Skip to content

Category: Treason

Another 9/11 Anniversary

I wrote this post a year ago on the 18th anniversary of the September 11th attacks in 2001. So, now it is the 19th anniversary today and I am reposting this. It gives information that, if you are still very young, your parents and teachers probably didn’t give you about 9/11, and if you are older it gives you information that the brain-dead, zombie government-stenographer mainstream news media also didn’t give us, and they still don’t.

Post from a year ago:

Today is the 18th anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center, the Pentacon, and in Pennsylvania. Where was I on that day? Well, I was here in this same apartment sitting at my table doing some writing and my father (now deceased) called at around 10 am saying that their trip that they were going to go on that day was canceled and he told me why. Hmm.

The government’s propaganda began immediately on that day and after. 99% of the news media were the White House press spokesmen. There was no discussion of the attackers stated motives, or the history of U.S. government and military’s invasions, bombings and occupations of the Middle East in the 10 years prior to that time. Anyone who did mention those things was labeled “Anti-America,” or “blaming America” for the attacks. Sean Hannity has been especially bad in that regard ever since that time. He is the worst of the worst as far as apparatchiks for the national security state are concerned. I just thought I’d mention that.

However, given that Hannity and all the other radio ditto-heads are accepting of the idea that actual U.S. government FBI, CIA etc. abused their powers including FISA spying in the Russiagate fiasco, maybe now some of these obedient worshipers of the national security state can at least consider the possibility that the official 9/11 narrative isn’t what the government has been telling us for 18 years. (But, I am not holding my breath.)

So, I’m sure that a lot of people reading this post will just skim it and not really take it seriously or click on any of the links for further information. This is because they are satisfied with what the government and its spokespeople of the mainstream media have been telling us since September 11, 2001. All these things they haven’t heard about must be merely whack-job “conspiracy theory” and all that. But there are still some people who are open to the truth.

In the years prior to the attacks, Congressman Ron Paul had several times warned that the U.S. government’s interventionist policies and war that it started against Iraq and elsewhere and Iraqi sanctions would cause blowback and retaliation within our shores. (And the response? Crickets.)

Addendum: For information on the U.S. government’s pre-9/11 sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990s and their effects, see Jacob Hornberger, Sanctions: the cruel and brutal war against the Iraqi people, and James Bovard, Iraqi sanctions and American intentions: blameless carnage?

It’s amazing just how brainwashed so many people can be by daily propaganda, watching the TV news, listening to chickenhawk warmonger conservative talk radio, and so forth. “Al Qaeda.” “Osama bin Laden,” and “Islamic” were words that people heard over and over and over, but they rarely heard about Saudi Arabia and blowback.

I don’t know what else to write so I will post links to some new and old articles on the subject, and maybe some videos.

James Bovard on the 9/11 Commission, a bootlicking national disgrace.

Paul Sperry from the New York Post writes this week how Robert Mueller helped Saudi Arabia cover up its role in 9/11.

Related to that, a year ago “28 Pages,” which documents Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11, had an exclusive article on FBI telling a counterterrorism agent not to help 9/11 victims build their case against Saudi Arabia because that might harm U.S.-Saudi relations. (Doh!)

Prior to 9/11 the FBI were told by the Bush Administration to lay off the bin Laden family and Saudi connections to terrorism.

Paul Craig Roberts writes today:

Over the years I have reported the findings of scientists, engineers, and architects that indicate that the official story is false.I had an open mind for two reasons.One is that having been an engineering student, I could tell the difference from a building falling down from asymmetrical structural damage and a building blowing up.The other is that having been involved in policy issues in Washington for a quarter century I knew that such a humiliating defeat suffered by the world’s only superpower at the hands of a few Muslim terrorists would have brought instant demands from the White House, Congress, and media for investigation into how every aspect of the American national security state failed simultaneously on one morning.Instead the White House resisted the 9/11 families demands for an investigation for one year and never delivered a forensic investigation.Instead, the country was given a 9/11 Commission Report that was merely the government’s official story of what happened.No heads rolled.No one was fired or even reprimanded.To hold no one accountable for such a massive failure and humiliating defeat is not a believable response if the official 9/11 story is true.

Washington’s Blog: Everything we’re doing now was planned before 9/11. And Washington asks, Will the mainstream media ever report on the numerous admitted false flag terror attacks? Many examples given. And another post about U.S. government’s foreknowledge and aiding and abetting the terrorists.

The Guardian: Osama bin Laden had ties to CIA

David Ray Griffin asks, Where is the evidence that Osama bin Laden had responsibility in 9/11? (Remember, Hannity et al. have been complaining ad nauseam, and rightly, that people accusing Trump of “Russia collusions” do not have any evidence, and so on. Evidence is important.) The FBI’s 10 most wanted list included Osama bin Laden because of the African embassy and USS Cole bombings, but NOT because of 9/11 because they had no evidence linking the two. Further info from the Muckraker Report. Read Griffin’s book, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?

In 2009 the Daily Mail asked, Has Osama bin Laden been dead for 7 years?

An early 2002 Dan Rather CBS News report on bin Laden’s serious illness:

A December, 2001 Fox News story, still online: Bin Laden already dead.

Of course, how could Osama bin Laden have been killed and thrown out to sea by SEAL Team 6 in 2011 if bin Laden had already died in 2001 or 2002? Paul Craig Roberts again with some questions.

Another question to ask is what caused the helicopter crash in Afghanistan that killed several SEAL Team 6 members who were involved in the Osama bin Laden “killing” just a couple months before that.

And Paul Joseph Watson on the Bin Laden fable shortly after he was “killed” in 2011. While Steve Watson explains the U.S. government’s history of fake bin Laden tapes.

Former CIA asset Susan Lindauer, a whistleblower who was railroaded and labeled a psychiatric case by USGov, explains more truth about 9/11, and the missing security tapes for the World Trade Center.

Here is an interview in which Lindauer tells about her experiences:

James Corbett with an hour-long discussion on who was really behind the 9/11 attacks:

And here is a video documentary from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth explaining the evidence that explosions brought down the World Trade Center, and not the fire caused by planes crashing into the buildings:

I admit it. I’m a “truther.” That’s because the truth is important. And as the late Justin Raimondo wrote, the opposite of a “truther” is a “liar.”

Treasonous Donald: Unleashing Military Against the People

Donald Trump has threatened to send the U.S. military into the cities to deal with the rioting and looting going on by antifa and other elements in this apparently planned nationwide coordinated event that is supposedly in the name of George Floyd the victim murdered by a cop in Minneapolis.

Trump stated: “If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents … then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”

As Jacob Hornberger pointed out, U.S. military are trained to shoot to kill, which they will do if ordered to do so. They do not question the orders. Unfortunately we have a very authoritarian President who doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights and due process even though he himself has been the victim of government apparatchiks violating his rights to due process!

We already have had many constitutional violations against the people committed by the governors and mayors who have ordered businesses shut down without any due process or any good reason, and dictated many other intrusions into the lives and economic activity of the people. Now a military invasion of the cities?

Military are trained to shoot to kill and are trained to leave their consciences at the door. And these days local and state police and other policing agencies have shown their lack of understanding of due process and the very freedom that America is supposedly all about.

For instance, Target Liberty reposted a tweet and video from Jack Posobiec, an alleged “alt-right” “Republican political operative,” who had posted the video from tweeter GoodNightHarlem. The video is by some people filming from their own home, just outside on their front porch, supposedly. And a bunch of supposedly Minneapolis National Guard (but looks to me like local police) go by on the street, supposedly enforcing a government-imposed curfew even though there is obviously no protest activity going on in that presumably quiet neighborhood. The government nazi goon thugs then order the people who are on their own property to go inside. The loudmouth government scum are yelling at them to get inside. (One says, “Light ’em up!”) And then the nazi neanderthal thug goons start shooting at the people! Wenzel at Target Liberty says those are “rubber bullets” (and the original tweeter, GoodNightHarlem, says it’s “paint canisters”) like that justifies the street criminals’ unwarranted violence against innocent people.

I went to that Posobiec tweet to see the comments by the people who read Posobiec’s Twitter. It was unbelievable just how ignorant some of the commenters are in their assuming that the people being fired upon were a part of any protest or rioting. KSauce writes: “think everyone had their chance to protest peacefully. They blew it” And Mrs. Horton writes: “Good that is what needs to happen. Saving lives.”

And we see just how the authoritarian people on the “right” are just like their counterparts on the left. Red-Pilled Dark Helmet says: “Got what they deserved.” Kelly T cheers: “About time. Good. There is NO RESPECT for rules or laws. This needs to change.”

Well excuse me, Kelly T, but the people who have no respect for rules or laws (such laws being the U.S. Constitution) are those violent antifa-like government goons, nazis and marauders who swore an oath to support and defend said Constitution.

But at least some people have some understanding and some level of decency, including Libertarian Redhead, who writes: “It shouldn’t have happened but those Jewish people should have just gotten on the cattle cars like they were told the first time. This is what you sound like.”

Exactly, Libertarian Redhead.

Continuing with the ignorant, authoritarian sheeple. Joshua says, “If you listen carefully you can hear ‘light em up’ we’re finally getting some law and order.”

Obviously, Joshua’s view of “law and order” is the antifa view. They lit up the stores and businesses in the cities with their arson crimes. And U.S. military lit up Iraqi cities and towns and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. So let’s have that here in US of A as well! Yayyyyy!

But when officials like the President order the military to go after their own people, and fire into crowds or shooting at peaceful people on their own property, such officials are acting treasonously.

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution defines Treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

While authoritarians view “Treason against the United States…” as citizens acting disloyally against the government and disobeying government and police orders, the Founding Fathers wrote in the above definition of Treason as the opposite of that: government officials and their enforcers acting disloyally and making war against their own people.

More specifically, if the enforcers or soldiers of the government use the apparatus of war (i.e. guns here) against the people (as seen in the video above), that is an act of Treason as defined in the Constitution. In the above video, we are not talking about government enforcers or soldiers firing upon dangerous criminals, we are talking about people standing on their own property acting peacefully.

If Trump uses the U.S. military for domestic purposes, he will be unleashing murderous brutality and Treason like we haven’t experienced in America, at least not since the time of Lincoln.

And by the way, as Jacob Hornberger noted in this past article, the Founders were opposed to having a standing army, because they knew that would be the apparatus of tyranny by future authoritarian anti-liberty Presidents. And instead the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms not just to protect themselves from criminals like arsonists burning down their businesses or murderers, rapists and marauders, but to resist government tyranny.

The Impeachment “Whistleblower” Is Really Just a “Propagandist”

U.S. Chief Bureaucrat John Roberts has been censoring Sen. Rand Paul’s questions for House managers in the Senate impeachment trial of The Donald. For questioning, the senators submit written questions to the Chief Bureaucrat who presides over the trial. Anyway, given what a swamp creature Roberts is, and what a turncoat Roberts was in his changing his vote toward approval of ObamaCare, that he would censor questions in favor of sweeping government criminality under the rug is no big surprise.

So Paul tweeted his Roberts-censored question thus: “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.”

Paul further clarified in the tweets: “My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.

Some people are saying that outing a whistleblower could compromise his job security or safety. But the alleged “whislteblower” in this case who started this whole fiasco later last year is not a whistleblower. He did not expose “waste, fraud or abuse” in his working behind the scenes with Adam Schiff, the day after the controversial Trump-Ukraine phone call, to get this impeachment going. In fact, the alleged “whistleblower” began in his crusade against Trump soon after Trump was inaugurated.

According to WikiSpooks, Eric Ciaramella was a CIA apparatchik who became a White House staffer thanks to former Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and had been a “Susan Rice protégé.” (Hmm, that sounds good. I sure hope he had no involvement in Rice’s unmasking the names of Trump flunkies who were under illegal surveillance! Doh!) More info from Heavy.com.

The “whistleblower” who reported second-hand or third-hand hearsay information regarding that Trump-Ukraine phone call to get this impeachment fiasco going, was a Trump-hater, one of many. But I’m sure you can take any phone conversation and blow any statement out of proportion, such as in the specific phone call the bureaucrats chose to blow out of proportion for impeachment.

And I don’t think that Trump knew in July of 2019 that Joe Biden would be his Democrat opponent a year later in 2020. So it seems to me that to suggest that Trump was thinking of Biden in that phone call as his “political rival” has been an invalid argument, one that has been obediently repeated by the lapdogs of the mainstream media. Not that I’m particularly defending Trump, mind you. He is just another criminal bureaucrat, in my view.

So the “whislteblower” wasn’t really exposing “fraud, waste, or abuse” or incompetence or criminality in government, in the same way that Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea Manning, did in 2010, or Edward Snowden, or Thomas Drake or John Kiriakou have done.

No, the “whistleblower” was taking second hand and hearsay information as propaganda and using it in cahoots with swamp creatures in Congress to impeach a President they just don’t like. So, really the “whistleblower” isn’t actually a whistleblower, or even just a “leaker,” but a propagandist.

And at the beginning of the House impeachment inquiry even further propaganda oozed from Adam Schiff in his reading a made-up version of the transcript of the Trump-Ukraine phone call, making Trump sound like a gangster. Now THAT’s propaganda! Quite different from the actual transcript of the phone call. (So, did the CIA flunky “whistleblower” cahoot with Schiff in the changing of that transcript? Just askin’.)

And that is what swamp creatures such as those in the CIA are good at, propaganda and psy-ops. The swamp propagandists of the CIA and the rest of the national security state in Warshington including the FBI, NSA, the Pentacon, and DOJ didn’t like Trump’s “drain the swamp” rhetoric during the campaign, and they have been obsessed with getting him out of there. Literally obsessed. I have never seen this kind of pathological obsession with one single political figure on the part of national security apparatchiks, politicians and their news media government groupies.

Now, I can see why a CIA apparatchik and his fellow national security swampers don’t want to impeach Trump for his war crimes of authorizing drone strikes that kill mainly innocent civilians overseas, or for his ordering assassinations of foreigners without due process. Because as we know the goons and spooks of the national security apparatus approve of all those immoral interventions and criminal acts. But what is wrong with Democrats (who used to be known as “liberals”), when they couldn’t care less about Trump’s actual crimes, and instead make stuff up, such as this whole impeachment farce and Russiagate, as a way to try to get rid of him?

So, one good solution to all this, besides getting rid of Trump (and Pence et al.), is just abolishing the CIA, FBI, NSA, as well as the DHS, TSA, ICE and all the other totalitarian agencies in Warshington, and ending all tax-funded foreign aid, and closing down all those foreign U.S. military bases overseas and bringing all the U.S. military back to the U.S. (and even better, putting them in the private sector where they can actually be productive).

The Late TV Host John McLaughlin in 1970s Interviews on Nixon Impeachment

There really are some similarities between Richard Nixon’s impeachment situation and Donald Trump’s impeachment situation now, in my view.

With Nixon what I would call the entrapment scheme included CIA breaking into DNC offices, etc., and then E. Howard Hunt getting Nixon to attempt to cover up the whole thing. I believe it was a pre-planned scheme concocted by national security apparatchiks and not really of Nixon’s own doing. Why would the national security state do this? They were clearly motivated by Nixon’s talks and detente with Russia and China, much like what Trump has been trying to do now with Russia and other foreign regimes.

Because Nixon’s attempts to relax the Cold War threatened the government parasite gravy train in Washington, the national security apparatchiks wanted to get rid of Nixon. Assassinating him was obviously not good given that they knocked off a previous President, Kennedy, who had tried to have talks with Russia and push for peace. There were many skeptics of the Warren Commission’s attempt to whitewash the truth. Such an assassination being by a “lone nut” has not been believed by the non-gullible.

Currently we have national security state operatives, a.k.a. “deep state” (although it’s not so deep now, is it?) who didn’t like Trump openly criticizing the FBI’s mishandling of terrorism and 9/11 or their inability to prevent 9/11, as well as Trump’s criticism of the Iraq war.

So the national security state actively and illegally used FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and the Trump White House flunkies, they made up a fake dossier to frame The Donald, hired a special counsel to go on a fishing expedition for further framing, which nonetheless exonerated Trump. And now they are doing impeachment hearings based on one phone call, whereas they can easily take ANY phone call between Obama or Bush and others and make something up to criminalize such phone calls.

During the 1970s Jerry Williams interviewed the late TV news host John McLaughlin several times. Here are two of those interviews, in which they discuss the Nixon impeachment hearings. McLaughlin was severely defensive of Nixon, and Jerry Williams was someone who hated Nixon like you wouldn’t believe. Hearing these interviews, I am amazed by Jerry’s ability to bite his tongue and remain objective.

For those who don’t know, Jerry Williams was a talk radio personality from the 1950s to the 1990s, heard mainly in Boston on WMEX, WBZ and WRKO, and in Chicago on WBBM, and was one of my favorites on talk radio during the 1980s.

The first video is from November of 1973. At that time McLaughlin was known as Father John McLaughlin, when McLaughlin was still an active Catholic priest while working for the Nixon administration.

In this first interview, one of the callers was giving McLaughlin the third degree regarding what “mistake” Richard Nixon had made that McLaughlin was referring to, for example was it the Watergate break in? and so forth. There was a tense back and forth between McLaughlin and the caller that we rarely hear now on talk radio.

McLaughlin also discusses some aspects of the Nixon impeachment hearings that have some similarities to what we’ve been hearing in today’s news regarding Trump.

In the 2nd video, the page says it is from March of 1974, but the graphics on the beginning of the video have the date of July 1973. It’s 1974 because at one point Jerry Williams read from a newspaper column he said was from 2/27/1974. At the end of the video was the station’s on-the-hour newscast that included mention of Harold Wilson officially becoming British Prime Minister which was March 4, 1974.

Toward the beginning of the 2nd video, Fr. McLaughlin and Jerry Williams talk about McLaughlin’s “two hats,” his hat as a priest and his separate hat as a hack assistant to the President, Richard M. Nixon.

Obviously, the point of view that I expressed above regarding the national security state’s taking down Nixon is not expressed by either of these two on the radio. Even Nixon himself believed that he shouldn’t have stupidly covered up the Watergate break-in crimes of CIA, but I now see it all as planned out by them in order to ensnare Nixon toward impeachment or resignation. Gerald Ford, by the way, was a “deep stater” if there ever was one.

The Democrat and Republican Parties Are a Criminal Racket

Jacob Hornberger may or may not agree with me that the two major political parties are a criminal racket. And I’ll explain further down why I think they are.

But he sure writes terrific columns. In this one Jacob comments on Elizabeth Warren’s socialist soak-the-rich plan. He notes that the U.S. had no income tax for over 100 years, in which Americans were free to do whatever they wanted with their own wealth and earnings. It was not stolen from them by the government.

But in 1913 the gubmint convinced i.e. bamboozled the American people to accept a compulsory income tax, sans any kind of voluntary contract. It was an involuntary contract, the same kind of involuntary contract that a robber has with his victim on the street. “Your money or your life,” and so on. Yep, that gubmint.

Hornberger writes:

So, what happened? Both Democrats and Republicans began spending government money like it was going out of style on both domestic welfare-state programs and foreign warfare-state escapades. The result was that the middle class ended up getting fleeced to pay for all that welfare-warfare junk.

Just consider all the middle-class people today who are having trouble making ends meet. Manyof them do not have a nest egg in the event of an emergency. They live paycheck to paycheck. That’s because the federal government has fleeced them of their money to fund its ever-burgeoning welfare-warfare state expenses.

There is something else to consider about Warren’s “soak the rich” philosophy. It ultimately hurts the middle class and the poor. The rich provide valuable services in society. One, many of them own businesses that employ middle class and poor people. Two, the rich accumulate capital, which is a key to rising standards of living for the middle class and the poor. Three, many of the rich become rich by providing goods and services that the middle class and the poor value. And four, the rich buy expensive products when they are first invented, which ultimately leads to mass production that enables the middle class and poor to buy such products.

Soaking the rich leads to impoverishment of the middle class and poor. Just look at Cuba, where Warren’s socialist counterparts seized everything from the rich, including money, businesses, and homes. At first, it was party time with all that money and property. But over time, the socialist system started caving in on itself, leaving everyone in Cuba impoverished.

Of course, Warren would undoubtedly argue that at least everyone in Cuba is equal in the sense that everyone is equally poor. But is that really a good thing? Wouldn’t it be better if everyone in society is prospering, even if some have more than others?

Nope. Liawatha would prefer that everyone be equally poor, and not that people are prospering. Except for herself, her fellow apparatchik commissars in the bureaucracy, and their crony industrialists, of course.

Just like in Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, and of course, today’s good ol’ USSA.

That is why the whole area surrounding Washington, DC is the wealthiest area of the country.

So “soaking the rich” really just means stealing from everyone as much as possible, and living high off the hog at the expense of the workers and producers of society.

Of course, these criminals are causing, or would cause, a continually diminishing population of workers and producers, that’s for sure. They will put everyone out of work in the current “capitalist” system, and the minimum wage laws are a micro view of all that. Instead, in their world the gubmint is the one “employer” i.e. master, and the rest of the population are the “workers” i.e. slaves.

So Liawatha, Bernie, and the rest of those criminal kooks are “SOAKED” with more envy and covetousness than the more honest and normal people who don’t want to steal from their neighbors.

Additionally, the socialist grabbers and takers want to grab the reins of power and control all the industries, all the property, and make a whole bunch of rules that the rest of the population must follow — Do this, do that … Do things this way and don’t do things that way, and so on. Jawohl, Dear Leader! And with all that crap is that they want to control your thoughts by making you have to openly accept crazy things like transgender nonsense and all the group identity politics that they espouse.

But the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. Republicans believe in socialism just as much. They love the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Prescription Drug Welfare, foreign aid, and all the other forms of compulsory redistributionism that are now in place.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the Republican and Democrat parties are a criminal racket, because throughout the years they have imposed laws, fees and restrictions on third parties or otherwise non-establishment candidates to get their names on the ballots in elections. Any and all of those in power who have imposed such unconstitutional restrictions should be charged with racketeering, extortion, fraud, and whatever other charges that apply.

Also, the people in the U.S. government who have sent fellow Americans off to their deaths for no good reason in Vietnam and Korea, and started wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan and initiated drone bombings and killings of innocent civilians in other countries, and imposed murderous sanctions, have been members of those two establishment parties, Republican and Democrat. They have not been Libertarians or Greens.

And it wasn’t Libertarians or Greens who imposed the aforementioned income tax-thefts, which have enabled those wars of aggression and redistributionism from the workers over to the military contractors the merchants of death. It was Republicans and Democrats. Certainly not Libertarians, Greens or members of the Constitution Party.

Involuntary taxes are acts of theft. Why? Because they are … involuntary. They are not based on a voluntary contract. For any transaction to be legitimate in a free society, it must be voluntary, not involuntary. If it’s involuntary, then it is nothing but stealing, robbery, theft, extortion, fraud, mugging, embezzling, pilfering, shoplifting, you name it. It is not an honest transaction. It is criminal.

So, in addition to the Democrats and Republicans’ restricting the rights of the people to participate in democracy and run for office (and oppose the power-abusers), those other reasons are further evidence that the two major parties are a criminal racket.

On Government Bureaucrats Committing “Treason” Against the People of the States

Law professor Jonathan Turley seems to be misinterpreting some tweets by Donald Trump, as well as showing a lack of understanding of Trump’s use of the word “treason.”

First, Turley writes,

President Donald Trump appears intent on fueling calls for impeachment with unhinged statements calling some who worked with Special Counsel Robert Mueller as possible “traitors” and promising to “turn the tables” and to “bring them to justice”. While the President could simply relish the lack of findings of any criminal conduct, he has again adopted disturbing rhetoric that is reminiscent more of authoritarian regimes than American administrations.

But the Trump tweets that Turley is referring to are these:

“Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue.”

“It was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the “Report” about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened.”

“It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even spying or treason. This should never happen again!”

Turley is misunderstanding just whom Trump is talking about when it comes to “treason.” Trump is not talking about “some who worked with Special Counsel Robert Mueller,” to quote Turley, as acting treasonously.

While Trump did refer to “18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters” on the Mueller team, he was not talking about them. No, Trump is referring to the ones involved in “an Illegally Started Hoax” as the ones who acted treasonously. The ones who promoted made-up allegations in the Steele dossier and pushed that to the media and fraudulently obtained FISA spying warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign and for political reasons.

So when Trump is tweeting, “time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even spying or treason,” he is referring to James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, and Sally Yates especially, the four who signed the FISA warrant applications knowing that the Steele dossier they relied upon was in fact unreliable and unverified information, and that it heavily used oppo research paid for by the Hillary campaign. Others involved in the scheme included John Brennan, Loretta Lynch, and Peter Strzok.

In the U.S. Constitution, the section on Treason (Article III, Section 3) states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

As Thomas DiLorenzo pointed out, the phrase “United States” is referring to the states that make up the various states in the union, in plural form. It is not referring to a single unit. And the “treason” is when, for example, bureaucrats of the U.S. government in Washington, D.C. use the apparatus of war making against the states (“Treason against the United States”), or against the people of the states.

So as I wrote here, the “intelligence community” and national security bureaucrats’ FISA spying against people or citizens of the United States, committed by political apparatchiks in Washington and for purely political reasons, really does fit the constitutional definition of “Treason,” because the FISA spying (in which FISA stands for “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”) is a part of the government’s war making apparatus. “Levying war against them,” as the Constitution notes.

So, Turley is erroneously suggesting that Trump is acting like an “authoritarian” dictator who will jail a disloyal, disobedient subject for “treason,” whereas it’s really the other way around. The bureaucrats in the government (Brennan, Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok, McCabe, etc.) who turned the spying war-making apparatus against other citizens are the ones who acted treasonously. It was they who were the apparatchiks of an “authoritarian regime” in Washington.

Good Detailed Summary of What Led Up to “Trump-Russia Collusions” Conspiracy Theory

Former State Department employee Peter van Buren has an article in which he details the “primordial ooze of the collusion conspiracy,” that begins with the Clinton campaign and the DNC in mid-2016, their using Fusion GPS and British spy Christopher Steele to dig deep and get oppo dirt on Trump as well as make stuff up (the “Steele dossier”), and how Steele got the made-up information to the FBI and DOJ who used it as a basis for fraudulent, unlawful FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and to start a propaganda campaign promoting the conspiracy theory of “Trump-Russia collusions” that never happened.

Additionally, Justin Raimondo on his twitter linked to his article of January, 2017, “The Foreign Plot to Oust Trump” stretching from London to Langley.

More Articles

John Whitehead with an article on how we’re all lab rats in the government’s secret experiments. Get ready to be grossed out if you aren’t already familiar with some of the sick experiments the degenerate psychopaths in Washington have performed on the people.

Laurence Vance has a lengthy article on your tax dollars at work. Very detailed. And he distinguishes between the typical liberal/conservative statist view on taxes and the libertarian view. Is there somewhere in this piece in which he suggests to get rid of the federal government as a good solution? I didn’t see it. (In fact, that same solution applies to the first link above as well.)

Michael Rozeff says that socialism suppresses entrepreneurship.

And Joseph Mercola on Internet watchdogs and fake fact-checkers, conflicts of interest.

William Barr, Robert Mueller, and the New York Slimes

I heard some excerpts of today’s confirmation hearings of Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William Barr, who said that the Mueller inquisition is NOT a “witch hunt” (after all he knows about it). Jeepers.

As I wrote already, Barr is an authoritarian statist, a “former” CIA flunky and thus a national security state apparatchik, as well as a vicious drug warrior, against prison reform, and is anti-immigration like Trump, i.e. extremely authoritarian.

Barr is a long-time friend of “special” counsel Robert Mueller, and I don’t see him actively wanting to expose the FBI and DOJ’s corruption and criminality in their falsely exonerating Hillary Clinton and their abusing FISA spying authority to go after Trump. He will be a cover-upper. Barr’s daughter, by the way, is a senior DOJ official, for drug policy. And if he recuses himself from the Mueller-Russia fishing expedition it would be just like Jeff Sessions, and, what, they’ll continue with the corrupt, conflicted Rod Rosenstein overseeing the investigation?

Moon of Alabama has this essay on how Obama enabled the FBI to spy on Trump. And Moon also addresses the recent New York Slimes propaganda piece on the FBI investigating Trump as a Putin asset. The Slimes makes stuff up and that piece is an example. Glenn Greenwald also spends time on the Slimes piece, and looks back to the J. Edgar Hoover FBI investigating high government officials as “national security threats.”

That the major news media outlets are not only taking people’s quotes out of context to make them look bad, or deliberately slanting an article by omitting key facts as a means of propagandizing against a certain public figure or issue is bad enough. But just making things up like a gossip rag is very bad. In fact, when these major news outlets are propagandizing like the Pravda, I think we really are in trouble. Some pundits have referred to that as “dangerous,” and it is.

So anyway, my conclusion is that with a Barr attorney general we will see a whitewashing of the DOJ and FBI criminality and corruption. The vast majority of Americans will continue to not be informed of the truth. Sad.

Who Has Been Treasonous?

A confused judge recently referred to the entrapped Trump associate Mike Flynn as acting “treasonously,” and over the past year several media ignoramuses have referred to Donald Trump as “treasonous,” despite no evidence of “Russia collusions,” etc. Here is an article that I wrote 8 years ago, on how the government bureaucrats of the national security state in Washington commit treason against the people. (I had to change several links because it’s so long ago, and/or find the Wayback Machine page for a link.)

The Treasonous U.S. Government

December 28, 2010

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

The ongoing WikiLeaks affair has been an exposé of who really understands the principles that define America, and who is truly confused. The “classified” leakers and their publishers (who include the New York Times and the Guardian) are merely attempting to expose the State and its crimes as well as its outright ridiculousness and irrationality. The ones who defend the State’s intrusions abroad, the killing of innocents, the occupations of foreign lands, the removal of due process through renditions, indefinite detentions and assassinations without cause or even suspicion, are the ones who want to suppress any exposing of those State crimes.

It is as though the defenders of the U.S. government’s secrecy and cover-ups think they are in countries like Iran, in which the act of revealing the crimes of the State is an act of blasphemy and deserving of one’s being stoned to death. These obedient defenders of the State are truly against moral values and the rule of law, yet they are the ones who refer to alleged leaker Bradley Manning as having committed “treason” against America.

The hopelessly flawed U.S. Constitution addresses treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Worse, the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines treason as:

1: the betrayal of a trust

2: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family.

Unfortunately, the mainstream view of “treason” has been one of “defiance of State authority,” or disobedience. The WikiLeaker’s actions have not gone against America, but they apparently have been challenging to State authority, and that’s a no-no in authoritarian societies. It is in such societies that the State has access into every detail of every individual’s private life, as the Washington Post recently uncovered, but the citizens are not allowed to know what their government is up to. The great 19th Century individualist Lysander Spooner clarified some of these issues in his publication, No Treason – The Constitution of No Authority.

In my view, acts of treason do not necessarily consist of “levying war” against one’s country or countrymen – if that were the case, then I suppose the American Revolutionaries were acting treasonously against Britain – but acts of treason can be those that go against the interests of one’s countrymen.

So to me, just about every act of the U.S. government since its beginning has gone against America’s interests, that is, if one believes that America’s interests are those of preserving liberty, and that the government’s purpose is to protect life, liberty and property. For instance, after the Southern States peacefully seceded from the American “union” in 1861, President Abe Lincoln “levied war” against them, that included his killing thousands of innocent civilians and burning entire cities to the ground. Lincoln’s need for greater centralized State control and dominance, and obsession with compelling millions into an association to which they did not want to belong, was worth his depraved acts of aggression, violence and murder. Lincoln acted treasonously, against his fellow Americans and the basic values of the America that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and their fellow Revolutionaries and secessionists-from-Britain believed in, and against the interests of the Southern secessionists who believed in freedom and prosperity.

The endless list of examples of treason by the U.S. government against Americans includes President Wilson’s unnecessarily entering the U.S. into World War I. When you take your country into other countries’ wars, you are at that point making your population vulnerable to hostilities, in addition to squandering away public funds that are not intended to be used for the benefit of other countries. Other examples include FDR’s New Deal of fascist/socialist property confiscation, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by the two Bush presidents, President Obama’s new medical takeover, and so on. Those intrusions and acts of aggression by agents of the U.S. government against Americans and foreigners have all gone against the interests of Americans and against our freedom and prosperity. They are treasonous acts. They are all crimes committed by the U.S. government against the lives, liberty and property of many millions of Americans for many decades, and continuing.

The State’s Treasonous Foreign Policy

Regarding U.S. Army PFC Bradley Manning’s alleged leaking and months of solitary confinement, former Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski writes about the hysteria of the federal State and its flunkies and defenders, and compares the alleged whistleblower soldier with actual convicted spies against America:

Charged but not convicted of any crime, American PFC Brad Manning is being held largely incommunicado at Quantico, without bedding or permission to exercise in his cell. He is purposely deprived of human contact. His current treatment – based on unproven charges – is far harsher than the treatment and sentences of four famous and convicted US federal-level spies.

Former FBI agent Robert Hanssen was arrested in early 2001, and charged with selling secrets to the Soviets during the preceding two decades. Upon arrest, Hanssen confessed and was able to hire as an attorney the extremely competent Plato Cacheris, who negotiated a plea bargain. After an entire career spent profiting from the sale of classified information to the Soviets and later the Russian Federation, he is held at Supermax in isolation. Well, not exactly like Brad Manning – Hanssen has bedding, books, and exercise.

The case of career CIA employee and horrific spy/profiteer, Aldrich Ames, is also instructive. After his arrest and lawyer-facilitated plea bargain, Ames was not held forever in isolation at a Supermax-style facility. Instead, he resides at Allenwood Federal Prison with the general population, and is able to receive visitors and to correspond with people outside the prison on issues of current interest.

Two other famous convicted federal-level spies of the same era include Army Warrant Officer James Hall and Army Colonel George Trofimoff. These military officers who sold secrets were not tortured, nor were they deprived of their constitutional rights to a fair defense. Even though they are convicted military spies, they are serving less intensive punishments than either Ames or Hanssen, and were treated far better than PFC Manning.

Manning is not accused of selling secrets, or profiting from their release. Washington has made charges; it suspects Manning is partly responsible for publicly embarrassing the federal security apparatus. But as the Pentagon and the State Department both admit, even if Manning was the source of some government documents, the revelations did not seriously impact government operations.

Some critics of the WikiLeaks release have referred to Manning’s alleged actions as “treasonous,” and compromising American security. But in actuality, the leaked documents have done nothing but expose the crimes of the State, which is what the Press used to do before that institution apparently merged itself into the State apparatus. The real “treason” that is happening is that of the agents of the State acting against Americans’ liberty and prosperity.

While the recent document leaker has not compromised America’s security in any way whatsoever, we can take a closer look at how the U.S. government’s agents just over the past 20 years have been the real culprits in compromising the security of Americans. That includes President George H.W. Bush’s taking the U.S. into war against Iraq in 1990-91, the U.S. government’s and United Nations’ sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s and how those hostilities against Iraqis have backfired against the U.S., and George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq and against Americans’ civil liberties.

In July 1990, then-Bush Administration U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and was said to have given the Bush Administration’s “green light” for Hussein to invade Kuwait, although, while some analysts disagree on whether that was intended by the Administration, other analysts believe that that was how Hussein interpreted the message. On August 2, 1990, Hussein began his invasion of Kuwait, followed in the next months by the U.S. military setting up their war on Iraq to begin January 15, 1991.

The Bush Administration had a well-prepared PR campaign to sell the Persian Gulf War, in which Bush took the U.S. military into war overseas against a country that was of no threat to the U.S.

Would a politician like the elder Bush tell a foreign leader that he, Bush, would look the other way if Hussein invaded Kuwait, only to then go and invade Iraq as though that was Bush’s intention in the first place? Well, that seems to be the way politicians, statists, internationalists, and government expansionists go about business, given the power they have as monopolists in territorial protection. And also, Bush probably felt safe politically and legally, given how so many Reagan Administration officials had gotten away with their schemes of selling arms to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan Contras in what became known as the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s.

In author James Bovard’s analysis of the U.S. military’s bombing campaign on Iraq in 1991 and subsequent sanctions on Iraq, Bovard cites the Washington Post which quoted Pentagon officials that the bombing campaign targeted civilian infrastructure, particularly electrical facilities and water and sewage treatment facilities, as well as military targets. This was an intentional strategy of the U.S. military as a means of “disabling Iraqi society at large,” that supposedly would compel the Iraqi people to get rid of their leader Saddam Hussein.

As Bovard pointed out,

A Harvard School of Public Health team visited Iraq in the months after the war and found epidemic levels of typhoid and cholera as well as pervasive acute malnutrition. The Post noted,

In an estimate not substantively disputed by the Pentagon, the [Harvard] team projected that ‘at least 170,000 children under five years of age will die in the coming year from the delayed effects’ of the bombing.

The U.S. military understood the havoc the 1991 bombing unleashed. A 1995 article entitled ‘The Enemy as a System’ by John Warden, published in the Air Force’s Airpower Journal, discussed the benefits of bombing ‘dual-use targets’ and noted,

A key example of such dual-use targeting was the destruction of Iraqi electrical power facilities in Desert Storm…. [Destruction] of these facilities shut down water purification and sewage treatment plants. As a result, epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate.

The article concluded that the U.S. Air Force has a ‘vested interest in attacking dual-use targets’ that undermine ‘civilian morale.’

The bombing campaign and a decade of sanctions throughout the 1990s led to widespread disease and skyrocketing cancer and child mortality rates, which by 1999 were said to lead to the deaths of approximately 500,000 Iraqis.

The U.S. government’s invasion and bombing of Iraq in 1991 and sanctions, disease and death, as well as the U.S. government’s expansionism of military bases and other government apparatus on Muslim lands such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, and other intrusions and interventions are what have inflamed anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East and Asia. These actions of the U.S. government have been provocations against the inhabitants of those foreign lands, the effects of which have consisted of retaliations and attempted retaliations against Americans. In other words, we Americans have been made increasingly vulnerable to the aggressions of foreigners because of the aggressions that our government officials have been committing against people in foreign lands.

But rather than ending the murderous sanctions, occupations and other U.S. government intrusions and interventions on foreign lands, the response of the robotic, comatose U.S. government officials to the September 11, 2001 attacks was to increase the aggression, intrusions and violence overseas even more, as well as impose policies of rendition and indefinite detention and assassination of people without due process, without just cause or even actual suspicion – the George W. Bush Administration knowingly apprehended suspects at random and knowingly kept innocent people detained for years in Gitmo – as well as start a campaign against Americans and their what-used-to-be-known-as “inalienable rights” and “civil liberties.” In other words, every action and policy of the U.S. government, especially since 1990, has made Americans less safe and more vulnerable. We are less safe because of the provocations by our government of more terrorism against us, and we are less safe because of the abuses of our own government against us and our liberty. This is what I mean by treasonous actions of the U.S. government.

And how has the U.S. government been treating Bradley Manning for months, someone who has not been tried or convicted of anything, and whose alleged actions have harmed no one, but who allegedly dared to expose the agents of the State for what they are? Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has been doing an exceptional job writing about Manning’s treatment.

According to Greenwald, Manning’s attorney David Coombs, and MIT researcher David House, Manning has been held in 23-hour-per-day solitary confinement for over five months, with one hour per day allowed for “exercise,” which consists of walking in circles in a small area, is made to respond to guards’ checking him every five minutes, is made to endure constant sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation, has very little contact with others and is deprived of knowledge of events in the outside world. In a more recent update, Greenwald noted,

…And in the wake of my report, there have been several reports of the damage to Manning that is now apparent, including in The Guardian (“Bradley Manning’s health deteriorating in jail, supporters say”), The Independent (Manning ”in weak health and wracked with anxiety”), The Daily Beast (“The conditions under which Bradley Manning is being held would traumatize anyone”), and from his lawyer (“who says the extended isolation — now more than seven months of solitary confinement — is weighing on his client’s psyche . . . . His treatment is harsh, punitive and taking its toll, says Coombs”)…

What the agents of the U.S. government are doing psychologically and physically to this one individual is how criminals, barbarians, degenerates and sickos treat other human beings. But the reason he is being held in solitary confinement and why he is being abused in such a sick way is that our government officials are responding not to any real threat to Americans’ security, but to an uncovering of U.S. government officials’ real character.

The American prisons aren’t even treating their convicted rapists, child molesters and murderers with that kind of cruelty and physical deprivation, which is particularly loathsome given that Manning has done nothing wrong and has harmed no one. However, this is in line with the U.S. military intentionally bombing water and sewage treatment facilities with the purpose of causing disease and deaths amongst the Iraqi civilian population in 1991, a scheme that comes from sick-minded barbarians. But in their emotional, gut reactions to the news about leaks of State “secrets,” the authoritarians who love and worship the State have made the uncovering of the true nature of today’s agents of the State a matter of blasphemy worthy of the sinner’s being stoned to death in a public courtyard. “We are all Iranians now,” the Palins and the Gingriches might as well declare.

But is merely uncovering the State’s true nature really a crime? Shouldn’t we instead penalize the agents of the State who start wars unnecessarily and thus make their own population more vulnerable to retaliation, as the warmongers did with the war against Iraq of 1991, and all the repercussions and blowback we have been suffering because of it? (And oh, what a coincidence the timing of those actions coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War and a sudden lack of an enemy to justify the always expanding military welfare state, but that’s a different discussion for a different essay.) The devastation and physical destruction, the human toll and financial cost of the entirely political decision to invade Iraq in 1990 have treasonously damaged America. (And oh, what another coincidence that the 1990 warmonger’s son also started an unnecessary war against Iraq in 2003, and for solely political reasons, that would cause even further blowback against us!) These actions have damaged America in the most criminal sense, and these actions against America are treasonous.

To protect us from further damage to our liberty, security and property, we need more Bradley Mannings, and more WikiLeaks, and much less centralized power in Washington, given that just about every action of the U.S. government has been treasonous, against America and our founding principles, and is constant, daily proof that the Anti-Federalists were right.