, because it didn’t take into account what came next. There were a number of impacts from that protest that we are still feeling today.”
The clearest political impacts of the global protests occurred outside of the United States.
In Spain, which saw one of the highest-attended protests on Feb. 15, 2003, conservatives who backed the Iraq War lost the next election. In Britain, where 1 million people turned out in London on Feb. 15, the Labour Party has undergone a massive shift in power from the pro-war Tony Blair to Jeremy Corbyn, one of the leaders of the anti-war protests in 2003.
JERRY CORBYN IS NOT ANTI-WAR---HE IS NOT LEFT OR POPULIST--HE IS GLOBAL BANKING 1% CORPORATE MARXISM WHICH IS AUTHORITARIAN AND MILITARISTIC FOR GOODNESS SAKE.
In Egypt, progressive activists noticed the lack of protest in their country on Feb. 15 and organized their own spontaneous protest that brought out tens of thousands on the day the U.S. invasion began. Those same activists helped launch the 2011 Tahrir Square protests that brought down the presidency of Hosni Mubarak. (They are also now the targets of the current U.S.-aligned government of President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.)
The protests surely had an effect on policy here in the United States, where the public has been far less interested in starting new wars since Iraq. When Obama sought authorization from Congress to bomb Syria, heavy grassroots opposition re-emerged in phone calls to lawmakers demanding that they oppose the action. Even in the Republican Party, opposition to the Iraq War, however illusory, helped Donald Trump win his party’s nomination.
Bennis said that the starting point of conversations about war no longer defaults to support. “Now it’s moving towards the other way around,” she said. “It’s not quite there yet, but it’s moving in that direction. And Feb. 15 was a huge part of why.”