Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

[Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941 reveals the nature of man’s government in general. The government is lies, destruction, and death to empower and enrich a few elite families. To understand Pearl Harbor, the attack on the USS LIBERTY, June 8, 1967, the attack on the World Trade Center on 9-11, and scores of other inside-orchestrated provocations to wars, is to open your eyes to the despicable perfidy of bankers and politicians. It still is happening – continual wars caused by a few elites against victim nations around the world justified by lies, resulting in destruction, misery, and death, to enrich and empower a few elite. That is what man’s government is all about. Anyone who says different is either a liar or a fool. -ed]

 

Written by  James Perloff

Comprehensive research has shown not only that FDR knew in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but that he deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II.

On Sunday, December 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, shattering the peace of a beautiful Hawaiian morning and leaving much of the fleet broken and burning. The destruction and death that the Japanese military visited upon Pearl Harbor that day — 18 naval vessels (including eight battleships) sunk or heavily damaged, 188 planes destroyed, over 2,000 servicemen killed — were exacerbated by the fact that American commanders in Hawaii were caught by surprise. But that was not the case in Washington.

Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: “Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war.”

Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: “The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power.” William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under “utmost secrecy,” which, he clarified, “meant preventing disclosure to the American public.” Even Robert Sherwood, the president’s friendly biographer, said: “If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land.”

Background to Betrayal

Roosevelt’s intentions were nearly exposed in 1940 when Tyler Kent, a code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London, discovered secret dispatches between Roosevelt and Churchill. These revealed that FDR — despite contrary campaign promises — was determined to engage America in the war. Kent smuggled some of the documents out of the embassy, hoping to alert the American public — but was caught. With U.S. government approval, he was tried in a secret British court and confined to a British prison until the war’s end.

During World War II’s early days, the president offered numerous provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; shipping 50 destroyers to Britain; and depth-charging U-boats. The Germans did not retaliate, however. They knew America’s entry into World War I had shifted the balance of power against them, and they shunned a repeat of that scenario. FDR therefore switched his focus to Japan. Japan had signed a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy (the Tripartite Treaty). Roosevelt knew that if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.”

Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the recent work of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran. Stinnett has obtained numerous relevant documents through the Freedom of Information Act. In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000), the book so brusquely dismissed by director Bruckheimer, Stinnett reveals that Roosevelt’s plan to provoke Japan began with a memorandum from Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States. McCollum wrote: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.” FDR enacted all eight of McCollum’s provocative steps — and more.

While no one can excuse Japan’s belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.

After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: “We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move.” On November 25, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan’s ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot….”

The bait offered Japan was our Pacific Fleet. In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet’s commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR’s decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: “I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected.”

Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor’s deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.

Prior Knowledge

One of the most important elements in America’s foreknowledge of Japan’s intentions was our government’s success in cracking Japan’s secret diplomatic code known as “Purple.” Tokyo used it to communicate to its embassies and consulates, including those in Washington and Hawaii. The code was so complex that it was enciphered and deciphered by machine. A talented group of American cryptoanalysts broke the code in 1940 and devised a facsimile of the Japanese machine. These, utilized by the intelligence sections of both the War and Navy departments, swiftly revealed Japan’s diplomatic messages. The deciphered texts were nicknamed “Magic.”

Copies of Magic were always promptly delivered in locked pouches to President Roosevelt, and the secretaries of State, War, and Navy. They also went to Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall and to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark. However, although three Purple decoding machines were allotted to Britain, none was sent to Pearl Harbor. Intercepts of ciphered messages radioed between Tokyo and its Honolulu consulate had to be forwarded to Washington for decrypting. Thus Kimmel and Short, the Hawaiian commanders, were at the mercy of Washington for feedback. A request for their own decoding machine was rebuffed on the grounds that diplomatic traffic was of insufficient interest to soldiers.

How untrue that was! On October 9, 1941, the War Department decoded a Tokyo-to-Honolulu dispatch instructing the Consul General to divide Pearl Harbor into five specified areas and to report the exact locations of American ships therein.

There is nothing unusual about spies watching ship movements — but reporting precise whereabouts of ships in dock has only one implication. Charles Willoughby, Douglas MacArthur’s chief of intelligence, later wrote that the “reports were on a grid system of the inner harbor with coordinate locations of American men of war … coordinate grid is the classical method for pinpoint target designation; our battleships had suddenly become targets.” This information was never sent to Kimmel or Short.

Additional intercepts were decoded by Washington, all within one day of their original transmission:

• November 5th: Tokyo notified its Washington ambassadors that November 25th was the deadline for an agreement with the U.S.

• November 11th: They were warned, “The situation is nearing a climax, and the time is getting short.”

• November 16th: The deadline was pushed up to November 29th. “The deadline absolutely cannot be changed,” the dispatch said. “After that, things are automatically going to happen.”

• November 29th (the U.S. ultimatum had now been received): The ambassadors were told a rupture in negotiations was “inevitable,” but that Japan’s leaders “do not wish you to give the impression that negotiations are broken off.”

• November 30th: Tokyo ordered its Berlin embassy to inform the Germans that “the breaking out of war may come quicker than anyone dreams.”

• December 1st: The deadline was again moved ahead. “[T]o prevent the United States from becoming unduly suspicious, we have been advising the press and others that … the negotiations are continuing.”

• December 1st-2nd: The Japanese embassies in non-Axis nations around the world were directed to dispose of their secret documents and all but one copy of their codes. (This was for a reason easy to fathom — when war breaks out, the diplomatic offices of a hostile state lose their immunity and are normally overtaken. One copy of code was retained so that final instructions could be received, after which the last code copy would be destroyed.)

An additional warning came via the so-called “winds” message. A November 18th intercept indicated that, if a break in U.S. relations were forthcoming, Tokyo would issue a special radio warning. This would not be in the Purple code, as it was intended to reach consulates and lesser agencies of Japan not equipped with the code or one of its machines. The message, to be repeated three times during a weather report, was “Higashi no kaze ame,” meaning “East wind, rain.” “East wind” signified the United States; “rain” signified diplomatic split — in effect, war.

This prospective message was deemed so significant that U.S. radio monitors were constantly watching for it, and the Navy Department typed it up on special reminder cards. On December 4th, “Higashi no kaze ame” was indeed broadcast and picked up by Washington intelligence.

On three different occasions since 1894, Japan had made surprise attacks coinciding with breaks in diplomatic relations. This history was not lost on President Roosevelt. Secretary Stimson, describing FDR’s White House conference of November 25th, noted: “The President said the Japanese were notorious for making an attack without warning and stated that we might be attacked, say next Monday, for example.” Nor was it lost on Washington’s senior military officers, all of them War College graduates.

As Robert Stinnett has revealed, Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches as well. President Roosevelt had access to these intercepts via his routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had authored the original eight-point plan of provocation to Japan. So much secrecy has surrounded these naval dispatches that their existence was not revealed during any of the ten Pearl Harbor investigations, even the mini-probe Congress conducted in 1995. Most of Stinnett’s requests for documents concerning Pearl Harbor have been denied as still classified, even under the Freedom of Information Act.

It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 26, 1941:

The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.

So much official secrecy continues to surround the translations of the intercepted Japanese naval dispatches that it is not known if the foregoing message was sent to McCollum or seen by FDR. It is not even known who originally translated the intercept. One thing, however, is certain: The message’s significance could not have been lost on the translator.

1941 also witnessed the following:

On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, sent a message to Washington stating: “The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength….”

On November 3rd, still relying on informants, Grew notified Secretary of State Cordell Hull: “War with the United States may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness.” He sent an even stronger warning on November 17th.

Congressman Martin Dies would write:

Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. As soon as I received the document I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services…. I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.

Dusko Popov was a Yugoslav who worked as a double agent for both Germany and Britain. His true allegiance was to the Allies. In the summer of 1941, the Nazis ordered Popov to Hawaii to make a detailed study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. The agent deduced that the mission betokened a surprise attack by the Japanese. In August, he fully reported this to the FBI in New York. J. Edgar Hoover later bitterly recalled that he had provided warnings to FDR about Pearl Harbor, but that Roosevelt told him not to pass the information any further and to just leave it in his (the president’s) hands.

Kilsoo Haan, of the Sino-Korean People’s League, received definite word from the Korean underground that the Japanese were planning to assault Hawaii “before Christmas.” In November, after getting nowhere with the State Department, Haan convinced Iowa Senator Guy Gillette of his claim’s merit. Gillette briefed the president, who laconically thanked him and said it would be looked into.

In Java, in early December, the Dutch Army decoded a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting attacks on four sites including Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe sent Washington a total of four warnings. The last went to General Marshall’s intelligence chief. Thorpe was ordered to send no further messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.

Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America, recorded revealing details in his diary. On December 2nd, he visited the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, “This is the Japanese Task Force proceeding East.” It was a spot midway between Japan and Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: “I ask what is the meaning of these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American action…. I myself do not think about it because I believe that everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone here at O.N.I.”

On November 29th, Secretary of State Cordell Hull secretly met with freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib. Leib had formerly held several posts in the Roosevelt administration. Hull knew him and felt he was one newsman he could trust. The secretary of state handed him copies of some of the Tokyo intercepts concerning Pearl Harbor. He said the Japanese were planning to strike the base and that FDR planned to let it happen. Hull made Leib pledge to keep his name out of it, but hoped he could blow the story sky-high in the newspapers.

Leib ran to the office of his friend Lyle Wilson, the Washington bureau chief of United Press. While keeping his pledge to Hull, he told Wilson the details and showed him the intercepts. Wilson replied that the story was ludicrous and refused to run it. Through connections, Leib managed to get a hurried version onto UP’s foreign cable, but only one newspaper carried any part of it.

After Pearl Harbor, Lyle Wilson called Leib to his office. He handed him a copy of FDR’s just-released “day of infamy” speech. The two men wept. Leib recounted his story in the History Channel documentary, “Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor.”

The foregoing represents just a sampling of evidence that Washington knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack. For additional evidences, see Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland, and Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.* So certain was the data that, at a private press briefing in November 1941, General George Marshall confidently predicted that a Japanese-American war would break out during the “first ten days of December.”

However, none of this information was passed to our commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, with the exception of Ambassador Grew’s January warning, a copy of which reached Kimmel on February 1st. To allay any concerns, Lieutenant Commander McCollum — who originated the plan to incite Japan to war — wrote Kimmel: “Naval Intelligence places no credence in these rumors. Furthermore, based on known data regarding the present disposition and deployment of Japanese naval and army forces, no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for in the foreseeable future.”

Sitting Ducks

To ensure a successful Japanese attack — one that would enrage America into joining the war — it was vital to keep Kimmel and Short out of the intelligence loop. However, Washington did far more than this to facilitate the Japanese assault.

On November 25th, approximately one hour after the Japanese attack force left port for Hawaii, the U.S. Navy issued an order forbidding U.S. and Allied shipping to travel via the North Pacific. All transpacific shipping was rerouted through the South Pacific. This order was even applied to Russian ships docked on the American west coast. The purpose is easy to fathom. If any commercial ship accidentally stumbled on the Japanese task force, it might alert Pearl Harbor. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner, the Navy’s War Plans officer in 1941, frankly stated: “We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic.”

The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.

Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders’ repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in his book And I Was There: “There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts.”

The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.

When the White House learned of Kimmel’s move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel’s action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.

Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his carrier chief, Vice Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, issued plans for a 25-ship task force to guard against an “enemy air and submarine attack” on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th, Admiral Stark, Washington’s Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands — further depleting Pearl Harbor’s air defenses.

It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous “war warning” to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.

Indeed, the message began conspicuously: “This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.” But it went on to state: “The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo.” None of these areas was closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: “Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage.” The message further stated that “measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population.” Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the “war warning” was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall’s adjutant general to Short warned only: “Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage.”

Thus things stood as Japan prepared to strike. Using the Purple code, Tokyo sent a formal statement to its Washington ambassadors. It was to be conveyed to the American Secretary of State on Sunday, December 7th. The statement terminated relations and was tantamount to a declaration of war. On December 6th, in Washington, the War and Navy departments had already decrypted the first 13 parts of this 14-part message. Although the final passage officially severing ties had not yet come through, the fiery wording made its meaning obvious. Later that day, when Lieutenant Lester Schulz delivered to President Roosevelt his copy of the intercept, Schulz heard FDR say to his advisor, Harry Hopkins, “This means war.”

During subsequent Pearl Harbor investigations, both General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, denied any recollection of where they had been on the evening of December 6th — despite Marshall’s reputation for a photographic memory. But James G. Stahlman, a close friend of Navy Secretary Frank Knox, said Knox told him FDR convened a high-level meeting at the White House that evening. Knox, Marshall, Stark, and War Secretary Stimson attended. Indeed, with the nation on war’s threshold, such a conference only made sense. That same evening, the Navy Department received a request from Stimson for a list of the whereabouts of all ships in the Pacific.

On the morning of December 7th, the final portion of Japan’s lengthy message to the U.S. government was decoded. Tokyo added two special directives to its ambassadors. The first directive, which the message called “very important,” was to deliver the statement at 1 p.m. The second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was immediately recognized in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations; Sunday was an abnormal day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 p.m. in Washington was shortly after dawn in Hawaii!

Admiral Stark arrived at his office at 9:25 a.m. He was shown the message and the important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor because all his actions had been dictated by a “higher authority.” As Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority: Roosevelt.

In the War Department, where the 14-part statement had also been decoded, Colonel Rufus Bratton, head of the Army’s Far Eastern section, discerned the message’s significance. But the chief of intelligence told him nothing could be done until Marshall arrived. Bratton tried reaching Marshall at home, but was repeatedly told the general was out horseback riding. The horseback ride turned out to be a long one. When Bratton finally reached Marshall by phone and told him of the emergency, Marshall said he would come to the War Department. Marshall took 75 minutes to make the 10-minute drive. He didn’t come to his office until 11:25 a.m. — an extremely late hour with the nation on the brink of war. He perused the Japanese message and was shown the delivery time. Every officer in Marshall’s office agreed these indicated an attack in the Pacific at about 1 p.m. EST. The general finally agreed that Hawaii should be alerted, but time was running out.

Marshall had only to pick up his desk phone to reach Pearl Harbor on the transpacific line. Doing so would not have averted the attack, but at least our men would have been at their battle stations. Instead, the general wrote a dispatch. After it was encoded it went to the Washington office of Western Union. From there it was relayed to San Francisco. From San Francisco it was transmitted via RCA commercial radio to Honolulu. General Short received it six hours after the attack. Two hours later it reached Kimmel. One can imagine their exasperation on reading it.

Despite all the evidence accrued through Magic and other sources during the previous months, Marshall had never warned Hawaii. To historians — ignorant of that classified evidence — it would appear the general had tried to save Pearl Harbor, “but alas, too late.” Similarly, FDR sent a last-minute plea for peace to Emperor Hirohito. Although written a week earlier, he did not send it until the evening of December 6th. It was to be delivered by Ambassador Grew, who would be unable to receive an audience with the emperor before December 8th. Thus the message could not conceivably have forestalled the attack — but posterity would think that FDR, too, had made “a valiant, last effort.”

The Roberts Commission, assigned to investigate the Japanese attack, consisted of personal cronies of Roosevelt and Marshall. The Commission fully absolved Washington and declared that America was caught off guard due to “dereliction of duty” by Kimmel and Short. The wrath of America for these two was exceeded only by its wrath for Tokyo. To this day, many still believe it was negligence by the Hawaii commanders that made the Pearl Harbor disaster possible.

_____________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

ABCs of LGBTQ history mandated for more U.S. public schools

(War on the American family. A whole generation of children is being reprogrammed, in public schools and on TV, to accept the new definitions of gender and family. You MUST protect your precious children from this brainwash.)

 

These are just some of the ways U.S. public school students will learn about LGBTQ – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender queer – history in a growing number of states moving to mandate inclusive K-12 curriculum. It is the latest chapter in a decades-long push to teach students about the trials and contributions of marginalized communities – from suffragettes to black Americans – whose stories have often been absent from classrooms.

At the forefront is California where the curriculum became law in 2011. New Jersey became the second state in January with a mandate to middle and high-school students.

On Thursday, Colorado lawmakers voted to mandate LGBTQ curriculum for K-12 public school students. Governor Jared Polis, the nation’s first openly gay governor, will review the final bill before deciding whether to sign it into law, a spokeswoman said.

Now the words “mother” and “father” are being censored and replaced with “parent #1” and “parent #2”. The terms “mother and father” are too gender specific.

LGBTQ TEXTBOOKS

In California, eight years after the mandate was signed into law, known as the FAIR Education Act, many teachers are just beginning to incorporate LGBTQ history into their classrooms.

In 2017, the state took a major step by approving history textbooks that include the mandated material. While the textbooks are optional, schools receive financial assistance from the state to purchase them.

Some approved textbooks include eighth grade lessons about two-spirits, people revered in many Native American cultures because they were believed to embody both masculine and feminine spirits, before Native American gender roles were largely stamped out by Spanish and English colonization.

Despite these inroads, the Golden State is still grappling with making sure all public school students learn LGBTQ history. One challenge has been instructing teachers, who may have never learned LGBTQ history themselves.

____________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on ABCs of LGBTQ history mandated for more U.S. public schools

Israel Is One of the World’s Worst Rogue States

                                         Israel bombing Gaza

 

                                                              DAVID & GOLIATH

 

[Anti-Christian Western Zionist governments, approved and backed by Zionist churches, are guilty of empowering Israeli genocide against defenseless Palestinians.]

As an integral part of its ongoing propaganda, Israel, along with its fervent supporters and legions of paid and anonymous agents, zealously repeats and disseminates – in the media, on university campuses, in blogs and comment sections, at conferences and more – the same old, tired Zionist myths. 

Propaganda guides and tool kits, such as the “global language dictionary”, offer ready-made arguments and counter-arguments to sell Israel to journalists and critics. Such talking points come with tips on what tone and rhetorical tactics to use, what words and formulas “work”, and how to discuss “sensitive” issues, such as Israel’s illegal colonisation and annexation of Palestinian land, Jewish settlements and the killing of civilians.

All of which are now set to get worse since US President Donald Trump has both rewarded and emboldened Israel by recognising its illegal and brutal colonisation (its “settlements”). By the same token he has offered yet another spectacular demonstration of the complete contempt of the United States for the rule of international law.

Setting such an example will only send the message to all the despots, autocrats and tyrants of various stripes around the globe that not only it is ok to steal, colonise, and brutalise weak and defenceless populations, but that you may even be rewarded by the West for adopting the “law of the jungle”.

Disinformation machine

The media is saturated with uplifting news about the “Israeli economic miracle”, its wealth and high living standards, and its thriving startup and high-tech industry. But have you ever heard from a mainstream Western media outlet or politician that a fifth of Israelis live below the poverty line, that people are forced to look through rubbish for food to avoid starving, or that Israel has (according to the Jerusalem Post) the highest poverty rate in the developed world?

The answer is most likely not, and we should ask ourselves why. Other lies propagated by Israel’s disinformation machine include origin myths, the most famous being the romantic theme of Palestine as “a land without a people for a people without a land”, which strangely persists, despite its historical absurdity. Israel relies a lot on ignorance and gullibility.

This magnificent interactive photographic collection of pre-1948 Palestine is enough to pulverize that revisionist lie, which seeks to eliminate the very notion of the existence of Palestinians on the land before it was taken from them by Western colonial powers to be given to Jewish emigrants from Europe and elsewhere. Palestinians were made to pay for a Holocaust that Europe had committed, and in which they themselves played no part.

Besides the pathetic nature of such PR operations to counter critics and improve Israel’s disastrous global image, its effectiveness is more than a little uncertain.

When news and images of Israel’s killing and mutilation of Palestinian children, deliberate bombing of schools, and indiscriminate use of white phosphorus on entire neighbourhoods circulate around the world, it is hard to convincingly portray such a predatory, violent and terrorist rogue state as noble, democratic, peaceful or gentle.

Hyper-violent colonialism

Even access to water, the most fundamental and life-sustaining resource, is the object of differential treatment by Israel, which has never hesitated to confiscate water or to use it as a war weapon to collectively punish entire populations.

Since the nation-state law has been adopted, Israel’s already systemic discrimination has become even worse, with new laws being passed to further entrench and expand inequality.

In addition to all of this evidence that Israel is no democracy, the state has also become globally infamous for its relentless, illegal, supremacist, hyper-violent colonialism; its annexation of land at gunpoint; its terrorist military; and its armies of fanatic Jewish “settlers”, who are little more than international rogues and land thieves.

During its half-century of illegal occupation and annexation, which is now doomed to get even worse, Israel has wilfully and knowingly violated almost every major international law convention, treaty and UN resolution, including the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, the 1947 Partition Plan, the Camp David and Oslo accords, and so on.

Such lawless behaviour has given Israel the distinct honour of being among the countries that for decades have been, and continue to be, regularly condemned by all major human rights organisations out there, and by the UN itself.

Distinctly Israeli terror

It is difficult to find a worse rogue state than Israel. From its very inception, writ with ethnic cleansing, Israel has made the collective punishment of defenceless civilian populations, the killing of entire families, the deliberate mutilation of children, the bombing of schools and hospitals, and other barbaric atrocities as distinctly, recognisably Israeli as challah, hamin and gefilte fish.

Even Israeli soldiers themselves – thousands of them, often elite soldiers regrouped in veteran organisations such as Breaking the Silence – are exposing and documenting Israel’s systematic and deliberate targeting of defenceless Palestinians. As much as the ANC veterans know apartheid, and Holocaust survivors know fascism, when they see it, these brave soldiers surely know what they are talking about, as they were once a part of it.

But they, too, are probably just “antisemites” or “self-hating Jews”; instead of them, maybe we ought to believe the likes of Netanyahu, who continues to claim that Israel is the region’s “only democracy”?

________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Israel Is One of the World’s Worst Rogue States

The War against Syria: and the Truth is ….

If the truth about the war on Syria was known by Western populations, then there would be no war on Syria.

If the truth were known there would be no terrorism in Syria.

  • If the truth were known and accepted Syria would still rank as one of the top five safest countries in the world.
  • If the truth were known Christians and Muslims and everyone would be safe. Christians and Muslims in Syria would never have been slaughtered had the truth been known and accepted.
  • If the truth were known there would be no economic blockades that cause death and disaster and terrorism with intent.

But the truth is not known by broad-based Western populations because we have been smothered by blankets of suffocating, criminal war propaganda for years. Our tax dollars pay for the indoctrination. Just like our tax dollars pay for NATO and its globalizing tentacles of death and destruction that are literally imperiling the world.

So,why is the Truth not known and accepted by broad-based Western populations?

Renowned author Michel Collon demonstrates the characteristics of war propaganda that deny us the right to know.

First, the Zionist and corporate interests that push for war must be hidden. Privileged access to and control of resources, including oil pipelines, must not be mentioned.

Second, history must be erased. People must not be aware of the longstanding imperial efforts to divide, weaken, and colonize Syria. They must not know that the war on Syria was planned well in advance by imperial powers.

Third, the leader of the country must be demonized. People must never know that elected President Assad has always been popular, even according to a NATO poll, and that the invading terrorists (orchestrated by western powers) were never accepted nor welcomed by the vast majority of Syrians.

People must not know that it is the aggressors, the US and allies, who have and use Weapons of Mass Destruction in Syria, and in Iraq, and every other country that they invade.

Perceptions must be fabricated in such a way that the Western aggressors are seen as defending “victims”.

The entire Western-perpetrated war has created a country of victims and fleeing refugees. The real intention of war is to kill, harm, maim, destroy and replace the governments. Destabilize means to destroy. The notion that it is intended to be humanitarian is beyond ridicule, but this is the perception that has been embedded in Western populations.

Finally, alternate viewpoints must be suppressed.

Warmongers must monopolize the discussion.

People must not know that the White Helmets are terrorists, that they fabricate fake chemical weapons incidents, that they create false flags, that they engage in involuntary organ harvesting. People must not know the truth.

The Truth, widely accepted, would deliver Peace. The Truth must be erased.

________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on The War against Syria: and the Truth is ….

Russia’s Kinzhal hypersonic missile ‘completes its first ARCTIC test’

Russia’s new Kinzhal (‘Dagger’) air-launched hypersonic missile has been tested in freezing Arctic conditions. It successfully struck a land-based target in what was the maiden test of its kind, defense industry sources said.

The top-secret trials took place in mid-November at the Pemboi range in the north-western Komi Republic, one of the sources told TASS. The Russian region stretches beyond the Arctic Circle.

The missile was fired from a MiG-31K supersonic interceptor aircraft, which NATO calls ‘Foxhound.’ Kinzhal “reached the speed of Mach 10 (over 12,000kph),” another unnamed official told the agency.

Kinzhal is one of several hypersonic systems being prepared for service in the Russian Army. Russia has already successfully tested its Avangard glider, which is fitted on silo-based ICBMs. Plans have been outlined for the first Avangards to enter service before the end of the year. The development of the Zircon (Tsirkon) missile, designed to be launched from ships, is also currently in full swing.

Hypersonic weapons are said to be able to bypass any existing air defenses due to traveling several times faster than the speed of sound, and constantly maneuvering on their approach to the target.

Russia has been boosting its military presence in the Arctic in recent years, building and repairing bases and airfields, as well as deploying its newest hardware, including S-400 air defense systems, and frequently carrying out drills in the area. The buildup started as a response to attempts by other regional players – Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the US – to lay claims to the Arctic due to its rich natural resources and strategic geographical position.

_______________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Russia’s Kinzhal hypersonic missile ‘completes its first ARCTIC test’

West Pushes Russia and China Closer Together

RUCH4534

Ron Henry – 11-16-19

With Beijing celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule, there’s been a heated discussion across the Western world about the role that China is going to play in the global affairs. Among those taking part in the discussion there’s been those pointing out to the growing military cooperation between Beijing and Moscow.

As it’s been underlined by a once respected Western media source, for the longest time any relationship between Russia and China would be dismissed as a marriage of convenience with limited impact on American interests. But since Western nations imposed sanctions on Russia after the coup in Ukraine in 2014, Chinese and Russian authorities have increasingly found common cause, disparaging the Western-style “rule-based order” and offering themselves as alternatives to America’s post-war leadership.

As Western countries carry on their meddling with the internal affairs of nations in the eastern hemisphere, political cooperation among nations such as China and Russia becomes a major geopolitical factor. As China and Russia are growing even closer, it becomes evident that this new arrangement is going to present a challenge to Washington’s dominance on the geopolitical stage.

As it’s been noted by John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School:

The world system, and American influence in it, would be completely upended if Moscow and Beijing aligned more closely.”

Indeed, the ties between Russia and China go back decades, as those countries were bound by a full-fledged military pact some time ago. Among the reasons behind this rapprochement one can name the omnipresent external threat to the very existence of those states, as the West has done everything it could to undermine both of those both internally and externally.

It’s no coincidence that Article 9 of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation states:

When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.

Of course, some may argue, nor Moscow neither Beijing are duty-bound to rush to each other’s aid, but its wording is reminiscent of the North Atlantic Treaty, where there’s no guarantee that anybody would rush to your rescue should things go south. That’s the reality of modern diplomatic relations, where treaties are driven by the commitment of the participating parties towards a common goal instead of formal obligations. So careful wording is a modern imperative in such documents, and those who drafted the above-mentioned piece were no strangers to this concept.

So, it’s safe to say that Moscow and Beijing are coordinating their goals, military planning and production capabilities, and they’ve been doing this since the early 2000s.

However, the turning point in the bilateral relations between Russia and China can be traced to a major spike in anti-Russian sanctions that occurred in 2017. Against this backdrop, Moscow proposed that a comprehensive roadmap should have been developed, covering the time span of three years and encompassing all the areas of military cooperation between the states. China was happy to accept this proposition largely to the fact that it was facing the prospect of a full-blown trade war with the United States, that was later launched by the Trump administration.

As the situation on the geopolitical stage remains highly volatile, it’s no wonder that both Moscow and Beijing describe each other as close strategic partners. With Beijing being yet unable to reach nuclear parity with the United States, it gravitates closer to Moscow and its massive nuclear stockpiles. This year’s China’s Defence White Paper states that the cooperation between the states remains on a particularly high level, with a special emphasis being laid on the fact that it will not threat any third party, unless the latter decides to attack any of the two states.

The intention of pursuing further rapprochement can be observed in the way Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia was carried out last June. In particular, he signed a number of military deals with his Russian counterpart, with the parties pledging their commitments to pursue the goal of preserving security, addressing threats and creating favorable conditions for further rapprochement.

The scale of this cooperation can be seen in the official figures, as prior to 2013 China would buy no more than 5% of all weapon systems produced in Russia, with the situation improving in the following years, as this ratio reached 15%. China was the first country to receive Russia’s top-of-the-line S-400  anti-aircraft weapon systems, together with its fourth plus plus generation fighter SU-35, which resulted in Washington slapping it on the wrist with a new round of sanctions.

Additionally, China and Russia have been conducting joint military exercises intermittently for more than a decade. They often vote alike at the United Nations and have similar positions on Iran and North Korea. Both have become much more active in the Middle East, where Russia is trying to regain its standing as a major power and China is trying to cultivate relations with energy suppliers like Iran.

As it’s been noted by Die Welt, Moscow’s growing mutual trust with China is capable of redrawing the entire geopolitical layout in the world. Just recently, Vladimir Putin would announce Russia’s intention to help Beijing build a strategic missile early warning system. To the present day, Russia and the United States are the only ones to possess such capabilities. It’s been noted that the system will allow the two countries to warn each other of launches carried out by a third-country. According to Russia’s leader such a development will result in a quantitative change in Beijing’s ability to ensure its security. However, the publication is convinced that should the two countries integrate their warning systems into one it will constitute a major shift in the existing balance of powers. It’s also been noted that as the US-Russia relations carry on deteriorating it’s hard to imagine any other development than Moscow and Beijing formally recognizing their status of close military allies.

Recently, the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Newt Gingric revealed that this activity creates a real potential for a China-Russia strategic alliance which would turn much of Western national security planning and strategy on its head.

In turn, the Diplomat would state:

China appears to be the beneficiary of the worsening Russia-West relations. After the Ukraine crisis and the sanctioning of Russia, Moscow has felt the need to cultivate its own strong partnerships in Asia and China has benefited immensely from this Russian outreach. Irrespective of the reasons for this deepening alliance, it has implications for others, including Asian powers such as India.

_______________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on West Pushes Russia and China Closer Together

US Pulls Off Ukraine-Style Coup in Bolivia – Why This Intervention Worked Where Venezuela’s Failed

<figcaption>Bolivian President Evo Morales speaks at a press conference in La Paz, Bolivia, on Oct. 24.</figcaption>
Bolivian President Evo Morales speaks at a press conference in La Paz, Bolivia, on Oct. 24.

A military coup took place in Bolivia, leading to the overthrow of President Evo Morales, who resigned. Things evolved similar to what we saw in Venezuela. Elections were used as a trigger, and the right-wing opposition acted as a tool.

The United States, its satellites in Latin America, and the EU did not like or recognize the outcome of Bolivia’s elections, so they initiated mass protests there.

Evo Morales won the election in the second round, ahead of the right-wing candidate by 10% of the vote. The nuance is that if you score more than 10% than your opponent, there is no need for another round. If it is less than 10%, then it is necessary.

Since the figures were on the threshold (while Morales overall had more than 600,000 votes), it was used to organise the coup, which Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela condemned.

The events effectively used the Venezuela blueprint – street protests in major cities by the right-wing, attacks on ruling party activists, denial of legitimacy by the US & Co, pressure on the army to end support for Morales. Using the OAS [the Organization of American States] to delegitimise Morales, he was proposed to leave for Mexico. As a result, what did not work in Venezuela, where all this instrumentation, including the president appointed by Washington, was designed to overthrow Maduro, as a whole worked in Bolivia, allowing to overthrow the president, who in democratic elections gained 600,000 votes more than his opponent.

De facto, it’s a banal colour coup, like the Ukrainian coup.

The key differences between Venezuela and Bolivia are as follows:

1. Morales’ party is not as deeply rooted in society as Chavism is in Venezuela, making Morales’ ability to mobilise his supporters far more modest than Maduro’s.

2. Bolivia, by virtue of its geographical location, had far less access to assistance from China, Russia, or Cuba. The country is strategically isolated and its neighbours are largely orientated towards the United States, especially Chile and Brazil.

3. Morales made a serious mistake when he referred the issue of the election assessment to the OAS, the very organisation that declared Maduro illegitimate and supported Guaido. It is difficult to say what verdict he expected from it if the OAS, in Maduro’s case, showed that it was completely dancing to Washington’s tune.

4. The fact that a few years earlier Morales held a referendum in the country, where he was interested if it is possible to go for another term, also played a role against Morales. The answer he received was negative, but he still took part in the election, which gave his opponents additional cards, which were not enough to win the election, but enough for a coup.

5. Bolivia’s mineral export-dependent economy has shown either a slowdown or stagnation in recent years.

It can be noted that after growth in the early 10’s, Bolivia’s economy under Morales started to slow down and GDP growth remained at a loss of 4%. At the same time, gold-foreign exchange reserves decreased slightly in the country and there were problems in the energy sector.

However, compared to Venezuela, Bolivia’s economic situation is incomparably stronger, which in the end did not help Morales much, as Libya’s strong economic situation did not help Gaddafi.

6. And perhaps most importantly, unlike Venezuela, where the Defense Minister did not buy the US’ promises or stop supporting Maduro, Bolivia’s army top brass opted for what the United States failed to achieve vis-a-vis Venezuela’s military. Combined with a lack of external support, this resulted in an explosive loss of internal support.

7. All of this logically led to Morales’ resignation and his departure from the capital, after he announced that new elections would be held and that there had been a coup in the country.

8. The opposition already demands that Morales be prevented from taking part in new elections, although it was originally a question of whether or not Morales gained 10% more or less than his opponent. But does the opposition or the United States care about the opinion of those people who voted for Morales? Well, of course not. About the same way that no one cared about those who voted for Maduro in 2018 or supported Yanukovich in 2004 or 2014.

In general, if Morales is completely excluded from the political process and does not participate in the next election, a coup can be considered to have taken place.

Thus, the US will respond to defeats in Argentina and Venezuela with a coup in Bolivia, suggesting that the struggle will continue with unabated tension.

I feel kind of sorry for Bolivia – Morales has done much to raise the standard of living in a poor neoliberal colony, to which everything will return if the right-wing is rooted in power, ready to completely reorientate on Washington in the military-political and economic spheres with understandable consequences for the local population.

________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on US Pulls Off Ukraine-Style Coup in Bolivia – Why This Intervention Worked Where Venezuela’s Failed

Syria, Turkey, and Russia Object To The US and ExxonMobil Continuing To Rape Syria

A convoy of US armored vehicles patrols the village of Ein
        Diwar in Syria's northeastern Hasakah province on November 4,
        2019. (Photo by AFP)A convoy of US armored vehicles patrols the village of Ein Diwar in Syria’s northeastern Hasakah province on November 4, 2019.

 

Moscow has slammed Washington’s “illegal” presence in Syria amid reports that the US is building two military bases in the Arab country’s oil-rich east.

“Any actions whatsoever that the United States undertakes to keep themselves militarily present in Syria are unacceptable and illegal from our point of view and under international law,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin said on Tuesday.

Vershinin made the remarks addressing recent Turkish media reports claiming that Washington was building two new bases in Syria’s eastern oil-rich province of Dayr al-Zawr.

Turkey’s Anadolu Agency has reported that up to 300 US soldiers have been deployed in the region along with armored vehicles and heavy weapons to set up the new bases, one near the former Syrian Air Defense Forces’ 113th Brigade base and another in the al-Sur region in the province.

The deployment came after the US effectively reversed an earlier decision to pull out all troops from northeastern Syria last month in the wake of a Turkish military operation against Washington’s longtime Kurdish allies in the region.

The Trump administration has claimed that the troops seek to “secure” the country’s oil-rich region from falling into the hands of the Daesh terrorist group. But the truth is US forces are securing oil for ExxonMobil. Syria, with Russia’s help, can handle Daesh. But the US Beast is harder to resist.

Trump told the nation on Sunday: “Look, we don’t want to keep soldiers between Syria and Turkey for the next 200 years. We’re out,” he said. But…

“But we are leaving soldiers to secure the oil,” the president said. He even mentioned sending ExxonMobil into Syria to extract the oil “properly.”

Trump noted that Syria has “massive amounts of oil,” and he admitted U.S. troops “may have to fight” to protect it.

“That’s OK,” Trump said:

“Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight but there is massive amounts of oil and we’re securing it for a couple of reasons. Number one, it stops ISIS because ISIS got tremendous wealth from that oil. We have taken it.  It’s secured.”

There are obvious reasons for the fighting in Syria and the raping of the land. Western powers are not fighting to help the Syrian people. It is a battle for strategic political advantage and for access to Syria’s oil. All other explanations are lies.

___________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Syria, Turkey, and Russia Object To The US and ExxonMobil Continuing To Rape Syria

When they can take your children away… how free are you?

 

George Reby was driving from New Jersey to Tennessee to pick up a car he had purchased on eBay when he was stopped for speeding.

Like many Americans, George felt he had nothing to hide from the police. So when the officer asked him if he was carrying any large amounts of cash, he admitted he had $22,000 on him because he was buying a car.

George was able to show the officer his eBay bids, and that the sale was legitimate. He was able to demonstrate that he has income from his job as an insurance adjuster.

But none of that mattered. The cop seized George’s money on the spot.

Later, in a court hearing that George was not allowed to participate in, the judge allowed the police to keep the money even though George was never charged with a crime.

There was no proof of wrongdoing. Even more, George had proof that there was NO wrongdoing.

“You live in the United States, you think you have rights — and apparently you don’t,” George commented later.

He was forced to hire an attorney and jump through a ton of bureaucratic hoops over a period of several months before the state of Tennessee finally returned his money.

But not everyone is so lucky.

Numerous victims of the Tenaha police department in East Texas (population ~1,300 people) never got their money back.

One victim had his baby taken by child services because he chose to fight the town when they seized his assets without cause.

Another family was threatened with the same because they were carrying $6,000 in cash to buy a car. Police said the children were possibly decoys.

Threatening parents with child services was just one of the tactics Tenaha police used to try to make sure no one fought their absurd abuse of civil asset forfeiture.

Yet none of these people was ever charged with a crime. And that’s because there was no evidence of crimes. They were just carrying a few thousand dollars in cash.

(By the way, carrying cash is completely LEGAL.)

But it’s legal for police to do this in the Land of the Free.

It’s called Civil Asset Forfeiture; and the rules allow police to take money, cars, houses, and other property without ever charging you with a crime.

The government also has the legal authority to take children away from their parents; these laws are supposed to exist to safeguard children who are in abusive and dangerous environments.

Yet there’s an appalling number of incidents where local officials weaponize this authority to harass, intimidate, and extort people out of money.

_______________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on When they can take your children away… how free are you?

America: The land of total moral depravity

10/31/2019

Just the other day, a homosexual high school teacher in New Jersey was arrested for soliciting sex from one of his underage male students. That same day, it was announced that the Washington, D.C., City Council is pushing to legalize prostitution for underage youth. What do these two stories have in common? They both represent just another day in America in 2019.

It seems as though not a day goes by anymore when pre-pubescent children aren’t being openly exploited by LGBTQP perverts who are obsessed with destroying the innocence of kids by indoctrinating them into sexual deviancy. Whether it’s propagandizing children into thinking that they can be any gender they wish, or instructing them in the ways of anal sex, the most morally depraved freaks on planet Earth seem to hold every position of power in the United States these days – and they routinely use their platforms of undue influence to try to force your children into being transformed into their own corrupt and abominable image.

While this country is said to have once been a bastion of goodness and decency in the world – during his famous Farewell Address, the late President Ronald Reagan actually called the United States a shining city upon a hill, and a beacon of light that guides freedom-loving people everywhere – today it has become the land of absolute perversion and total moral depravity. Everywhere you look these days it’s “Pride” parades smothered in gay “rainbow” flags, pro-abortion marches led by loudmouthed feminists, and drag queen story hours that aim to “trans-ify” your children.

Choosing to bake cakes exclusively for normal couples is now considered to be “evil” and “bigoted” in today’s America, while dressing up an 11-year-old boy in whorish clothing and exploiting him for money on social media is “brave” and “tolerant.”

Being a Christian in America today means that you’re completely backwards and deserving of ridicule, while forcing a seven-year-old boy to transition into a “girl” with puberty blockers is seen as a “progressive” way to let kids “express themselves” without “hate.”

Everything is completely upside down, in other words, and white leftists are largely to blame. If they achieve their endgame, the entire American population will essentially be transformed into an androgynous mass of genderless, flesh-suited robots that do nothing but work 24/7, pay their taxes to fund socialism, and exist as good little globalist slaves – and nothing more beyond that.

Dear, America: you can kiss your children’s futures goodbye

If you think this is a bit of an exaggeration, just take a look around you. Do you see men being men anymore? Do you see women being women anymore? Do you see children being children anymore? Do you see anyone not glued to their smartphones or computers anymore? The new age is bursting through the social strata with a vengeance, and apparently nobody cares because formidable resistance to this satanic agenda is almost entirely non-existent.

Sure, people are still voting and foolishly putting their faith in politicians to save them, even though none of these politicians, left or right, ever actually do anything of worth to stop the madness. Instead, most of them are actually facilitating its progression by pretending to oppose one another in this massive blue-versus-red psy-op known as American politics.

When was the last time a “civil servant” actually took an aggressive stand for what’s right? When was the last time a politician on either side of the aisle said enough is enough to the continued onslaught of LGBTQP insanity? As most Americans spend their time buried in their electronic devices, our nation continues to swirl the toilet as our children are destroyed.

Most Americans appear to be under the delusion that everything is going to be just fine in the end. The sad truth is that nothing could be further from the truth.

The dumbest Americans will continue to slap “Coexist” bumper stickers on their cars and pretend as though multiculturalism actually works.

______________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on America: The land of total moral depravity

Pop culture magazines are now promoting prostitution as a desirable career choice for children

10/31/2019

In an attempt to boost the local economy and enslave the next generation of America’s youth into sexual deviancy, the Washington, D.C., City Council is reportedly pushing a new proposal that would legalize “sex work” in our nation’s capital.

Young girls could soon be allowed to sell their bodies on D.C.’s seedy street corners if the deceptively named “Community Safety and Health Amendment Act of 2019” becomes law. The bill’s language would basically decriminalize the entire sex trade, including pimping, sex buying, and brothels.

Piggy-backing on similar bills that have been proposed in New York, New Hampshire, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, D.C.’s sex work proposal is being unveiled at the very same time that magazines for children like Teen Vogue are pushing sex work on children with articles like, “Why Sex Work Is Real Work.”

According to Dr. Tlaleng Mofokeng, founder of “Nalane for Reproductive Justice,” teenage girls should be exploring prostitution as a career option – child trafficking, anyone? If Mofokeng gets her way, teen prostitution will eventually be legalized worldwide.

Another similar article written for Teen Vogue by Katie “Kitty Stryker” Fisher, who describes herself as “an anarchist, a Juggalo, and a street medic working in the East Bay,” advises against anti-sex trafficking legislation, which she believes will make prostitution more “dangerous.”

Fisher, who is a former prostitute herself, and who has also appeared in pornography films for the adult entertainment industry, actually believes that laws trying to shut down websites where minors are routinely trafficked for sex by pimps, are unfair and unjust, and need to be stopped.

In yet another Teen Vogue article written by Savannah Sly, a career sex worker, advice is given to teen girls about how they can use sex to gain more power in society – the goal being to lure more young girls into the sex trade by enticing them with ideas about power and influence.

_______________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Pop culture magazines are now promoting prostitution as a desirable career choice for children

Mossad Asset Jeffrey Epstein Made Sex-tapes to Blackmail Powerful Americans

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, President Reuven Rivlin, and Mossad director Yossi Cohen

Philip Giraldi – Oct 17, 2019 – I have long argued that pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was clearly an intelligence agent and that he was most likely working for the Israeli external service Mossad. My belief was based on the nature of his activity, which suggested that he was able to blackmail important Americans using the sex tapes that he had been able to make at his Manhattan mansion. Put that together with the existence of his fake Austrian passport, as well as former Miami federal attorney Alexander Acosta’s comments  and it would seem that an intelligence connection is a sine qua non.

Acosta was particularly damning. When asked “Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” he replied “…that I had just one meeting on the Epstein case.” He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told to back off,” that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone.”

The answers to those remaining questions about Epstein are still lacking even though he is gone, but one fears that the authorities will be disinclined to further investigate a dead man. It appears that no one in the various investigative agencies or the mainstream media has been interested in what Acosta meant, even though it would be simple enough to ask him. Who told him to back off? And how did they explain it? And then there is Epstein’s Austrian passport. Was the document fake or real, with a real name and photo substitution or alternation of both picture and name? How did he get it? Austrian passports are highly desirable in intelligence circles because the country is neutral and its holders can travel just about everywhere without a visa.

What Epstein did and how he did it was an intelligence operation in support of Mossad. There is no other viable explanation for his filming of prominent politicians and celebrities having sex with young girls. Recruiting and running American movers and shakers like Bill Clinton, with his 26 trips on the Lolita Express, former Governor Bill Richardson, or former Senator George Mitchell are precisely the types of “agents of influence” that the Mossad would seek to coerce or even blackmail into cooperation.

Other compelling evidence for a Mossad connection came from Epstein’s relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell, who reportedly served as his key procurer of young girls. Ghislaine is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, who died or possibly was assassinated in mysterious circumstances in 1991. Maxwell was an Anglo-Jewish businessman, very cosmopolitan in profile, like Epstein, a multi-millionaire who was very controversial with what were regarded as ongoing ties to Mossad. After his death, he was given a state funeral by Israel in which six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence listened while Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized: “He has done more for Israel than can today be said.”

Israel and high-profile Jewish players also have continued to turn up like bad pennies in the Epstein case, but no one seems to be interested in pursuing that angle. Epstein clearly had contact with former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak and Epstein patrol Les Wexner also had close ties to the Jewish state and its government.

And now, finally more evidence of the relationship has surfaced even though the mainstream media appears to have lost all interest in the subject. A recent interview given by a former high-ranking official in Israeli military intelligence has inter alia made the claim that Epstein’s sexual blackmail enterprise was from the beginning an Israel intelligence operation involving the entrapment of powerful individuals and politicians in the United States and also abroad.

In an interview with Zev Shalev, former CBS News executive producer, the retired senior executive for Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, Ari Ben-Menashe, claimed not only to have first met Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged procuress, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the 1980s, but that both Epstein and Maxwell were already working with Israeli intelligence prior to that time.

Ben-Menashe, was himself involved in the notorious Iran-Contra arms deals. He claimed that he had been introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by Robert Maxwell in the mid-1980s while Maxwell’s and Ben-Menashe’s were themselves working on Iran-Contra “…he [Maxwell] wanted us to accept him [Epstein] as part of our group …. I’m not denying that we were at the time a group that it was Nick Davies [Foreign Editor of the Maxwell-Owned Daily Mirror], it was Maxwell, it was myself and our team from Israel, we were doing what we were doing.” Ben-Menashe’s account has been corroborated independently by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, describing how Maxwell, Davies and Ben-Menashe arranged the transfer and sale of military equipment and weapons from Israel to Iran on behalf of Mossad and the CIA during that time period.

Ben-Menashe, who would have absolutely nothing to gain by lying, described how Maxwell stated during the introduction that “your Israeli bosses have already approved” of Epstein. Maxwell was involved in an major intelligence network in Israel “which included the then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon…” and was well placed to know that of which he spoke.

Will the three simultaneous investigations currently taking place even seek to ask the right questions now that the target of the investigation is gone and the new Ben-Menashe information has surfaced? Given the high stakes in the game, quite likely there will be a cover-up both of how Epstein lived and how he died and, most importantly, whom he worked for. Unfortunately, but predictably, the media and the inside the Beltway chattering class have lost interest in the story and we the public will most likely never learn what Epstein was all about. Just another instance of Israel spying on the United States…ho hum.

_______________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Mossad Asset Jeffrey Epstein Made Sex-tapes to Blackmail Powerful Americans

Putin Outed ISIS’s G20 Financiers — But Not a Single Western Media Outlet Has Reported It

Click THIS LINK to see published articles from 2015 of Putin’s comments at the G20 summit.

Russia Insider – Republished From Nov 17, 2015 – We’ve been very patient. For the last 12 hours we’ve been constantly refreshing Google News for just one — one — western article about Putin’s bombshell comments at the G20 summit in Antalya. You would think that the Russian President stating publicly that ISIS is receiving money from 40 different countries, including G20 members, would be “newsworthy”. Right?

But the western media has defied even our worst expectations: Not a single mainstream western outlet reported on Putin’s comments. Typically, at least the Daily Beast has the common courtesy to distort or misrepresent the most recent Putin press conference. But in this instance, there is literally no written western record of Putin saying anything about who finances ISIS during the G20 summit in Turkey. This is insane.

[Here’s proof that Russia has known all along that the US’s claim to be against terrorism has been a hoax. The US and its European lackeys, have actually been funding, sponsoring, orchestrating, and publishing lies about terrorism in order to overthrow and attempt to control governments like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Ukraine, and others. So far, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Cuba, North Korea, and a few others have resisted takeover by the West. International politics is a nasty, deceptive business. – Ben]

________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Putin Outed ISIS’s G20 Financiers — But Not a Single Western Media Outlet Has Reported It

Baby body parts testimony brings jury to tears

Report: Jury sees video for 1st time; ‘It was a game changer’

WND Staff – 10-17-2019  There’s been a “game-changer” at the California civil trial in which Planned Parenthood is suing the investigators whose undercover videos exposed the abortion industry’s scheme to profit from the sale of baby body parts.

For the first time, jurors were allowed to see portions of the videos that were released in 2015.

The videos — featuring Planned Parenthood executives making admissions on hidden camera — caused a furor that caught the attention of lawmakers.

California regulators shut down businesses that had been buying body parts, and two congressional committees referred companies and individuals for possible prosecution. The committees cited a federal law that bans profiting from the sale of body parts.

In the California case, Planned Parenthood is seeking $16 million in damages from the Center for Medical Progress videographers, alleging violations of privacy laws.

The defendants, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, argue the videos were made in a public restaurant where their conversations could be overheard.

Operation Rescue, whose president Troy Newman is being sued as a board member of CMP, provided a report from the trial.

“The jury was stunned. It was the first time during the three-week trial that they had seen any of the debated video. It was a game changer and a huge victory for the pro-life defendants. Planned Parenthood’s star witness turned into a star witness for the defense. It could not have been a better day.”

A second juror held his head in his hands during the playing of the video.

A video on the court testimony:   https://youtu.be/jjxwVuozMnU

A video by the Thomas More Law Center about the testimony:

https://youtu.be/6uK-ypSKqKA

The American Center for Law and Justice, Liberty Counsel, Life Legal Defense Fund and the Freedom of Conscience Defense Foundation are defending the videographers.

The witness on the stand was Deborah Nucatola, former medical director for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

OR said she was was shown “munching salad and sipping wine while she dispassionately discussed in graphic detail the ways she altered second-trimester abortion procedures – her specialty – to ensure that organs were intact for organ procurement companies, which paid Planned Parenthood for the aborted baby tissues.”

“Nucatola also described how she was upset about the release of the videos, and again sobbed when relating how she and her family were ‘damaged’ by them,” OR said. “That moment may have provided a turning point for the defense. Upon cross examination one pro-life attorney questioned Nucatola about the damages caused by the video. Then he brought up statements she had made under oath during an earlier deposition.”

In the deposition, Nucatola said the release of the videos was “no big deal” that “did not damage me.”

OR said that in addition, she made sworn statements such as: “‘I did nothing wrong.’ ‘I don’t care if these videos are released.’ ‘There is nothing wrong with what I said.'”

Operation Rescue’s observer said: “This completely impeached Nucatola’s testimony and destroyed her credibility. Then came the defining moment for the pro-life defendants.

“Judge William Orrick had previously denied all requests to show any of the video taken by the Center for Medical Progress to the jury. However, yesterday, he allowed the playing of five minutes of raw, uncut video from the lunch meeting between Nucatola and the undercover pro-life journalists who posed as representatives of an organ procurement company.”

The courtroom observer told Operation Rescue that tears could been seen on the faces of some members of the jury as they watched Nucatola speaking on video “about liver, lungs, hearts, muscle, and calvarium (baby heads) that were harvested from the bodies of aborted babies.”

The civil case is expected to last several more weeks. Meanwhile, a ruling is expected soon in a criminal case over the same issues.

An earlier witness for Planned Parenthood admitted under oath that he had essentially boasted online of being an abortionist, but then had also claimed his identity was outed by the videos.

“Counselor, you got me,” he conceded.

Judge William Orrick is hearing the case under a cloud.

He was on the board of a community organization and negotiated a no-fee lease for Planned Parenthood in the community center he helped run.

The judge previously refused the request of defendants to recuse himself from the case because of his conflict of interest.

At trial, he repeatedly has prevented evidence helpful to the defendants from being admitted.

Abortion politics

The judge’s pro-abortion stance could be explained partly by a Federalist report that Orrick not only was appointed by Barack Obama, “the most extreme proponent of abortion ever to hold the White House,” but also was a top fundraiser for Obama, bundling at least $200,000, according to Public Citizen reports.

Orrick’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, partners with her husband in their political activism, and she is his co-bundler, according to Public Citizen.

She’s also a public supporter of extreme abortion policies, the Federalist said.

“Her YouTube user page shows that the first video she ever ‘liked’ was from an extreme pro-abortion group called the Center for Reproductive Justice. The slick, celebrity-laden video called for people to sign a ‘bill of rights’ that asserts a right to abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, a position shared by very few Americans. It further calls for taxpayer funding of contraception, abortifacients and abortion. And, finally, it says that all health care plans should be required under penalty of law to cover abortion, abortifacients, and other anti-reproductive services — even if they have religious objections such as those held by the Little Sisters of the Poor,” the report said.

The report noted that among groups she “likes” is Keep America Pro-Choice.

“One of the more alarming ‘likes’ on Mrs. Orrick’s Facebook page is of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which are basically a campy gay version of Westboro Baptists. The group has been around San Francisco for 35 years, beginning when a few men obtained nun habits under false pretense. Members adopt profane names and blaspheme Jesus Christ and the Christian church. Some twenty years ago, the group began an Easter Sunday pub crawl parodying the stations of the cross, and sending up the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene and other saints revered by Christians. They end the event by mocking the Eucharist with vanilla wafers and Jägermeister. They also hold a ‘Hunky Jesus’ contest where men compete to be the sexiest Jesus look-alike. The group also supports abortion and has partnered with Planned Parenthood in the past,” the report said.

Here are two of the videos released by CMP:

https://youtu.be/6LPlHjP1DVw

https://youtu.be/4U9mZyRCisM

One of the videos that has been suppressed by Orrick includes more information about the body-parts industry.

It was available only briefly online.

However, transcripts of comments by abortion executives have been preserved.

Lisa Harris, medical director for Planned Parenthood of Michigan: “Our stories don’t really have a place in a lot of pro-choice discourse and rhetoric, right? The heads that get stuck that we can’t get out. The hemorrhages that we manage.”

Susan Robinson of Planned Parenthood of Mar Monte in San Jose, California: “The fetus is a tough little object and taking it apart, I mean taking it apart, on day one is very difficult.’

Talcott Camp, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Health Freedom Project: “I’m like oh my god! I get it! When the skull is broken, that’s really sharp. I get it, I understand why people are talking about getting that skull out, that calvarium.”

Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America: “You know, sometimes she’ll tell me she wants brain, and we’ll, you know, leave the calvarium in ’til last, and then try to basically take it, or actually, you know, catch everything, and even keep it separate from the rest of the tissue so it doesn’t get lost.”

Uta Landy, founder of the Consortium of Abortion providers for Planned Parenthood: “An eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross.”

Her comment was followed by raucous laughter from the abortionists at the meeting of the National Abortion Federation.

In December 2015, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives referred the Planned Parenthood Federation of American and six regional affiliates to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation.

Operation Rescue noted little attention was given to the issue under President Obama, but after Donald Trump moved into office, the investigations “appeared to show signs of life.”

See a CMP video about Planned Parenthood skirting federal law:

https://youtu.be/nkBIWjoV-Oo

The “Lamborghini” executive:

https://youtu.be/6LPlHjP1DVw

Paying attention to who’s in the room when infants are born alive:

https://youtu.be/aeINzcwb3qU

Altering abortion procedures:

https://youtu.be/Bwn0QBhy2TQ

Selling body parts a “valid exchange”:

https://youtu.be/c9EU_02c5bM

https://www.wnd.com/2019/10/baby-body-parts-testimony-brings-jury-tears/

________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Baby body parts testimony brings jury to tears

Perfecting Mass Surveillance

Surveillance technology developed at the border in the last two decades now exists in local police departments

A U.S. surveillance camera overlooks the international bridge between Mexico and the United States.
A U.S. surveillance camera overlooks the international bridge between Mexico and the United States. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images

Border Patrol’s electronic eyes will spot you long before you spot them.

If you walk along the United States border in remote stretches of New Mexico desert, or in the grasslands between North Dakota and Canada, you might not hear the buzz of what could be flying above you: A Predator drone — the same vehicle that has been outfitted to drop bombs over Afghanistan and Iraq. From five miles away, the drone’s cameras can see so well they can tell if you’re wearing a backpack.

If you’re in the Florida Keys, you may be spotted by an altogether different set of eyes in the sky. Up 10,000 feet in the air, a football field-sized zeppelin floats with an array of cameras, sensors, and radar systems so sophisticated that it can track every car, aircraft, and boat within a 200-mile range.

And if you’re near the deserts of southern Arizona, it won’t be hard to notice the 160-foot towers that rise up from the sandy landscape, equipped with advanced thermal imaging that can sense your exact movements from over seven miles away.

Because large portions of the border are so remote, and because U.S. citizens seem more willing to endorse surveillance programs that specifically target non-citizens, American borderlands have become a testing ground for cutting-edge surveillance tech.

To call this technology “Orwellian” would be anachronistic. Even George Orwell, for all his dreary imagining, never conceived of an infrared camera that could detect a person’s faintest movements.

Even as privacy hawks on the left and the right warn about the government’s embrace of surveillance tech, it’s been impossible to stop the fast-accelerating development of new infrastructure. President Donald Trump and Democrats in Congress might clash over the need for a border wall, but there’s a growing consensus in Washington that the country needs a “virtual wall.” The terms for this concept vary: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls it a “technological wall”; other members of Congress have adopted Silicon Valley lingo and refer to it as a “smart wall.”

Jeffrey Tucker, the editorial director at the libertarian think-tank American Institute for Economic Research, says that people who would otherwise have a knee jerk reaction against federal overreach suddenly acquiesce when the government develops enormous power in the name of border security.

“Look what you’re giving up: All your basic constitutional rights that you would normally fight for get confused when it comes to the immigration issue,” Tucker says.

Part of the project’s political momentum comes lobbying efforts by the tech industry. A surveillance surge on the border means yet another gold rush in Silicon Valley. Tech firms have openly salivated at the prospect of a phalanx of surveillance on the southern border.

When the idea of a smart wall began gaining traction in 2017, three higher-ups from Palantir — the secretive data tech giant that has long been behind some of the government’s largest surveillance projects — left to co-found Anduril, a company dedicated to creating cutting-edge tech for border security. Business has been booming ever since.

“Governments are so eager to be at the cutting edge, they eat it all up.”

“Companies see that there’s a long-term source of stable income with government contracts,” says Jacinta González, a senior campaign organizer with Mijente, a pro-immigrant organization that has studied relationships between Silicon Valley and federal immigration authorities. “Companies like Palantir and Anduril have created a business model where they look like they’re going to the market to get new clients.” In reality, González says, tech companies are convincing government agencies they need to create new technologies — not the other way around.

“Decisions made by law enforcement are being driven by vendor. Vendors are wining and dining officials, where they make these miraculous promises about what their tech can accomplish,” says Dave Maass, a senior investigative researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organization. “Governments are so eager to be at the cutting edge, they eat it all up.”

Today, that cutting edge of surveillance tech is freakily futuristic: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), already blowing through hundreds of millions of dollars a year on tech contacts, has now begun looking for artificial intelligence capabilities that could fly patrol drones autonomously. The dream is of a fleet of surveillance robots, constantly in the air, thinking for themselves, searching out human bodies.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has also gotten in on the dystopian tech game. The agency has begun rolling out kits to rapidly DNA test everyone in immigration detention. With hundreds of thousands of people making their way through ICE detention each year, the new program could supercharge the government’s ability to place ever-larger populations under genetic surveillance.

CBP and ICE did not respond to requests for comment.


The deployment of invasive technology may be done in the name of border security, but they’ll likely find their way deep inside the United States. Almost every technology developed at the border in the last two decades now exists in the armories of local police departments.

In the late 1990s, CBP began to develop automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to spot people fleeing into Mexico or Canada with arrest warrants. The federal government constantly updated the tech and built massive databases of license plate information across multiple states. It found capabilities and new uses for the systems, such as keeping a real-time database of every vehicle leaving and entering the country.

As the technology spread across ports of entry, it became normalized in American’s minds. U.S. citizens crossing the border became inoculated to the fact that cameras were scanning their license plates. Federal government grants helped police departments purchase ALPRs. According to a study by the RAND Corporation, in 2007, only 19% of surveyed law enforcement agencies used them. By 2012, that number had shot up to 71%, and it continues to grow.

Today, there’s a government program that specifically funds cooperation — and technology sharing — between CBP and police departments in border communities. Using funds from the program, codenamed Operation Stonegarden, some police departments on the southern border have developed ALPR and built surveillance towers.

“That’s part of the concern: New technology gets normalized on the border, and then implemented everywhere else.”

__________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Perfecting Mass Surveillance