I came across this while searching for something else, but once I read it I could not let it pass. I wanted people to see this and to understand just as the past can set the tone for the future do not allow a bad decision from days gone by to continue to reap havoc apon us now.





When Mr. Winston Churchill visited Palestine in March 1921, he was asked to meet a delegation of Moslem leaders. They protested that the ultimate objective of political Zionism was to give the natural resources of Palestine to the Jews. They pointed out that the Arabs had occupied Palestine for over a thousand years. They asked Churchill to use his influence to correct what they considered a great injustice. Churchill is recorded as saying in reply : “You ask me to repudiate the Balfour Declaration and to stop (Jewish) immigration. This is not in my power ... and it is not my wish ... We think it is good for the world, good for the Jews, good for the British Empire, and good for the Arabs also ... and we intend it to be so.”[17]
When Churchill gave the Arabs his reply he was in all probability thinking of the threat issued by Chaim Weizmann who had been an agent of the international bankers for many years. Just a year before Churchill’s visit to Palestine, Weizmann had made an official statement of policy which was published in ‘Judische Rundschau’, No. 4, 1920 : He said “We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not ... You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.”
Weizmann’s statement must be studied in conjunction with another declaration made by an international banker to a gathering of Zionists in Budapest in 1919. When discussing the probabilities of a supergovernment he was quoted by Comte de St. Aulaire as saying : “In the management of the New World we give proof of our organization both for revolution and for construction by the creation of the League of Nations, which is our Work. Bolshevism is the accelerator, and the League of Nations is the brake on the mechanism of which we supply both the motive force and the guiding power... What is the end ? That is already determined by our mission.”[18] One world government.
The two statements combined show the international extent of their secret ambitions. Eight years after I had finished this chapter of the orginal manuscript the following report came into my possession through Canadian Intelligence Service. Because the statements made at the Conference held in Budapest on January 12th, 1952 supports my contentions made in 1944, and confirms the conclusions I had arrived at in 1924, I insert the report of the speech given in 1952 here verbatim. It was originally made available to an American publication ‘Common Sense’ by Mr. Eustace Mullins, an authority on the Marxist conspiracy.[19]
“A report from Europe carries the following speech of Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich before a special meeting of the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest, Hungary, January 12, 1952 :
_______________
‘ Greetings, my children : You have been called here to recapitulate the principal steps of our new programme. As you know, we had hoped to have twenty years between wars to consolidate the great gains which we made from World War II, but our increasing numbers in certain vital areas is arousing opposition to us, and we must now Work with every means at our disposal to precipitate World War III within five years.
‘ The goal for which we have striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last within our reach, and because its fulfillment is so apparent, it behooves us to increase our efforts, and our caution, tenfold. I can safely promise you that before ten years have passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king, and every Gentile a slave. (Applause from the gathering). You remember the success of our propaganda campaign during the 1930’s, which aroused anti-American passions in Germany at the same time we were arousing anti-German passions in America, a campaign which culminated in the Second World War. A similar propaganda campaign is now being waged intensively throughout the world. A war fever is being worked up in Russia by an incessant anti-American barrage, while a nationwide anti-Communist scare is sweeping America. This campaign is forcing all of the smaller nations to choose between the partnership of Russia or an alliance with the United States.
‘ Our most pressing problem at the moment is to inflame the lagging militaristic spirit of the Americans. The failure of the Universal Military Training Act was a great setback to our plans, but we are assured that a suitable measure will be rushed through congress immediately after the 1952 elections. The Russian, as well as the Asiatic peoples, are well under control and offer no objections to war, but we must wait to secure the Americans. This we hope to do with the issue of anti-Semitism, which worked so well in uniting the Americans against Germany. We are counting heavily on reports of anti-Semitic outrages in Russia to help whip up indignation in the United States and produce a front of solidarity against the Soviet power. Simultaneously, to demonstrate to Americans the reality of anti-Semitism, we will advance through new sources large sums of money to outspokenly anti-Semitic elements in America to increase their effectiveness, and we shall stage anti-Semitic outbreaks in several of their larger cities. This will serve the double purpose of exposing reactionary sectors in America, which can be silenced, and of welding the United States into a devoted antiRussian unit.
‘ Within five years, this programme will achieve its objective,(well I don't think that materialized) the Third World War, which will surpass in destruction all previous contests. Israel, of course will remain neutral, and when both sides are devastated and exhausted we will arbitrate, sending our Control Commission into all wrecked countries. This war will end for all time our struggle against the Gentiles.
‘ We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born. Our Control Commissions will, in the interests of peace, and wiping out inter-racial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with whites. The white women must cohabit with members of the dark races, the white men with black women. Thus the white race will disappear, for mixing the dark with the white means the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We shall embark upon an era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule undisputed over the world. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark peoples.’
Question from the gathering : ‘ Rabbi Rabinovich, what about the various religions after the Third World War ?’
Rabinovich : ‘ There will be no more religions. Not only would the existence of a priest class remain a constant danger to our rule, but belief in an after-life would give spiritual strength to irreconcilable elements in many countries, and enable them to resist us. We will, however, retain the rituals, and customs of Judaism, as the mark of our hereditary ruling caste, strengthening our racial laws so that no Jew will be allowed to marry outside our race, nor will any stranger be accepted by us.
(They have already managed that In Israel NOW)
‘ We may have to repeat the grim days of World War II, when we were forced to let the Hitlerite bandits sacrifice some of our people, in order that we may have adequate documentation and witnesses to legally justify our trial and execution of the leaders of America and Russia as war criminals, after we have dictated the Peace. I am sure you will need little preparation for such a duty, for sacrifice has always been the watchword of our people, and the death of a few thousand Jews in exchange for world leadership is indeed a small price to pay.
‘ To convince you of the certainty of that leadership, let me point out to you how we have turned all of the inventions of the white man into weapons against him. His printing presses and radios are the mouthpieces of our desires, and his heavy industry manufactures the instruments which he sends out to arm Asia and Africa against him. Our interest in Washington are greatly extending the Point Four Programme for developing industry in backward areas of the world, so that after the industrial plants and cities of Europe and America are destroyed by atomic warfare, the whites can offer no resistance against the large masses of the dark races, who will maintain an unchallenged technological superiority.[20]
‘ And so, with the vision of world victory before you, go back to your countries and intensify your good work, until that approaching Light when Israel will reveal herself in all her glorious destiny as the Light of the World.’ Illuminati means ‘Holder of the Light’.”

I know that I've been out of the office for a few but there is so much going on that even I need some time to take it all in, but here we go. Soon you will be hearing ( let me see your papers ).

Collecting of Details on Travelers DocumentedU.S. Effort More Extensive Than Previously Known

By Ellen NakashimaWashington Post Staff WriterSaturday, September 22, 2007

The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials.
The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years, as part of the Department of Homeland Security's effort to assess the security threat posed by all travelers entering the country. Officials say the records, which are analyzed by the department's Automated Targeting System, help border officials distinguish potential terrorists from innocent people entering the country.
But new details about the information being retained suggest that the government is monitoring the personal habits of travelers more closely than it has previously acknowledged. The details were learned when a group of activists requested copies of official records on their own travel. Those records included a description of a book on marijuana that one of them carried and small flashlights bearing the symbol of a marijuana leaf.
The Automated Targeting System has been used to screen passengers since the mid-1990s, but the collection of data for it has been greatly expanded and automated since 2002, according to former DHS officials.
Officials yesterday defended the retention of highly personal data on travelers not involved in or linked to any violations of the law. But civil liberties advocates have alleged that the type of information preserved by the department raises alarms about the government's ability to intrude into the lives of ordinary people. The millions of travelers whose records are kept by the government are generally unaware of what their records say, and the government has not created an effective mechanism for reviewing the data and correcting any errors, activists said.
The activists alleged that the data collection effort, as carried out now, violates the Privacy Act, which bars the gathering of data related to Americans' exercise of their First Amendment rights, such as their choice of reading material or persons with whom to associate. They also expressed concern that such personal data could one day be used to impede their right to travel.
"The federal government is trying to build a surveillance society," said John Gilmore, a civil liberties activist in San Francisco whose records were requested by the Identity Project, an ad-hoc group of privacy advocates in California and Alaska. The government, he said, "may be doing it with the best or worst of intentions. . . . But the job of building a surveillance database and populating it with information about us is happening largely without our awareness and without our consent."
Gilmore's file, which he provided to The Washington Post, included a note from a Customs and Border Patrol officer that he carried the marijuana-related book "Drugs and Your Rights." "My first reaction was I kind of expected it," Gilmore said. "My second reaction was, that's illegal."
DHS officials said this week that the government is not interested in passengers' reading habits, that the program is transparent, and that it affords redress for travelers who are inappropriately stymied. "I flatly reject the premise that the department is interested in what travelers are reading," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said. "We are completely uninterested in the latest Tom Clancy novel that the traveler may be reading."
But, Knocke said, "if there is some indication based upon the behavior or an item in the traveler's possession that leads the inspection officer to conclude there could be a possible violation of the law, it is the front-line officer's duty to further scrutinize the traveler." Once that happens, Knocke said, "it is not uncommon for the officer to document interactions with a traveler that merited additional scrutiny."
He said that he is not familiar with the file that mentions Gilmore's book about drug rights, but that generally "front-line officers have a duty to enforce all laws within our authority, for example, the counter-narcotics mission." Officers making a decision to admit someone at a port of entry have a duty to apply extra scrutiny if there is some indication of a violation of the law, he said.
The retention of information about Gilmore's book was first disclosed this week in Wired News. Details of how the ATS works were disclosed in a Federal Register notice last November. Although the screening has been in effect for more than a decade, data for the system in recent years have been collected by the government from more border points, and also provided by airlines -- under U.S. government mandates -- through direct electronic links that did not previously exist.
The DHS database generally includes "passenger name record" (PNR) information, as well as notes taken during secondary screenings of travelers. PNR data -- often provided to airlines and other companies when reservations are made -- routinely include names, addresses and credit-card information, as well as telephone and e-mail contact details, itineraries, hotel and rental car reservations, and even the type of bed requested in a hotel.
The records the Identity Project obtained confirmed that the government is receiving data directly from commercial reservation systems, such as Galileo and Sabre, but also showed that the data, in some cases, are more detailed than the information to which the airlines have access.
Ann Harrison, the communications director for a technology firm in Silicon Valley who was among those who obtained their personal files and provided them to The Post, said she was taken aback to see that her dossier contained data on her race and on a European flight that did not begin or end in the United States or connect to a U.S.-bound flight.
"It was surprising that they were gathering so much information without my knowledge on my travel activities, and it was distressing to me that this information was being gathered in violation of the law," she said.
James P. Harrison, director of the Identity Project and Ann Harrison's brother, obtained government records that contained another sister's phone number in Tokyo as an emergency contact. "So my sister's phone number ends up being in a government database," he said. "This is a lot more than just saying who you are, your date of birth."
Edward Hasbrouck, a civil liberties activist who was a travel agent for more than 15 years, said that his file contained coding that reflected his plan to fly with another individual. In fact, Hasbrouck wound up not flying with that person, but the record, which can be linked to the other passenger's name, remained in the system. "The Automated Targeting System," Hasbrouck alleged, "is the largest system of government dossiers of individual Americans' personal activities that the government has ever created."
He said that travel records are among the most potentially invasive of records because they can suggest links: They show who a traveler sat next to, where they stayed, when they left. "It's that lifetime log of everywhere you go that can be correlated with other people's movements that's most dangerous," he said. "If you sat next to someone once, that's a coincidence. If you sat next to them twice, that's a relationship."
Stewart Verdery, former first assistant secretary for policy and planning at DHS, said the data collected for ATS should be considered "an investigative tool, just the way we do with law enforcement, who take records of things for future purposes when they need to figure out where people came from, what they were carrying and who they are associated with. That type of information is extremely valuable when you're trying to thread together a plot or you're trying to clean up after an attack."
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in August 2006 said that "if we learned anything from Sept. 11, 2001, it is that we need to be better at connecting the dots of terrorist-related information. After Sept. 11, we used credit-card and telephone records to identify those linked with the hijackers. But wouldn't it be better to identify such connections before a hijacker boards a plane?" Chertoff said that comparing PNR data with intelligence on terrorists lets the government "identify unknown threats for additional screening" and helps avoid "inconvenient screening of low-risk travelers."
Knocke, the DHS spokesman, added that the program is not used to determine "guilt by association." He said the DHS has created a program called DHS Trip to provide redress for travelers who faced screening problems at ports of entry.
But DHS Trip does not allow a traveler to challenge an agency decision in court, said David Sobel, senior counsel with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued the DHS over information concerning the policy underlying the ATS. Because the system is exempted from certain Privacy Act requirements, including the right to "contest the content of the record," a traveler has no ability to correct erroneous information, Sobel said.
Zakariya Reed, a Toledo firefighter, said in an interview that he has been detained at least seven times at the Michigan border since fall 2006. Twice, he said, he was questioned by border officials about "politically charged" opinion pieces he had published in his local newspaper. The essays were critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, he said. Once, during a secondary interview, he said, "they had them printed out on the table in front of me."

Once again, it comes down to know your enemy. Who has America's interest at heart? If you hold dual citizenship who are you loyal to? When will it end - when our sons and daughters are marching though the streets of Iran? How did this happen? How did we become Israel's puppet?



FORMER REP. BLASTS FOREIGN GRIP ON CONGRESS

Paul Findley says America lost her independencethe day the attack on Liberty was whitewashed

By Paul Findley
In the greatest service of his long public life, former President Jimmy Carter warns of the grave consequences of America’s phenomenal subservience to Israel. In his latest book and recent lectures, he focuses on how Israel’s cruel occupation, made possible by massive and unconditional U.S. support, has subjected the Palestinian people to terrible suffering for 40 long years.Beyond that grave human tragedy, candid observers must cite U.S. complicity in Israeli lawlessness as the major factor that prompted the horror of 9-11 and lured America into launching three costly, wrong-headed and failing wars—Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror.The linkage is easily identified. America’s support of Israel’s brutality was the main motivation for 9-11. Nine-eleven would not have happened if any U.S. president in the last 40 years had refused to finance Israel’s humiliation and destruction of Palestine.Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst now a consultant to CBS News, recently told a congressional committee that “our unqualified support of Israel” was the main reason for 9/11. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, President George W. Bush’s first special envoy to the Middle East, has stated that the United States invaded Iraq for Israel and oil. The U.S. acts of war in Afghanistan and the war on terror were President Bush’s retaliation for 9-11—Israel and only Israel—urged the United States to invade Iraq. Israel’s lobby in Washington pushed hard and prevailed. Despite this grim record, U.S. subservience to the wishes of Israel’s leaders does not change. Israel is the only nation urging the United States to attack Iran. The lobby is pushing hard again. If the United States assaults Iran it will be on Israel’s behalf.Congress, like the rest of America, is totally devoid of debate on the amazing role of this small nation in critical U.S. policy. Members are fulsome in public praise of the Jewish state, but no politician mentions the illegal behavior of Israel or the staggering burden it imposes on our country.How did Israel gain this influence?It all started 40 years ago. On June 8, 1967, the U.S. commander in chief, President Lyndon B. Johnson, turned his back on the crew of a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Liberty, despite the fact that the ship was under deadly assault by Israel’s air and sea forces. The Israelis were engaged in an ugly scheme to lure America into their war against Arab states. They tried to destroy the Liberty and its entire crew, then pin the blame on the Arabs. This, they reasoned, would outrage the American people and immediately lead the United States to join Israel’s battle against Arabs.The scheme almost worked. It failed because, despite the carefully planned multipronged assault, the Liberty crew managed to broadcast an SOS over a makeshift antenna. When the appeal reached U.S. aircraft carriers nearby, the commanders immediately launched fighter planes to defend the ship. Informed of the launch, President Johnson ordered the rescue planes to turn back immediately.For the first time in history, forces of the U.S. Navy were denied the right to defend a Navy ship under attack. Johnson said, “I don’t care if the ship sinks, I am not going to embarrass an ally.” Those were his exact words, heard by Navy personnel listening to radio relays.The ally Johnson refused to embarrass was Israel. When the SOS reached the top military commanders in Israel, they immediately canceled the assault, claiming it was a case of mistaken identity. At the White House, Johnson accepted Israel’s claim, even though he knew it was a lie. Then Johnson magnified the day’s infamy by ordering a coverup of the truth. Liberty survivors were sworn to secrecy. Even those in hospital beds and badly wounded were threatened with court martial if they told anyone what actually happened. The coverup has been continued by every administration since Johnson’s. It proved to be a fateful turning point in Israel’s power over U.S. foreign policy. The Liberty experience convinced Israeli officials that they could get by with literally anything—even the murder of U.S. sailors—in their manipulation of the U.S. government. Financial aid to Israel began to pour like a river, all of it with no strings attached. According to The Christian Science Monitor, this outpouring has now cost U.S. taxpayers more than$1.4 trillion.Costs go far beyond money. Thousands of American families are blighted forever, with America’s once high moral standing in shambles. Because of its unqualified support of Israel, Washington is hated worldwide as never before.The principal source of Israel’s influence is the fear it seems to instill in every sector of our society. The most effective instrument of intimidation employed by its lobby is the reckless accusation of anti-Semitism, often leveled at anyone criticizing any aspect of Israeli behavior. I can personally certify that for many years it has cast a blanket of fear over Capitol Hill and blocked any semblance of debate.I unintentionally contributed to that fear in 1985 when my book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, was published. It reports in detail the efficiency of Israel’s U.S. lobby, its history and tactics.My book became a bestseller. I hoped it would inspire public officials and other citizens to revolt against the lobby’s influence on U.S. policy, but several of my former colleagues told me it had the opposite effect. One said, “After what AIPAC did to you and (Charles) Percy, I vote with the lobby every time.”Israel’s grip on America seems impervious. Two distinguished political scientists, John Mearshiemer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, strode resolutely into the Middle East minefield a year ago by co-authoring a paper on Israel’s lobby. More recently, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a book written by former President Carter, revered worldwide for his effective work on international conflict resolution, was published.With few exceptions, America’s major editors, producers, commentators, academics and politicians have given these courageous initiatives the silent treatment. Nationwide, the lobby’s influence is pervasive, sustained and deep, a phenomenon unprecedented in U.S. history. It is impossible to explain the silence except as a reflection of profound fear.The situation is highly dangerous. America has already paid a towering price for our subservience to Israel, and great additional burdens seem inevitable. If the United States is involved in acts of war against Iran, anti-American protest will rise to new heights, especially throughout the Islamic world. It will inevitably deepen the widely held belief among Muslims that America seeks to undermine Islam.The outlook for reform is grim. Elected officials of both major political parties in Washington seem hopelessly captured by Israel’s agents. So does every serious candidate for the presidency in 2008. All U.S. citizens must accept a measure of responsibility for Israel’s grip on America. Those of us who knew what was happening did not protest with sufficient force and clarity. Those who did not know should have taken their responsibility as citizens more seriously. They should have informed themselves.The scene is likely to improve only if U.S. elected officials are criticized so forthrightly from home that they fear a constituent revolt more than they fear Israel’s lobby. This, of course, will not happen until the countryside benefits from a rigorous and edifying public debate about Israel’s role in our national life.Paul Findley, a U.S. representative from Illinois from 1961-83, lives in Jacksonville, Fla. He is the author of five books, including the Washington Post seven-week bestseller, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, Chicago Review Press.

The problem is not what he has stated but that his perspective is shared by many.

The Ron Paul that Ron Paul Doesn't Want You to Know
(June 03, 2007)

Presidential candidate US Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a Republican with Libertarian views, is making a name for himself by emerging as an antiwar Republican in the 2008 race for the White House.
While those of us who oppose the mindless US Invasion of Iraq welcome all voices of opposition, there are some troubling questions arising about Mr. Paul.
US Rep. Paul has been consistent in his opposition to the invasion, but he hasn’t been very vocal or visible about that opposition. Most Americans knew nothing about Mr. Paul before this election season or had no idea such an animal as an antiwar Republican even existed.
Where was he years ago when his voice of opposition would not only have been more appreciated, it would have been much more beneficial to this nation, before being antiwar was popular and carried far more political risks?
Being that he’s an antiwar Republican, which makes him somewhat of an anomaly, surely he could have found and exploited opportunities to be more vocal and visible with his stance.
There were other politicians such as former US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), the late US Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ralph Nader, and others who were known for their opposition to the US Invasion of Iraq.
Why didn’t Mr. Paul stand with any of them? Why didn’t he appear at antiwar demonstrations or stand with other non-politicians who were against the Invasion?
Even more troubling are his past comments on racial minorities and his association with the John Birch Society. Paul is the only Congressperson to receive a 100% approval rating from the Birchers. His MySpace page links directly to the John Birch Society.
He has also been attributed to comments such as these which appeared in his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report:
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
He called former US Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.”
Paul also claimed former President Bill Clinton not only fathered illegitimate children, but that he also used cocaine which "would explain certain mysteries" about the President's scratchy voice. "None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting,” he said.
When challenged on those remarks he blamed them on an aide that supposedly wrote them for his newsletter over a period of years. Are we to assume that he hadn't read his own newsletter?
His newsletter with his name on it.
When challenged by the NAACP and other civil rights groups for an apology for such racist remarks, Paul simply said his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about Blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent.
Lock up Black children, only Black children, but he meant nothing racist. Sure.
It isn’t just Blacks that Paul has a problem with; it’s also Asians, homosexuals, Jews, women, fornication, gambling, and the stock market.
I have a 13 year-old nephew and I certainly wouldn’t want the President of the United States trying to convince America that he’s dangerous simply because he’s Black and can run fast.
The Ron Paul Express needs much closer and thorough examination before those who champion his antiwar stance jump on-board.
Richard Searcy is a Staff Writer and Columnist with Atlanta Progressive News. Searcy was previously a press spokesperson for US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).

PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


NSA Spying Part of Broader Effort Intelligence Chief Says Bush Authorized Secret Activities Under One Order
By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, August 1, 2007; A01
The Bush administration's chief intelligence official said yesterday that President Bush authorized a series of secret surveillance activities under a single executive order in late 2001. The disclosure makes clear that a controversial National Security Agency program was part of a much broader operation than the president previously described.
The disclosure by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, appears to be the first time that the administration has publicly acknowledged that Bush's order included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.
In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), McConnell wrote that the executive order following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks included "a number of . . . intelligence activities" and that a name routinely used by the administration -- the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- applied only to "one particular aspect of these activities, and nothing more."
"This is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly, because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been officially acknowledged," McConnell said.
The program that Bush announced was put under a court's supervision in January, but the administration now wants congressional approval to do much of the same surveillance without a court order.
McConnell's letter was aimed at defending Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales from allegations by Democrats that he may have committed perjury by telling Congress that no legal objections were raised about the TSP. Gonzales said a legal fight in early 2004 was focused on "other intelligence activities" than those confirmed by Bush, but he never connected those to Bush's executive order.
But in doing so, McConnell's letter also underscored that the full scope of the NSA's surveillance program under Bush's order has not been revealed. The TSP described by Bush and his aides allowed the interception of communication between the United States and other countries where one party is believed to be tied to al-Qaeda, so other types of communication or data are presumably being collected under the parts of the wider NSA program that remain hidden.
News reports over the past 20 months have detailed a range of activities linked to the program, including the use of data mining to identify surveillance targets and the participation of telecommunication companies in turning over millions of phone records. The administration has not publicly confirmed such reports.
A spokesman for McConnell declined to elaborate on the letter. The Justice Department also declined to comment.
Specter was noncommittal yesterday on whether McConnell's explanation resolved his questions about the accuracy of Gonzales's previous testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Specter is the ranking Republican. Specter said he was waiting for a separate letter from the attorney general to provide additional clarification.
"If he doesn't have a plausible explanation, then he hasn't leveled with the committee," Specter said on CNN. Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that "the department will continue to work with Senator Specter to address his concerns" but declined to comment further.
McConnell's letter leaves maneuvering room for both sides in the political fracas over whether Gonzales has been truthful in his testimony. On the one hand, the NSA was clearly engaged in activities that were distinct enough to require different "legal bases" authorizing their use, according to McConnell's account.
"If you think about it technically, it is pretty clear that the NSA desk that does communications intercepts is separate from the desk that does data mining of call records," said Kim Taipale, executive director of the Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy, a New York-based nonprofit group. "Those are separate processes, and to think of them as separate programs is not a stretch."
On the other hand, the activities were authorized under a single presidential order and were all part of an NSA effort to gather communications about suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. That helps explain why many Democratic lawmakers and administration officials -- including FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III -- viewed the wiretapping as part of a larger NSA program, rather than a separate effort, as Gonzales's testimony has suggested.
"Both sides have a legitimate case, if you want to be legalist about it," Taipale said.
The 45-day reauthorization of a single presidential order was probably a "bureaucratic convenience" that eliminated the need to issue multiple authorizations, he added.
Kate Martin, executive director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the new disclosures show that Gonzales and other administration officials have "repeatedly misled the Congress and the American public" about the extent of NSA surveillance efforts.
"They have repeatedly tried to give the false impression that the surveillance was narrow and justified," Martin said. "Why did it take accusations of perjury before the DNI disclosed that there is indeed other, presumably broader and more questionable, surveillance?"
Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who was among a group of four Democratic senators who called last week for a perjury investigation of Gonzales, said: "The question of whether Attorney General Gonzales perjured himself looms as large now as it did before this letter.
"This letter is no vindication of the attorney general," he said.
Staff writer Joby Warrick and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.
The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.
Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia.
The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone.
Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.
While the Genovese crime family prosecution appears to be the first time a remote-eavesdropping mechanism has been used in a criminal case, the technique has been discussed in security circles for years.
The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that "a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone." An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call."
Nextel and Samsung handsets and the Motorola Razor are especially vulnerable to software downloads that activate their microphones, said James Atkinson, a counter-surveillance consultant who has worked closely with government agencies. "They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time," he said. "You can do that without having physical access to the phone."
Because modern handsets are miniature computers, downloaded software could modify the usual interface that always displays when a call is in progress. The spy ware could then place a call to the FBI and activate the microphone--all without the owner knowing it happened. (The FBI declined to comment on Friday.)
"If a phone has in fact been modified to act as a bug, the only way to counteract that is to either have a bug sweeper follow you around 24-7, which is not practical, or to peel the battery off the phone," Atkinson said. Security-conscious corporate executives routinely remove the batteries from their cell phones, he added.
FBI's physical bugs discoveredThe FBI's Joint Organized Crime Task Force, which includes members of the New York police department, had little luck with conventional surveillance of the Genovese family. They did have a confidential source who reported the suspects met at restaurants including Brunello Trattoria in New Rochelle, N.Y., which the FBI then bugged.
But in July 2003, Ardito and his crew discovered bugs in three restaurants, and the FBI quietly removed the rest. Conversations recounted in FBI affidavits show the men were also highly suspicious of being tailed by police and avoided conversations on cell phones whenever possible.
That led the FBI to resort to "roving bugs," first of Ardito's Nextel handset and then of Peluso's. U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones approved them in a series of orders in 2003 and 2004, and said she expected to "be advised of the locations" of the suspects when their conversations were recorded.
Details of how the Nextel bugs worked are sketchy. Court documents, including an affidavit (p1) and (p2) prepared by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kolodner in September 2003, refer to them as a "listening device placed in the cellular telephone." That phrase could refer to software or hardware.
One private investigator interviewed by CNET News.com, Skip Porteous of Sherlock Investigations in New York, said he believed the FBI planted a physical bug somewhere in the Nextel handset and did not remotely activate the microphone.
"They had to have physical possession of the phone to do it," Porteous said. "There are several ways that they could have gotten physical possession. Then they monitored the bug from fairly near by."
But other experts thought microphone activation is the more likely scenario, mostly because the battery in a tiny bug would not have lasted a year and because court documents say the bug works anywhere "within the United States"--in other words, outside the range of a nearby FBI agent armed with a radio receiver.
In addition, a paranoid Mafioso likely would be suspicious of any ploy to get him to hand over a cell phone so a bug could be planted. And Kolodner's affidavit seeking a court order lists Ardito's phone number, his 15-digit International Mobile Subscriber Identifier, and lists Nextel Communications as the service provider, all of which would be unnecessary if a physical bug were being planted.
A BBC article from 2004 reported that intelligence agencies routinely employ the remote-activation method. "A mobile sitting on the desk of a politician or businessman can act as a powerful, undetectable bug," the article said, "enabling them to be activated at a later date to pick up sounds even when the receiver is down."
For its part, Nextel said through spokesman Travis Sowders: "We're not aware of this investigation, and we weren't asked to participate."
Other mobile providers were reluctant to talk about this kind of surveillance. Verizon Wireless said only that it "works closely with law enforcement and public safety officials. When presented with legally authorized orders, we assist law enforcement in every way possible."
A Motorola representative said that "your best source in this case would be the FBI itself." Cingular, T-Mobile, and the CTIA trade association did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Mobsters: The surveillance vanguardThis isn't the first time the federal government has pushed at the limits of electronic surveillance when investigating reputed mobsters.
In one case involving Nicodemo S. Scarfo, the alleged mastermind of a loan shark operation in New Jersey, the FBI found itself thwarted when Scarfo used Pretty Good Privacy software (PGP) to encode confidential business data.
So with a judge's approval, FBI agents repeatedly snuck into Scarfo's business to plant a keystroke logger and monitor its output.
Like Ardito's lawyers, Scarfo's defense attorneys argued that the then-novel technique was not legal and that the information gleaned through it could not be used. Also like Ardito, Scarfo's lawyers lost when a judge ruled in January 2002 that the evidence was admissible.
This week, Judge Kaplan in the southern district of New York concluded that the "roving bugs" were legally permitted to capture hundreds of hours of conversations because the FBI had obtained a court order and alternatives probably wouldn't work.
The FBI's "applications made a sufficient case for electronic surveillance," Kaplan wrote. "They indicated that alternative methods of investigation either had failed or were unlikely to produce results, in part because the subjects deliberately avoided government surveillance."
Bill Stollhans, president of the Private Investigators Association of Virginia, said such a technique would be legally reserved for police armed with court orders, not private investigators.
There is "no law that would allow me as a private investigator to use that type of technique," he said. "That is exclusively for law enforcement. It is not allowable or not legal in the private sector. No client of mine can ask me to overhear telephone or strictly oral conversations."
Surreptitious activation of built-in microphones by the FBI has been done before. A 2003 lawsuit revealed that the FBI was able to surreptitiously turn on the built-in microphones in automotive systems like General Motors' On Star to snoop on passengers' conversations.
When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored.
Malicious hackers have followed suit. A report last year said Spanish authorities had detained a man who wrote a Trojan horse that secretly activated a computer's video camera and forwarded him the recordings.

Today I just want to put a few tidbits of knowledge out there for all to see, but the thing is it’s been out there for some time now but once again no one looks. What’s worse is the fact that no one bothers to hear anymore, and I could have sore that we had won the war against illiteracy but I could be wrong. How many lies will it take to end our democracy?

"Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." USA Banker's Magazine, August 25 1924
“Allow me to control the issue and the nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws!”— Amshell Rothschild

Banks that hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Corporation:

Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin

Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris

Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy

Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam

Lehman Brothers Bank of New York

Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York

Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.

COLONEL HOUSE
As we re-activate our time machine, we find ourselves in the presence of one of the most colorful and mysterious figures of history. His name is Colonel Edward Mandell House. House was never in the military. The title of Colonel was honorary, granted by the Governor of Texas in appreciation for political services. He was one of the most powerful men in American politics and, yet, virtually unknown to most Americans today. He was the personal advisor to Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. He was close to the Morgan banking dynasty and also to the powerful banking families of Europe. He attended school in England and surrounded himself with Fabians. His father, Thomas, was an exporter in the Southern states and also a lending agent for London banks, which preferred to remain anonymous. It was widely believed that he represented the Rothschild consortium. Thomas House was one of the few in the South who emerged from the War Between the States with a great fortune. Colonel House was what they called a “king maker” in Texas politics. He personally chose Woodrow Wilson, the most unlikely of all political candidates, and secured his nomination for President on the Democratic ticket in 1912. It was House who convinced the Morgan group, and others with power in politics and media, to throw their support to Wilson, which is what enabled him to win the election and become the 28th President of the United States. House was certainly a member of the Round Table and possibly a member of its inner circle. He was a founder of the CFR.
In 1912 he wrote a novel, entitled Philip Dru Administrator. It was intended to popularize the Fabian blueprint for converting America to collectivism using the Fabian strategy of working slowly as a turtle and secretly as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The hero of his story is Philip Dru, who is a fictionalized version the author, himself: a quiet, unassuming intellectual, working behind the scenes advising and controlling politicians who are easily purchased and just as easily discarded. Speaking through Dru, House describes his political ideal as: “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”[1] Dru’s socialism, of course, was the Fabian version. It was to have gentle and humane qualities to soften its impact and set it apart from the Leninist version called Communism.
Like all collectivists, House spoke eloquently about defending the poor and the downtrodden, but in reality, he had great disdain for the masses. In his view, they are too stupid and lazy to take an interest in their own government, so it’s up to the professionals to do that for them. Speaking through the fictional character of Senator Selwyn, House says:
The average American citizen refuses to pay attention to civic affairs, contenting himself with a general growl at the tax rate, and the character and inefficiency of public officials. He seldom takes the trouble necessary to form the Government to suit his views. The truth is he has no cohesive or well-digested views, it being too much trouble to form them; therefore, some such organization as ours is essential.[2]
Philip Dru foments civil war, leads an uprising against the old order, captures control of the government, becomes a dictator with the grateful support of the people, is given the title Administrator of the Republic, scraps all constitutional restrictions against government power, establishes a progressive income tax, creates a national banking cartel, [3] annexes Canada, conquers Mexico, invites European nations to participate in world government, and ushers in a glorious new age of collectivism. This was not just a fictional story for entertainment. House described this book as an expression of his own “ethical and political faith.”[4]
The reason this is important is that the ethical and political faith of Col. House now is the ethical and political faith of American leadership – and it started with Woodrow Wilson. In his memoirs, President Wilson said: “Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one.”[5]
George Viereck was an admiring biographer of Colonel House and approved of almost everything his did. This is what Viereck said:
For seven long years, Colonel House was Woodrow Wilson’s other self. For six long years he shared with him everything but the title of Chief Magistracy of the Republic. For six years, two rooms were at his disposal in the north wing of the White House. It was House who made the slate for the Cabinet, formulated the first policies of the Administration, and practically directed the foreign affairs of the United States. We had, indeed, two presidents for one! … He was the pilot who guided the ship.[6]
THE WAR TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY
As we contemplate a member of the Rhodes secret society, occupying two rooms in the White House, virtually in control of American foreign policy, our time machine finally brings us to World War I. Since our main topic today is war, we must prepare now to comprehend the events we are about to see in terms of the strategy for using war to smash the world to bits and then remold it closer to the hearts desire.
The sinking of the Lusitania was the event that, more than any other, motivated the American people to accept the necessity and the morality of getting into World War I. Prior to that time, there was great reluctance to participate in a war that had little to do with American interests. However, when the Lusitania left New York Harbor on May 1, 1915, with 196 Americans on board and was sunk six days later off the coast of Ireland, it became the cause celebre that moved the American consciousness into a war mood against Germany. Americans were outraged at a nation that could viciously and cold-heartedly attack a peaceful passenger ship.
What is not well known about that piece of history is the role played by J.P. Morgan. As you recall, the CFR was described by Professor Quigley as a front for J.P. Morgan and Company. We must remember that Morgan was, not only a founding member of the CFR, he was also a member of the Round Table, the inner group directing it, so how does Morgan fit into this?
During World War I, the Morgan Bank was the subscription agent for war loans to England and France. These countries had exhausted their financial resources to continue the war against Germany. So they came to the United States and asked J.P. Morgan – who was culturally closer to Britain than to America – to be their agent for selling war bonds. The House of Morgan was happy to do that, and it floated approximately $1.5 billion in war bonds on behalf of England and, to a lesser extent, for France.
Morgan was also the contract agent for these countries when they purchased materials and supplies from American firms. That means he had a wonderfully profitable revolving door in which he received a piece of the action as the money went out of the country as loans and again, when it came back into the country, for the purchase of materials.
As the war progressed, Britain and France were facing the increasing possibility of defeat. The Germans had unleashed a surprise weapon – the submarine – that was new to warfare in those days, and they were sinking the ships that carried food and other necessities to the British Isles. The Germans were literally starving the British into submission who, by their own estimate, at one point said they had only about seven weeks of food left.
For the British, there was only one salvation, and that was to have the Americans come into the war to help them. But on the American side, there was a different agenda. What would happen to that $1.5 billion in war loans if Britain and France lost the war? The only time war loans are repaid is when the nation borrowing the money wins the war. Losers don’t pay off their bonds. So Morgan was in a terrible fix. Not only were his friends in England in dire danger, he and all his investors were about to lose $1.5 billion! A very serious situation, indeed.
The U.S. Ambassador to England at that time was Walter Page. Page was more than just an ambassador. Among other things, he was a trustee to Rockefeller’s General Education Board. It was in that capacity that he played a role in shaping educational policies to promote collectivism in America. Page sent a telegram to the State Department, and this is what he said,
The pressure of this approaching crisis, I am certain, has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan financial agency for the British and French Governments…. The only way of maintaining our present preeminent trade position and averting a panic is by declaring war on Germany.[7]
Money was not the only motivator for bringing the United States into war. We must not forget that the Ameican players in this drama dreamed of world government based on the model of collectivism, and they saw war as a great motivator to move society in that direction. They looked forward to the creation of the League of Nations when the fighting was over and knew that the only way for the United States to play a dominant role in shaping that world body was to be a combatant. The only ones who divide the spoils of war are the victors who fight the war, and it was that reality that fired the imaginations of House, Wilson, and even J.P. Morgan.

THE STRATEGY TO GET THE U.S. INTO WAR
And so, there were different motivations and different agendas for pushing the United States into war. Colonel House became the coordinator for all of them. He went back and forth across the Atlantic and consulted with the Round Tables in both England and America. He arranged a secret treaty on behalf of President Wilson to bring the United States into the War. The reason for secrecy was that the Senate would never have approved it. There was still strong public opposition to war and, had it been revealed that Wilson was engaging in a secret – and unconstitutional – treaty to get the U.S. into war, it would have been politically disastrous to his Administration.
George Viereck, in his book, The Strangest Friendship in History – Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House, said this:
Ten months before the election, which returned Wilson to the White House because he ‘kept us out of war,’ Colonel House negotiated a secret agreement with England and France on behalf of Wilson, which pledged the United States to intervene on behalf of the Allies. If an inkling of the conversation between Colonel House and the leaders of England and France had reached the American people before the election, it might have caused incalculable reverberations in public opinion.[8]
How did they do it? How did these wolves in sheep’s clothing maneuver the United States into war? It was not easy, and it came about only after extensive planning. The first plan was to offer the United State as a negotiator between both sides of the conflict. They would position the U.S. as the great peacemaker. But the goal was just the opposite of peace. They would make an offer to both sides that they knew would not be acceptable to Germany. Then, when the Germans rejected the offer, they would be portrayed in the press as the bad guys, the ones who wanted to continue the war. This is how the plan was described by Ambassador Page in his memoirs. He said:
Colonel House arrived … full of the idea of American intervention. First his plan was that he and I and a group of the British cabinet … should at once work out a minimum programme of peace—the least that the Allies would accept, which he assumed would be unacceptable to the Germans; and that the President would take this programme and present it to both sides; the side that declined would be responsible for continuing the war…. Of course the fatal moral weakness of the foregoing scheme is that we should plunge into the War, not on the merits of the cause, but by a carefully sprung trick.[9]

AGGRAVATE, INSULATE, FACILITATE
The trick eventually evolved into something far more dramatic than peace negotiations. It called for three strategies in one. They were: aggravate, insulate, and facilitate.
The first stage was to aggravate the Germans into an attack, literally to goad them until they had no choice but to strike back. Much of this was implemented from the British side. Churchill established the policy of ramming German submarines. Prior to that, there was a code of naval warfare called the Cruiser Rules requiring that, when a warship challenged an unarmed merchant ship, it would fire a shot across its bow. The merchant ship would be expected to stop its engines and it would be given time for the crew to get into lifeboats before the ship was sunk. It was a small humanitarian gesture in the middle of warfare. That is the way it was done until Churchill, as Lord of the Admiralty, ordered all merchant ships, regardless of circumstances, to steam full speed directly toward German submarines in an attempt to ram and sink them. This eliminated the distinction between merchant ships and war ships. From then on, all merchant ships had to be considered as war ships, and Germany abandoned the policy of firing warning shots.
When that happened, those seeking to bring the United States in the war had a heyday. Editorializing through the British and American press, they said: “See how evil these Germans are? They sink unarmed ships and don’t even give the crews a chance to get off! It is our moral duty to fight against such evil.”
Churchill ordered British ships to remove their names from the hulls and to fly the flags of neutral nations, especially the American flag, so the submarine captains couldn’t tell what nationality the ships really were. He wanted Germans to torpedo American ships by accident. It was his strategy to do whatever possible to bring the United States into war, and the sinking of an American ship would be an excellent way of doing so.[10]
There was plenty of goading from the America side as well. The United States government consistently violated its own neutrality laws by allowing war materials to be sent to Britain and France. Munitions and all kinds of military-related supplies were blatantly shipped on a regular basis. In fact, the Lusitania, on the day it was sunk, was loaded with military arsenal. The Germans knew all along that this was going on. The people in Washington knew it as well. By openly violating their own neutrality laws, they were doing everything possible to aggravate Germany into an attack.
The second prong of the strategy was to insulate. That means to insulate the victims from information that would have allowed them to protect themselves. You can’t have a surprise attack if you warn the victims in advance. It was important not to let any of the Lusitania passengers know that the ship was carrying war materials and was likely to be sunk. They could not be allowed to know that several of its decks, normally assigned to passenger quarters, had been cleared out and loaded with military-related supplies, including ammunition and explosive primers. They could not be informed that they would be riding on a floating ammunition depot.
The German embassy tried to warn American civilians not to book passage on that ship. They placed an advertisement in fifty newspapers, mostly along the eastern seaboard, warning that the Lusitania would be in danger, that it was heading into hostile waters, and that Americans should not be on board. The U.S. State Department contacted all fifty of those newspapers and ordered them not to publish the ad. They threatened the publishers that they would be in dire trouble with the government if they did. There was only one newspaper, in Des Moines Iowa, that had the guts to go ahead and run the ad anyway – which is why we know about it today. Unfortunately, an ad in Des Moines was of small value to the people in New York who were actually boarding the ship.

SINK THE LUSITANIA!
The third prong of the strategy was to facilitate. That means to make it easy for the enemy to strike and be successful. On the morning of the sinking of the Lusitania, Colonel House was in Britain and recorded in his diaries that he spoke with Sr. Edward Gray and King George. They calmly discussed what they thought the reaction of the American people would be if the Lusitania were to be “accidentally” sunk. This is what Colonel House wrote: “I told Sir Gray if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep America which would in itself carry us into the war.”
Four hours after that conversation, the Lusitania entered the war zone where German submarines were known to be active. Designed and built by the British to be converted into a ship of war, if necessary, she had four boilers, was very fast, and could outrun a submarine. That means she was vulnerable only to subs that were ahead of her path, not those to the side or behind. This greatly improved her chances for survival, especially with a military escort running ahead. However, this was not to be her destiny. On this voyage she had been ordered to turn off one of her boilers. She was running on three turbines instead of four. At only 75% speed, she was now vulnerable to attack from all sides.
The Juno was a British destroyer that had been assigned to escort her through those dangerous waters. At the last minute, the Juno was called back by the British Admiralty and never made its rendezvous.
Inevitably, the Lusitania, running at reduced speed, and without protection, pulled into the periscope view of the U-20 German submarine. One torpedo was fired directly mid center. There was a mighty explosion. As the Germans were preparing for the second torpedo, much to their surprise, there was a second explosion, and the whole bottom of the ship blew out. Exploration of the wreckage in later years shows that it was an outward explosion. Something inside blew up with a tremendous force, and the great ship sank in less than eighteen minutes.
The strategists finally had their cause. This was the dastardly deed of those warmongering Germans who were sinking passenger ships with innocent civilians on board.
The flame of indignation was ignited and eventually it did sweep America into war on April 16, 1917. Eight days later, Congress authorized $1 billion of taxpayer money to be sent to Britain and France to assist in the war effort. The next day, the first $200 million was sent to Britain and immediately applied to the Morgan debt. A few days later, $100 million was sent to France, and the same thing happened. It was applied to the Morgan debt. By the end of the war, $9.5 billion had been sent to the Allies and applied to the Morgan Debt. We must add to that the infinitely higher cost of American blood sacrificed on the alter of collectivism in a war supposedly to make the world “safe for democracy.”
It’s a twist of irony that the world really was made safe for democracy – when one realizes that the word democracy is a synonym for one of the pillars of collectivism. It is the embodiment of the concept that the group is more important than the individual, and it is that rationale that allowed Round Table members on both sides of the Atlantic to plot the death of innocent civilians as a small price to pay for the greater good of the greater number.

WORLD WAR II
We are back in our time machine now and find ourselves at the beginning of World War II. The parallels to World War I are striking. Britain, again, was losing the war with Germany. The president of the United States, again, was a collectivist surrounded by Fabians and Leninists. The primary difference was that the center of gravity in the CFR was swinging away from the Morgan group and toward the Rockefeller group. Other than that, things were pretty much the same. Colonel House was still a presidential advisor, but his rooms at the White House now were occupied by Harry Hopkins. Hopkins was not a collectivist agent of the Fabians; he was a collectivist agent of the Soviets. The American people were still opposed to war; and, once again, there were secret arrangements at the highest levels of government to maneuver the United States into war without the voters suspecting it. The strategy was to get the Axis powers to strike first, all the while convincing the American people that their leaders were opposed to war. It was almost an exact repeat of the ploy used in World War I.
On October 30, 1941, in a campaign speech in Boston, FDR made this amazing statement: “And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I will give you one more assurance. 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.” FDR repeated that pledge many times, all the while working behind the scenes to get the United States into war.
The President’s speechwriter at that time was Robert Sherwood, who later became a famous author and playwright. On this topic, Sherwood said: “Unfortunately for my own conscience, I happened at the time to be one of those who urged him to go the limit on this, feeling as I did, that any risk of future embarrassment was negligible as compared to the risk of losing the election.” Sherwood said that, while they were discussing the contradiction between the President’s words and his deeds, Roosevelt replied: “Of course, we’ll fight if we’re attacked. If someone attacks us, then it isn’t a foreign war, is it?”[11]
As FDR was delivering this calculated deception to the voters, the American and British military staffs were meeting secretly in Washington D.C., working out the details of a joint strategy. They planned, not only how to get the United States into the war, but how to conduct the war afterward. The resulting agreement was called the ABC-1. It was incorporated into a Navy war plan and given the code name Rainbow Number Five. We now have a great deal of information on this plan although, at the time, it was highly secret. The key for getting into the war was to maneuver the Axis powers to strike first to make it look like the U.S. was an innocent victim. Their first hope was that Germany would attack. If that didn’t work, the fallback plan was to provoke Japan.
This policy was summarized in a memorandum to FDR by Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations. He said:
It would be very desirable to enter the war under circumstances in which Germany were the aggressor and in which case Japan might then be able to remain neutral. However, on the whole, it is my opinion that the United States should enter the war against Germany as soon as possible, even if hostilities with Japan must be accepted…. The sooner we get in the better.[12]
In an effort to provoke an attack from Germany, FDR sent U.S. Naval ships to escort British convoys carrying war supplies, knowing that they would be targets for German submarine attack. When Germany refused to take the bait, he ordered U.S. ships to actually get into the middle of sea battles between British and German war ships. The strategy was simple. If you walk into the middle of a barroom brawl, the chances of getting slugged are pretty good.[13]
On October 17, 1941, an American destroyer, the USS Kearny, rushed to assist a British convoy near Iceland that was under attack by German submarines. It took a torpedo hit and was badly damaged. Ten days later, FDR delivered his annual Navy Day speech in Washington and said:
We have wished to avoid shooting, but the shooting has started, and history has recorded who has fired the first shot. In the long run, however, all that will matter is who fired the last shot. America has been attacked. The U.S.S. Kearny is not just a Navy ship. She belongs to every man, woman, and child in this nation…. Hitler’s torpedo was directed at every American.[14]
When it became known that the Kearny had aggressively sought combat, the public lost interest, and FDR dropped the rhetoric. It was time to involve Japan, and it was clear that the drama had to involve more than one ship.

MANEUVERING THE JAPANESE INTO FIRING THE FIRST SHOT
The Secretary of War at that time was Henry Stimson, a member of the CFR. In his diaries he said:
In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that, in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there could be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who were the aggressors…. The question was, how 9 we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much damage to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition. [15]
How was it done? It was accomplished exactly as in World War I: aggravate, facilitate, insulate. Aggravate the enemy into an attack. Facilitate his attack to make it easy with no opposition. Insulate the victims from any knowledge that would allow them to escape their fate.
For many years, the government denied any knowledge of the impending Japanese attack. But, gradually, the pieces of the puzzle began to bubble up out of the mire of secrecy and, one by one, they have been assembled into a clear picture of the most monstrous coverup one can possibly imagine. The smoking gun was discovered in 1995. Author Robert Stinnett found a memo in the Navy Archives written by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum, who was assigned to Naval Intelligence. The memo was dated October 7, 1940. It was directed to two of FDR’s top naval advisors: Captain Dudley Knox and Capt. Walter Anderson, who was head of Naval Intelligence. This memo was approved by both men and forwarded to FDR for action. The full text is now public information, and a photo of it appears in Stinnett’s book, Day of Deceit; The Truth about FDR and Peal Harbor.[16]
The McCollum memorandum contained an eight-point plan of action to implement a two-point strategy. The two points were: (1) Aggravate Japan into a military strike as a matter of economic necessity and national honor on her part; and (2) Facilitate the attack by not interfering with Japan’s preparations and by making the target as vulnerable as possible. At the conclusion of the last point of strategy, the memorandum said: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.”[17]
The necessity to insulate the victims from any foreknowledge of the attack was not mentioned in the memorandum, but it was not necessary to do so. Obviously, this plan could not succeed if the targeted victims were warned in advance. So, once again, there was the familiar strategy: aggravate, facilitate, and insulate.
Was Japan aggravated into an attack? Consider these facts. The sale of critical goods from the United States to Japan was suddenly embargoed; commerce was brought to a standstill; Japan’s access to oil from the Dutch East Indies was crippled by U.S. diplomatic pressure on the Dutch government; the U.S. closed off the Panama Canal to Japanese ships; and Japan’s major assets in the United States were seized by the government. In other words, the strategy advanced by Lt. Commander McCollum was followed in every detail. There was a deliberate assault against Japan’s economy and an insult to her national honor. A military response was predictable. The only question was when.
This is not to suggest that the Japanese imperial government was blameless in this matter or that it was an innocent victim of circumstances. It was, after all, in Asia and the Pacific it was engaged in a massive, regional war of aggression and territorial expansion.
This was the logical consequence of its ideology of barbarism in which might makes right. However, we must not lose sight of the role played by American leaders embracing the ideology of collectivism. It was a case of one totalitarian ideology goading another totalitarian ideology into a war that supposedly would lead to the greater good of the greater number.

MAKING PEARL HARBOR AN EASY TARGET
Was Japan facilitated in the attack? There is massive evidence to support that conclusion, but we have time here for only a few examples. A Japanese spy by the name of Tadashi Morimura was sent to Pearl Harbor under the cover of a phony political assignment at the Japanese embassy. The FBI knew that his real name was Takeo Yoshikawa and that he had been trained as a military officer. He had no political experience, so they knew his assignment to a political post was a cover. They photographed him as he came off the ship. They tracked him everywhere he went. They bugged his telephone. They knew what he was doing every minute of the day. Often he would take a car to the top of a hill overlooking the harbor and photograph the location of ships. Then he would use a clandestine radio to send coded messages to Japan giving the exact grid locations for all the ships, the times of their movements, how many soldiers and sailors were on duty, what time they reported, and what time they left the base. All of this information was clearly of military importance and pointed to the possibility of a surprise attack. The FBI wanted to arrest Yoshikawa and send him home, but the Office of Naval Intelligence intervened, with White House approval, saying: Leave this guy alone. He is our responsibility. We’ll handle it. J. Edgar Hoover, who was head of the FBI at that time, objected strongly, and it almost erupted into a contest of inter-agency authority between the FBI and Naval Intelligence. In the end, Naval Intelligence had its way, and Yoshikawa was allowed to continue his mission without even knowing he was being watched.[18]
Just four days before the attack, U.S. Navy Intelligence intercepted this message from Yoshikawa: “NO CHANGE OBSERVED BY AFTERNOON OF 2 DECEMBER. SO FAR THEY DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ALERTED. SHORE LEAVE AS USUAL.” On December 6, just one day before the attack, this message was intercepted: “THERE ARE NO BARRAGE BALLOONS AT THESE PLACES – AND CONSIDERABLE OPPORTUNITY IS LEFT FOR A SURPRISE ATTACK.”[19]
It was bizarre. Here was an enemy agent gathering strategic information in preparation for a surprise attack on American forces, and people at the highest levels of the United States government were protecting him. They deliberately allowed the flow of information to continue so the Japanese would be successful in their mission.

VACANT SEAS POLICY
Another example of facilitating the attack on Pearl Harbor is what was called the Vacant Seas Policy. For many months, the Navy had known from what direction the Japanese were likely to approach, what sea corridor they would use to launch their attack. They even had conducted maneuvers simulating it themselves. One was called Exercise 191 and the other OPORD1. Because of weather patterns, sea currents, location of commercial ship lanes, demand on fuel supplies, and other factors, they knew that the Japanese would approach from the North Pacific Ocean in an operational area between 157 and 158 degrees west longitude.[20]
This presented a special challenge. If the crew of any ship had seen a Japanese armada steaming toward Hawaii, they undoubtedly would have used the radio to send word ahead. They would have said: “Hey, there’s something going on here. There’s a fleet of aircraft carriers and destroyers heading your way.” That, of course, would have spoiled everything. Also, if the Japanese knew that their approach had been detected, they would have lost the advantage of surprise and might have aborted their plan.
American intelligence was well aware of every stage of Japanese preparations. It was already known that Admiral Nagumo was outfitting his carrier strike force at Hitokappu Bay on the Japanese island of Etorofu. His progress was monitored closely, and daily reports were sent to Washington. His ships departed from Japan and headed for Pearl Harbor on November 25.[21]
Within hours, Navy headquarters in Washington initiated the Vacant Seas directive that all military and commercial ships must now stay out of the North Pacific corridor. They were diverted hundreds of miles on a trans-Pacific route through the Torres Straits so there would be no encounter that might alert the intended victims or cause the Japanese to abort their mission.[22]
The next stage in the strategy was to bring the ships of the 7th Fleet home from sea duty and bottle them up inside Pearl Harbor. That would make them easy targets because they couldn’t maneuver. To accomplish this over the strong objection of Admiral Kimmel, who was in charge of the Fleet, his superiors in Washington cut back on deliveries of fuel. Without fuel, Kimmel had no choice. He had to curtail training exercises at sea and bring his ships back into port. In his memoirs, published in 1955, he said:
Shortly after I organized the Fleet in three major task forces, I attempted to keep two of the three forces at sea and only one at Peal Harbor. I quickly found that fuel deliveries were falling behind consumption. The reserves were being depleted at a time when it was imperative to increase them. It was this fact, and this alone, which made it necessary to have two task forces simultaneously in Pearl Harbor.[23]
A Congressional investigation in 1946 revealed that, just a few days before the attack, Navy headquarters in Washington ordered twenty-one of the most modern ships in the 7th Fleet to leave Pearl Harbor and deploy at Wake and Midway Islands. The aircraft carriers, Lexington and Enterprise were among those ships. This not only left the remaining Fleet with drastically reduced protection, it also meant that the ships anchored in the harbor were primarily old relics from World War I, many of which were already slated to be scrapped. As Secretary of War Stimson had stated in his diaries: “The question was, how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much damage to ourselves.” Sacrificing only the old and marginally useful ships was the solution to that problem.[24]

INTERCEPTED CODED MESSAGES
Were the victims at Pear Harbor insulated from information that might have allowed them to protect themselves? Could those thousands of Americans who lost their lives been alerted in time to take defensive action? Or were they deliberately sacrificed because their deaths were needed to create the emotional drama to justify going to war? The answer to that question is not a pleasant one.
Throughout this time, the Japanese were using a combination of military and diplomatic codes. U.S. intelligence agencies had cracked all of them.[25]According to Homer Kisner, who was Chief of the Pacific Fleet’s Radio-Intercept team, his men intercepted and decoded more than a million of those messages.[26] For three months prior to the allegedly surprise attack, Navy Intelligence knew everything in minute detail. Yet, not one of those messages was ever sent to the commanders at Pearl Harbor.[27] In his memoirs, Admiral Kimmel said:
At Pearl Harbor, General Short and I knew only a small part of the political story behind the Japanese attack. Care was taken not to send us the intercepted Japanese messages, which told in great detail each step in the Japanese program…. For three months prior to the attack on the fleet a wealth of vital information received in Washington was withheld from the commanders in Hawaii. The information received during the ten days preceding the attack clearly pointed to the fleet at Pearl Harbor as the Japanese objective, yet not one word of warning and none of this information was given to the Hawaii commanders.[28]
The most important intercept of the Japanese coded messages was obtained on the night before the attack. That message made clear even the exact hour that the strike would come. It was to be 1:00 PM Washington time. The intercept was decoded 61⁄2 hours before that. It was rushed to President Roosevelt and his top military advisors for immediate action. Their response was to do absolutely nothing. They sat on it and deliberately let the clock run out.[29]
The military Chief of Staff at that time was General George Marshall, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Marshall claimed that he was on horseback that morning, riding in the park. The reason he did not take immediate action, he said, was that he didn’t know about the intercept until he arrived at his office at 11:25 A.M. However, even then he still had 11⁄2 hours before the attack. He could have picked up the telephone and spoken to the Hawaii commanders directly. He could have used any one of several military radio systems designed for exactly such kinds of urgent communications, but he did none of those things. According to witnesses, he read and re-read the intercept and shuffled the paper from one side of his desk to the other while another half hour ticked away. Then, at 11:52, he finally sent a warning to the commanders at Pearl Harbor. The method? It was a commercial telegram sent through Western Union! It arrived six hours after the attack![30]

AN ACT OF STATESMANSHIP
For many years after World War II, Roosevelt’s admirers denied that neither he nor anyone in his administration had prior knowledge; but the evidence now is so clear that he even facilitated the attack, no one tries to deny it anymore. The new line of defense is that he was justified in doing so. It was an act of great statesmanship, you see, because, otherwise, Europe would have been overrun by Hitler and, eventually, even the United States might have been attacked. Furthermore, we had a moral obligation to come to the aid of our British and French brethren.[31] It took great courage and wisdom, they say, for Roosevelt to foresee this and confront totalitarianism before it became stronger. The American people were too stupid to realize how important it was. They were too ignorant to understand. They were too isolationist in their thinking to realize they must accept a leadership role in the affairs of the world. So, what is a collectivist to do? You can’t leave it to the ignorant voters to decide such important matters. There was no choice but to lie, to deceive the American people, and ruin the careers of loyal military officers by making them scapegoats. We had to violate our Constitution and our laws.[32] It was statesmanship to kill thousands of Americans in order to bring the stupid voters to the correct point of view. Don’t you see? The only way to stop totalitarianism in Europe was to establish totalitarianism in America.
Even Robert Stinnett, the man who found the McCollum memorandum, succumbed to this insane argument. In the preface of his book, he wrote: “As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom.”[33]
One of the men who made sure that Admiral Kimmel and General Short never knew about the decoded Japanese messages was Lieutenant Commander Joseph Rochefort, head of the Navy’s Mid-Pacific Radio Intelligence Network. Rochefort got right to the point. He said: “It was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country.”[34]
Listen well, Ladies and Gentlemen. That is the voice of collectivism: 2,388 people killed, another 1,178 wounded[35]– mostly Americans –and it’s a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country. Anything can be justified merely by claiming that it is the greater good for the greater number.[36]
As it was in WWI, the American leaders in World War II also were focused far beyond the war itself. Even before Pearl Harbor, Fabians and Leninists were drafting the structure for a world government. It was to be called the United Nations; and, at the end of the conflict, it would be offered to a war-weary world as “our last best hope for peace.” Most of this work was done in the State Department Post-War Foreign Policy Planning Division, under the direction of Alger Hiss, who actually was in both camps at the same time. Not only was he an advisor to FDR and a former President of the Carnegie Endowment Fund (which puts him squarely in the Fabian camp), he also was an undercover agent for the Soviets. Hiss was the man who personally delivered the newly drafted UN Charter to the founding meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco, and he became the first Secretary General of that organization. If you are wondering about the significance of these facts, it is this: After smashing the world to bits in world war for the second time, the UN became the collectivist blueprint for remolding it to the heart’s desire.

OPERATION MONGOOSE
In a moment, our time machine will deliver us to the year 2002 and the War on Terrorism; but along the way, we must make a short stop at the year 1962. The exact date is August 8. It is sixteen months after the Kennedy Administration had been embarrassed by a botched invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. We find ourselves now at the Pentagon, in the offices of General Lyman Lemnitzer who is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We are watching as the general signs a top-secret document destined for the Secretary of Defense who, at this time is Robert McNamara, a member of the CFR. The most important part of this document is contained in the Appendix to Enclosure A, and the subject line of that section reads: Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba.
In the eight pages that follow, there is a detailed proposal for a covert military action called “Operation Mongoose.” Its purpose is to create an acceptable justification for the United States to invade Cuba. The preferred scenario is to convince the Cuban government that it is about to be attacked and, thereby, goad it into some kind of military action, which then could be pointed to as aggression against the U.S. It is the old, familiar strategy to AGGRAVATE an opponent into a first strike. If that should fail, the secondary scenario is to stage phony attacks against the American base in Guantanamo and against civilian commercial aircraft, making it look like the work of the Cuban military. The strategy also calls for a U.S. fighter pilot to fake being attacked by Cuban MIGs and to radio that he has been hit and is going down. Then he is to fly to a secret installation where the tail number of his plane will be changed so the plane genuinely will be missing from the roster. Meanwhile, a U.S. submarine is to disperse aircraft parts and a parachute into the waters near Cuba where they will eventually be found by search and rescue teams.
In addition to these phony attacks, covert agents are to launch real terrorist attacks against civilians in Miami and Washington DC – with genuine casualties. The plan is to make the U.S. appear to be a victim of unprovoked attacks by a ruthless enemy, and this will prepare world opinion to accept an all-out invasion of Cuba as justified retaliation.
As we stand here listening to the details of this plan, we would find it impossible to believe that such treachery is actually being contemplated by high-ranking U.S. military officers – were it not for the fact that we are looking at the document with our own eyes. By the way, Operation Mongoose has since been de-classified as a result of the Freedom-of- Information Act and, if you want to read it for yourself, it can be downloaded from the National Archives web site. [37] Here are a few excerpts taken from that document:
This plan … should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate objective which would provide adequate justification for US military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States…. The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere….
1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba, a cover and deception plan … could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized….
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
Stage riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installation.
Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
Capture militia group which storms the base.
Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – napathalene.
Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mockvictims….


3. A “Remember the Main” incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. … The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack…. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to “evacuate” remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized….
5. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F- 86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact….
In action item number eight, Operation Mongoose proposed an incident designed to convince the world that Cuban MIGs had shot down a civilian commercial aircraft as it flew near Cuba on its way from the United States to someplace in South America. It was to be a chartered flight utilizing one of the air services in the Miami area that are secretly operated by the CIA. An aircraft at Elgin Air Force Base was to be painted and numbered as an exact replica of the commercial craft. The duplicate would be substituted for the original and loaded with passengers who were carefully selected government operatives using false names. The original aircraft would be converted to a drone and flown by remote control. Both planes would rendezvous south of Florida. The document continues:
From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba, the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.
The blueprint for Operation MONGOOSE is much too long to quote in its entirety, but I think this gives you a pretty good idea of its nature. Even though the plan was never put into action, the fact that it was even theorized and sent to the Secretary of Defense with a recommendation for consideration is highly significant. Some will say that plans like this should be of no concern to us. They are just paper war games, and military people are expected to dream up all sorts of scenarios to cover every conceivable event so as to have a prepared response ahead of time no matter what happens. That may be true, but Operation Mongoose is not in that category. It is not a plan to react to an aggressive move by a potential enemy. It is a plan to be the aggressor, and to conceal that fact from the world. It undoubtedly was justified by the argument that Communist Cuba is a threat to the security of the American people, and whatever it takes to eliminate that threat is acceptable. It is a classic example of collectivist morality, a philosophy that declares anything to be ethical so long as it can be said to be for the greater good of the greater number.
Communism in Cuba or anywhere else should be opposed because it is the embodiment of collectivism. However, if we oppose the Cuban brand of collectivism by accepting an American brand of collectivism, we will lose the war for freedom, and we will do it to ourselves. We will not be conquered by enemies from abroad, but we will be enslaved by enemies from within.

1 Philip Dru, Administrator (New York: Angriff Press, 1912) p. 45.
2 Ibid., pp. 199, 200.
3 It must be remembered that Philip Dru was published in 1912. The U.S. income tax and Federal Reserve System were then in the drafting stages and being promoted by House, Wilson, J.P. Morgan, and other collectivists in Washington. The income tax and Federal Reserve were passed into law the following year, 1913.
4“The Historical Significance of the House Diary,” by Arthur Walworth, Yale University Library, http://www.library.yale.edu/un/house/hist_sig.htm.Also “An Internationalist Primer,” by Wlliam Grigg, The New American, September 16, 1996,http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no19/vo12no19_cfr.htm.
5 Charles Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (New York: Houghton Miffflin Co., 1926), Vol. 1, p.114.
6 George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History: Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (new York: Liveright Publishers, 1932), p. 4.
7 Burton J. Hendrick, The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1923), p. 11 (Internet edition), http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/memoir/Page/Page%2014.htm.
8 Viereck, pp. 106–108. This matter is discussed in The Memoirs of William Jennings Bryan Vol. II. pp. 404–406.
9 Quoted by Viereck, pp. 112–113.
10 Churchill wrote in his memoirs: “The first British countermove, made on my responsibility, … was to deter the Germans from surface attack. The submerged U-boat had to rely increasingly on underwater attack and thus ran the greater risk of mistaking neutral for British ships and of drowning neutral crews and thus embroiling Germany with other Great Powers.” Winston Churchill, The World Crisis (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1949), p. 300. This appears on page 464 of the Barnes & Noble 1993 reprint.
11 Robert E. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins (New York: Bantam Books, 1948, 1950), Vol.1, pp. 235, 247.
12 Sherwood, Vol. 1, p. 461.
13T.R. Fehrenbach, F.D.R.’s Undeclared War 1939 to 1941 (New York: David McKay Company, 1967), pp. 252–259.
14 Charles Callan Tansill, Back Door to War (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1952), p. 613
15 Hearings before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Congress of the United States, Seventy-Ninth Congress (Washington, D.C., 1946), Part 11. p. 5421, as cited by Prang. The reference is Part 11, p. 5433, as quoted by Kimmel, p. 1. Also quoted by Stinnett but with no reference, p. 179.
16 Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit; The Truth about FDR and Peal Harbor (New York: Touchstone/Simon and Schuster, 2000). The McCollum memorandum is on pp. 272–277.
17 Stinnett, p. 275.
18 For the complete story, see Stinnett, pp. 83–118. Also John Toland, Infamy (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982), pp. 59, 60.
19Stinnett, pp. 85, 109. Also Toland, p. 300.
20 Stinnett, p. 146.
21 Stinnett, pp.43–59.
22 Stinnett, pp. 44, 144, 145.
23 Admiral Kimmel’s Story, p. 28.
24 Stinnett, pp. 152, 153. 12
25 John Toland, Infamy (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982), pp. 57, 58. Also Stinnett, pp. 21–23.
26 Stinnett, p. 58.
27 There was a serious disagreement between Admiral Richard Turner and his staff over this very issue. When Captain Alan Kirk, Chief of Naval Intelligence, objected to withholding the intercepted messages from Kimmel and Short, he was relieved of his command. See Toland, pp. 57–60.
28 Kimmel, pp. 2,3.
29 The man who personally delivered the final message to FDR in the White House was Captain Beardall, the President’s Naval Attaché. According to Beardall, FDR read the intercept and, in spite of the 1 P.M. deadline, showed no alarm. (See Hearings on Pearl Harbor Attack, Part 11, p. 5287 ff. as cited by Stinnett, p. 233.) This was a foretaste of President Bush’s lack of alarm when he received information that the second plane had crashed into the Twin Towers on 9-11.
30 Stinnett, pp. 225–237. Also Toland, pp. 10, 11.
31 That part is true, but it was an individual moral obligation, not a group obligation. In other words, anyone who felt deeply about this was perfectly free to go to Europe and volunteer for the British or French armies or to organize a volunteer American brigade, but no one had the right to use force of law to conscript others into the American armed services and send them into battle for that purpose. It is important to note that none of the master planners of this infamy ever felt a moral obligation to put themselves into combat. That honor was reserved for others.
32 Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to ignore laws in time of war, especially in the heat of battle, but the purpose of these deeds was not to win a war, it was to get into a war. The difference is as night unto day.
33 Stinnett, p. xiii. It is undoubtedly because of this message that Stinnett’s book was accepted for publication by Simon and Schuster and given wide distribution. Readers of the author’s book, The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, will recall a parallel situation in which Simon and Schuster published Secrets of the Temple, by William Greider. Greider did an excellent job of critiquing the Federal Reserve but, when it came to offering a solution, his message basically was to relax and forget about it. The Fed, he said, had made plenty of mistakes in the past, but no sweeping reforms are needed. All we need, he said, are wiser men to run it. It makes no difference if you expose a corrupt monetary system if your solution is to do nothing about it. And it makes no difference if you expose the infamy at Pearl Harbor if your conclusion is that it was an act of statesmanship. Collectivists do not care about how much the public knows if they have no realistic plan of action to bring about change. That is why they offer false leaders (including authors) who will point with alarm at the problems of collectivism but then lead exactly nowhere.
34 The Reminiscences of Captain Joseph J. Rochefort (US Naval Institute Oral History Division, 1970), p. 163, as quoted by Stennett, p. 203.
35 Determining the Facts, Chart 1: December 7, 1941 losses, http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/18arizona/18charts1.htm.
36 A significant portion of the financial support for Nazi industry, including military production, came from Wall Street investment houses controlled by CFR members and others who shared their collectivist mindset. For this part of the history, see the author’s World without Cancer; The Story of Vitamin B17, Part II (available from www.realityzone.com). When it is realized how those collectivists in the United States who were beating the war drums against Hitler were also heavily investing in the Nazi war machine, it becomes even more clear that the war was not about stopping Hitler. It was about smashing the world to bits so it could be remolded to the heart’s desire. It is sad to realize that hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives in this war thinking they were fighting for freedom; but they were betrayed by their leaders. The purpose of the war had nothing to do with freedom. It was a contest to determine which group of collectivists would dominate the world. Soldiers were pawns on the global chessboard. Their patriotism was used against them. They eagerly rushed into battle to defeat Nazism and Fascism, never suspecting they were fighting on the side of Fabianism and Leninism, forces that are essentially the same as those they fought.
37 This document can be downloaded from http://www.archives.gov. Click on “Research Room,” then on “Archival Research Catalog (ARC),” then on the ARC SEARCH button, then type in “Northwoods” in the search box, then click on “Digital Copy” on entry #1. The key information will be found on images 136 through 142.