Articles and Interviews by John Robles From October 26, 2013 to December 08, 2013

Under COnstruction Page Under Construction


9-11 Was Carried Out by US/Saudi/Israeli Intelligence – Len Bracken

8 December 2013, 20:13  Download audio file   Part 1    Part 2

The events of 9-11-2001 continue to be the subject of intense debate and speculation due to the US Governments failure to provide the people of the world with a plausible or believable explanation namely: why two steel framed skyscrapers collapsed and were pulverized into dust as they imploded into their own footprints at free-fall speed from a lateral impact that they were designed to withstand, why building 7 also collapsed due to "office fires" and how a 767 disappeared into a two meter in diameter hole in the Pentagon without damaging the lawn or even second floor windows. Attacks of this nature have been classified as "an indirect defensive attack" by author Len Bracken and in this case saw the United States attacking itself. For those who think these are all "conspiracy theories" Len Bracken cites Machiavelli as one figure who actually documented such tactics man many years ago. He spoke to the Voice of Russia about these matters and more blaming 9-11 on a group originally calling itself the Safari Club.

Hello, this is John Robles, I'm speaking with Mr. Len Bracken, he is the author of six books including the "Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror", he is also a specialist in international affairs and international relations, and an accredited journalist. This is part 3 of an interview in progress. 


Robles: Do you think is really possible that a government could kill 3,000 of its own citizens as a pre-text to bring about a hyper-security state and a condition of endless war? 

Bracken: Right. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, which probably will make the Gestapo look like some kind of Utopian Paradise when it's all over. 

Robles: You think it's possible, you think that's realistic? 

Bracken: Yeah, I do think it's possible, I think that, you know, you had people like Samuel Huntington with his book 'The Clash of Civilizations', there seems to be have been this idea that they would start this "War on Terror" to pick up where the Cold War left off. 

And of course a lot of this all goes back to the thing that you brought up before, which is this Project for a New American Century. And of course, Bamford came back in another book called "The Pretext for War" where goes into a great detail about how misleading it was for the Bush Administration to try to link 9-11 to Iraq, and of course, a lot of this goes back to the thing that you brought up before which is this Project for a New American Century, so many of the people that were a part of that, are tied to (How can I put it?) neoconservatives around Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago, who believe in the "noble lie" that can justify any kind of action. 

Robles: Len, I was wondering if you could tell me anything about an article which appeared, I believe it was in Newsweek, somewhere around the 15th of September (2001), and they said that the Pentagon had been forewarned, somewhere in this article, which went into… tied into other warnings that were apparently received by other officials and, for example, Condoleezza Rice and the Mayor of San Francisco and some other officials who apparently did not fly that day. Do you know anything about that? 

Bracken: Right, the article in the September, 15th issue of Newsweek talked about many of the hijackers receiving training at secure US military installations but it also mentioned that senior Pentagon officials were told not to fly, and to cancel all airplane travel reservations on the day before the 9-11 attacks. 

This was in the article and when fellow researchers of mine spoke with one of the authors of the article, a very senior journalist, he denied that this information was actually in the article. And then my friend in turn said: "Hey, it's right here, you can see with your own eyes that this is what it says" and then he said "Well, then that's not true". So he denied the veracity of his own article. 

Now with regard to some of the training, probably the most notorious example involves a 24th year air force veteran, by the name of Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler who was essentially the Dean of Students at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California and he said that one of the hijackers and its, this Saeed Alghamdi (difficult name to pronounce) was actually trained at his institute and main others as well and that this Saeed Alghamdi was actually one of the three hijackers who took flight trainings at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. 

Then, of course, Colonel Butler was actually chastised and given some kind of disciplinary action on the basis of having made accusations, disciplinary measures were taken against him because he accused President Bush of knowing about the impending attacks and doing nothing. 

Here is a quote from the letter that he wrote on May, 26th 2002 in theMonterey County Herald: "Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism." 

Robles: Len, can you tell us a little bit of the background about the.. I believe, what was the official name of this school in Monterey? This was the school where they used to train spies. Can you give us some details on that? 

Bracken: It was founded in 1946 with the first name being the Military Intelligence Service Language School, now it is called the Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center in Monterey, most people refer to it as the Defense Language Institute. 

Robles: How many of these terrorists were there and what were they studying? English? 

Bracken: My understanding is that there was at least one, this Saeed Alghamdi, could have been more and they were studying English as a second language.

Robles: Why would they need it? 

Bracken: You know, that's a good question. I guess that they probably spoke some English but not well enough to further their fight training or whatever else they were doing. 

Robles: Do you think it is still possible that these people are still around today? Do you think any of the hijackers are still alive? 

Bracken: It is entirely possible but certainly the idea that people they said who committed these attacks probably were not the ones who did it. Because many of these people have been found still alive, yet the government said that they died in the attacks. 

Robles: So who did it then? 

Bracken: I go back to what I said before; I think it was a massive operation, massive intelligence operation involving several governments. 

Robles: Do you think it is possible they were drones? 

Bracken: I take all of the above approach to the technical questions; I think we should consider everything. I don't think we are not going to get definitive answers on any of them. That's not very satisfying but I think that that's the reality. 

I just go back to sort of my theory, I think it was an indirect defensive attack with United States attacking itself. 

It's a very interesting thing about conspiracies, in his discourses Machiavelli talks about six types of conspiracies and he says that an attack against one's own country is actually very easy to do and so you have it from a figure no less than Machiavelli, saying that, you know, someone in a position of power decides to attack his own country, that he certainly would be able to do that with relative ease. 

It might be interesting to include, you know, when people talk about conspiracy theories and try to dismiss this type of thinking. These things have been around for a long time and you have political analysts of the stature of Machiavelli presenting his classifications of types of conspiracies actually. 

Robles: Back to the language school, I believe the person you mentioned wrote a letter to some newspaper. 

Bracken:Right. It was in May 26, 2002 inMonterey County Herald, I have portion of it here at hands and he said: "Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism." 

So that was written by a 24-year veteran of the air force, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler who was the Dean of Students at the Defense Language Institute who said that Saeed Alghamdi, and perhaps other hijackers were students at the Institute. 

Robles: He "neededthis war on terrorism", why do think that is? 

Bracken: I think its feeling the vacuum created by the end of the Cold War, you had to have something to sustain the Defense Industrial Complex, which is sort of, to say it more accurately, it's probably a Military Intelligence Complex at this point, you might even call it a Military Intelligence Pharmaceutical Complex because a lot of drugs are being given to people that are involved in those operation, I believe. 

Robles: Whether they are branch outing the pharmaceuticals or intelligence or military, I don't think it's important, it is the same shadow government, if you want to call them that. 

Bracken: That was the title of book but unfortunately, I don't have the definitive list of those responsible, we can always keep looking but it's hard to really know exactly who is pulling the strings, who are the puppet masters? 

Robles: Now, Len, your theory. What is your gut feeling, what is your theory who is behind this? What do you think really happened? In your gut, in your heart? Who do you think really did this? 

Bracken: I think it's agroup, a sort of amorphous group, called the Safari Club. And this Safari Club started back in the 70s when they had the Church Committee looking into activities of the CIA. 

It comprises Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States primarily, could bring in other intelligence agencies, conceivably Pakistan in this event. 

So the Safari Club came into being in order to prosecute just these kinds of things that would never be allowed by the parliaments and the Congress of the United States, the legislative bodies. 

So that's my gut, that it was some kind of group, we'll call it the Safari Club, go back to the historical precedent, maybe it's no longer called that, probably it has another name, it is very easy to change names. But I think it was an alliance of intelligence forces in Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States. 

Robles: This is even beyond Black operations, isn't it? I don't even think that Black Operations Command would allow something like that to happen? 

Bracken: I think it's in part a Black Opbut then it has a broader strategic… tactically a Black Op but strategically starting a massive war against terror. 

Of course, you mentioned Al-Qaeda, and it was not long after the 2005, 7/7 bombings in London, that Robin Cook who was the former Foreign Secretary of Great Britain said that Al-Qaeda doesn't really exist, and that it is just a database for the CIA and then he passed away shortly after saying that. 

Robles: I have heard thatrecently Al-Qaeda stands for "CIA Terrorist Database", isn't that correct? 

Bracken: Well, that's what Robin Cook said. The former Foreign secretary of Great Britain said that. 

Robles: Well, Al-Qaeda was begun, we know, in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union, Osama bin Laden got his start in that war, Osama bin Laden had a CIA code name of Tom Osman when he toured US military installations and was privy to weapons demonstrations and things like that. Many people probably don't know that. 

The man who came up with that information Orlin Grabbe, he is no longer with us, he was forced to live in South America or some place after publishing that information, he died a few years ago. 

So Saudi controlling Al-Qaeda, the US funding controlling Al-Qaeda and now let's look at Syria, 426 children killed as a pre-text for another aggressive military attack. What do you think about Syria? 

Bracken: It's just a crime; it's like a slow motion crime. My heart goes out to everyone who is faced with this "foreign intervention", I wrote a general theory of Civil War, I would say that this is not a Civil war; this is most clearly a foreign intervention using the irregular troops to do it. 

Robles: Non-state actors, right? 

Bracken: Right. 

Robles: President Assad, he said himself there are tens of thousands, he said, there are "tens of thousands" of imported foreign mercenary quote/unquote "jihadists", I don't know if you want to call them jihadists because, I mean, obviously they have economic interests and they are in their being paid, he said tens of thousands, it's almost beyond belief. And most people don't believe it, most people say, "Ah, it's some conspiracy theory, it can't happen", especially with what they are fed in the US media. The US media, even if they know this, many US reporters, they know this information but they can't talk about it because they will lose their jobs. 

Bracken:There is an interesting connection… and we do depend on Russian media to a large extent to bring us some news, but there is an interesting tie-in between 9-11 and Syria and that is in the person of Thierry Meyssan who wrote the "Big Lie", which was probably the first book about 9-11 saying that it was an inside job and he has been doing some great reporting as well with his Voltaire Network about the events in Syria. 

Robles: Len, let me ask you a question, a personal question, do you ever get afraid for your safety? Have you been threatened, have you been watched? 

Bracken:Yeah, yeah. I get some warnings. And I try my best to walk a fine line, and we say what we can say, of course, here in the United States we have libel laws for the most part, I just addressed my accusations towards the collective statesmen, you know, you have to be very careful, well this is verbatim, my warning was that: "I had to be very careful with what I write", and I try to be very careful. 

Robles: Who gave you that warning? Can you tell us? 

Bracken: I can tell you that the same verbatim words were spoken to me twice by two different people in the course of one week when I was writing the book in the summer of 2002 and my apartment was opened, I would come home two days in a row and the front door would be open. 

So I was given these very direct, but not too ominous messages, I would have to say that (How can I put it?), I was scared but, you know, I survived. I don't think I'm particularly brave, I'm not particularly brave, I would not be the first one to say that there is a lot of other people out there who have gone further with all of this and I think about somebody like a family member named Beverly Eckert who died in a plane crash herself, and she was one of those people who did not accept the money, and was trying to get to the bottom of what really happened. 


The "War on Journalism" is a War on Truth 

By John Robles, 7 December, 2013 18:06 

There is a very dangerous and historically heretofore unheard of precedent about to take place which could fundamentally change the world in more dark and sinister ways than even Machiavelli could have ever dreamed of and one which should have all of us, as citizens of this “modern” world very, very afraid. The event is a very dangerous and crucial turning point in the war on journalism that began with the cover up of the events of 9-11 and took place on December 3rd 2013 in front of the British Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee when the editor of the UK’s Guardian Alan Rusbridger was questioned with regard to the publication of files and information given to the Guardian by Edward Snowden and the world was informed that the Guardian would be investigated for terrorism.

Think about that for a minute, here you have a media outlet informing the public and the world at large whilst responsibly performing its proper function as a member of the Fourth Estate and which has, in carrying out that function exposed some of the most massive violations of law and internationally accepted norms being committed by western security agencies against the world and their own civilian populations, and these very security agencies and structures are now going to seek revenge by first questioning the patriotism of the organization (implying that such leaks as those by Edward Snowden are treason or espionage) and then finally accusing them of terrorism.

If this farce and twisting of the law and the very fabric of elementary human logic is actually allowed to stand, the damage that it will cause to all of us will be unquantifiable.

If the Guardian is actually charged with any crime closely associated with terrorism or treason then effects will be felt all around the world. Anyone involved in any kind of expression of free speech that the security services doesn’t like or who is attempting to expose the truth will be effectively muzzled by fear, which is exactly what the intimidation tactics being used against the Guardian are designed to do.

If a newspaper like the Guardian is prosecuted under the pretext of fighting terrorism for releasing information on illegal activities being carried out by the security services, and with the labeling of journalists and sources as terrorists, something that is sure to follow, media outlets and journalists worldwide will be in effect owned. Why worldwide? Quite simply because of the nature of the war on terror and its global reach and the millions of “anti-terrorism mechanisms that have been put in place all over the planet.

The US and all of its proxies (allies) who goose step in line following every move the US makes, and as we have now seen in the witch hunt surrounding the Guardian by the UK Parliament, may have been disappointed by their attempts to persecute, prosecute and sentence individuals under the espionage act of 1917. Hence the terrorism label.

The “light” sentence received by Manning from a US Government viewpoint, the standoff with Assange, the fact that such efforts have not stopped leaks and that some media outlets still maintain at least a pretense of independence may also be the reason that this latest odious tactic has been unveiled in the UK with regard to the Guardian and the almost unbelievable possibility that they may be charged under Draconian terrorist legislation.

It is ridiculous, if not ludicrous, for the US/UK and FVEY countries to attempt to prosecute individuals and organizations such as WikiLeaks and Julian Assange under the US Espionage Act of 1917 which applies to the United States and nothing more and which has been used, quite frankly illegally, to justify the extra-judicial and even more importantly perhaps, extra-territorial persecution of journalists and media outlets such as WikiLeaks, but it is sheer insanity to accuse a media organization of terrorism when carrying out is normal function.

It is currently not illegal anywhere in the world, as far as I know and please correct me if I am wrong, to expose illegality being carried out by (in this case the US/UK) governments and neither is it illegal to violate the US Espionage Act of 1917 unless you are in the US. But, and this is where it gets dangerous, to classify organizations such as the Guardian, journalists, sources and anyone else they want as “terrorists” leaves them with almost complete impunity to do what they wish to these individuals and bodies.

We have seen, and much of the world’s media has documented, the illegality that has been carried by the United States with impunity since the events of 9-11-2001.

With each revelation, from torture, to war crimes, to Guantanamo, to collusion and negligence with regard to the events of 9-11 themselves, to extra-judicial executions, illegal invasions of sovereign nations, ties and collusion with Al-Qaeda and the list goes on and on, we may have at first expected prosecutions and those responsible to be held accountable but in fact the opposite has occurred and rather than these revelations becoming fewer and perhaps at least a pretense to a return of rule of law having taken place, we have seen the US and its allies lash out in irrational and unpredictable ways at anyone who has attempted to expose the illegality.

This new war, the “War on Journalism”, is embodied by the likes of brave truth seekers like Julian Assange, information activists like Jeremy Hammond and others who have been persecuted and have suffered for the higher ideals of rule of law and transparency. It is being carried out by a corrupt criminal cabal of politicians and heads of intelligence and military bodies and corporations who hypocritically preach to other countries about transparency, democracy and rule of law, while going after anyone who exposes heinous crimes and malfeasance.

The war on journalism and truth has existed since 9-11-2001. It began with a crackdown on US mass media, first with anti-patriotic rhetoric and the activities of insidious groups like Fox Security, then there was the marginalization of anyone who dared to question the official version of the story, the intimidation and even outright assassination of witnesses and those who refused to “take the money” and even innocent bloggers and site owners who were merely trying to document the events and get to the bottom of who murdered almost 3,000 of their fellow human beings.

It is becoming clearer that it was forces in and behind the US Military/Industrial/Intelligence Complex who were the architects of 9-11 and who continue to be the only profiteers from the events. Yet they continue to engage in aggressive invasions and illegal wars, back terrorists, further the stripping of rights, violating the sovereignty of nations and subjugating and manipulating the gullible, the uninformed and the innocent. Their desperation is becoming more evident and even more dangerous as they irrationally lash out at anyone who dares expose them.

Like a mafia boss who orders the killing of all witnesses to a murder the US/UK/AUS intelligence agencies and governments are going after those who expose their crimes, and these crimes are historic in breadth, depth and quantity. In that context then it make sense to consider charging a newspaper with terrorism, or a site owner with treason, or a leaker with espionage. The criminals control the organs of justice, the bodies of power, the military and the intelligence services and their greatest enemy is the truth and anyone who might reveal it so any label that works to shut down decent is acceptable.

Just like Gareth Williams, the MI6 Agent who was stuffed and locked in a duffel bag in an MI6 “safe house” just as he was about to reveal NSA/MI6/ GCHQ secrets to journalists, and Edward Snowden whose truth is so “dangerous” multiple incidents with presidential aircraft were incurred by the desperate US Government acting irrationally as it tried to get its claws back in him, Alan Rusbridger is just another voice to be silenced and an individual of whom an example must be made and a another case where it is clear “they” will say and do anything to protect their own criminal self-interests while hypocritically parading themselves as patriots and everyone else as traitors.

The world must not be afraid of the truth, journalists must not be afraid to seek the truth, bloggers and site owners must not be afraid to publish the truth, hactivists and information activists must not be afraid to find and locate the truth, truth seekers and proponents of transparency must not be afraid to question and as the nefarious activities of those behind the “War on Terror and now the War on Journalism” must not be allowed to continue without scrutiny or light being shined on them, and they must be stopped for all of mankind.

The fact that journalists, leakers, sources, whistleblowers and anyone else who dares to seek the truth are now facing the prospect of being falsely classified as terrorists is a truly odious development and if it allowed to stand the ramifications for all of us cannot be overstated.

Any prosecution of anyone connected with the Guardian, Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange or any journalist anywhere in the world under the guise of terrorism will only temporarily muzzle and delay the truth from coming out, but the violent reaction and backlash that such a tactic may bring about is something that those attempting such a folly are clearly not thinking about.

They can kill, marginalize, imprison, persecute, threaten, surveil, beat, drone and attempt to brainwash and terrorize the world into submission but the human spirit, the goodness and the love that is in most of us will prevail, and no matter what they do, they will fail.



Australia's AISO Intimidating East Timor Over Hague Case – Greg Barns

7 December, 2013 15:00   Download audio file  Part 1

The so-called "War on Terror" has been and continues to be abused by western security services and governments who have used it to strip away fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of association. The security services which now operate with almost complete impunity and are catered to by the judicial bodies which are supposed to provide some form of accountability and oversight along with other government bodies simply cater to the security services and have allowed them to basically become out of control. In Australia AISO has recently engaged in intimidation tactics against lawyers taking the Australian government to court in the Hague. This attempt at hiding illegality and institutionalized corruption by AISO, in a case involving millions of dollars, is almost exactly the type of thing we have seen from the US and the UK. Greg Barns spoke to the Voice of Russia after the hearing in the UK Parliament over disclosures made by the Guardian, yet another case of a western government attempting to intimidate and hide illegality.


This is part 2 of an interview in progress with Greg Barns – the former campaign director for the WikiLeaks Party in Australia and the official spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

Robles: Sometimes I think about the semantical meanings that are used for passing legislation and stuff, for example in the US. If they call something a war, it releases all kinds of secret moneys and extra rights, and saying technically, I mean, this is getting a little off topic, but it should have been a war on terrorists or a war on terrorist organizations, or a war on Al Qaeda.

Barns: What the so-called "War on Terror" allowed, was for fundamental freedoms to be trashed, and freedom of speech was trashed, freedom of movement was trashed, freedom of association was trashed and we've seen that, and we've seen that in … and we saw an increase in the surveillance state. That's all we've got from the so-called War on Terror. But John, the concern I have, and I think many people have, is the way in which security agencies are seemingly out of control.

We've got an incident here in Australia that happened yesterday, where the lawyers acting for the East Timorese Government, it's taken a case to the International Court of Justice in the Hague. The allegation is that the Australian Government spied on the East Timorese Cabinet when it was deliberating on the very-very profitable oil fields between East Timor and Australia.

The lawyer who is acting is in The Hague, he got a call, as I understand it, from his office in Canberra (the capital of Australia) saying that two ASIO agents are here (that is the security agency in Australia). I understand also there has been meida reports that a person who is a former security agent was arrested.

Now, this just seems extraordinary on the eve of a case for ASIO to be involving itself in such a public way. And again, there is no real scrutiny in Australia. I mean, the Attorney General signs the warrant, the Attorney General backs up what ASIO does. There is no real scrutiny why Australia's National Security Agency is raiding the offices of a lawyer who is acting for a country which is taking Australia to Court in the International Court of Justice.

Another example I think of this sort of intimidatory tactics that we are getting from security agencies around the world, and don't think it just happens in the United Kingdom and the United States, it happens in Australia as well.

Robles: Well that's unbelievable! I mean, there should be an international outcry. Has that effectively stopped the lawyer from going forward?

Barns: Look, I don't think that it has. My understanding of it is that what happened was that (and I'm going on media reports here) my understanding is that what happened is that a lawyer – his name is Bernard Collaery, he's a very well-known lawyer in Canberra – he is acting for the East Timorese. The allegation is that Australia bugged the East Timorese Cabinet when it was deliberating in 2004.

Collaery went on radio last night in Australia, and that is Tuesday night, to say that two agents identifying themselves as ASIO had raided his office while he was in The Hague. And also, there is a former security agent who is the whistleblower, who is being I suspect assisting with the case in relation to East Timor, who is also being intimidated by ASIO.

Now, ASIO in executing its search warrant no doubt told the law clerk that it was doing so on the basis of national security. It is hard to see how national security could be at play in a case which involved allegations going back to 2004. And again, the Australian Government needs to come clean on what ASIO was doing yesterday, because we have had examples in the past where ASIO has gone off on frolics of its own, and it has a poor track record when it comes to individuals.

There was a case a number of years ago now where it "roughed up" a person that it was surveilling. It was heavily criticized, ASIO, by the New South Wales Supreme Court, a superior court in that state in Australia. And, yet, here we are, five or six years later, up to similar sort of tactics.

Robles: So, these listening devices, how many years were they in place? Were they just recently discovered?

Barns: I'm not quite sure and I think the case is about a particular period in time. And there is a key witness in this case, who is a former intelligence official in Australia, who, as I understand it, is a whistleblower and he is going to give evidence on behalf of Timor. And he is the one that ASIO went after yesterday afternoon in addition to the lawyer's offices. Now, as I say, this seems to be intimidatory tactics because these allegations go back to 2004 and not allegations that are current.

Robles: Do you have his name?

Barns: The name of the whistleblower?

Robles: Yes.

Barns: No, I don't. I don't think that man has been revealed and for obvious reasons he has to be protected. But certainly Bernard Collaery – the lawyer – has gone on record saying about what happened yesterday with his law office and that he is concerned about this particular person.

Robles: I see. Now this this making a resonance in Australia and in Timor, or is this kind of being pushed under the carpet?

Barns: Well the difficulty for the new Australian Government, which is a conservative Government, is this – it's already reeling from the revelations by Ed Snowden that Australia was spying on the President of Indonesia and his family. Secondly, on the back footing relations to China we have a Prime Minister, Mr. Abbott, who has sided very closely with Japan and the United States in relation to China. And now we've got Timor-Leste as its known now, East Timor, which is very close to Australia, in fact its only about an hour's flight from Darwin, where it now its feeling the sort of Australian bullying. So, Australia has some real problems in the region and this has just made it worse.

Robles: I see. It sounds a little bit healthier than the current situation, I think, in Europe and the United States, where everything was just kind of hushed up and brushed under the carpet it seemed. I mean, you should get some of the revelations on spying on European countries were just egregious and unbelievable, even on the UN.

Barns: And certainly the Indonesians, who Australia likes to portray as its great friend, are outrageously aggrieved. And it was interesting that the only people who are defending the role of ASIO and ASIS and other security agencies in Australia are the conservatives, who seem to think that it is okay to wander around the world spying on others so long as it is in Australia's interests. Whereas I think a lot of people in Australia, including myself, think of Australia as a democracy ought to be more transparent and ought to be doing better.

Robles: We are talking about Stasi and Gestapo tactics…

Barns: What we are talking about here is secretive tactics with no accountability, where people have very few rights. And I think that is very frightening.

Robles: Has transparency or accountability, has that improved at all in the last couple of years or is it continuing to get worse in Australia?

Barns: I think it is as bad as it's always been. One of the reasons is because Australia does not have sufficient human rights protections for its people. We don't have a Human Rights Act the way you do in Europe and in the United Kingdom or in Canada. Secondly, Australia is a branch office of the United States. The way in which Australia conducts itself in foreign policy is effectively just fawning to the United States at every possible opportunity. And I think thirdly, it is concerning that the only way in which Australians can get information about what its Government and security agencies are up to is via Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

Robles: Unbelievable! These agencies, they are supposed to serve the people right, and it turns out they are serving…

Barns: These agencies are relatively unaccountable. I've had encounters with them in the past in my professional practice and I can tell you now that there is no accountability about these agencies. I mean, there is no doubt that there has to be some secrecy in a state. Julian Assange has said that and I think Edward Snowden would probably agree. But what they say and what the Guardian is saying, and the ABC here in Australia is: it is now out of control – the secret state is now out of control.

And it is no good people saying – "oh well, if you are not doing anything wrong, it doesn't matter". It could be you, it could be your neighbor, it could be anyone, because one of the difficulties with these agencies is how they often get the wrong person. And we have people arrested in Australia, placed in detention and then released with no apology. And they have been the wrong person.

Robles: Unfortunately, in the United States they end up executing people like that very often.

Barns: Exactly right!

Robles: Where do you this is going to go with the Guardian and then we will wrap it up?

Barns: I think the Guardian will stick to its guns, and I think it is ought to stick to its guns. It won't be intimidated. I mean, the way in which the media gets intimidated by governments is appalling. And it is often the case that you get politicians picking up the final evidence and saying – "don't do this and don't do that". But I think the Guardian, the way that the amateurish thuggery of British MPs yesterday I think will mean that many people in the United Kingdom think "Go the Guardian" and "Go Assange", and "Go Snowden" because these are people who are actually revealing and lifting the lid on the underbelly of democratic societies, the underbelly which is distasteful, which needs to be brought under control and which needs to have some rules around it.

Robles: I think it's moved dangerously away from democratic.

Barns: Yes.

Robles: Okay, thank you very much, Greg,

Barns: Thanks John.

Robles: I really appreciate it.

Barns: All the best mate, bye bye.

Robles: Okay, bye bye.

That was the end of part 2 of an interview with Greg Barns – the former campaign director for the WikiLeaks Party in Australia and the official spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best.


Mandela's Personal Sacrifice, His Example and His Unwavering Belief in Justice Changed the World

By John Robles 6 December, 2013 15:34  

The world is in mourning over the death of Nelson Mandela, who ourageously fought to the very end. We are all a little less for this passing as with the death of every person we are all diminished as human beings, but we are diminished even more when someone who was a positive force and a unifying figure for millions leaves our presence. Throughout history there have been few positive forces who have fought for peace and justice of the stature of the late Nelson Mandela. Through his own personal sacrifice, his example and his unwavering belief in justice and peace he brought about true change for his people, his country and the world.

President Vladimir Putin, through a telegram to President Jacob Zuma, conveyed his sympathies and condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Mandela and the Government and people of South Africa, and called the longtime leader “one of the greatest politicians of our time.”

The Russian President also gave high praise to Nelson Mandela for his role in furthering the positive development of relations between Russia and South Africa, which the President said have now reached the level of strategic partnership.

Nelson Mandela not only improved and helped bring together the people of Russia and South Africa but he also was instrumental in uniting and bringing together all of the peoples of the world and in particular the oppressed and those yearning for justice and the chance to live free.

The late Nelson Mandela was born Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela on the 18th of July, 1918 into the Thembu royal family. He attended the Fort Hare University and the University of Witwatersrand on the law faculty. After graduating he became involved in anti-colonial politics, and joining the African National Congress (ANC). He rose to prominence in the ANC's 1952 Defiance Campaign. As a lawyer he was arrested constantly for “seditious activities” and although he was committed to non-violent protest, he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) in 1961 in association with the South African Communist Party and sentenced to life in prison in 1962. Mr. Mandela served 27 years in prison and was finally released in 1990 thanks to international calls for his release and growing civil unrest.

After leaving prison Mr. Mandela led his people and was instrumental in bringing about negotiations with President F.W. de Klerk to abolish apartheid and then hold multiracial elections in 1994 in which he won the presidency leading the ANC to victory becoming the first black South African to hold the office of president and the first person elected in a fully representative election.

His government focused on dismantling the racist apartheid system, bring an end to institutionalized racism while fighting poverty and inequality and fostering racial reconciliation. Although he was extremely popular he refused to serve a second term as president after having held the office from 1994 until 1999. He was also the President of the African National Congress (ANC) from 1991 to 1997 and the Secretary General of the Non-Aligned Movement from 1998 to 1999.

During his term as president Mr. Mandela formed a Government of National Unity and was instrumental in the promulgation of a new constitution and the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. After leaving office he became an elder statesman and spent his life doing charitable work through the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

Mr. Mandela was the recipient of over 250 honors and awards, including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize the Soviet Order of Lenin. The International Lenin Peace Prize was the USSR’s equivalent to the Nobel Peace Prize and was named in honor of Vladimir Lenin. The award was given largely to non-Soviet citizens who had "strengthened peace among peoples", with other recipients including W. E. B. Du Bois, Fidel Castro and Salvador Allende.

The true greatness and unifying character that was Mr. Mandela will be sorely missed by many people around the world and in passing his death must be mourned, but more importantly, his life must be celebrated.


Ukrainian Sovereignty Not a NATO Decision

By John Robles 5 December, 2013 23:31 

What one might call "the clash of civilizations" has once again raised its head and never been clearer than it currently is Ukraine. This western provoked clash between what one might broadly call "East and West" was seen most recently in Syria and fortunately for the Syrian people the East won that round. The battle has also been seen recently in Iran with Russia also spearheading attempts to reign in those whose only instrument to bring about their own selfish aims is force. In Ukraine the intentions and the modus operandi of the West are once again exposed and right there in plain sight for anyone who is more than casual observer to see.

Ukraine was quiet simply the cherry on top of the US/EU/NATO geopolitical cake and pulling Ukraine into western clutches would have all but cemented US/NATO’s takeover of Eastern Europe. Since the end of the cold war Ukraine has been one of the primary focus points for US Government/NATO overt, and more importantly, covert efforts in undermining the influence of Russia in Europe (a continent it makes up 40% of) and in taking over regions and countries that once were under the umbrella of the USSR.

Rather than taking to the streets and believing everything they are told by the West and its agents in Ukraine the citizens of that country might be better served by learning more about the real intentions of the West for their country and questioning why it is that NATO and the EU are so indignant and even hysterical that their government has made a decision that will advance and enhance Ukraine’s security, economy and sovereignty and make it force to be dealt with by the West.

At a ministerial meeting of the OSCE held in Kiev, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the West’s reaction to Ukraine's refusal to sign an association agreement with the EU "hysteria", and that it of course what it is. The US/EU/NATO need Ukraine, much more than the Ukrainians need them. This is a fact and one that must be brought home to the Ukrainian people.

The US with its bankrupt economy, the EU with its continuing financial crisis and NATO with its voracious insatiable appetite for new countries and locations where to base their war machine and which continues to operate under an outdated and destabilizing agenda of surrounding Russia with their military infrastructure as if the reason for their creation still exists, all need Ukraine far, far more than Ukraine needs them.

Foreign Minister Lavrov said at the OSCE meeting in Kiev: "This situation is connected to some Europeans' hysteria, which was caused by the fact that Ukraine exercised its sovereign right in deciding not to sign an agreement that Ukrainian experts and the administration found unprofitable at this stage. Our position is very simple: to sign this agreement or not is a sovereign choice that should be made by Ukraine. We will evaluate the consequences of this choice for us and, naturally, draw conclusions, if need be, depending on Ukraine's choice," Lavrov said, adding “We support steps aimed at bringing this situation into the constitutional field."

Yes it is a sovereign decision for Ukraine and it is also an economic and political decision if Ukraine decides to open its economy and markets to western interference regulation and manipulation, obviously something the leaders in Kiev decided to take a serious look at when they finally did the math and realized that the billion or so dollars over seven years that the country would gain was not worth the hundreds of billions they would lose over the same period if they cut ties with other economic unions and organizations.

Does the West support Ukraine’s growth, strength and sovereignty? No. Of course not. It has long been clear that western "democracy" drives have been nothing but instruments to obtain access to markets, exploit workforces and seize resources at the least possible cost.

Russia on the other hand does support Ukraine’s sovereignty and even at its own expense is calling for rule of law, constitutionality and for the ocoutnry to decide what is better for its own future. As Mr. Lavrov said: "It is surprising, to put it mildly, to shout that we are backing the peaceful protests against your decision not to join our economic structure."

Russia’s calls for rule of law, non-interference, sovereignty and self-determination have been the hallmarks of Russian diplomacy for more decades and even despite the close spiritual, cultural, historical, ethnic and even territorial ties between the two countries, Russia is still calling for the sovereignty of Ukraine to be respected, something that would be unheard of in the West.

One must ask the questions as well, why it is that NATO would issue statements about plans by a government to sign or not to sign an economic agreement? The answer to this is quite simple if we realize the relationship that exists within US/EU/NATO and with regard to their policies in Europe. In simple terms the EU is the carrot to be waved in the faces of the hungry, NATO is the stick to which the carrot is tied and the US is the imperialist master who will crack the stick on the head of anyone who covets the carrot and then does not follow instructions.

Ukraine must realize, as almost all European countries have admitted and realized, the EU is an organization the joining of which requires a tremendous loss of sovereignty on all levels, and in the final, EU membership almost requires NATO membership which in effect cements the loss of sovereignty once and for all.

So of course the West (US/EU/NATO) are going to scream and shout and hold their breath and be indignant and talk about sanctions and rule of law and freedom and democracy and all of the things they do when a country does not do what they like, but at the end of the day it is all about sovereignty, and for Ukraine, sovereignty does not lie in surrendering to the West.

If you doubt these words here is some more food for thought: A prominent Russian lawmaker and the Chief of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Russian Parliament Alexei Pushkov has pointed out inconsistency between NATO’s reaction to the recent crackdown on Ukrainian protesters in Kiev and similar police violence in the US.

"NATO has condemned the use of 'excessive force' against Kiev demonstrators. But it was probably OK to beat anti-NATO protesters in Chicago," said Mr. Pushkov.

Sergei Lavrov has also stated he was amazed by the fact that NATO believed itself to be in a position to issue statements on Ukraine’s domestic affairs and quite frankly, we are too.

The views and opinions expressed here are my own I can be reached at jar2@jar2.com.


Persecution of the Guardian by Security and MPs is Frightening – Greg Barns

Download audio file 5 December, 2013 20:52

The pursuit by the Australia, the UK and the US of whistleblowers and media outlets which publish any information that the security agencies do not like continues to be a worrying development that appears to be getting worse. The almost unheard of prospect that the Guardian might face terrorism charges for publishing revelations of illegal US/UK/FVEY spying shows that the West is continuing and in fact escalating their war on journalists and anyone who dares to speak out. The fact that a media outlet performing its proper oversight function and practicing responsible journalism might face terrorism charges brings to question the true meaning of that word and who is in fact using fear and terror to reach their own political and other ends. Labels of “treason” and “terrorism” by security agencies are used to strike fear into anyone who might seek to publish the truth. We are heading into, if not already, in a similar epoch as the McCarthy years and this is frightening according to Greg Barns in an interview with the Voice of Russia.

Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian newspaper in the UK, defended his publication for publishing leaks by Edward Snowden. He told the parliamentary panel under fierce questioning that the staff of the daily were patriots.

Mr. Rusbridger told the parliamentary committee that his newspaper had published just 1% of the files that were passed to them by the US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

He said that other files had been passed to other news agencies around the world. Towards the end of the hearing the possibility was revealed that the Guardian may face terrorism charges in light of the revelations by Edward Snowden.

Greg Barns

Hello! This is John Robles, you are listening to part 1 of an interview with Greg Barnes. He is a barrister in Australia. He is the former campaign director for the WikiLeaks Party and the official spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, as well as the former president for that organization.

Robles: Hello Greg! How are you?

I’m good, John.

Robles: I’d like to start out our discussion today, if we could, running by a definition for you, on terrorism: one source says it is the use of violent acts to frighten people in an area, as a way of trying to achieve a political goal; another one says it is the unlawful use or a threat to use force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments. Then we go to the FBI’s site: they say there is no single universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the code of federal regulations as the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or a civilian population.

Now, the reason I’m saying that the Guardian is being threatened with terrorism charges for the revelations they released by Edward Snowden. And I’d like to get your comment on that, and this (now it seems global) war on whistleblowers.

Barns:Well John I think firstly, what is happening to the Guardian and the threats being made by UK MPs and by security agencies is absolutely frightening. And I use the word “absolutely” advisably. This really is heading back into the McCarthist territory of the 1950s where anyone who puts their head up and takes an alternative point of view or reveals information that doesn’t suit the national security agencies is liable to be threatened with all manner of sanctions, including very-very serious terrorism charges.

The conduct of British security agencies, the conduct of US security agencies and here in Australia the conduct of security agencies since 9-11 has been one of bullying, has been one of seeking to surveil as many people as possible, of pushing up against the limits of the law, if not breaking it, and expecting the world to sit back, including media outlets, and simply not report those outrageous activities.

And so, the way in which security agencies and some British MPs are behaving in relation to the Guardian is typical of that sort of bullying tactics, which we’ve now come to be used to since 9-11.

Robles: You are familiar with Alan Rusbridger’s testimony in front of the parliamentary committee. What do you think about the way he was attacked?

Barns: I think that is it utterly irrational. I mean, Alan Rusbridger, as I understand it, and reading the media reports, indicated that he’d cooperated with security agencies.

In a bizarre comment made by Keith Vaz, who is the committee chair, who is an MP, he asked Rusbridger did he love his country? In other words, running the old hoary chestnut up the mast of if you are not with us therefore you, (and you are testing our patience) then we accuse of committing treason.

The way in which Rusbridger and the Guardian have been treated, has been utterly appalling. But we have become used to security agencies, believing they will be able to do what they want and there ought to be no sanction, no scrutinyand certainly the public ought to sit down and shut up.

And unfortunately some British members of Parliament and members of Parliament in Australia, and members of Congress in the United States seem willing to go along with the security agencies. And I think that’s what is disturbing.

Robles: They are trying to say that he was threatening agents and sources etc, which was the same argument made against WikiLeaks etc, which seems completely disingenuous, the same way it was with WikiLeaks, because they were very-very carefully vetting everything that was coming out, I’m referring to the Afghan files more so, then. And I think it was a very interesting comment the Guardian made last month, where they said that the information they have now, and it’s been learned that they’ve only released about 1% of the Snowden Files, they said that it was in safer hands with the Guardian than it had been with the NSA.

Barns: I’d make two points. Firstly, this is the line that gets trotted at all the time by security agencies and by gullible members of parliament. They say – if you release this information (Snowden and Assange, and the Guardian and other networks) if you release this information, what you are doing is you are putting lives in jeopardy. There is simply no evidence that that is the case.

Secondly, we saw here in Australia at the start of the week we had the Federal Minister for Communications accusing ABC, which is the government broadcasting agency or government-run and government-owned broadcasting agency, accusing it of jeopardizing Australia’s relationship with Indonesia, because it participated in the publication of the leaks from Snowden which indicated that Australia had been spying on the Indonesian President and his family.

Again, it is this bully-boy tactics which effectively say: “We don’t want any scrutiny and what we are going to do is; we are going to frighten the community by saying; ‘Well you are putting lives at risk’, you know, ‘there might be a terrorist attack as a result of your activities.’”. I just hope that Allan Rusbridger from the Guardian, follows the lead of Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and others and simply ignore these absurd tactics used by security agencies and by gullible members of parliament.

Robles: You just said the word “frighten”. And I tried not to say this too loudly in the past, but it is getting to the point where, if we looked at the definition of terror and using fear and force to coerce individuals or a society in general for ideological or political reasons, it is exactly what they are doing: threatening people with incarceration. The US police, who are militarized now, are basically terrorizing the populous…

Barns: You heard yesterday Alan Rusbridger accused by an MP in the committee that is hearing the matters relating to the Snowden’s leaks, accuse him of committing a criminal offence and seeking to scare him by saying: “wouldn’t it be in the public interest to prosecute.”

Now, this is nothing more than thuggery on the part of that particular MP. It is also going very close to essentially saying: “We will fully and verbally assault you to the point where you are going to be too scared to do anything.”

If we believe in democracy, then you’ve got to stand up for it at certain points in time. And that’s what Rusbridger is doing.

What I find ironic about those members of parliament, both on the left and on the right, but particularly on the right; is the gross hypocrisy on this issue. They accuse Russia, they accuse China of running authoritarian states, where there is limited freedom of speech, and of seeking to close down freedom of speech. There is no difference between that accusation and what happened to Alan Rusbridger yesterday, this was a clear attempt to shut down a newspaper and a (tattler) as I said, it is the sort of things shown in 1950s with Joe McCarthy and his notorious committee in the United States Congress.

Robles: I would like to point out, truly, in Russia you can still practically post anything on the Internet, unless it is really extremely offensive or dealing with child pornography or something. But it is pretty free, still.

Barns: There is no doubt, what we now know is that security agencies in countries like Australia, the United States and in the United Kingdom have been sharing data, including what people post on the Internet. As I said, I find it very frightening because we are meant to be a democracy.

Robles: It was interesting for me because (watching the parliamentary hearing) they were following the exact same line that was being used by the US. And I thought it was interesting, why did they come up with something about sexual orientation of GCHQ members. What was that all about?

Barns: I think it is part of this sort of blackmail game that gets played by the security agencies, which is to try anything when it comes to closing down scrutiny. And of course, there is a long history of the issue of sexuality and spies, and you know like Philby, Burgess and Maclean.

I think that Carl Bernstein, the former Watergate journalist, got it right when he said that Rusbridger’s appearance at the committee was "dangerously pernicious", that it was essentially designed to scare Rusbridger. And if you live in a democratic society, like the UK, I think you ought to be really alarmed at the way in which the parliament can abuse its standing in the community. To attempt to do the dirty work of security agencies, which, by the way, are inherently unaccountable for what they do and do an enormous damage to an enormous number of people about which we never hear.

Robles: Right! During the hearing the Parliamentarian Mr. Vaz, he mentioned that the Director of MI-5 and MI-6 had given testimony that somehow Mr. Rusbridger and the Guardian had damaged British security. I thought it was a big plus on Mr. Rusbridger’s side; he was able to cite four very credible sources saying he had not, and they had checked the information before it was released.

Barns: The point of that of course is that people like Keith Vaz and those other MPs are effectively just doing the work of the security agencies. They obviously weren’t there for a fair hearing. They were there to intimidate Mr. Rusbridger and the Guardian.

The difficulty with security agencies is that they will tell you that security is being put at risk. But, of course, then they will say that they we can’t tell you how. And so, I’ve always taken the view: you just never believe them because they have a habit of over-stating the case, and when you look at independent sources, such as independent sources in relation to the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks net releases in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq, what you found was that not one person was put at risk as a result of WikiLeaks material in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq. I’d much rather believe those independent sources, than I would, the self-interested rhetoric of the heads of security agencies.

Robles: On those lines they were trying to blame Mr. Rusbridger and the Guardian for example, for exposing methods to trap pedophiles and hackers. I mean, it is just unbelievable. And of course, nobody in the public…

Barns: It is so nonsensical, it is utterly nonsensical. And I can tell you as a criminal lawyer, there’d many criminal defense lawyers in the world who know exactly how these police and security agencies trap people who they suspect of committed paedophilic activity. There is no secret in that.

To say that Alan Rusbridger and the Guardian have come across some great revelation and published it, and made it easier for pedophilic activity is insulting to Rusbridger and the Guardian and, again, just plain wrong.

Robles: Back to our first topic about terrorism. As a lawyer, what is terrorism?

Barns: The definition in Australia, which is taken from the UK Act, and the Canadian Act and the US Act, is essentially that it is the use of violence for political ends. And what we are seeing here, in my view, is certainly the use of verbal violence on the part of some people to seek to intimidate people like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, and others.

Now, it is certainly not the traditional realm of terrorism, but it does look suspiciously like activity which is designed, and it is a means of violence… you know, verbal exchanges can be violence and it is certainly intimidating, and threatening. And when you have an MP yesterday suggesting to Alan Rusbridger that he’s committed a criminal offense and that the Crown Prosecution Service ought to have a look at the matter. That seems to me to be a form of intimidation.

I’m not going to call it terrorist activity, but what I would say about it is that it is certainly intimidating, and it is certainly the sort of conduct that one doesn’t expect from democratically elected Members of Parliament or members of Congress in the United States.

Robles: Right! I’ve always had a problem with that definition of terrorism when it comes into a context of a war waged on it. Maybe I’m a minority, but I’ve always thought it was very strange. How could you possibly wage a war on a methodology for bringing about political change?

Barns: The answer is you can’t. And the war of terror has meant that many innocent people have been surveilled, many innocent people have been charged, many innocent people have gone to jail, as a result of the so-called “War on Terror”. It is an impossible task to wage a war on a political ideology. Look, terrorist activity when it happens is appalling and no one ought to support it.

Robles: And no one does, I think.

Barns: And no one does. But those people can be charged with murder and they can be jailed for the rest of their lives. Why we needed to invent anti-terror laws, just because 9-11 happened, seemed to me, always to be, an irrational response and I think it remains an irrational response.

You were listening to an interview with Greg Barns – the former campaign director for the WikiLeaks Party in Australia and the official spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance.


 "NATO is worse than an atavism, it is a threat to 21st century security"– Rick Rozoff

4 December, 15:24 Download audio file

The West and the United States through its military wing NATO, which has expanded into a global military force, continues to attempt to expand its influence into the former Soviet Space. Although NATO, which is struggling to stay relevant, should have been disbanded at the same time that the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, continues to expand worldwide. Recently the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Serbia gave a speech in which he called Serbia's membership in NATO a red line for the Russian Federation.

With events in Ukraine and continued war games, which envision military operations against regular army forces in the Caucasus, and the continued building and expansion of the US missile shield even though the supposed purpose of that shield, the Iranian nuclear program, is no longer a threat, NATO continues to show itself as a threat to regional and international security and continues to operate apparently with the goal of existing only to expand itself so as to be, as the US Pentagon recently stated, an "effective tool for the projection of the US force worldwide". The Voice of Russia spoke to Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list about these issues and more.


Hello, this is John Robles, I'm speaking with Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.

Part 1

Robles: Regarding these statements by the Russian Ambassador to Serbia, regarding NATO, and he mentioned the possibility that Serbia could become a member of NATO. That sounds unbelievable to me. I mean, first they invade, they destroyed the country, they've occupied it and now they are going to annex it? Is this a realistic possibility?

Rozoff: It's that paradox, or the appalling prospect thereof, of Serbia ever becoming a full member of NATO, was pointed out by the Russian Ambassador to Serbia, Alexander Chepurin, speaking at the Belgrade Academy for Diplomacy and Security, saying it would (and I am quoting him): "It constitute utter stupidity if somebody from Serbia were to crawl over (presumably, roll over) and beg (to join NATO), after the bombing that incurred damages worth over US $120 billion with Serbia in 1999 during the 78 day bombing campaign by NATO".

So his statement to the Serbs where it would be an act of masochism and tearing up the last shred of national dignity, of course, to do that. However, he actually went on in a very strong language. I mean this is not considered to be diplomatic, I suppose, in the western world.

I'll quote him if you don't mind. He says: "That's the red line that in no way suits Russia" (that is Serbia joining NATO). And he goes on: "NATO was created against the Soviet Union, which is long gone, and it is absolutely unclear what NATO stands for now" and directing himself to his Serbian audience the Russian Ambassador went on "Or do you really want to go to war in Iraq, Libya, or Syria?" Those were his words.

Clearly, the war against Libya two years ago was conducted by NATO. The intended war against Syria, which was only blocked through Russian diplomatic intervention, would have been a NATO – partially at least –NATO operation and what is not generally acknowledged is the war in Iraq in many ways was also a NATO war. In that 23 of the current 28 members of NATO sent troops to Iraq, there was NATO training mission Iraq and so forth so there was involvement, so his comment is well-taken.

And then lastly, rhetorically if you will, talking about NATO to his audience in Belgrade the Russian Ambassador stated that NATO represents – this is a paraphrase in the Serbian account of it – "an atavism from the last century", that is an evolutionary throwback to the era of the Cold War," that is the best characterization and the most charitable one that I can think of.

In fact that new NATO, the new "Post Cold War Global-Expeditionary-War-Fighting NATO" is something worse that an atavism from the last century it is a threat to 21st century security. So we have to keep that in mind.

Is it a realistic prospect? We have to recall that, with various quisling governments in Belgrade over the past decade, that not only has Serbia joined the so-called Partnership for Peace program, which was used to groom the new members of NATO that have joined since 1999, those are 12 new states, all of them in Eastern Europe – but that almost the same day, perhaps a day earlier than the news item in the Serbian media that I mentioned, there was a NATO report about a military exercise going on in Germany.

It was actually reported by the Pentagon's web site, the US Department of Defense's web site under the title "NATO Envisions Post-ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) Train, Advise and Assist Mission" that is building on the 12 years of warfare in Afghanistan, the integration of military forces in over 50 nations under NATO command, "NATO's not moving into" – I'm quoting from the article – "the full spectrum of conflict internationally."

But it's interesting to know that they talk about a particular training held at the Hohenfels training area in Germany by the Pentagon – and I'm quoting from the article – "the training brought US forces and those of Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia and Sweden together".

So here we have Serbian troops being trained by the Pentagon for NATO missions abroad including what is all but almost explicitly identified as being the "Next War", or "wars", after that in Afghanistan. So it's not such a far-fetched improbable prospect that Serbia could be dragooned openly or otherwise into NATO.

This comes at the very same time, I think, yesterday, where one of the major newspapers in Sweden announced that Sweden is contributing war planes for the NATO Response Force, which is the international global strike force for the western military block.

So we see the countries being integrated into that rapid response force are: Sweden, Finland, Ukraine and Georgia, meaning three of those four countries border Russia. In Sweden it's not terribly far.

So you're seeing countries that are either part of the former Soviet Union and historical Russia for that matter, Ukraine and Georgia, or countries that have maintained neutrality during the Cold War are now being dragged not only into NATO, into the NATO's broader military nexus, but also into international military strike force.

Robles: Can you comment then on the red line? Who else was drawing red lines all the times in the last couple of years? How can you comment on the recent war games by NATO in Germany where they were apparently, according to the statements on the US Army's web site, training for war against regular army forces in the Caucasus? Who else would that be and then if you would give us your opinion on Ukraine please?

Rozoff: That's a very good connection you've made, the red line of the US President Barack Obama in reference to the alleged or supposed use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, that being the casus belli, the reason for which Obama and not only the US military but its NATO allies would go to war.

Robles: Hilary Clinton, didn't she run around all the time saying there were red lines?

Rozoff: Yes, that's visual hallucinations perhaps, she was seeing colorful geometrical designs that didn't exist. No, she did, you are correct.

She was also throwing down the gauntlet, let's use this metaphor, I think that's probably a little bit more apt, and her commander-in-chief Obama, of course, also had his red lines but it's worth noting as you pointed it out that the Russian Ambassador to Yugoslavia used the same expression.

I think in both instances, disingenuously from the American point of view, where clearly what happens inside Syria poses no direct or even indirect threat to US national security interests. However, that countries historically close to Russia, geographically close to Russia, joining a US led military alliance, that is currently building a missile shield system along Russia's western border, poses an immediate threat to Russian national security.

So these are false equivalents, the Russian claim that it's a genuine red line that can't be crossed is legitimate, the Americans, including the infamous Hilary Clinton who may very well be the next commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, let us remember, her statements that the events on Ivory Coast or in other parts of the world represented a red line were just irresponsible and reckless use of rhetoric.

Getting back to the military exercise we are talking about, the identified scenario was "active combat operations in the Caucasus", and this a quote by a US military official, who kind of "let the cat out of the bag," stating that: "… in the post-Afghan war period once again, that the new globalized expeditionary NATO was now engaging in a fictitious, "strictly fictitious he insists", but nevertheless, Caucasus-based war games scenario.

And you're correct, there is no other conceivable adversary in that part of the world except from Russia, just as the recently concluded the Steadfast Jazz 2013 war games, military exercises in Latvia and Poland could not have been aimed at any country other than Russia.

The locations where the games are being held, the scenarios, you know, in Scandinavia and for that matter in the Black Sea, the inescapable conclusion is that these war games scenarios are aimed perceptively or potentially against Russia, and I don't know how that can be missed by anyone else.

Which I guess is a good way of segueing into the question of Ukraine; having a lengthy border with Russia, as do Georgia and Finland. And these are again 3 out of 4 non-full NATO members states that have been integrated into the NATO Response Force, the other again being Sweden, which as we had occasion to talk about recently is now contributing war planes for the response force and which contributed Griffin War Planes for the 6-month NATO war against Libya in 2011.

This is supposedly "neutral" Sweden, which incidentally also has 500 troops in Northern Afghanistan engaged in combat for the first time in 200 years in the history of Sweden, in combat operations.

So what we are seeing is that despite the economic crisis and despite the step back or step down by the US around Syria, at least for the moment, that plans for constantly expanding NATO's role globally are not in abeyance and are still being pursued.

Now the news in the West, and I imagine, in the East as well about Ukraine seeming to reject, (the current government, that of Victor Yanukovich in Kyiv) rejecting plans to join the EU, thereby unleashing violent so-called "protests" by Orange Revolution type, US operatives in the streets of Lviv and Kyiv.

Robles: Weren't these the same US-backed and funded opposition that caused that Orange Revolution?

Rozoff: Right, which in turn was based on and led by the leaders of the so-called "Rose Revolution" in Georgia the year preceding that and ultimately back to the so-called "revolution" in Yugoslavia in 2000, a group called Otpor financed by think-tanks and foundations and government agencies in the US.

We've even seen some of the phraseology of the so-called "Maidan Square Revolution" of 2004 in Ukraine cropping up again, and these are young people, very Western-oriented, Western-funded, no question about it, and almost fascistic street thugs, but of a more middle-class background than the traditional gutter snipe sort.

What we have to acknowledge is that even if the current government in Ukraine is fighting pressure exercised under what's called the Eastern Partnership initiative of the EU (with a full blessings of the US of course) an initiative that first saw the light of day in 2008 on the initiative of Sweden and Poland as a matter of fact: Poland now a NATO member and Sweden now a NATO partner: to "wean away from Russia" its non-Central Asian fellow former Soviet Republics which are: Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine in Eastern Europe, and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia in the Caucasus, and by using the lure, or the bait of the EU to effectively pull them out of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) with other former Soviet Republics, but also ultimately to pull Armenia and Belarus, which are members of the only post-Soviet security bloc, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and to wean those countries away from that, ultimately towards absorption into NATO.

We have to realize that the EU is often the carrot and NATO is the stick. But in the case of Ukraine and the Eastern Partnership the intent is to get Ukraine into NATO and the EU can sugar-coat the pill.

Your listeners have to note, if they aren't already aware, is that after popular protests halted the exercise for one year, at least over the last two years the US and NATO have resumed their annual Sea Breeze Military Exercises in Ukraine, in the Black Sea, dangerously close to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and Ukrainian ships are no participating in permanent NATO naval operations, one in the Mediterranean Sea and one in the Indian Ocean: that is Operation Active Endeavour and Operation Ocean Shield in the second.

The first is already in its thirteenth year, that is NATO has arrogated to itself the right to conduct permanent naval patrols in the Mediterranean Sea. This has been going on since November of 2001, and in the case of Horn of Africa and the Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean, Operation Ocean Shield: increasingly Ukraine, as well as Georgia, Finland and other nations are being integrated into the command structure of NATO even though formally they are not full NATO members.

Ukraine, like Serbia, to jump back to that, not only is a member of the Partnership for Peace Program, which we have talked about being the mechanism by which the US groomed 12 new Eastern European nations as full NATO members, but they have also been granted with an Individual Partnership Action Program, which is the next to last step, in terms of becoming a full NATO member, the penultimate one, is a membership Action Plan, and it's that which they are really grooming Georgia, Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro and other countries so that they become full NATO members. The US has never given up on that hope.

End Part 1

That was part one of an interview in progress with Rick Rozoff the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list. You can find part two on our website in the near future at Voice of Russia dot com. Thanks for listening and I wish you the best wherever you may be.


John Kerry Meets with NATO, Snubs Ukraine for Moldova, Heads to Israel

By John Robles, 3 December, 2013 20:36   

US Secretary of State John Kerry is currently on a whirlwind tour which is to see him visiting NATO headquarters in Brussels, Moldova, Israel and the State of Palestine, destinations which may for the casual observer seem unrelated but which are all important and key locations in the framework of expanding and cementing US influence (albeit waning) and hegemony both in Europe and the Middle East.US Secretary of State John Kerry is currently on a whirlwind tour which is to see him visiting NATO headquarters in Brussels, Moldova, Israel and the State of Palestine, destinations which may for the casual observer seem unrelated but which are all important and key locations in the framework of expanding and cementing US influence (albeit waning) and hegemony both in Europe and the Middle East.

Kerry’s current trip, from a geopolitical perspective, is just another in a long series of step in what is the diplomatic equivalent of what US/NATO have been engaged in militarily since the end of the cold war, namely attempting to establish US influence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and in the long term the world and at all costs diminish the influence of the Russian Federation, which continues growing in economic and political strength.

The fact that the relationship between the EU and the US is so intertwined that the EU appears to do almost nothing without consulting the US first is a matter not spoken of in the western media but one which may come to the fore as more and more Europeans realize that they have been for lack of a better word “annexed” by the US.

The almost total loss of sovereignty by the EU as a whole, as it has become more and more influenced by the US,and by each member country as well, was recently underlined by spying revelations that were brushed under the carpet and the continuing expansion of NATO into countries that were once non-aligned, neutral or part of the “Eastern Bloc”.

It is important to underline and consider if one is to have an intelligent discussion over the implications of any US/EU/NATO moves in Europe that while Russia’s European territory makes up a whopping 40% of the European continent, US/EU/NATO continue to attempt to keep Russia out of the European loop and behave as if Russia is not part of Europe.

Belgium December 3, 2013

On Tuesday Kerry is scheduled to meet with NATO foreign ministers in what the West is saying is a meeting that will focus on the refusal by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to sign security agreements with US/NATOwhich will guarantee a US/NATO presence in Afghanistan after the scheduled 2014 withdrawal of US/NATO forces from the country.

Of course the insistence by Karzai on maintaining some modicum of sovereigntyis being propagandized by the West as a threat to the future of Afghanistan etc., the move is of course a blow to the geopolitical plans of Washington. As Ukraine was supposed to be the crowning jewel in US/NATO’s Eastern European crown, Afghanistan was supposed to be the same in Central Asia.

The plain fact of the matter is that if Afghanistan allows for the US/NATO to maintain their presence, after being invaded and attacked under the false pretext of somehow being in collusion with the events of 9-11, the country will in fact be cementing the loss of their own sovereignty and allowing themselves to be used as an important piece in US/NATO plans for global expansion. The reality, and this must be made clear, US/NATO are not in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people, they are there to advance their own agenda in spreading worldwide.

Moldova December 4, 2013

The stopover in Moldova was seen as necessary by the US State Department as Moldova, along with Georgia, recently gave up a large and significant part of their sovereigntyby recently signing the so-called “Association Agreements and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements after the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius on November 29th.

Kerry’s visit to Moldova while on the surface odd as the small country has not signed any agreements with the US itself, is a bold and open admission to the fact that the EU has merely become a proxy of the US.Another fact ignored by the western mass media yet one that should have caused a resonance among EU diplomats.

The four hour visit and the second stop on Kerry’s tour, hailed by the West as one of historic importance, and the first visit of a US Secretary of State in two decades, while being hailed by Moldovans who have been chasing the carrot of EU integration, in fact shows how desperate the US really is. While Moldovans and Georgians have failed to read the fine print in the agreements they recently signed, or consider the long-term implications, the fact is that they have opened up their economies and markets to manipulation and profiteering by the US and in this regard their proxy the EU.

The US does nothing and hails no one if their own interests are not being advanced and given the sorry state of the EU and in particular the US economically, with a debt of over 200 trillion (in reality bankrupt), any country that currently enters into any sort of economic agreement with the US would be advised to very carefully analyze the fine print before the give up their sovereignty and bite the carrot of “EU integration”.

Moldova is one of the poorest countries in the Europe and has a population of only 3.5 million, which of course made it an easy target for the US/EU and their integration carrot.

Ukraine Cancelled

While Moldova and Georgia have failed to maintain their sovereignty and pursue independent policies, something hailed by the US as “brave decisions”, Ukraine recently slammed on the brakes on the same Eastern Partnership Agreement, apparently after someone read the fine print and did the math, something the Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Chepurin recently characterized by saying the following: "… everyone has an imagination that is shattered when it meets the reality," mentioning Ukraine as an example, which "met the reality when it was supposed to sign the free trade agreement with the EU."

"There was an impression that each year tens of billions of euros would be arriving to Ukraine from the EU, while in fact it was about one billion over seven years. The damage from severing the free trade with Russia would have been a hundred times greater." he said.

The figures about how much the EU and the US stand to gain economically are purposefully obfuscated and almost impossible to find but given that US/EU would do nothing that does not benefit them directly, the figures must be great, if the visit by Kerry is any clue.

Ukraine is important to mention because originally Kerry was scheduled to meet with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Ukraine during his tour but that visit was conveniently cancelled after Ukraine refused to sign the “Eastern Partnership” Agreements. According to the US Department of State there were “scheduling” problems.

Israel December 4, 2013

Sometimes it is stunning how the western propaganda machine works seamlessly with the US Government even creating heretofore unheard of facts to support the most questionable self-serving moves by the US, something so cleverly done that one has to completely remove oneself from the loop sometimes to see it. In this case I am talking about Kerry’s statements on the eve of his visit regarding global anti-Semitism being on the rise and the need for Israel’s voice to be heard everywhere.

The hypocrisy here is unbelievable and just goes to once again show the “special relationship” Israel and the US have, which is aimed at advancing their own agendas. Of note: recently Israel was complaining about the State of Palestine voting for the first time in the UN and has been indignant on the nuclear deal reached with Iran, openly claiming that such an agreement grants Iran legitimacy as a state, while ignoring its own illegitimacy and its illegal expansion of its own territory.

Kerry’s global anti-Semitism comments came after the much propagandized restoration of ties with the UN Human Rights Council, a body which barred Israelor which Israel withdrew from, depending on who is reporting the matter.

Israel, which sees itself as part of Europe and the EU,with sitting observers and intelligence ties to EU countries and organizations, was allowed to join the European and Others Group in Geneva (WEOG) after being barred by Arab countries in the Asian regional body from participating due to its human rights record.

Kerry is expected to discuss the Iranian agreement with Israel and of course the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Whether a US-brokered-breakthrough in the peace process will occur is possible especially given the admission and warning by Kerry recently that Israel will find itself increasingly isolated if it does not find a way to peace. Given the fact that the key stumbling block to the peace process is Israel’s continuation of illegal settlement activities and Washington’s staunch support of Israel, this isolation will of course carry over to the US.

Kerry recently stated: “If we do not find the way to find peace, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel, there will be an increasing campaign of delegitimization of Israel that has been taking place on an international basis."

According to Ibrahim Sharqiehfrom the Brookings Doha Center: “This process of isolation, in fact, has already begun. Just weeks ago, UNESCO suspended the voting rights of Israel and the United States, "two years after both countries stopped paying dues to the UN's cultural arm in protest over its granting full membership to the Palestinians."


It is unclear besides Israeli settlement activities exactly what Kerry is to discuss with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas but there is no doubt that reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is as important for Kerry, given his upcoming presidential aspirations as it is for Obama, given his lackluster terms as president. Reaching such a historic agreement would definitely be a plus for both of them.

Despite all of the apparent good intentions, it continues to be Israel’s obtuse, illegitimate and relentless settlement activities on Palestinian territory that can in no way be supported under international law and by international players without bringing their own legitimacy into question.

The State of Palestine, while demonized is beyond a doubt in the right when it comes to demanding the cessation of illegal Israeli settlement activities on its territory and until Israel respects the rule of law it and withdraws from the sovereign territory of Palestine it is unlikely there will ever be peace.

What Kerry plans to offer to President Mahmoud Abbas is surely something that is of great interest if it does not include a cessation to Israel’s illegal expansion and encroachment on the territory of the State of Palestine.


Seemingly unrelated but perfectly timed to gather Russia’s reactions and intelligence US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, is scheduled to visit Moscow from the 8th-10th of December.

Her visit will come after meetings in Georgia, on December 6th and in Ukraine on December 5th with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the aforementioned meeting cancelled by Kerry after Ukraine’s decision not to sign the “Eastern Partnership” Agreements.


US/NATO/Al-Qaeda Carnage Continues Unchecked in Iraq

By John Robles, 3 December, 00:29  

The exact numbers are difficult to ascertain either due to purposeful obfuscation for political reasons or because the ongoing destabilized situation in the country makes it impossible to compile accurate reports but the number of deaths in Iraq since the US invasion in 2003 varies from a very conservative 115,000 to a probably more realistic 1,120,000. The disparity of 1 million 5 thousand is a huge margin of error but all of the organization reporting the figures are respected authorities in the field.The exact numbers are difficult to ascertain either due to purposeful obfuscation for political reasons or because the ongoing destabilized situation in the country makes it impossible to compile accurate reports but the number of deaths in Iraq since the US invasion in 2003 varies from a very conservative 115,000 to a probably more realistic 1,120,000. The disparity of 1 million 5 thousand is a huge margin of error but all of the organization reporting the figures are respected authorities in the field.

For the month of November 2013 alone the death toll from the ongoing violence in Iraq is reported to be at approximately 948 with December 1st already seeing at least 44 killed. According to RT the above figure of 948 is compiled from reports received from the ministries of defense and health of Iraq, however in the same report, citing the interior ministry, the figure was said to be 1,121 with another 1,349 wounded.

The deaths are generally due to improvised explosive devices, suicide bomber attacks and gun violence however the violent nature of the killing seems to be reaching new levels with the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG) Nickolay Mladenov who heads the United Nations Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), saying in a recent statement that the recent surge in violence included execution style killings of a “horrendous and unspeakable” nature.

The statement was in response to the release of the death toll figures for November in which he states: “While indiscriminate bombings and other attacks continue to take a terrible toll on Iraqis every day, I am profoundly disturbed by the recent surge in execution-style killings that have been carried out in a particularly horrendous and unspeakable manner. As a matter of urgency, the Iraqi authorities should take immediate steps to find and hold accountable the perpetrators of these crimes and to implement effective measures to ensure the protection of all citizens”.

According to the UNAMI for the period from January 2013, up to and including November 2013, 7,157 civilians and 952 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed in Iraq. However as with all sources even the UNAMI web page contains a very prominent disclaimer which reads: “UNAMI figures are conservative and may under-report the actual number of civilians killed and injured for a variety of reasons.”

The presence of disclaimers on almost all sites and sources attempting to maintain a count of the lives extinguished in Iraq is one reason I believe the number is far higher, this is also suspicious since most of the sites and sources are in the West and under US control and hence subject to politically motivated skewering of the figures. Another reason is the fact that if one is to accept the lower figures of less than 150,000 this would mean that the current level of casualties in the country is mathematically almost equal from the start of the US invasion until today, namely about 1,000 deaths a month for the last ten years. This would mean that the massive bombing and devastation (America’s “shock and awe”) had little effect when in fact the continuous bombing of populated urban areas by the US would have no doubt brought about massive casualties, hence I tend to believe the higher figures.

To contrast the “value” placed on Iraqi civilian lives by the West with that of US and US-led “coalition” troops, for them the death toll was carefully tracked and updated daily with a total of 4,486 US soldiers killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. It is also a reason to doubt the official figures due to the fact that the incredibly heavily armed and armored US forces in Iraq, with their continuous air/artillery/missile and other support would have effected such a low casualty count when waged in an all-out-war against a largely civilian population armed with improvised explosive devices (IEDs), hand-guns and even rocks.

Finally the reaction by the US Government to any leak coming out of Iraq, most prominently those of WikiLeaks and its sources, and their own “embedded” media reporters, makes any “official” body count the subject of very serious doubt.

You can be the judge for yourself but I believe the methods used by Opinion Research Business and their independence lead to the credibility of their results, they put the death toll at 1.2 million. This is more in keeping with reports from the ground, the percentage of incidents that are not reported or cannot be reported due to the fact that all witnesses have been eradicated and other factors.

The ongoing factors in the country and this high casualty count are truly mind boggling when you consider several facts, first and foremost that Iraq was never a threat to the United States, was a peaceful and stable country before the invasion (one with almost unheard of sectarian violence), and lastly that the high figure would point to a genocide being carried out, the most obvious victims being Muslims of the Shia persuasion, being targeted by al-Qaeda’s multinational stateless army and their radical psychopathic Sunni butchers.

These same al-Qaeda terrorists are the same animals who are: butchering the Libyan people, after being provided air support by US/NATO in overthrowing the country and who now claim Libya as their own; responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Syria, including the heinous unspeakable deaths of 426 children in Latakia Syria as a pretext for a US invasion; will soon come to power in Afghanistan, where they were created by the US; enjoy the support of Saudi and finally wish to rid the Middle East of all religions other than their own sick and twisted perversion of the Holy Teachings of Islam.

Judging from the deaths on the first of December, the carnage will continue unchecked.


Kosovo is Serbia, NATO is an Atavism says Ambassador Chepurin

Kosovo is Serbia, NATO is an atavism – Ambassador Chepurin

By John Robles, 2 December, 01:19 

The Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Chepurin recently gave a speech at the Belgrade Academy for Diplomacy and Security in which he stated that Serbia joining NATO, an almost unbelievable development, would be a red line that in no way suits Russia. During his question and answer session with the students he also mentioned a second red line for Russia, namely that that nobody should pressure Serbia during EU negotiations and that any form of integration "must not interfere with the long tradition of cultural, economic, and political Russo-Serbian ties: because that is primarily in the interest of Serbia."The Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Chepurin recently gave a speech at the Belgrade Academy for Diplomacy and Security in which he stated that Serbia joining NATO, an almost unbelievable development, would be a red line that in no way suits Russia. During his question and answer session with the students he also mentioned a second red line for Russia, namely that that nobody should pressure Serbia during EU negotiations and that any form of integration "must not interfere with the long tradition of cultural, economic, and political Russo-Serbian ties: because that is primarily in the interest of Serbia."

Media silence

While such statements and in fact the entire speech should have caused quite a stir in the world’s media there was almost no coverage nor reaction in the western press. This is understandable with the current state of information warfare but further underlines the extent that the western media has been compromised, annexed and continues to hold an anti-Russian line, this time by omission.

It is understandable that the West is desperate and will do anything that it can to stop the spread or development of Russian influence, this is especially true of US/ NATO, especially in light of the their recent failures in Syria and Ukraine, and judging from the coverage of the event in the world’s English language media it would appear that the West is currently winning the information war, with even Russian media sources apparently "afraid" to publicize such stories.

Serbia a NATO member?

During his appearance at the Belgrade Academy for Diplomacy and Security, Chepurin stated that it would be; "utter stupidity if somebody from Serbia were to crawl over and beg (to join NATO), after the bombing that Serbia incurred and which caused damage worth US $120 billion. That's the red line that in no way suits Russia".

That is just one reason why it would be absurd to think of Serbia joining NATO, there are dozens of others, but the fact that US/NATO have never assisted in rebuilding what they destroyed, something they regularly do not do, is a key reason.

Another and perhaps even more monumentally important reason is of course Kosovo which US/NATO have annexed with the help of local Muslim Albanian forces and on the territory of which they immediately built the largest US military base outside of the United States after "recognizing its independence".

Yet another is the International Criminal Court on the Former Yugoslavia which has been completely biased and uneven in its prosecution of Serbs and has proven itself by its track record to be an instrument of the West.

Chepurin reiterated the fact that NATO was created as an alliance against the USSR and that its function in the modern world is questionable, something much of the free and independent world have stated since the dissolving of the Warsaw Pact and which US/NATO officials have also recently all but admitted to in public statements regarding "attempting to stay relevant".

The ambassador stated: "NATO was created against the Soviet Union, which is long gone, and it is absolutely unclear what NATO stands against now; or do you really want to go to war in Iraq, Libya, or Syria? There's no other advantage there or would you like to fraternize with Turkey, which is a NATO member."

The fact that NATO needs countries like Serbia, Ukraine and all of the other countries that it is trying to draw into its alliance more than those countries need NATO is a fact that should be underlined and the primary topic of debate but the West completely keeps that matter off the radar. Not only does NATO need the personnel and the resources of all of the countries it can get as cannon fodder for its endless wars, but it also needs the territories of all of the territories which will tolerate its presence to base its military forces and infrastructure in order to propagate itself and be an effective tool for the "projection of US force", as the Pentagon recently stated.

The ambassador made the very astute observation that countries do not have be members of NATO to be members of the EU, something the West has attempted to present as a given. He gave the examples of Austria, Sweden and Ireland.

Finally with regard to NATO Chepurin reminded the audience that Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu was in Belgrade recently, and received confirmation in all meetings that Serbia will not join NATO."

What NATO is and who controls it were also boldly summed up by the ambassador who said "NATO represents an atavism from the last century," and with regard to attempts to tie EU integration to NATO membership: "…. there are madmen who are trying to make use of that thesis!"

Serbia and the European Union

Regarding Serbia and EU membership the diplomat accepted the fact but made it clear that such should not damage ties with Russia, nor of future organizations: "nor should it additionally complicate its ties with the Eurasian Union, which will be created in 2015, and which considers development of relations with Serbia as very important." He also said "It is unacceptable for us that any form of integration should disrupt our relations, for example, our visa-free regime."


According to the website B92 net, one of the few site reporting on the event: "… on several occasions Chepurin stated that "everyone has an imagination that is shattered when it meets the reality," and mentioned Ukraine as an example of a country that "met the reality when it was supposed to sign the free trade agreement with the EU."

"There was an impression that each year tens of billions of euros would be arriving to Ukraine from the EU, while in fact it was about one billion over seven years. The damage from severing the free trade with Russia would have been a hundred times greater." he said.

This economic reality is of course something the West does not want the world to know about but it is the reality. The US with an actual debt of over $200 trillion and the European Union, whose countries are still reeling from economic crisis and is in fact economically questionable, needs more members to prop up its own house of cards and other than visa free regimes, more regulation, loss of sovereignty, opening internal markets to external exploitation and an outdated military bloc seeking to propagate itself into a worldwide force the EU really has little to offer.


On the key question of Kosovo Chepurin stressed that the Russian Federation continues to offer Serbia "absolute support" when it came to Kosovo, but that he "did not wish to comment too strongly on some internal issues in Serbia."

"There are several possibilities within international law for the thing to be resolved in a way in which Serbia is interested to resolve it. An impression is being created here that everything had fallen through, but this question requires effort and persistence. You must have faith that you are capable of solving that issue. The truth is on your side, and much depends on you," said the Russian ambassador.

Chepurin made it clear in so many words who was really behind the "independence of Kosovo" and likened those forces to the same ones who are backing and funding terrorist groups in the Russian Republic of Chechnya.

According to the site Tanjung speaking about the issue of Chechnya, Chepurin underlined that all secessionist forces cannot possibly endure without backing from abroad, and concerning the decision of ethnic Albanians to unilaterally proclaim Kosovo's independence, he concluded: "friends say: Kosovo is Serbia."

Kosovo is Serbia indeed and for many Serbians, it is their very heart.

The opinions and views expressed here are my own, I can be reached at jar2@jar2.com.


US Gov/Media Claims to Not Prosecute Assange/WikiLeaks a Ruse

Julian Assange

Julian Assange

By John Robles, 29 November, 2013 03:31  

A recent claim by the Washington Post, without confirmation from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) which has had plenty of time to do provide such, that the DOJ will not prosecute Julian Assange or WikiLeaks, appears to be nothing more than a clever ruse to discredit Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks. There is a saying in Russian that “hope dies last” and this would appear to be the case with regard to WikiLeaks and the hope that much of the world has that the US Government will finally stop its war on whistleblowers, journalists, truth-seekers, hacktivists, proponents of transparency and information activists. It is not all doom and gloom however, it has finally been admitted that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks are a journalistic endeavor and a news source and that at least is a (long-overdue) step in the right direction.

Lawyers for Julian, who has been detained without charge for 1087 days and been trapped in limbo for 527 daysin the Ecuadorian Embassy in London (at a current total cost of £3.8 million to UK taxpayers), have recently called on the US Department of Justice to make a formal statement that it will not prosecute Mr. Assange after whispered rumors and off the record reports by anonymous officials that the US, (according to the Washington Post): “… has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange….”

WikiLeaks statement to the VOR

Official WikiLeaks spokesperson and the co-head of the organization, long time investigative journalist Kristinn Hrafnsson responded to my request for comment and stated the following: “I do not trust vague quotes from unnamed sources. If the DoJ (US Department of Justice) has no intention to prosecute Wl (WikiLeaks) it should state so clearly and disband the Grand Jury. In the same report (as the one saying they will not prosecute) it is confirmed that it is still working. So I will treat this story as a possible spin unless we see real action.”

Media statements from WikiLeaks

ZDnet reports that WikiLeaks stated: "Anonymous US officials with obscure motivations and unknown authority do not have a good track record in this matter or in any other, it remains to be seen whether the claims by these unknown, anonymous officials are more than just an attempt to reduce public support for WikiLeaks."

“… the fact that the Justice Department has admitted to the continuation of its multimillion-dollar investigation against Assange proves that former Foreign Minister Bob Carr ‘repeatedly misled the Australian public and parliament when he claimed otherwise’.”

"It is time for the department and the FBI to do the right thing and finally abandon its absurd persecution of the WikiLeaks organization and start a full and open inquiry into what has taken place."

Washington Post claim

The report in question by the Washington Post, a publication I will get into in a minute, published the following:

“The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documentsbecause government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.”

“The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents.

“Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that Justice Department officials are still trying to repatriate Snowden, who has obtained temporary asylum in Russia, to stand trial. But Holder also said that the Justice Department is not planning to prosecute former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who received documents from Snowden. Greenwald has written a series of articles based on the leaked material. An American citizen, Greenwald has said he fears prosecution if he returns to the United States from his home in Brazil.”

“One former law enforcement official said the U.S. government could bring charges against Assange if it discovered a crime, such as evidence that he directly hacked into a U.S. government computer.But the Justice officials said he would almost certainly not be prosecuted for receiving classified material from Manning.”

WikiLeaks’ lawyer calls for official statement

According to the Guardian one of WikiLeaks’ Washington attorneys Barry Pollack stated that: “… the Justice Department had failed to respond to WikiLeaks’ inquiries about the status of the investigation, which has been led by the eastern district of Virginia, where a grand jury has been impaneled. Mr. Assange would welcome a formal unequivocal statement from the Department of Justice that it has not brought charges against him and will not do so in the future. Unfortunately, to date, the Department of Justice has not been willing to make such a statement.”

“We have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell us what the status of the investigation was with respect to Mr. Assange. They have declined to do so. They have not informed us in any way that they are closing the investigation or have made a decision not to bring charges against Mr. Assange. While we would certainly welcome that development, it should not have taken the Department of Justice several years to come to the conclusion that it should not be investigating journalists for publishing truthful information.”

A crooked meaningless message from a dubious messenger

Normally an intelligent individual would eschew from going after the messenger if said were delivering an unbiased message based on facts or if it was clear who the messenger was, but with the case of the Washington Post the messenger has proven to be clearly biased and obfuscates who is really behind the message. What is more when reports citing “anonymous sources” with unclear “authority” are cited to deliver a message which runs contrary to the clear and documented track record and in the same message provides contradictory information, then it become of even more importance to understand who the messenger is.

Key points in “message”

“The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents…”

It does not take a degree in semantics or English for it to be clear that the statement “has all but concluded” means absolutely nothing and the phrase is intentionally misleading and attempts to show some decision or serious consideration has been concluded when in fact nothing of the sort has clearly occurred.

“The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled…”

The fact that the “secret grand jury” (an instrument I have written about many times in the past) is still active against Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks tells us that it makes no difference what the DOJ says, grand juries are grand juries and their secret finding and processes remain that; “secret”. So while continuing to meet in secret, open public statements which are made seem ludicrous and at best glib.

“Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that Justice Department officials are still trying to repatriate Snowden….”

The only acting official the Washington Post cites does not speak of the matter at hand but says something about Snowden, a clever propagandists’ “trick” to grant credibility to an otherwise empty argument. The statement does however once again show the level of US persistence in going after anyone it deems an “enemy of the state.”

“… government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.”

At least the Washington Post has agreed with what WikiLeaks has been saying from day one: it is media outlet and their work is journalistic in nature. Whether there are really government lawyers who agree is to be seen but this statement alone should exonerate both Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks.

“He is hiding out in the embassy to avoid a sexual-assault charge in Sweden,” former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller."

To further question the motives behind this "article" it is important to note that Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime in Sweden, and again other than Holder on Snowden the onle person they actually do cite is a former spokesperson for the DOJ.

“One former law enforcement official said the U.S. government could bring charges against Assange if it discovered a crime, such as evidence that he directly hacked into a U.S. government computer.”

Finally the statement “if it is discovered a crime” has been committed by Mr. Assange would lead those familiar with US Government politically motivated prosecutions and anyone else with even a passing interest in legal persecutions to be very afraid for Mr. Assange.

As a neo-conservative strategist stated during the Bush years, it doesn’t matter what they do or did, you go after their strong point”, with Mr. Assange that would be his computer skills (or his dashing looks) and the statement seems to be an indication of where they will continue with their persecution of Mr. Assange. One can be certain, like a mindless killer cyborg, they will not stop until their target is terminated and it would be easy to fabricate any other case against Mr. Assange if it has not been done already.

Who is really behind the Washington Post?

Which lead us to: who is the messenger in this case? Well, that could be a simple question or a complicated one depending on how much you, dear reader, are versed in secret societies/globalists/shadow governments and the like. The truth behind the Washington Post is that it was recently sold by one Bilderberg member, Donald Graham and the Graham family to another, Jeff Bezos for $250 million dollars. One might wonder why such a high-dollar organization can not find legitimate concrete “officials’ to make their claims, but that is the subject of another article.

To understand Bilderberg and the “secret” incestuous relationship between the US mass media and the US “government” one need only read this the following quote from David Rockefeller at the Bilderberg get together in Baden Germany in 1991: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.”

Enough said, for now anyway.

Timing of Washington Post story

When we take into the account Rockefeller’s statement: “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.” And look at the latest release by WikiLeaks, the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty (TPP) being fast-tracked through the US Congress by US President Barrack Obama, we can almost picture a shadowy figure in a black suit picking up the phone and saying “WikiLeaks has to be taken care of.”

That is not an exaggeration because the “secret” TPP is such an all encompassing and far reaching agreement with global implications that it is the very instrument the Bilderbergs need to bring about their global government, and frankly WikiLeaks is currently about the only things standing in their “secret” way.

So it may be, as these things have proven to have been carried out before, an order was issued to ramp up efforts to get Assange. The US and the UK would have plausible deniability if the ever-vigilant Mr. Assange were to, for some reason lose his mind and step out of the Embassy and be immediately renditioned to some black site or other. After all it was “anonymous” officials who said he would not be prosecuted.

With the release of the TPP it is also in the interests of the US Government and the Bilderberg type bankers and globalists to do anything they can to discredit and pull support away from WikiLeaks, after all WikiLeaks and its battle for transparency and open government are the antipathy of the “secret” Bilderbergs, the “secret” grand juries, the “secret” US security state and the “secret” globalists.

Questionable tactics

It became clear for me how the Washington Post works when they attempted to use me in one of their bash jobs on Russia and Edward Snowden when after about 9 refusals by to their requests for an interview they gathered information about me from social media and posted how miserable I was in Russia under a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald in an article titled US asylum seekers unhappy in Russia, not only did they get their facts wrong, I am not a “seeker” but the first recipient, but they refused to correct their errors when they were informed of them.


Finally we come to the end of the latest installment in the epic of Mr. Julian Paul Assange against what I call the “nefarious geopolitical architects” with the conclusion that the claims by the Washington Post are: a) designed to detract from WikiLeaks credibility due to recent leaks, b) designed to undermine Mr. Assange’s claims of fears of being renditioned, c) a poorly constructed and almost glib attempt to lure Mr. Assange out of the embassy.

It might do Mr. Assange’s heart some good to know the hit job on WikiLeaks titled “Fifth Estate” is the “flop of the year” and that a little anonymous bird told me, “hold on, things will soon work themselves out”.

The views and opinions expressed above are my own. I can be reached at jar2@jar2.com.


JFK’s Assassin May Have Been on the Warren Commission – Andrew Kreig

JFK’s assassin may have been on the Warren Commission – Andrew Kreig

Photo: ru.wikipedia.org

Download audio file 26 November, 19:04  

There are forces in the United States and in the world who are above and able to influence the highest US Government officials, including the President of the United States himself. They might be called Puppet Masters, the Shadow Government, the Secret Team or what have you, but the meaning is the same; powerful dynastic forces that control almost everything. According to Andrew Kreig, in an interview with the Voice of Russia, it is important to reveal these forces to understand the presidencies of both Bush and Obama, who he says live in fear that what happened to Kennedy might happen to them. This is the reason that Mr. Kreig believes it is extremely important to solve the Kennedy assassination. In part three Mr. Kreig finally reveals who he believes carried out the assassination of JFK, his conclusion may surprise you.

On the 50th anniversary of the assassination of the US president John Fitzgerald Kennedy the Voice of Russia spoke to Andrew Kreig, the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and their Masters. Mr Kreig organized a conference in Dallas, Texas of researchers, journalists and others interested in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Mr. Kreig gave his views on who was behind the assassination and some of the players that were possibly involved at that time.

This is part 3 of an interview with Andrew Kreig, the author of Presidential Puppetry. He is also an attorney, the founder and director of the Justice Integrity Project. You can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at Voiceofrussia.com. This interview is in progress.

Robles: My last question then, if you can briefly comment on Lee Harvey Oswald’s Soviet connection. He had a wife named Marina. He was a Soviet citizen and people said maybe he was working for the CIA. He came back and they decided to just set him up, if you could comment on that. And finally, the big question in the mind of Andrew Kreig who was behind the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Kreig: Ok, well, I think any understanding of Oswald and his potential role has to be address, just for basic credibility, the possibility that he was a double or triple agent, and yet the conventional wisdom that is still in force at the major newspapers and broadcasting outlets is that he was just a troubled unpatriotic left-wing person.

And yet there is a lot of evidence that he was part of a Marine program, he was a Marine and that he was trained and facilitated in this defection in a very complicated cat-and-mouse game in which it now looks like the Russians were also complicit.

And this is a very sophisticated chess game in which it’s far beyond the typical commentary in the news media because it’s not as if the Russians would have welcomed him in to be a defector without knowing that he is a former marine and he might be a double agent. But the concept was, even in that situation, maybe he could pass on some information.

So nobody knows quite who is going to win that battle but he was most likely a pawn in this and at some point the pawns, as chess players know, become dispensable.

So I think it is fairly clear that that’s what happened and that certainly what his wife thought and there is all kinds of evidence that I won’t get into. But I do recommend people to study more about this possibility and if they are thinking about this, to at least challenge whoever they are talking with to address this possibility.

As to who actually did it: Chief Justice Earl Warren told someone: “We may never know” and he may not have known.

This is a game that was probably being played even above his level. He was Chief Justice of the United States so you would think “there is no higher level”.

But that’s why I called my new book Presidential Puppetry but it also applies to justices of the court. We think that they are the highest and most important people, but there are actually puppet masters above them who helped them get to those jobs and when they are in the jobs have the ability to threaten them or at least offer inducements of other kinds.

Without bogging down in the details, there is significant evidence that a number of people on the Warren Commission who you’d think from their high levels of government are totally independent and totally committed to the public knowledge and welfare and many parts of their careers may indicate that, but I think we know also from the Kennedy family itself that individuals who can be at the highest level are human beings who have secrets that can be used to blackmail them, to intimidate them or their relatives. And in this kind of situation I think that was brought into play.

And if you ask me who I think did it, I think the evidence from my panel this week and so many of the credible books, points to a plot by what I would call the Puppet Masters, others may call it the Military-Industrial Complex that was president Eisenhower’s terms, other might say Wall Street, Colonel Fletcher Prouty called his first book in 1973 “The Secret Team”. But it all means the same thing, it’s powers that are above the level of the government officials.

And the government officials, the key one here would have been Allen Dulles who was fired by Kennedy and who later became the most important member of the Warren Commission. And he may have been investigating his own crime, because all of the other eight members of the Warren Commission had very busy jobs. And he was out of work essentially, because he’d been fired by the murder victim.

So he had one of the biggest motives but he also had a key position to be able to persuade other people about how the investigation should go.

And here is one other element that is often lost and that I have again documented: it’s the role of the news media, which is how I started my carrier as a newspaper reporter “magazines”.

And this book research has been an astonishing and a very sad revelation to me - how deeply complicit the intelligence agencies have been with the highest levels of the news media in the United States on these kinds of sensitive stories.

And so part of the reason I held this conference this week was my feeling that we all have to take responsibility to do what we can as citizens with the help of the Internet (and we are all part of the media at least in a small way) and get these issues out in a very blunt way.

Maybe I’m wrong but I’m right here in Dallas where a legal secretary, so she was his secretary for a lawyer, her name was Mary Ferrel and she immediately thought “this is not right” and she got her husband to buy every copy of the newspapers that day reporting on this and that became the largest collection of documents on all of this. It’s called the Mary Ferrel Collection of documents.

That I find a quite inspirational story that an ordinary person, a secretary, sees that something doesn’t seem right and makes it possible for others to study and reach their own conclusions.

And as a final note I’ll say that one of the reasons that I’m undertaking all this effort and in fact my book Presidential Puppetry, is that I think that this is not just ancient history. The evidence I’ve obtained and write about in the conclusion of my book is that presidents are always going to be scared that the same thing will happen to them as long as this crime is not solved or at least discussed more openly.

So I present evidence that president Obama is intimidated by the same forces and cannot really act as he should in the public interests as long as he is in fear of meeting the same fate. And I think if you look deeply, all of these leaders are vulnerable, no matter how many guards they have they are all vulnerable.

So that’s why this is personally important to me and I hope to listeners because I don’t think you can understand what our last two presidents have done unless you realize that they are not totally safe or as powerful as it may seem. They all have to be worried.

Robles: Andrew, in your books and you’ve just now mentioned people that are above the president, people that are above Supreme Court Justices, people that are above Obama, that they are afraid of: who are these people? Who is this? This sounds like a shadow government.

Kreig: Well, it is. I mention a lot of names in the end of my book to try to answer that question and not hold back.

I’ll give you a couple of the names, but here is why I’m not going to try to go down a whole list. One name is obviously David Rockefeller, he is 98 years old, he is in a wheel-chair but he still went to the Bilderberg meeting with 130 other puppet masters in June in London. That’s an annual meeting of one of these secret societies.

So his name is not going to show up on writing donations to candidates but he is head of so many organizations that… they have people who write the donations four levels down, to Republicans or the Democrats. And he doesn’t need to get involved in that.

You are looking at people with at least $500 million in assets, maybe more. Some of them are non-US. I would put the Saudi government in that kind of category, some other leading figures, and mentioning the Saudi government kind of gives a sense (or royal family I should say) gives a sense of the vast amount of money that these folks have. But also why I’m not going to try to do an encyclopedia here and bore your listeners because part of the way they stay in power is they remain in the shadows. They don’t want publicity.

While people may remember the name Rockefeller, many of the others are obviously younger and more vigorous but don’t have as famous a name. So it’s very hard for the public to get a grasp on who they are or develop interest in these people, they are not necessarily that good-looking. And we live in societies where most people have to work very hard. They have short time for this kind of study so if you can make it interesting and glamorous, nobody is going to remember all these names of people, in the Saudi Royal Family, for example.

That’s why it’s very important to understand the concept and know that the information is there, if people need to dig down in it. But it’s openly distracting and a little boring to try to run off lists, because the real leaders are often obscured intentionally. And just like the puppet masters on stage, they want to be above the stage, they don’t want to be seen. But we are watching them.

Robles: I see. Can you give us a couple names? If you don’t mind?

Kreig: Oh, well, I gave you Rockefeller. If you go to the list of Bilderberg attendees here is another name, there is Henry Kravis, who goes to Bilderberg every year. He is second generation, his father helped develop in the United States a very important tax policy so that oil companies don’t have to pay much in taxes.

And Henry Kravis is now head of KKR, a leading Wall Street company. He has worked for years on an American board of Directors of the Bilderberg Group with Donald Graham, the owner of the Washington Post and Henry Kissinger who comes from the Rockefeller Empire.

So here you have..Just to use this one example of Bilderberg, there are other groups like that, but it’s a small one of 130 people each year. Here you have Henry Kravis, you know, Wall Street, the oil industry, low taxes.

And by the way they’ve just hired General Petraeus to be CEO of one of their funds, so Petraeus after his disgrace that got him fired from the CIA a year ago, he is now back in the good graces of the big boys on Wall Street if not with Bilderberg himself.

Then you have the long time leader of the Washington Post who has just sold his company to another Bilderberg member the head of Amazon.com. But Donald Graham instead of reporting on all of these secret societies’ plans, he is on the board of Directors of the secret society.

Robles: Is this the same group the Shadow Government that was behind 9-11? Can you comment on that?

Kreig: We are talking about 40 years of difference in time. I think that the researchers who have spent a lot of time on this would say there is a heavy degree of overlap.

I think 9-11 needs a whole different groundwork. But I will here be a reporter rather than a commentator or expert (presumptive expert) and say that those who believe that there are huge unanswered questions about 9-11 would draw the connections but it’s by and large a different generation of actual government leaders and what we call Puppet Masters. But these are dynastic forces, for all of those who believe that there is common ground.

It gives you a sense of why each of us as a citizen, a citizen of the world, has to do our own research and not just take what’s put before us.

If I can end that one note, one thing I would like to say about the book is it’s got 1,100 footnotes, a lot of them are hot links so people who are doing the research, that can’t get into on a radio interview. But it’s basically a book for those who want to understand the news, not just listen to it.

Robles: And your book is called..

Kreig: Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and their Masters.

Robles: Andrew, thank you very much, I really appreciate it. I hope you have a very good evening.

Kreig: Thank you, John.

That was the end of part 3 of an interview with Andrew Kreig, an attorney, the founder and director of the Justice Integrity Project. He is also the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and their Masters . Thank you very much for listening and we wish you the best wherever you may be.


US/NATO Continue Simulating and Preparing for War Against Russia in Germany

By john Robles, 26 November, 2013 18:03 

When the Cold War finished many intelligent, peace-loving and thinking people all over the world believed that there would be a drawing down of military forces and an end to the arms race as the ideological confrontation between the USSR and the USA was no longer a geopolitical reality. However as history has shown that has been far from the case and in fact the opposite is completely true. With the recent Steadfast Jazz training exercises, military buildup in Poland and the current exercises envisaging fighting against regular army forces in the Caucuses US/NATO continue military exercises and maneuvers that are clearly aimed against Russia. These moves by US/NATO are perhaps the most serious threat to world peace and stability that currently exists.

No more Phantom Menace

The Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergei Lavrov, has been on the forefront of the fight for peace and as the Voice of Russia recently reported he stated that he anticipates the implementation of the Iran nuclear pact to render the US/NATO Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield in Europe obsolete.

Lavrov: "If the Iranian agreement takes its course, there will be no reason to create an ABM system in Europe, which is now being described as a necessity."

Although as Mr. Lavrov states it is being described as a necessity many experts believe and have stated that with a few minor changes and the changing of war heads the entire ABM shield could be used to facilitate a US/NATO first strike on the Russian Federation. This became clear almost from the outset when all Russian attempts at cooperation with NATO, including the very workable and (if such a threat existed) necessary concept of Sectoral Defense, something absolutely necessary as the US/NATO radar is blind in key areas due to the curvature of the earth and as was detailed by an eyewitness is only effective against approximately 40 percent of large missiles and completelyuseless against small and hypersonic delivery systems.

Continued military escalation detracting from civil society

The Russian Federation has the inalienable and non-negotiable unwavering right as a sovereign nation to defend itself against all threats both internal and external and these include not just military threats and threats to its territory but threats against its economy, culture, language, religion and civil society, to mention a few, and this right has to be guarded and carried out with the utmost seriousness and unquestioning steadfast resolve on all fronts.

On the diplomatic front Russia has continued to attempt to reach compromise and improve relations with US/NATO although attempts at military cooperation have been continuously and repeatedly spurned by US/NATO making it clearer with every effort that US/NATO are apparently not interested in maintaining a peaceful mutually beneficial relationship with Russia but in fact wants to continue the Cold War paradigm.

On the military front Russia and other countries threatened by US/NATO global expansion have had to divert funds and energies that could have been used for the betterment of their own populations to an escalation in military spending in order to maintain parity with the new global US/NATO.

On the civil front Russian security services and bodies of government have had to wage a battle and introduce legislation against organizations such as USAID and NGOs which evidence showed sought to undermine and influence Russia’s internal civilian and political life. Something that other countries around the world have also had to do.

Continued US/NATO war games

After the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the disassembly of the Warsaw Pact many observers expected that NATO would follow suite and that would have been the logical and one would think only rational thing to do, but as with open war the end of the Cold War also fell under the self-serving banner of "to the winner go the spoils" and in this case the "spoils" were geopolitical influence and territory, that (by the Pentagon’s own words) would be projected "by force" through NATO.

US/NATO continue to seek ways to expand and stay relevant and are shifting their strategy into that of a "global security provider" but even this is disingenuous as exercises and scenarios continue to focus on attacking and fighting against a phantom Russian threat.

The OSCE and then NATO were organizations designed and created to contain and fight the Soviet Union and the spread of Communist ideology and the influence of the Warsaw Pact in Europe but that threat no longer exists and in reality NATO is now completely irrelevant. But like a Frankenstein monster created for a single purpose it refuses, or is truly incapable of adapting to modern geopolitical realities. This is made evident again and again by projects and exercises such as the ABM "shield", Steadfast Jazz and current training exercises designed to train against Russian conventional forces in the Caucuses.

US/NATO openly training for war with Russia

According to the United States Army publication Stars and Stripes: on NATO training grounds in Hohenfels, Germany the "Joint Multinational Readiness Center" is hosting one of its largest multinational training exercises in recent years.

John Vandiver at Stars and Stripes writes: "Battalions of Czech and Slovenian troops, a US headquarters unit and a host of other forces, including US National Guard troops from California, have been war gaming around the clock inside Hohenfels’ sprawling battleground known as "the box." Rather than training to take on the Taliban in Afghanistan, they’re working on other combat scenarios, such as taking on a conventional enemy force in the Caucasus region. "We don’t know what the future threats are going to look like, but we do know one thing; we aren’t going to fight it alone," said Brig. Gen. Walter Piatt, head of the Joint Multinational Training Command. "We’re going to fight with our partners. If we don’t train together we’re never going to do it live."

Obviously the only possible "conventional enemy force" that US/NATO would ever encounter in the Caucuses would be the Russian Army. This is further made obvious by the fact that US/NATO have successfully pulled other nearby countries into "partnerships" and the like.

Why the expansion?

As the headline for the above article reads US/NATO are working to prove their continued relevance but by creating more and more phantom threats they are in fact proving by their own actions that they are in fact an irrelevant and unnecessary burden on the countries of Europe and in fact a greater threat to world peace than any other force in the modern world. Especially the poor and decimated populations of the Middle East and Northern Africa which have fought against US/NATO occupation.

With it becoming an "open secret" that the US is in collusion with al-QaedaIsrael and Saudi Arabia, in order to continue military operations and expand its spying/military/security/economic architecture, NATO itself must try to find new threats to justify its existence. It is difficult politically, except possibly against the most ignorant elements, to continue to wave around the boogeyman of al-Qaeda to justify expensive and unnecessary US/NATO military expansion and operations especially when there are more and more reports that not only was al-Qaeda created by the US in Afghanistan but that it is still actively arming/funding/training them, a fact brought home in Syria.

Forces in the shadows

After years of investigative research, further underlined by recent interviews and more extensive research I have conducted in to the JFK assassination, in particular with regard to Operation Northwoods, it has become clearer who the forces are that continue to promote and expand the archaic and irrelevant US/NATO military architecture.

These are forces that Andrew Kreig, a Yale Law School Graduate, writer and researcher calls the "Puppet Masters" and they are the forces that have in fact been the architects of the entire War on Terror, the current security state in the US and the current paradigm that we are all affected by. As Operation Northwoods showed these are forces that would kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians in order to bring about even more war and death and advance their geopolitical and economic goals.

According to multiple sources these dynastic architects of war and geopolitical machinations are a multi-national conglomerate of individuals with a minimum of $500 million in assets each who meet yearly under the name of the Bilderberg Group to plan how to bring about complete and total world domination. They are in fact the true "Globalists" or "Shadow Government" that so many conspiracy theories cite.

There are no Russians in the Bilderberg Group and this is for understandable reasons. Russia with its vast territory and almost limitless resources is a sought after gem for the West and since there is no peaceful way that they could obtain control of Russia their war machine must continue to be primed and ready, that is one reason for the continued expansion of US/NATO.

It is all about the money

The other reason is much more mundane and in fact benign and that is that there are too many Bilderberg fortunes based on the US Military Industrial Complex, which has an endless appetite for expansion and economic gain. The US Military Industrial Complex has milked the US populace for all it can throwing the country into a debt of over $200 trillion, hence the expansion, at each country’s expense, into a global NATO force.

The forces in this group are so powerful that even the President of the United States is almost powerless against them. Which explains why Nobel Peace Prize winning US President Barrack Obama has continued policies of endless war and the illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.They are also so powerful that any journalist who has dared to even write about who the participants are has faced major backlash.

The opinions and views expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@jar2.com.

Thanks go out to Rick Rozoff at Stop NATO for the heads up on this one.


President Putin and Pope Francis Meet in the Vatican

Two forces for peace: President Putin and Pope Francis meet in the Vatican

Photo: the Presidential Press and Information Office

By John Robles, 26 November, 2013 05:08 

The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin met with Pope Francis in the Vatican, the meeting between the two leaders who are instrumental in bringing about a peaceful resolution to the situation in Syria and who prevented a western military intervention in that country further advanced work on issues related to bringing about a peaceful resolution to conflicts in the Middle East and in particular resolving the plight of Syrian’s Christian population who are largely supporters of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

The upcoming meetings are expected to assist in the further development and strengthening of ties between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Holy See but may also lead to a normalizing of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, which have seen a series of historic rifts, most notably with regard to Russian Orthodox Churches seized by Greek Catholics and Catholic Churches seized by the Soviets and given to the Russian Orthodox Church by Josef Stalin. Due to the conflict the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church has never met with the Pope.

The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, who is on an official visit to the Vatican, held a private meeting with Pope Francis in which many issues were discussed. "It was quite a cordial and constructive meeting," Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told reporters after the encounter. President Putin had arrived around 45 minutes late because of transport problems.

President Putin brought a greeting to the pope from Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, but reportedly did not talk about matters between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, Lombardi said and so far there has been no open discussion of a possible visit to Russia by Pope Francis.

President Putin presented the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God to Pope Francis who appeared very moved and impressed by the gift and the Pope in turn presented Putin with a majolica depicting the Vatican Gardens. After presenting the icon to the Pope, President Putin crossed himself and kissed it as did Pope Francis. The Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God is one of the most important for Orthodox faithful.

After the meeting 10 members of the Russian delegation, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and Presidential aide Dmitry Peskov, had a chance to meet the Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church and photographs were taken.

Statement of the Holy See Press Office:

In the afternoon of Monday 25 November 2013, the President of the Russian Federation, His Excellency Mr. Vladimir Putin, was received in audience by the Holy Father Francis. Mr. Putin subsequently went on to meet with the Secretary of State, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, who was accompanied by the Secretary for Relations with States, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti.

During the cordial discussions, satisfaction was expressed for the good existing bilateral relations, and the Parties focused on various questions of common interest, especially in relation to the life of the Catholic community in Russia, revealing the fundamental contribution of Christianity in society. In this context, mention was made of the critical situation faced by Christians in some regions of the world, as well as the defense of and promotion of values regarding the dignity of the person, and the protection of human life and the family.

Furthermore, special attention was paid to the pursuit of peace in the Middle East and the grave situation in Syria, with reference to which President Putin expressed thanks for the letter addressed to him by the Holy Father on the occasion of the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg. Emphasis was placed on the urgency of the need to bring an end to the violence and to ensure necessary humanitarian assistance for the population, as well as to promote concrete initiatives for a peaceful solution to the conflict, favoring negotiation and involving the various ethnic and religious groups, recognizing their essential role in society.

According to the Kremlin President Putin and Pope Francis discussed the state of international institutions and their ability to respond to crises, as well as the protection of Christian minorities in the Maghreb and the Middle East. The situation in Syria was touched upon in this regard.

Other issues which were covered in the short meeting included the prospect of expanding bilateral cooperation in the humanitarian and social spheres, including through science cooperation and the arts.

President Putin also met with Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin after his audience with the Pope however details are still coming in as to the content of that meeting. However it is clear that the meeting was preparatory for the further expanded full format discussions that will take place tomorrow.

The visit follows up on constructive contacts between the Pontiff and the Russian head of state, the most important being before the Group of 20 Summit in early September when the Pontiff implored President Putin to make an all out effort to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Syrian crisis. Pope Francis also pled with other world leaders gathered in St. Petersburg at the time in a written address and the Vatican issued several statements that they were categorically against an invasion of Syria.

President Putin personally thanked Pope Francis for the G20 letter which read: "To the leaders present, to each and every one, I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution," Pope Francis wrote in his letter to Putin. "Rather, let there be a renewed commitment to seek, with courage and determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation of the parties, unanimously supported by the international community."

The letter from the Pope to the G20 leaders and the fact that Pope Francis mobilized hundreds of thousands if not millions of Catholics around the world who participated in a fast and prayer for peace along with all of the efforts of President Putin and the Russian Government were both key in preventing an invasion by Obama on Syria after a provocative reported chemical attack in Damascus which saw Obama ready to attack with neither UN Security Council Support nor US Congressional approval.

The meeting at the Holy See is not President Putin’s first meeting with a Catholic Pope, President Putin has previously visited the Vatican three times and met with both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The meetings have taken place against the backdrop of the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Holy See in 1990. Since then Russian presidents have maintained active interaction despite theological and historical disagreements between the Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches.

The first Russian President to meet the head of the Catholic Church was President Gorbachev in 1989, in 1998 President Yeltsin met Pope John Paul II and President Dmitry Medvedev met with Pope Benedict XVI twice during his time in the Kremlin.

In 2011, the Russia Government and the Vatican signed a cooperation agreement in the field of child health care, and last month the countries agreed to strengthen ties between their respective academic institutions and museums.

The Vatican said on Monday that ecumenical relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches “weren't really” discussed during the 35-minute discussion between Putin and Francis in the Pope's private library, though Putin brought greetings from Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill.

The fact that such an important icon as the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was presented to the Pope is a very important sign from the Russian Orthodox Church of its desire to normalize relations and surely painstaking planning went into the selection and presentation of the icon.

In preparation for the visit by President Putin to the Vatican the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill, met with Milan Archbishop of the Catholic Church Angelo Scola in Moscow last week, a sign of the warming of ties between the churches.

"We live in an epoch when many of our historic differences should stop playing the critical role they have played in relations between our churches," Kirill said at the meeting.

President Putin and Pope Francis are both men who above all else have a penchant for understatement and even though their lifestyles may be quite different both of them have shown they will do their utmost to work for peace, this includes in the world and between the faiths.

Tomorrow should see more important work being done to bring about better relations and improve relations and with the focus on the people this will not be limited to inter-state cooperation but will benefit all people and Christians worldwide, in particular those living in zones of strife. Whether large moves will be made to mend the rift between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is to be seen, but one thing is certain, the door is open.

Any views and opinions expressed above are my own. I can be reached at jar2@jar2.com.


JFK: One Fact is True, the Warren Commission Got It Wrong – Andrew Kreig

25 November, 2013 13:28 Download audio file   PART 1

People who knew Lee Harvey Oswald and even Oswald himself, maintain to this day that he was just the fall guy for the Kennedy assassination. Although the Warren Commission concluded that the assassination was carried out by a lone shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, all of the evidence points to at least three. Even the fact that the three shots in six seconds came from different locations and that the bolt action rifle Oswald had had a defective site and could not have physically been reloaded fast enough to fire three shots in six seconds, did not stop the Warren Commission from blaming Oswald. One fact that all scholars and investigators seem to be able to agree on is that some aspects or actors in all of the possible theories may have worked together to assassinate JFK. Researcher and author Andrew Kreig spoke to the Voice of Russia from Dallas Texas on the 22nd of November and shared his insights into the JFK assassination.

Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with Mr. Andrew Kreig. He is an attorney, the founder and director of the Justice Integrity Project and a legal reform advocate and the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and their Masters.This is an interview in progress. 

Kreig: Colonel Prouty’s 1996 book blamed the assassination essentially on the Central Intelligence Agency. So he did not mention operation Northwoods because it was so classified that he would have known about it, and it’s for these reasons that I think it’s very difficult to talk about what might have happened and who did it if one does not know about Northwood or Colonel Prouty. And by the way, Colonel Prouty, there is a website -it's www.prouty.org, those who were guardians of this very important US patriot have a website that makes his work available.

Robles: I see. What can you tell us about Oswald? And in particular now you've heard of the book Dr Mary's Monkey. Are you familiar with the assassination program?

Kreig: I'm not familiar with the full content. Just a few moments ago I met Judyth Baker who was his mistress in New Orleans during the summer before, I mean they were lovers, maybe mistress is a bad word (not politically correct anymore, but he was married, she was about to be married, but they were lovers. And she is here at one of the conferences and she wrote a book called Lee and Me.

Robles: This is Judyth Vary Baker?

Kreig: Yes. She is here at this conference. It's interesting that if you dig down people like his widow and Judyth Baker and his mother before she died, they believe he was a patsy just like he said.

I’m getting a little off the point that you were driving at, I wanted to say that I’m here, right outside the restaurant which is on the route the motorcade took, and once one gets into this research John, it's quite fascinating.

If we get over the hurdle of saying well it happened a long time ago, nobody can do anything, no one can know. It's actually not that long ago. It has a lot of implications right now. Because if this kind of murder cannot be solved with all of this evidence, that it couldn't have been a way the Warren Commission said it was. That's the big picture.

I've maybe avoided going out on a limb on a couple of your questions and here is the reason: it's great to break new ground and so forth, but the main point needs to be asserted again and again: it could not have happened the way the official verdict of the Warren Commission said it happened. And it's commutations of that and why the news media and the government won't address that, just the fundamental question, that I think needs to be focused upon with all credibility and attention.

Robles: I'd like you to comment if you could on a theory, I don't know, that British media came out with several days ago that John F. Kennedy was shot in the back of the head by a secret service driver who had a shotgun pointed at Kennedy and the car lurched or something and he accidentally shot him.

Kreig: It's based on evidence that is actually kind of old, about 20 years ago.

I'm sure they put a lot of attention and arguments for that theory and if something is new and it's in book form, people are going to take that somewhat seriously.

I'm not going to try to undercut that work but I'll just say in general, when you have a mystery of this scope and importance at some point the distraction of the novel theories, is in general I think we've got to look at them with some suspicion. Because the net result of 2,000 books is a lot of people are not going to read any of them, because they will just say: 'We don't have time to read 2,000 books'.

And if people come up with a new theory and it gets a lot of comments, a lot of us in this kind of research community would look at them with some suspicion, not to drill down too much on that. You know, there were a lot of witnesses there. And it seems: "how come there is not more people who saw this?" How come that wasn't investigated?

I saw one treatment of this: "Ooops! I killed the president!

If you want to talk about farfetched theories, that's a little farfetched straight on its face. And I think there is lots of much more compelling evidence for alternative theories. But you know, to jump ahead so I don’t lose this kind of important point: I assembled a conference two days ago, that I mentioned previously, at the National Press Conference, bringing together a number of investigative reporters on different topics including my book Presidential Puppetry but also other things like the JFK assassination and election machine fraud and some other very sensitive issues. And I had some world class experts on the JFK assassination there including, a leading archivist, two time New York Times bestseller Jerome Corsi and Dan Maldaiya and they had somewhat different ideas they are best known for: Jerome Corsi has a new book that blames it on the CIA, Dan Maldaya is a leading investigator of the mafia.

And in closing a very interesting session that lasted an hour longer than it was scheduled because no one wanted to leave either in the audience or on the panel, and in closing I said: "Maybe it's possible, that several of these theories are not exclusive, but they can all be true".

So for example I said maybe it was a CIA plan where they partly used trained killers from the mafia to pull the trigger.

And maybe Lyndon Johnson had a role at least in covering it up, you see there is a lot of books, John as you know, that are blaming the whole thing on Lyndon Johnson.

So in closing I said to these really world class experts, I said: "Does anyone disagree with the concept that all of the ideas might be true?" Aside from the Warren Commission Report.

And in general these very articulate people each responded in a unique way but no one disagreed with the idea that several of these theories could all be true.

Robles: So you had several plans and several people with a common goal maybe coalescing into an overall plan? You think maybe it could have included for example white supremacists, or pro-segregationists and CIA people, military people, military industrial complex people, possibly Rockefeller?

Kreig: It doesn't sound too ludicrous. Here is the way that that kind of thing might actually work: it's not as if they are doing some kind of a petition drive and they say:"Well, let's get some Ku Klux Klan and racists to sign on to our thing here!"

It could be that somebody who hates Kennedy is both part of the mafia and a racist.

Robles: And a member of CIA somehow.

Kreig: They wouldn’t be a member of the CIA, particularly in that era, that a very elite group, it's kind of Ivy League, Yale and Harvard, so you don't have too many made-members of the mafia there which is all Italian. But here is how it might work: people saying: "Kennedy is really hurting what we are trying to do here, he is working with Khrushchev and they are talking about peace and we built up a tradition of fighting Communists and he is undermining it. How can we do this?"

And someone might say: "We've got this guy Oswald and we can blame it on him. We know some people in the mob who hate him and they are used to killing people without a thought".

And here is a very important part, John, just to clarify how a complex plan might work: hardly anybody knows what the plan is, on a what's called "need to know basis".

So it's not like people are doing Powerpoint and handing them out, they are just telling somebody, maybe it's Oswald….

They say: "Ok, here is a job. We want you to show up, it's your job Dealey Plaza. We just got you this job – do this".

Before that it was go out and hand out some leaflets in New Orleans for Cuba.

So they are telling everybody what to do, but they don't tell them why they are supposed to do it. And they don't even know who else is involved in anything, they are given a very narrow job. They have one contact person who tells them what to do and they do it. And that's also the way the mob works.

You know, the big bosses pretending to be some legitimate business and the word is just passed to a street soldier or hit-man, saying: "The organization would like you to take care of this guy".

That's it. I mean there is no explanations for it.

Robles: Who is giving the instructions in this case then?

Kreig: Many of these books are saying that it's highly likely that Allen Dulles who Kennedy fired as head of the CIA in 1962, over the Bay of Pigs, he would have had the whole picture.

It's also highly likely that a couple of his assistants including James Jesus Angleton, who was a leader in counterintelligence for many years, that he would have known all of this. And that's in fact the focus of a number of these books and if you read between the lines when Colonel Fletcher Prouty was writing his book and he was right in the middle of this, he may not have been told details.

If you go to youtube you can see that he recognized one of the leading CIA assassin types Edward Lansdale walking on the street right here in Dallas right after the killing occurs.

Prouty gives a five-minute interview and anybody can watch it on youtube, saying he instantly recognized Lansdale (he was kind of a notorious or famous anti-communist warrior from that era) as being there.

So there is a very important concept here that, I guess I'm repeating it, but it's that people just do what they are told. They are not told what the plan is.

And if George H.W. Bush was there he would have been relatively young. He graduated from Yale in 1948. The fact that he was there doesn't mean he was in charge of anything necessarily, so trying to affix very specific responsibility on individual people particularly on people who are alive or a lot of people like George H.W. Bush.

I've got a whole chapter in my new book about George H.W. Bush and one of the challenges for me as a writer trying sum things up about the man is that: I know people who know him, who think he was a genuinely nice guy in many ways. And as an author trying to write concise history that's a real challenge, because there is a lot of people in history who may be part of diabolical schemes, but on an individual level they may be very nice, they are well-bred, they go to nice schools, they write condolence notes when somebody dies, they go to funerals, they give nice speeches.

So, there is an expression "being the skunk at the garden party", that we, investigative writers, are often reminded of because nobody wants to hear this stuff, they'd much rather: 'he used to be our president, he is a nice old man". Why mention such thoughts?

That was the end of part 2 of an interview with Andrew Kreig, an attorney, a founder and director of the Justice Integrity Project. He is also the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and their Masters. You can find part 1 of this interview on our website - JFK assassination intertwined with Project Northwoods – Andrew Kreig.


Trans Pacific Partnership is like SOPA on Steroids – Kristinn Hrafnsson

Trans Pacific Partnership is like SOPA on steroids – Kristinn Hrafnsson

23 November, 2013 20:21 Download audio file

WikiLeaks recently released part of a secret trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty (TPP) which is described as a corporate coup d'état, is being effected in secret and will affect over 800 million people. The reaction to this leak has been very positive according to Kristinn Hrafnsson the number 2 at WikiLeaks who spoke to the Voice of Russia about this important treaty which he said has been described as an international SOPA on steroids. Among opponents of the supra-natural treaty are Doctors Without Borders, who say the Treaty will cause untold deaths and suffering in poorer countries because it will effectively end generic medicines and even patent certain medical procedures.

This is part 2 of a longer interview in progress. You can find the previous part of this interview and the following on our website, at voiceofrussia.com in the near future.



(Photo: Kristinn Hrafnsson) Julian Assange and Kristinn Hrafnsson 

Hrafnsson: If you look specifically at the chapter that we released – the intellectual property rights – people will often associate that simply with the music industry and illegal downloads of films etc, but this has a much bigger scope.

We are talking about patents on genetically modified products, measures that will benefit Monsanto. We are talking about a patent on medical procedures. We are talking about extending the lifetime of patents on drugs which will make it of course much more difficult to produce cheaper generic drugs, which are essential for poor countries and the healthcare.

On top of that, of course, we are talking about measures, with the Disney Corporation and the entertainment industry once in there, which is a blatant attack on the Internet freedom.

There will be a duty, according to clauses in this draft, of all member states to put into law very Draconian and strict measures to hunt down anybody who is illegally downloading. And the Internet service providers will be ordered to monitor, and they will be held liable for anything that will flow through them.

So, you will be creating in every country a police force which will have to be hunting down those who are exchanging recipes or what have you.

This is so strict. If I have a website and somebody posts on my website or my blog, or my Facebook page material that is breaching some copyright laws in other country, I will be held liable for that. And according to the treaty each and every country must pursue the law with much vigilance.

Now, I don’t know if you are familiar with the former attempts to put these kinds of measures into national law.

Robles: You mean like SOPA and the other ones?

Hrafnsson: Yes. Now, those who are very deeply familiar with SOPA, which was basically brushed off a table after people vigorously protested against it in the US. In the TPP you have what people have been referring to as SOPA on steroids.

So, what you have there – measures that were deemed to be absolutely unacceptable on a national level is being secretly put as a Trojan horse into a supranational-international treaty where it is dominated and enforceable through an international-supranational tribunal. And this is done in total secrecy.

This is of course causing outrage amongst all the members who were fighting against SOPA to see that this is coming back again on a more serious level in a secretive international treaty to which, in the case of the US, the representatives will have a very limited power to actually familiarize themselves with it or vote on each and every measure individually.

So, you can see that when I’m talking about that corporate coup d'état – that is exactly what I’m referring to.

Of course, it’s just out and it takes quite a bit of time for people to familiarize themselves with the content of it. But we already have organizations, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, protesting this heavily.

We have Doctors Without Borders protesting the measures relating to the pharmaceutical industry which basically, they say, will cause deaths in countries, because it will create a total inability to get access to cheaper drugs in the future.

Robles: This is unbelievable, I mean what we’ve seen so far. Can you give us a hint of will we be seeing more?

Hrafnsson: We try our best as a publishing organization to have action speaking for itself. And it is very positive that we are seeing a strong and growing reaction to the release. And actually, this time around it is positive that people are focusing on the release itself rather than the leak. That is a good process.

Robles: Yes, that is very good. It is very positive. Is this just another attempt for the US to try to gain complete control of the world? Maybe that’s a bit extreme way to put it, but it sounds very much like a tool that would allow them to control the world. I mean, once you control the trade and the money and the flow of thought, and ideas – you control everything.

Hrafnsson: I think these questions are rather taking it away from the national level because we now have of course supranational and international corporate entities which are the real threat instead of nation states.

Of course many of them which we have discussed here and in this instance, in context of this treaty -these are American based companies. They have no national interest, they have no national values, they have simply one aim in mind, that is to increase the growth and at someone's expense.

Robles: Can you comment, to American patriots for example, who fear that their government has been taken over by corporations? Is this the evidence for that?

Hrafnsson: Well, we have discussed the process here which has been pushed by the Obama Administration which everybody thought would be somewhat different from the Bush Administration.

We of course just see that this is being pushed through undemocratically without any consideration for the consumers and for the individuals in the US, elsewhere in other countries. Yes, I would have to agree that those who would say that this is an evidence that the corporations basically hijacked power in Washington.

Robles: I see. What would you say to people out there, what can we do about this? What's your advice, Kristin?

Hrafnsson: Well, we are a publishing organization, we are not working in any other activist field, we feel that information should be free. There is an urgent need to fight these secrecies that are overwhelming.

Our tool is to urge whistleblowers to leak information and to get everything out in the open. And they will be permitted to be on that track. And we must hope that when information flows to the citizens, that they will take action and actually change this course.

That of course is what we aim for – that is the democratic way. It is very shocking if we are getting to the conclusion: to see how subservient the corporate media in the countries that we are discussing here have been towards this. Only about ten days ago the New York Times, board of editors issued an editorial praising the TPP, praising the initiative and nobody at the New York Times had seen anything out of the discussions.

They had a lot of condemnation from many organizations. Who said: “How on Earth can you support anything, that you don't know what it entails.”

And that is a valid argument. I have to say that in the hours since our release I have been monitoring how the story has been spinning throughout the world, in various media.

It has been quite obvious that the corporate media, most of the big corporate media in the US, for example, have been ignoring the story.

The New York Times hasn't told the story of a leak, which is astonishing. For the Washington Post has not run a story it took a long time for the wire services to wake up.

That is worrying for me as a journalist to see that the corporate media in the largest country in the context of this 12 nation treaty proposal are not covering this important leak, pertaining to so much interest for the individuals in the country.

Robles: I think this is more globally important, not derive the importance of the previously expected. I think this affects everybody, it affects even more people than for example the Afghan war logs, wouldn't you agree?

Hrafnsson: Every leak is unique and it has repercussions. Interesting enough and I think it's important to keep in mind – the Afghan leaks totally changed the perception of what the Afghan War was about.

I believe that before we showed the documents, the 90,000 documents, the field reports from Afghanistan in 2010, that general perception was that everything had been going in a good direction in Afghanistan and the war had been won. And things had been going swell. But the opposite was revealed at a great expenditure in human suffering and in terms of monetary value we see that enterprise as a total failure now.

Robles: Now we have this economic steamer that is trying to pull on us?I'm sorry, go ahead.

Hrafnsson: I'm certain that when people look back in the future to our current times, they will see 2010 as a turning point.

With the WikiLeaks revelation that year which was of Earth-shaking magnitude, there was a fundamental change. And we changed I believe, we gave people hope that through information there was a chance to change the course that the world was in, this was a very negative one.

I believe people will see in the future that in 2010 WikiLeaks opened up an important door and others have walked through the door after this- Edward Snowden if we mention one, other leakers.

Now we have this treaty. And I can promise you whether it would be through us or through other venues, there will be more leaks, there will be more whistleblowers. Courage is contagious, we are on new track. And if this is played out right it is for the better of mankind.

Robles: Kristinn, if there is somebody listening I can’t nominate your for a Nobel Peace Prize or WikiLeaks or Julian. If I could, I would take Obama's Peace Prize and give it to you. You guys deserve it, seriously. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

Hrafnsson: Let me just mention if we are coming to conclusion, we would really appreciate that donations from individuals, we are of course reliant on people to donate to us and however small amount would be appreciated. If you go to our website and see where and how people can donate we would appreciate, there is our only source of income.

Robles: Can people from Russia donate?

Hrafnsson: People can now donate. We have had a victory in our fight against the credit cards giants – Visa and Mastercard.

Donations are possible through those venues, through a number of pay ways. This was after Supreme Court victory in Iceland a few months ago. Of course we have and we will continue to get these companies to pay us compensation for three years of banking blockade. This is totally unacceptable.

Robles: Is Visa going to pay for the damages or is that still going up for appeal? What's going on?

Hrafnsson: The damage or compensation procedure is a separate one which has been dealing with separately. And that is just starting. And for the sake to make sure that this never happens again such an arbitrary politically motivated banking blockade upon a publishing organization we must see this to the end.

Robles: Yeah. Are there instruments in there that they are trying to push through to go after whistle blowers internationally and in a harder way?

Hrafnsson: It is not included in a direct manner there. It has to be analyzed in details and of course any attack on Internet freedom is an indirectly attack on freedom of speech and the ability of individuals to talk securely and communicate securely and freely on the Internet. That would apply to journalists and whistleblowers and affect them in a direct manner.

Robles: Ok. Kristinn anything else you want to finish up with?

Hrafnsson: No, I think we've covered quite a good aspect in those minutes about this very important topic and I think the discussion is just beginning.

Robles: I mean that about the Nobel Peace Prize, really, truly.

Hrafnsson: I don't know if we actually are that keen on being standing on the same platform as President Barack Obama.


JFK and How the Military Industrial Complex Has Taken Over America

Plane in the JFK airport in 2013 and 1963 (black and white photo)

Plane in the JFK airport in 2013 and 1963 (black and white photo)

By John Robles, 23 November, 2013 19:13

One of US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s (JFK) most memorable and currently topical speeches was an address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961, in which he detailed the role of the mass media and the threat to freedom faced by the world and why the media must be protected and its freedom jealously guarded. The words of JFK ring truer today than they perhaps did in 1961 and what he and Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about has come to be the reality that we all live with today, with now little hope for undoing.

In the speech in question JFK said: “The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.”

I would argue the opposite is true with regard the fact that Americans are “inherently and historically opposed to secret societies”, quite the opposite is true. No other country in the world has as many secret societies and governmental organs than the US. Historically the US was founded on the biggest lie and secret of all: the genocide of the Indians. The American tendency towards keeping nefarious activities and groups “secret” on might say began with the “secret” treaties signed with the Indians, which were just instruments to guarantee their complete and total annihilation and facilitate their complete and total genocide. As is the secret behind the first Thanksgiving.

This foundation of secrecy led to the formation of secret organizations and societies like the Ku Klux Klan (whose only goal is to maintain white supremacy in America) Skull and Bones, and the like. The maintaining of white supremacy through all means possible is so intertwined in American society, business and government that it would be almost impossible to extricate racism from it. This was the first danger JFK posed to the status quo. An apartheid system of segregation is something the citizens of other countries might not understand but it was an integral part of American society which continues in secret yet noticeable ways today but is naturally a taboo topic for discussion.

JFK: “… there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. And no official, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”

What traditions JFK was referring to is not clear, but one might assume the US Constitution or perhaps the status quo of white supremacy? As for dangers being used to expand the meaning of security to the limits, we see that today, and this is exactly what has taken place, with the events of 9-11 being used as the catalyst. Security has been used as a basis for the Patriot Act and the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security  and the complete stripping away of the Constitutional rights of Americans to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, indefinite illegal imprisonment. extra-judicial execution and total surveillance.

The next part of JFK’s speech deals with the boogeyman threat of the USSR during the Cold War but it is a complete and utter irony that the tables have been completely turned and it is people like me and the VOR, Russian media like RT and outlets like WikiLeaks who attempt to expose the truth of the covert, illegal and secret nature of the nefarious activities of the American people’s own government. How times have changed? JFK’s words now almost exactly depict what the United States has become:

JFK: “For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.”

The secret and covert means that the US has employed to achieve global domination have included secret treaties, alliances, laws, huge secret spying networks and instruments and everything that has occurred since the War on Terror began. The infiltration and subversion can be seen through the activities of USAID, NGOs and the political manipulation and buying of politicians in almost every country in the world as well as all of the other “efforts” at media, cultural and psychological manipulation. This subversion was most clearly visible in the recent Middle East “revolutions”.

Intimidation is much more clear and stifles free speech, free expression and proper criticism. Again ironic that someone such as I writing for a Russian state media outlet would be one of the few journalists continuously attempting to expose US Government illegality for the American people, whose press can no longer properly carry out the function of the Fourth Estate without facing sanctions, imprisonment and even death.

The epitome of this intimidation is the case of Julian Assange who is trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London as well as all of the other information activists and whistleblowers such as Jeremy Hammond, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, who have lost their freedom or faced the full weight of the state for exposing the secrets nefarious activities of the US Government. There is no longer free choice and there is no longer a Constitution in America, those points are widely accepted.

The guerillas by night instead of armies by day quote almost perfectly characterizes the War on Terror and the use of Al-Qaeda (another secret US alliance)and all of the ways that “war” has been fought. Technology of course has made it possible for long-distance remote war to be fought which is an even more nefarious activity and one that JFK would never have even dreamed about.

JFK: “It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

What would JFK have thought if he had known that one day the above statement would perfectly reflect the US Government? For we have seen that the relationship between all of these institutions with the addition of law enforcement and the prison and healthcare systems, has become almost completely seamless, with the military industrial complex and the bankers controlling everything, even who becomes president.

The Trans Pacific Treaty is a perfect example of how preparations are concealed, war crimes exposed by Bradley Manning are perfect examples of mistakes being buried as are all of the failing of 9-11, the list of silenced dissenters is too long to list here as are the unquestioned expenditures and the secrets that are not published.

The rest of the speech most notably deals with the role of the press and the fact that dissent and discussion are healthy and necessary if a country is to survive. JFK stated that no president should be afraid of criticism or scrutiny but we have seen since Bush became president this has been the opposite and Obama has only expanded on the control of the media and the stifling of dissent and scrutiny. This is clear by the war Bush and then Obama have waged  on Hacktivists, information warriors, truth-seekers and whistleblowers. People who should have been seen as heroes and who exposed illegality have been demonized, marginalized and eliminated in one way or the other since the cover-up of the events of 9-11 and George Bush’s infamous statement: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists!”

“No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment – the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution – not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.”

It is a given and accepted fact in 2013 that the mass media is no longer free and that every reporter, writer and commentator must either engage in self-censorship or risk at minimum job or at most life if he dares to question the government or the president.

The role of the media is now even more important and the last words of JFK that I want to recall are the following:

JFK: “And so it is to the printing press – to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news – that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”

In my recent research into the events surrounding the assassination of JFK many things began to become clearer. As my readers know I have covered many areas of US Government illegality and written hundreds of articles and interviewed hundreds of people regarding the post 9-11 “War on Terror” paradigm, yet it was the recent research into the JFK assassination, Operation Northwoods and a statement by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower that made things clearer.

Eisenhower said: “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.”

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

This is exactly what has happened in the US and the events of 9-11 were the final catalyst needed to bring about the complete takeover of all areas of government and society by the military industrial complex.

If we start with the premise that there were members of the US military and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who were actually proponents of a plan like Operation Northwoods, which called for shooting down passenger aircraft and staging terrorists acts on US soil causing massive loss of civilian lives and we look at what happened on 9-11-2001 the correlations are almost to glaring to ignore, even if we want to ignore them. Eisenhower and JFK’s words are like clues to the JFK assassination and 9-11, clues from the grave, and they cannot be ignored if we are to understand the truth behind 9-11 and the JFK assassination.

After years of research, hundreds of interviews and connecting thousands of dots I can only conclude that the events of 9-11 had their roots in the JFK assassination and that behind the scenes the same players are involved. The same secret and all powerful members of the “Global Shadow Government” carried out the events. Andrew Kreig calls them the Puppet Masters, others call them the “Banksters”, the “Globalists” or the “New World Order People”. Whatever the name they are a dynastic power and they are in fact known and discoverable and their chief instruments for maintaining their order and control are the CIA, the NSA, and secret military branches and alliances such as NATO, Special Operations Command and even Al-Qaeda.

The fact that Bush was present in Dallas that fateful day when the young and smiling Kennedy had his life cut short and then became the Director of Central Intelligence are not mere coincidences. The fact that it was JFK who stopped Operation Northwoods and then was assassinated was also not a coincidence. The fact that the architects of Northwoods continued planning and scheming in the background for decades culminating in the events of 9-11 and then achieved positions of power afterwards, the Rumsfelds and Cheneys et. al. is also not a coincidence.

Also of interest is the seamless relationship between the military industrial complex and the US and other governments, highlighted perhaps by the fact that Keith B. Alexander the Director of the National Security Agency was at the meeting of the Shadow Government in 2009 (or better known as the “Bilderberg Group”) along with representatives of countless defense contractors and private intelligence corporations. Companies such Halliburton, XE and KNBR which have grown rich beyond their wildest dreams since 9-11.

Their machine has now spread its tentacles worldwide and in effect has enslaved the people of the world and if you are reading this on the internet you are connected to their network as well. After all the internet was originally thought up as a secret military network.  But what can we do? Is there any hope? According to everyone I have spoken to we are headed into black times but eventually things will get better. The key to it all is truth and the truth must be known and the truth will set us free.

Again the irony that this message of hope and the call for a stand against tyranny is coming from the former USSR must not be missed. I write this with a heavy heart but with hope for the future and hope that through the ultimate tool of control that was to be the internet we be able to end this black age and bring about peace and true accounting and finally respect for international law. For Americans I would hope that through concerted efforts the leaders would once again be forced to uphold their oaths to the Constitution, because it is not just an abstract piece of outdated legislation, but the foundation on which the country they took from the Indians was based.

The views and opinions expressed above were my own. I can be reached at jar2@jar2.com.


JFK Assassination Intertwined with Project Northwoods

JFK assassination intertwined with Project Northwoods – Andrew Kreig

By John Robles, 23 November, 2013 02:16  Download audio file

To understand the circumstances around the assassination of US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and the forces behind it one has to understand what Project Northwoods was. One also has to understand the racist forces that were fighting to keep segregation, the influence of the military industrial complex, the cold war, those in the shadows controlling everything and the animosity towards Cuba at the time. The actors behind the assassination of JFK were representatives of all these forces. Andrew Kreig, the author of Presidential Puppetry spoke to the Voice of Russia about the JFK assassination and says who he thinks really carried it out.

The following is from a speech by John Fitzgerald Kennedy about freedom of the press. 50 years after his assassination the words he spoke about a: "… monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence" perfectly describe the "War on Terror" hyper-security police state that the US has become. One which continues to battle against those who would expose government illegality.

JFK: "Ladies and gentlemen:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.

Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

And no official, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.

And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment – the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution – not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news, for it is no longer far away and foreign, but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news, as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, it must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security.

And so it is to the printing press – to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news – that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent." JFK

On the 15th anniversary of the assassination of the US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy the Voice of Russia spoke to Andrew Kreig, the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and their Masters. Mr. Kreig organized a conference in Dallas, Texas, of researchers, journalists and others interested in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Mr. Kreig gave his views on who was behind the assassination and some of the players that were possibly involved.

You are listening to an interview with Andrew Kreig – the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and their Masters. This is part 1 of a longer interview the rest of which you’ll be able to find on our website in the near future, at voiceofrussia.com

Robles: Hello Mr. Kreig! How are you this evening?

Kreig: I’m doing good, John. Please, call me Andrew.

Robles: Okay. So, I understand you are in Texas. Can you tell us anything about what you are doing there right now, this is associated with a very important anniversary for not only the American people, but a lot of the world?

Kreig: Yes! A lot of us, both researchers and general members of the public converging in Dallas, Texas today to prepare for either ceremonies or remembrances of the 50th anniversary of a murder of President Kennedy on the 22nd . And I’m attending a number of discussions of fellow researchers into how it happened, who did it, what the importance of it is for not just people in the United States, but around the world.

Robles: I’ve done some digging myself and I’d like to get your opinion and, maybe, get some background on certain events that may not be known by the general public.

First off, starting with the political climate in the United States during President Kennedy’s presidency, during the early 60s – the Civil Rights Movement, his calls for transparency in Government etc. Can you tell our listeners a little bit what exactly was the political climate and the civilian climate?

Kreig: I was a young person then, but I’ve done a lot of reading about it all since. You know, there was a great deal of excitement in his call to public service.

A little known fact is that if you look at the old pictures, this is kind of a small point, but men used to wear hats all the time in public. And part of his kind of fresh approach was that he didn’t wear a hat in public. And most people stopped then. It is just a small way of the impact.

It was a very exciting time. He was the first Catholic President and so that meant a lot to the Catholic population, young people and democrats after 8 years of Republican’s Government. That was the climate. But there was also a lot of tension and fear of war over Cuba and other Cold War activities.

Robles: Among the enemies that the late John F. Kennedy had when he was president, would you say there were a lot ofUS racist-hate groups and people who were still for segregation that would have wanted him dead?

Kreig: Absolutely! Because it was a way of life in the South and more than, he was threatening to use federal troops. People could see where it was coming, because federal troops had been used under the republicans a few years previously. And so, people just didn’t like the general direction of things.

He was definitely hated and suspected and attacked but it is also important to realize, looking back on this, that a lot of that was fomented in a way somewhat artificially. But that’s another story.

Robles: I was doing a little research myself and came across a very interesting fact, several of them actually. I was wondering if you could comment or expand on them, anything you might now.

Number one, there were reports and there was evidence that George Bush was in Dallas that day and that he was already working for the CIA, that he was controlling, who people have said were the shooters, or the shooter, or the team. What can you tell us about George Bush being in Dallas?

Kreig: There is a picture that anybody can find on the Internet of somebody who looks like George Bush…

Robles: I saw the picture. I would say it looked more like Clinton, judging by the forehead, but he was too young.

Kreig: There is this picture and it is seldom discussed, most people don’t even know about it.

We know that oddly both George H. W. Bush and Richard Nixon were in Dallas on separate business earlier that week.

And there are various reports that are not totally confirmed about what he might have been doing or where he was, but it is important to know that he was in and out of CIA work, and often the work is under the name of a "private business". So, it is not on the payroll but it seems to have those kinds of connections.

Robles: Wasn’t that Zapata Oil or something?

Kreig: The name of the company was Zapata Oil and it actually had some different names of variants of Zapata. And there is excellent evidence, that I’ve portrayed in my new book Presidential Puppetry, that one of the co-founders(Thomas Devine) had been in the CIA and later, after Zapata, returned to the CIA.

So, this is this kind of mixture of private business and back and forth with the agencies. And of course any agency activity is not part of the official biography until he became head of the CIA in the 1970s.

Robles: What do you think about his involvement in the assassination of JFK? Do you think he was involved in some way?

Kreig: I would say there is important evidence that he (George Bush) was part of the CIA dating back to the time just after he got out of Yale. And we know he was in Dallas. There is a picture of him or kind of looks like him on that day. But I’m not personally prepared to go beyond that and make an accusation.

Robles: Regarding a threat by Nixon and a threat by Johnson towards Nixon: Nixon, I believe, told Johnson; “Call off your dogs, or I’ll tell them you were bugging my phone", or something, “… during the election campaign”, and Johnson replied by telling him, reportedly; "I will tell them about your involvement in the JFK assassination." Can you expand on that? And then Johnson died, I believe it was ten days later, if I remember.

Kreig: I’ve heard of that, I’m sorry, I’m going to be a little bit conservative in my judgments.

Robles: What about NorthwoodsProject Northwoods? And the Cubans?

Kreig: I think Northwoods is extremely important and I believe that it’s almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation about what caused the assassination without mentioning either Northwoods or the name Colonel Fletcher Prouty, who was a very high up liaison in the US Government between the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Northwoods was a plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States to create false flag operations in the 1962 time period and blame the deaths of Americans on Cuba and that way foster International tensions and create a justification for a US invasion after Bay of Pigs fiasco that would take out Castro.

This was a super secret plan for obvious reasons, that was not disclosed really publicly until 2001, in a path-breaking book by James Bamford called "Body of Secrets".

The concept that the US military would advocate such a despicable plan is extremely important particularly because we now know that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Kennedy rejected this plan.

And that irritated high level officials in the military, particularly because some of them not only saw their plan rejected, but they suffered career setbacks, and you see, this provides one of a number of motives for: either less-than-forthcoming investigations by the US government and CIA and Allen Dulles after the death, and or even a motive for the killing.

The reason I mentioned Colonel Prouty before, he died in 2001 and so during his lifetime this plan was secret but he certainly would have known about it, and he wrote two very important books in 1973 and 1996 in which he disclosed what he thought were highly unpatriotic efforts by the US military and the Central Intelligence Agency, and he in fact served as a consultant to Oliver Stone in the movie "JFK" and Colonel Prouty’s 1996 book blamed the assassination essentially on the Central Intelligence Agency.

So he did not mention operation Northwoods because it was so classified that he would have known about it, and it’s for these reasons that I think it’s very difficult to talk about what might have happened and who did it if one does not know about Northwood or Colonel Prouty.

You were listening to part 1 of an interview with Andrew Kreig – the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and their Masters. You can find part 2 this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com in the near future. Thank you very much for listening and as always I wish you the best wherever you may be.

“For as a wise man once said: ‘ An error does not become a mistake, until you refuse to correct it!’” - JFK


9-11 Hijackers had Addresses on Pensacola Naval Air Station, Interview With Len Bracken

9/11 hijackers had addresses on Pensacola Naval Air Station – Len Bracken

Download audio file 21 November, 2013 15:39 Part 1

The events of 9-11-2001 are still cause for research and questioning and this will not go away until the truth is known. Among the thousands and thousands of inconsistencies in and around 9-11 are facts such as the US Government Anthrax that was used in the Anthrax terror attacks, the fact that two of the planes that were reportedly involved in 9-11 are still sighted today and the way the WTC buildings came down in obvious controlled demolitions. Len Bracken, who has written extensively on the matter spoke to the Voice of Russia on some of the more stunning questions that have never been answered.


Robles: Hello, this is John Robles, I'm speaking with Mr. Len Bracken, he is the author of six books including the "Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror", he is also a specialist in international affairs and international relations, and an accredited journalist. This is part 2 of an interview in progress.

Bracken: When we went back to Weehawken years after attack, they said that they were livid because they knew what was in there, there were bombs, there were detonators and there was even supposedly anthrax there, is what they told us.

Robles: Anthrax?

Bracken: Yes, inside of the moving systems. Yes, the FBI supposedly cordoned off the area around Urban Moving Systems systems in Weehawken, NJ, came in with what are called moonsuits, these biological hazard suits because of the existence of anthrax there.

Robles: I have seen credible work done pointing to the fact that the anthrax was actually US Government grade military anthrax

Bracken: That's my understanding as well and I should mentioned that Andrews Smith was a contributor on the book and he did some valuable research on my book with regard to the anthrax chapter and of course, this whole idea that Mr. Ivins would have been culpable and I just don't believe it, you know, I think he was framed. I can say that based on some information that I have, people who knew him well and the evidence points to other people.

Robles: Who was that, who was framed? What was his role?

Bracken: There was the initial person of interest and then it came to a somewhat troubled man, forget his first name was, I believe it was "Bruce" Ivins, I think he committed suicide, one of those instances where it is very unlikely he would have done it and now he is gone and we can't really say one way or the other definitively

Robles: Back to the Saudi connection and I'm interested in Bandar-Bush and Al-Qaeda again, there was this rich Saudi family living in Florida where these pilots were training, (not to land, not to take off) but just to fly aircraft. Can you tell us what happened with them? There was a big scandal about them, they just disappeared and they left their homes, their cars and their televisions on and everything and they just disappeared.

Bracken: Yes, I talked to some people who knew them and other than what you have just said, I really don't know any details. It sounds like they were given a warning and they left, I don't have anything more for you on that.

I can tell you about my research into Mohammed Atta, also sort of an interesting fact about some of the drivers' licenses of the alleged hijackers, they were said to have lived at Pensacola Naval Air Station and when this came out in the news, one of the Florida Senators issued a press release and said he was going to get to the bottom of this and find out why was that hijackers would have driver's licenses with addresses on Pensacola Naval Air Station and when I called his office, I was told later that they were not going to look into that.

Of course there is incredible evidence about Mohammed Atta and his being trained by the US Government. They say that he was in officer training school in an Air Force base in Alabama, in Montgomery, Alabama.

Now I called the base and I spoke with a press officer there and she said that there was a Mohammed Atta there but she couldn't tell me whether or not it was the Mohammed Atta in question and eyewitness accounts said that it very obviously was, numerous eyewitness accounts have come forth saying it was the Mohammed Atta.

So I hate to tell you this but I was actually in Riga Latvia, I live in Washington DC but I was in Riga, Latvia on the day of 9/11 so I had no ability to get there and check things out for myself but friends and family were nearby, they saw the plane go overhead, I subsequently went to the Sheraton Hotel with other researchers, with Ken Thomas from Steamshovel press, and with John Judge with the coalition of political assassinations, I am a Spanish speaker, I was able to talk with maids, talk with management there, and just based on friends and family and those people that were in the Sheraton hotel, which is right next to the flight path.

Now I just wanted to say that I put myself into category of 'we really don't know exactly what happened', and I don't think we will probably ever really know and I think we should be satisfied with the idea that we will never know.

I would say that it is possible that the plane was shut down or the plane was allowed to fly away and that a missile hit the Pentagon, I don't see any markings on the wall from the wings.

Robles: That is exactly what I am talking about that is evidence that's right in front of your eyes, it was in front of my eyes, it was in front of world's eyes. What does a Rolls Royce engine jet weigh? I mean the kind that are on a Boeing 767. They would have pulverized the windows, the walls, there would have been a massive hole, the lawn was untouched, that was clear, the second and third story windows were still intact, all the windows where the wings should have been were still intact, I mean, come on.

Bracken: There was some wreckage, so it would imply that something could have been shot, right before it hit and then maybe a second bomb hit the Pentagon.

I agree with you there is all this evidence that looks like it just wasn't a plane, but on the other hand I've looked at a compilation of roughly 90 pages of Times New Roman, single space print, paragraph after paragraph of eyewitnesses that said that they saw people in the planes, they could see their faces, they saw the plane going into Pentagon.

You know, whether it could have been some kind of optical illusion and the plane then actually flew away. At this point in our technological existence, anything is possible, I would say. So they could have seen something and then not have seen what they thought they saw.

Robles: I have heard that theory being put forward by some credible people that it was just a massive psychological operation. I mean people were shocked and they were immediately told what they saw and they believed what they were told.

Bracken: There was certainly a plane there. It does seem very difficult that the plane could have come down over that ridge.

I grew up around here and I used to skateboard under the underpass right there, between the Sheraton and the gas station, there is a big underpass and we used to skateboard those walls, I have been back over there, I looked at it.

Basically there is a highway called 395, you look at the flight path and the planes come right along straight, you know, they could have lined themselves with that and then pushed the nose down. I am told that that would have been very difficult and one eye-witness supposedly saw a pilot standing up in the cockpit with all the force of his body pushing down on the rudders to get it to dive.

Robles: Somebody said that they saw that from the ground?

Bracken: Yes, I've read it.

Robles: Have you ever tried to see a pilot in a 767 when it is just parked on the runway? I seriously doubt you will be able to see him standing up and you certainly wouldn't be able to see the flight yoke.

Bracken: Oh yeah, obviously not that. Well, all I'm just saying is that there are these accounts.

Robles: I've heard this and I've read about this and it's been documented: the plane that supposedly, that I would say the plane that never hit the Pentagon and a plane that never crashed or disappeared into a hole in field of Pennsylvania, their registration numbers are still current.

They haven't been annulled and those planes have been sighted several times since 9-11-2001. What can you tell us about the planes?

And another interesting fact was the pilot of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon, he came from the Pentagon. He was a US air force pilot and he disappeared of course after 9/11? Have you heard any reports about those planes still being active?

Bracken: Yes, I've heard that. And of course you have these plane watchers everywhere around the world nowadays, so you would think that they would have covered their tracks a little bit better? But that does appear to be the case.

I can say that my friend and colleague Wayne Madson did travel to Shanksville, Pennsylvania. He interviewed numerous people there, including I believe the mayor of the town. The debris spreading for miles, and other evidence makes people believe that that plane was actually shot down. And that it didn't come down on the basis of some kind of passenger intervention.

That sounds more plausible as well. Why won't they tell that story if that's the true story I don't understand. There were also reports that that plane had landed in Ohio, I believe in Cleveland. I think it was channel 7 ABC news or something – they had a live report, and apparently this plane had landed and had been taken to a NASA hanger and everybody was evacuated.

I think there was 184 people I believe on it. And they disappeared within 20 minutes that the plane was evacuated and those people were never heard from again. Have you heard that?

Bracken: I have and I've heard some accounts of people and I've heard those accounts as well.. Those surfaced after my book published and I was not able to include those in my book.

Robles: What's your theory with that?

Bracken: I think that all of the scenarios..I think most of the scenarios have some degree of plausibility especially when you talk about the buildings up in New York, that's a big subject of controversy, the Pentagon as well, all of it. It's just sort of controversial.

And I wrote my book and I did a couple of interviews, after ten years I made a few more interviews, and I just don't want to get into a lot of the disputes about this. I don't have any definitive answers, I don't want to argue about it.

I wrote an article about Judy Wood just because I thought that this directed energy weapons should be at least examined and I got a lot of flak for it, trying to be objective and say 'Hey, at least hear the woman out'.

Anyway, any or all of the above is the way we should keep our minds open.

Robles: It's interesting you mentioned the directed energy weapons because I recently (listeners can go back and find an interview with ex-MI5 officer David Shayler) that's what he said they used at 9-11.

He said they were directed energy weapons, there was no way that the cement in those buildings would have been just been pulverized into dust.

Ok, the planes. What happened? Maybe there was no crash and the plane was landed in Cleveland. Everyone was taken off, they were killed, those planes are still active apparently.

Back to WTC, the most obvious thing that we could talk about is Building 7.

How long would you say it would take to plan a controlled demolition of two of the highest skyscrapers in the world so they would fall directly into their own footprint, I mean as neatly and at free-fall speed as they did ?

Bracken: Yeah. It seems like it would have taken years, seems like they had something like this in mind.

I can remind your listeners about the events around the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in which an Egyptian Intelligence Agent working with the FBI was taken off the case a couple of weeks before the vans were parked there and exploded.

After the event he called his FBI handlers, the FBI handlers said that a decision was made to allow the attacks and he said 'Yeah, but we were gonna put something other than real explosives' and they said ' Yes, we are sorry, but that's what happened'.

Those interviews were printed verbatim in New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and Law School professors were standing on the steps of their law schools and saying 'Hey, this is a provocation'.

So, there is real strong evidence, that they'd done this kind of thing before.

Now of course we know that in weeks before the 9-11 there were these electricity shut downs, there were reports of people coming in with all these cables, the same thing happened around the time of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Robles: 24 hours before the event all the security and all the dogs were pulled off, remember that?

Bracken: Right. Yeah. So it's very damming for anybody who wants to support the establishment claims when you look at this.

One of the things that I found that was particularly interesting was the existence of this "art group" that lived in the World Trade Center Towers for several months and they had all these boxes, wires and it's still uncertain exactly what they did.

But what they were doing is that they actually took out a window and built a little balcony and they had a helicopter come by and photograph them. And that's one hell of an avant-guard art project, if you blow up the World Trade Center.

Personally I think it could have been directed energy, it could have been some small nukes, it could have been all of the above – many things could have been used.

Robles: There was that film-evidence and everybody saw it and it's there. And it's out there and it's still out there – the evidence of the molten steel – even 5 or 6 days after 9-11 it was Still Molten- they filmed blasts, like 25 blasts or something.I forgot, I sat one time and counted them. It was bam-bam-bam and then the building came down.

Bracken: Right and you can see some of these I-beams that are just sliced in perfect straight lines. It doesn't look like the kind of thing that would happen from some pancaking collapse. As improbable as even that is given the speed with which they came down.

Robles: And I think the most elementary thing is that any, even a two-year old child will know, say, you've got a pencil standing on its end, if you knock it on its side, it's gonna fall over, it's not gonna collapse into itself, right?

That is just the most obvious lie in the whole thing and it is so unbelievable –it's right in front of everybody's eyes, but everybody wants to believe what they were told, because they were in so much shock.

I mean, it is shocking to think and I'd like to comment on this – do you think is really possible that a government could kill 3,000 of its own citizens as a pre-text to bring about a hyper-security state in condition of endless war

Bracken: Right. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security which probably will make the Gestapo look some kind of Utopian Paradise when it's all over

Robles: You think it's possible, you think that's realistic?

Bracken: Yeah, I do think it's possible, I think that, you know, you had people like Samuel Huntington with his book 'The Clash of Civilizations', there seems to be have been this idea that they would start their "War on Terror" to pick up where the Cold War left off. And of course a lot of this all goes back to the thing that you brought up before which is the Project for a New American Century.

That was part 2 of an interview in progress Len Bracken. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at Voiceofrussia.com. Thanks for listening and as always I wish you the best wherever you may be.


"The USA would dearly like to get its hands around Snowden's neck" - Mike Smith

Download audio file 20 November, 2013 14:27 Part 1

According to the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) due to the weak surveillance laws and regulations in the UK the GCHQ is in a good position to help the US National Security Agency (NSA) find information that the NSA is restricted from spying on. As part of a worldwide spying operation called "Five Eyes" (FVEY) a spying alliance of Anglo countries (UKUSA,) has established electronic listening posts on their embassies around the world and are able to interceptor almost every kind of electronic communication known to man. The spying on ordinary citizens is illegal and thus anyone who plays a role in revealing this and other illegality, such as Edward Snowden (who the US will not stop in pursuing) face open-ended persecution and the full weight of the US security state. Michael John Smith spoke on these issues and more with the Voice of Russia's John Robles.


Robles: You are listening to Part 2 of an interview with Michael John Smith, he is an intelligence specialist and the last person convicted of spying for the Soviet Union in the world. 

This interview is in progress.

Smith: Simon Jenkins actually made the point that Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian were safer custodians of this information than the NSA.

Robles: It hasn't got out, has it?

Smith: No, well that … the point he was making was that the Guardian has carefully vetted everything, it's even got the GCHQ to check it and make sure there is nothing that shouldn't be released in the public domain, so it's being done very, very carefully by the Guardian.

Robles: Well, Wikileaks was doing the same thing with all the Afghanistan files and the Bradley Manning revelations. I mean they were going through very carefully making sure that no source was actually damaged or anyone's life was at risk. So you could make the same argument there too.

Smith: That's right. That's the idea, If you are coming back to what the security services say in many cases, is that you can't reveal a … you can't say anything about sources, because that might put them at risk, it might damage somebody's security, and that is what they are really afraid of in revealing the truth, that's being used in arguments where, say, terrorists might go to court, and they don't put the terrorist in court because they say "if we put him in court, we will have to bring out evidence that might reveal our sources, it might show that we've got some guy high up in Al-Qaeda or somewhere, who we are trying to protect, because if that source gets found out, he might be assassinated, be removed, we will lose that source. So, it is better to let this terrorist stay on the streets".

So, they don't use any intercept evidence in court. And all that sort of argument; it's been going on for years.

Now, in a way, this is all redundant, because they'll say: "If they're spying on everybody, does it really matter, does it really matter who is the source because it could have come from anywhere?"

They have actually so many millions, billions of e-mails and telephone calls that how could anybody say where the information came from."

Robles: I see. But, I mean, backing up just a bit, sir, you were saying that the Guardian (and, I guess, WikiLeaks, right?) they are better guardians of secret information than the government is?

Smith: Yeah, yeah.

Robles: Both in the UK and, particularly, in the US, I guess?

Smith: Another right-damaging thing from the GCHQ's point of view is that one of the documents revealed by Snowden has GCHQ actually describing themselves as being able to help the NSA, because they said the weaknesses of British surveillance laws and the regulation regime is such that it's a good selling point for the Americans. Because they can help the Americans to find stuff, find information that the NSA can't do itself because they are more restricted by oversight than what the British are.

So it's almost making a selling point of this fact that GCHQ are more free to get away with this sort of thing.

Robles: On those lines can I ask you a couple of questions? John McCain, I'm sure you know who he is, he made a several statements to the Der Spiegel yesterday. One was that Obama should apologize to German Chancellor Angela Merkel for spying by the NSA and apparently GCHQ was involved in spying on Germans. He also said that NSA head General Keith Alexander should step down. And McCain also mentioned that the NSA had been spying on at least 35 foreign leaders, they were spying on I think about 38 countries' embassies in the US and he also said, I believe it was him who said, that the NSA, even though they are able to spy on "everything" they should reign themselves in.

Smith: Well, I think so, John. I think that this has gone too far, they need to apologize, they need to sort things out and get themselves on a better footing.

The last few days the Head of the German Parliament's Intelligence Committee has called for an enquiry into spying from British Embassy in Berlin.

About how it is common for British Embassies to act as covert listening stations around the world. And interestingingly, there is a cylindrical structure on the roof of the UK Berlin's embassy, which is some sort of a listening post and Edward Snowden has said that GCHQ has been setting up bogus accounts on the social media site LinkedIn to spy on Belgium state-owned Belgacom Telecommunications Company and the Vienna headquarters of OPEC. As you said, the NSA is also spying on associate embassies in Washington, has been now revealed.

Robles: And you just mentioned embassies, I mean there were reports not long ago that the US embassy here in Moscow, they have NSA spy servers right in the embassy and that this is pretty normal now in embassies all over the world.

Smith: Yeah. We know that the US embassy in Berlin which is the base of the NSA to spy on Angels Merkel.

There is also a story I've seen that the US embassy was being used as a base in Moscow for an NSA server, to be used to spy on Russia.

In relation there are a number of mysterious white boxes have appeared on the roofs of the various US embassies around the world, including those in Berlin and Moscow. And as the British cylindrical white thing on its roof we think that there is a probably some sort of listening devices.

Robles: How big are these? Have you seen them?

Smith: Yeah. If you go around and do Internet search for 'white boxes on the US embassy', you will find several photographs of these things.

We don't know for sure what they are, but it seems hardly likely they contain some sort of secret listening aerials or some devices of that sort.

Robles: In your opinion, is this normal? Do you think that's acceptable? Are there rules against it?

I mean. It's normal for a country, of course, to want to know what another government is doing but allowing one country to spy on the innocent civilians of another country?

Smith: I think in the cases like Germany, I mean that these are considered allies of the US, so it does seem very strange that you would spy on your own allies.

I think that's why Angela Merkel was particularly upset about it, because she considered, that her country was an ally of the US. So, why would you spy on your ally?

Robles: For the US they are all just "foreigners".

Smith: Yeah. And that what it seems to be. The US has a mind of its own and it will do what it wants to do. And it's very much pretty the same for the UK. UK is working collaboration with the NSA to spy on countries around the world.

Robles: Aren't the English people or people in the UK upset, that the NSA and the CIA who have been helped by GCHQ and the military intelligence bodies to spy on British citizens?

Smith: I think they must be and there is a lot of discussion about that on various web sites and forums. People are very upset about it.

And how much will it be clamped down on? Because already we've got an announcement that the Guardian's editor Alan Rusbridger will give evidence in December to another Parliamentary Committee called the Home of Affairs Select Committee, over the Guardian involvement with the Snowden leaks.

So they are not giving up here, they will still like to dearly get their hands on …that the USA would dearly like to get its hands around Snowden's neck and grab him back to the USA to face a trial. So, they are not going to give up.

But it will be mass interest from the public I think, that will make claims challenge these rulings and try to stop governments doing this and not prosecute Snowden and people who are whistleblowers. Because the whistleblowers are doing us a favor I think in putting this out there in the public domain.

Otherwise we wouldn't know about it. This is a on-going matter, I think. It's not going to stop this instant it will go on for years. We constantly have to hold these secret services to account. And that there is proper oversight of them by government bodies, so they can't get away with this in future spying on ordinary citizens.

Robles: And they should have proper evidence and proper cause to follow, convict and spy on people I believe.

Smith: That's right. Because why are they spying on innocent people who have done nothing wrong?

Robles: For the same reason they prosecute innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

Smith: That's right, it's unacceptable.

Robles: They've got to justify their own existence, I guess.

Smith: They have a big budget here in the UK, it's 2 billion pounds a year –they have a budget I believe for intelligence services. And they are getting a lot more money from the NSA for helping them.

So, there are thousands of people working in these organizations and they are all busy it seems spying on innocent people.

Robles: Well, if they don't have terrorists to spy on, they either have to create the terrorists or they can get creative and spy on everyone I guess, I don't know.

Smith: In most cases, the terrorists don't get caught by these people. They claim they are stopping terrorism, but when the terrorist act occurs, they didn't know about it or they conveniently didn't have the evidence.

Robles: Thanks a lot, Michael. I really appreciate you speaking with me.

Smith: Ok, John, any time.

Robles: Take care, have a good week.

You were listening to an interview with Michael John Smith, an intelligence specialist and the last person convicted of spying for the Soviet Union in the world, he is also a regular contributor


"Israel/US negative as always to Palestinian vote" – Rabie Al-Hantuli

Israel/US negative as always to Palestinian vote – Rabie Al-Hantuli

Download audio file 20 November, 2013 13:45

For the first time in history the State of Palestine was able to take part in a vote at the United Nations General Assembly. The irony that the vote was for a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), another country which has fought a long battle for self-determination, cannot be missed by historians and observers. The Voice of Russia spoke to the First Counselor of the Permanent Mission of Palestine to the United Nations Rabie Al-Hantuli regarding the vote and the current round of negotiations with Israel which has been occupying their territory since 1967.

The Voice of Russia spoke to the Ambassador of the State of Palestine Dr. Riyad Mansourright after the historic vote.

Hello this is John Robles I am speaking with Rabie Al-Hantuli, he is the First Counselor of the Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations.

Robles: Hello. I was speaking with Dr. Riyad Mansour, the Ambassador, and he had to go, I was wondering if you could comment on his reaction and anything you would like to say about the vote in the United Nation. It was the first vote by Palestine, on the judge to the ICC.

AL-Hantuli: Yes, hello, this was an important step for the state of Palestine exercising its right in this international assembly.

The text of the ICTY mentioned that member states and non-member states of the UN can present candidates and vote to choose the judges of this tribunal and we fully exercised this right today.

Ambassador Mansour voted in the first and second round and we are very proud of being able to do so and as he said in his speech after the vote, it is clear that the international community who welcomed the participation of Palestine in this vote is fully ready to accept Palestine as a full member of the United Nations.

Robles: That is wonderful. So the Assembly applauded, I believe?

AL-Hantuli: Yes, and a lot of colleagues, diplomats and ambassadors came to congratulate us after the vote.

Robles: What was the reaction like from the Israel and the US side? Was there any negative reaction?

AL-Hantuli: Yes, they took the floor, but to be frank it is always the same negative reaction they adopt. But you know, this was a story in the making at the UN. We They can't revert the course of history.

Robles: That is wonderful. Do you see more votes coming up in the near future? What kind of votes is the state of Palestine going to be involved in?

AL-Hantuli: It depends. Where we can exercise this right, we will do it.

Robles: Has there been any pressure from Israel regarding the negotiations? Have they been trying to dictate to the state of Palestine that they should not seek recognition in bodies etc.?

AL-Hantuli: No, this is a Palestinian sovereign decision.

The President Mahmoud Abbas made it clear that first of all we are engaged in this 9 months period of negotiations and we will respect our engagement until the end of this period.

Second of all, we are restraining of joining any other international agency or program or institution because we had an agreement that Israel, the occupying power, is releasing (freeing) some Palestinian political prisoners that are held in Israeli jails since before the Oslo agreement.

So, it is clear, but the fact to take the vote and to become member of the international agencies, this is sovereign Palestinian decision.

We will go for it when the Palestinian leadership will see that this is in the interests of our people.

Robles: Do you see a real solution being found soon with Israel? They are still building settlements but do you see success in the current round of talks?

AL-Hantuli: We are fully and very seriously and in a decent way engaged in this process.

This is our commitment and we will keep it until the end.

The Israeli's practices on the ground are completely in contradiction with any goodwill with regard to the negotiations. But that said they will do what they want but we have our clear position and we are engaged in this and at the end I believe the Palestinian leadership will take the right decision at the right moment.

Robles: Thank you very much.

AL-Hantuli: "Speaks in Russian" Thank you.


"We want to negotiate with Israel but it must stop its illegal behavior" - Ambassador Riyad Mansour

We want to negotiate with Israel but it must stop illegal behavior - Riyad Mansour

Download audio file 19 November, 2013 20:04

French President Francois Hollande on Monday sharpened his tone dramatically on Israel's settlement policies, demanding a "complete halt" to constructions in the disputed area. Riyad H. Mansour, a Palestinian-American diplomat and a Permanent Palestinian Observer at the United Nations since 2005, talked to the Voice of Russia's very own John Robles about Hollande's statement and the current state of affairs in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to Dr. Mansour, Israel has to stop illegally building settlements and expanding existing ones to allow  negotiations to proceed in an appropriate atmosphere. Dr. Mansour also called for the international community to force Israel to change its illegal behavior. The diplomat also condemned those countries with powerful veto powers in the UN that continuously provide cover for Israel's impunity. "We want to negotiate with Israel all the final status issues, borders, Jerusalem, refugees, security, settlements, water and prisoners", said Dr. Mansour; but for that, Israel has to "stop its illegal behavior".

This is John Robles, I'm speaking with Ambassador Dr. Riyad Mansour. He is the Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations.

Robles: Hello Sir!

Mansour: Hello!

Robles: It is a pleasure to be speaking with you. Thanks for agreeing to do the interview. I would like to ask you some questions. There was a recent statement by the French President Francois Hollande. He is calling on Israel to stop settlement activities on Palestinian Territory. Do you think this is a realistic request of Israel? Do you think they'll stop building?

Mansour: Well, you see, in order for negotiation to be conducted in an atmosphere and to increase the chances of success, one needs to remove obstacles, especially if they are illegal things, from the path of the negotiation.

Settlements are illegal and they are a huge obstacle in the path of negotiation; therefore, the call of President Hollande, of France, and of all of us in the international arena who consider that buildings are illegal: we all believe that Israel has to stop this illegal behavior in order to allow the negotiations to move in an appropriate atmosphere. Because the negotiation is for the objective of ending the occupation that started in 1967.

So, if we want to end the occupation and to allow for the independence of the State of Palestine so that we can have two-state solution, the Israeli side need not to build more settlements, to expand the existing ones, to bring more settlers to the area where they are supposed to be evacuating and to evacuate with them all the illegal things.

So, if they continue to negotiate with us while they are continuing with this illegal behavior, then it means that they are not serious about negotiation.

Robles: Sure! Sure. For our listeners: in your opinion, why is Israel..? Why have they been behaving with such impunity? I mean, these are clearly illegal activities that they are engaged in.

Mansour: The Israeli side is not making, like us, a historical compromise. We made a historical compromise from as far as 1988, when we declared our independence in a PNC session in Algeria. And we said that we accept to build our state in approximately 22% of historic Palestine, meaning the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

It was a painful compromise for us to accept to build our own state in even half of what is available to us in accordance with Resolution 181.

The Israeli side, they are refusing to acknowledge that they are occupiers and that they have to withdraw from the occupied land that they occupied in 1967, including the occupied land of the State of Palestine.

Once they come to that conclusion, then we can negotiate in good faith the end of this occupation and the independence of the State of Palestine, and the prize would be peace between us, the Arab states and the state of Israel, and between the Muslim states and the state of Israel.

So far they are refusing to do that. They still believe that that is the land that was given to them by God and, therefore, they are not occupiers and they don't want to let go, and they are building illegal settlements. As long as they think that way, then it is difficult to have peace between us and them.

They need to change their thinking, to accept the fact that this land that they occupied in 1967 is not their land. This is the land where the State of Palestine is going to enjoy its independence.

Robles: I understand. As a diplomat, I don't know if you can properly answer this question "diplomatically" but why do they act with such impunity, why do they continue to do something illegal? Is it because they have the support of the United States?

Mansour: It is very unfortunate that the international community, especially in the Security Council, is refusing to have a political will in order to tell Israel that you have to act according to the international law, nobody should be above the international law, and if you continue to act with impunity, there will be consequences.

If the international community, particularly in the Security Council, to act in this manner and say that: if you don't change your behavior, there will be consequences, then we will start to see a different reality.

But if there is a country, or maybe more than one country, with powerful veto power that are sort of giving cover to the Israeli side, then the Israeli side has no incentive to change its behavior. But if the international community is to speak in the Security Council particularly, to speak with one voice that: Israel, will behave according to the law or there will be consequences, then Israel will be forced to change its behavior of acting with impunity.

Robles: There are certain countries, I don't think we need to name them, in the Security Council who believe that they are above international law, that they are somehow better than the international law.

Have you seen an influence by the Russian Federation in light of what happened in Syria (and by the People's Republic of China)? What kind of influence have you seen towards a return of rule of law in the United Nations and in the Security Council? Have you seen any influence from Russia there?

Mansour: It was good that the Security Council was able to agree on a resolution on Syria and on a presidential statement on the humanitarian aspect.

These are moments in connection with the tragic situation in Syria in which there was a collective will by the Security Council to move in a certain direction.

We sincerely hope that all parties, including of course the special effort by Russia and the United States, could be in Geneva-2 and find a political and peaceful way of resolving this tragedy in Syria on the basis of allowing the Syrian people to select in free will their own future and to have the political government and system that they wish. And we sincerely hope that that would be the case.

From our side, in the Palestinian leadership, we play a constructive role with all parties including the Russians, the Americans and others in order to facilitate the early convening of Geneva-2 to move on that path.

Robles: Has Israel tried to pressure, in any way, the Palestinian people or your government with regard to Syria, for example?

Mansour: As I said, we are an active player on the issue of Syria, because we have half a million Palestine refugees living in Syria.

We tried our best for them not to be involved in that situation. But nevertheless, one of the biggest camps is in Damascus and has, to a great extent, been destroyed.

Tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of Palestine refugees are displaced or left Syria, and they are in the adjacent countries.

So, our people are part of this tragedy that is unfolding in Syria. Therefore, we have an interest in putting an end to this tragedy in Syria, and to find a political solution for this conflict and maintaining the unity and territorial integrity of Syria.

I'm wishing the best for our brothers and sisters (the Syrian people) in selecting whatever they want on the basis of their own free democratic will.

Robles: A question I wanted to ask you was regarding the following: there were reports regarding Israeli calls… (regarding the negotiations), that they do not want the State of Palestine seeking recognition from international bodies, etc.. Is that true?

Mansour: It is not up to the Israelis to decide for the Palestinian people what to do and what not to do.

As an expression of our right to self-determination: that's why we went to the UN seeking membership in the United NAtions.

That exercise of the right to self-determination, nobody can exercise it except the Palestinian people.

As all the people who struggle for self-determination, they did not negotiate that right with their oppressors or with their occupiers, or with those colonial powers that were dominating them. They exercise it themselves, alone. But that does not mean that exercising our right to do what we believe is legal and correct, including on the international arena, that doesn't mean we don't want to negotiate with Israel.

On the contrary, we are negotiating with Israel, we want to negotiate with Israel all the final status issues: borders, Jerusalem, refugees, security, settlements, water and also prisoners.

But what the Palestinian people should do, which agencies of the UN they should join, which international conventions they want to sign: these are the exclusive domain of the Palestinian people and we will exercise it once our leadership decides the appropriate time for doing so and Israel has nothing to do with that.

Robles: That is good to hear. Is it possible that the final resolution could include a capital in Jerusalem for the State of Palestine and for Israel?

Mansour: You see, we are asking the international community that all the occupied territory, occupied in 1967 (including the east Jerusalem) Israel has to withdraw from it.

We know that Jerusalem is a very important and precious city for all of humanity. East Jerusalem will be the capital of our state and West Jerusalem will be the capital of the other state.

And of course, we will make sure that the holy city, the old city of Jerusalem, which is important to all religions (the three religions) will be open for all people who want to warship and to practice their religions in that holy city.

Robles: I see, the situation is getting worse in Libya. I don't know if you can comment on reports that there was Israeli involvement in making agreements with the Transitional National Council to establish Israeli military bases on the territory of Libya. Can you comment on that and the current situation in Libya?

Mansour: There are two things. First of all, we wish all the best for our brothers and sisters in Libya, to come to a situation where there will be no bloodshed, so that they can concentrate on building their country and their political system in a very harmonious atmosphere.

Secondly, we totally trust the Libyan people, and their leadership in going through these difficult stages after the revolution.

We are confident that they will eventually be successful moving in the direction of resolving all of their issues in a peaceful way, in a democratic way, so that Libya can enjoy all of the resources that it has in building a state that reflects the interests of the Libyan people.

Robles: Regarding that rebuilding and building, and talking about Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya: these were the countries decimated by NATO and the West, destroyed.

Is there any international pressure for those countries that bombed, for example Libya, to be held responsible for rebuilding?

Mansour: These are the issues for our brothers and sisters in Libya to handle, whatever they decide upon: we will definitely support.

We cannot speak on their behalf, but we support them and we trust their judgment, and they have to make these decisions themselves.

Whatever they decide in this connection we support.

Robles: Okay, thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

You were listening to an interview with Ambassador Dr. Riyad Mansour. He is the Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the UN.


Jeremy Hammond: U.S. Tyranny, a Police State Gone Mad and the Failure of the Rule of Law

Jeremy Hammond

Jeremy Hammond

By John Robles, 17 November, 2013 20:34  

On November 15, 2013, Loretta A. Preska (born January 7, 1949 in Albany, New York) a Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and a former nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down an extremely harsh sentence to Mr. Jeremy Hammond for being entrapped by a an FBI informant into hacking the Stratfor Global Intelligence e-mails servers, in a case she should have removed herself from due to the fact that her husband works with Stratfor and had some minor personal information revealed (reportedly his e-mail address) in the Stratfor hack.On November 15, 2013, Loretta A. Preska (born January 7, 1949 in Albany, New York) a Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and a former nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down an extremely harsh sentence to Mr. Jeremy Hammond for being entrapped by a an FBI informant into hacking the Stratfor Global Intelligence e-mails servers, in a case she should have removed herself from due to the fact that her husband works with Stratfor and had some minor personal information revealed (reportedly his e-mail address) in the Stratfor hack.

The blowback from the ruling is just beginning to be felt but it promises to be massive with WikiLeaks being one of the first by releasing the rest of the Stratfor e-mails (over 500,000 documents)for which Mr. Hammond has been charged. Hacktivist groups Anononymous, LULZSEC, ANTISEC and others are promising operations and “payback” which will be massive according to members of Anonymous without giving details saying they had already arrived.

The Stratfor e-mails are damning because they show the almost seamless operations of a private corporate intelligence firm with real intelligence agencies and the government. One e-mail details how an Israeli Intelligence informant was targeted for information on Hugo Chavez.

"You have to take control of him. Control means financial, sexual or psychological control... This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase" Stratfor CEO George Friedman told Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla on 6 December 2011. He was instructing her how to manipulate an Israeli intelligence informant who was passing Stratfor information on the medical condition of the President of Venezuala, Hugo Chavez.

The Stratfor e-mails contain private information about the US Government’s campaign against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and even Stratfor’s own private and illegal attempts to subvert WikiLeaks. According to WIkiLeaks more than 4,000 e-mails mention WikiLeaks or Julian Assange.

WikiLEaks calls the files “the Global Intelligence Files” which expose a global network of informants paid via Swiss banks accounts and pre-paid credit and include covert and overt informants including government employees, embassy staff and journalists around the world.

The Stratfor e-mails show how a private intelligence agency works, and how they target individuals for their corporate and government clients, including PETA and Bhopal activists such as the "Yes Men" for US Dow Chemical. The targets sought redress for the 1984 Dow Chemical/Union Carbide gas disaster in Bhopal, India which killed thousands and injured more than half a million.

The biggest and most damning fact against the government with regard to the Stratfor hack is that it was completely organized and carried out by the FBI using Hector Monsegur (Sabu) and the files were actually stored on FBI servers for two weeks before they were released to WikiLeaks. Meaning the entire release could have been stopped at anytime during the entire process.

Besides the above, the irregularities in the case are so many that it was believed by many that the case should have been thrown out or that Mr. Hammond would be released with time served. Now maybe Americans are beginning to understand that their government has been taken over completely by corporations and their system of justice has failed.

The first failure in the case against Hammond was that he was entrapped. In an any faire and just system police and law enforcement bodies cannot entrap people and convince them to do things that they would not do on their own. Nor would they use criminals to entrap innocent individuals or use their testimony to build cases against innocent individuals.

The FBI informant in this case, who entrapped Mr. Hammond, was an individual named Hector Xavier Monsegur, known by the hacker name SABU. Mr. Monsegur was arrested for hacking into computer systems and stealing credit card and other personal information to enrich himself and caused millions of dollars of harm. That is if we can believe anything the FBI reports. Mr. Monsegur’s crimes make Mr. Hammond’s pale in comparison. Hammond attempted to expose the illegality of a private corporation which performs intelligence functions out of the realm of government control, in many cases illegal monitoring for the government, that due to its private nature, it was able to get away with as it handed the date to the CIA and other agencies.

Hammond was aware that Stratfor was among its illegal activities: monitoring indigenous populations, human rights groups, political activists, protestors and any other “undesirables” for the US Government and just like Bradley Manning he attempted to expose criminality and the inappropriate and illegal relationship between a private, well-connected corporate power enriching itself off the government coffers while performing illegal activities for that very government.

There can be little question that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is one of the most questionable in the world and has handled cases that flaunt international law and norms while continually protecting monied and powerful interests in the United States and those of its “special” friends. It is also one of the most powerful in the United States and one that the record has shown rules as it wishes with little regard for the actual rule of law, public opinion and international and national outcry brought about by its actions.

The court has a history of brutal and questionable ruling and due to its protected nature has had little oversight from any of the bodies that are generally supposed to keep the system in check. The court in particular has handled many cases where the rights of the individual have been violated, proper procedures and rights have been trampled on or ignored and outright illegality by law enforcement and prosecuting bodies and individuals have been documented. However the court has a history of always fulfilling the will of the state and prosecutors no matter how egregious its rulings are or how badly the rights of individuals have been violated.

The court has handled many post 9-11 cases involving questionable charges against foreign and US nationals under the Patriot Act and other Draconian US legislation. Here it is important to note that the court has never heard a case or ruled against any entity with regard to the events of 9-11, despite statements by key figures in 9-11 regarding giving orders to “pull” and the total lack of security which allowed the buildings to be blown up as well as widespread evidence of a cover up and inside involvement. This includes allowing suspected Mossad agents and other suspected perpetrators to leave the country and escape prosecution.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has prosecuted questionable international cases such as the Victor Bout case, where a Russian citizen was illegally kidnapped and taken to the United States as well as being entrapped for the crime of “possibly intending to help someone else commit a crime against the US”.

Other questionable cases include the kidnapping and illegal prosecution of another Russian as well, Constantin Yaroshenko, who was also entrapped by a questionable informant and illegally recorded. Him and Mr. Bout were pilots and there is evidence that they both had some inside knowledge through their professional activities regarding the events of 9-11.

This prosecution of someone with knowledge of 9-11 is completely true in the case of Susan Lindauer, who was a CIA asset and attempted to stop the invasion of Iraq. Her treatment by the court and Judge Preska in particular included Preska attempting to chemically lobotomize Lindauer and calling her mentally incompetent to stand trial. This was due to Lindauer’s inside knowledge of the events of 9-11 gained through her work as a peace negotiator between US targets Yemen, Iraq, Libya and Malaysia and her work with the CIA.

Other Preska prosecutions include that of Abduwali Muse a Somali pirate who was illegally renditioned to the United States and subject to a show trial and to whom she gave 33 years.

She also ruled in the case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailiani one of those illegally held at Guantanamo in the first civilian case against an illegally held and tortured Guantanamo detainee.

Lastly and most importantly here is the fact that she ruled in the case of Hector Monsegur (Sabu), in effect letting his financial and other crimes be ignored in order to persecute a peace activist (Hammond).

The cases Preska has ruled over, the sentences she has handed down, the fact that she habitually refuses to take into account evidence that should either free or exonerate suspects and in the case of Hammond, the fact that she refused to recuse herself from the case, above all, when there was clearly a conflict of interests (her ruling over Sabu and her husband’s ties to Stratfor) paint a picture of a judge above the law, who is in fact a law unto herself and her interests, and one who operates with complete impunity as she has made herself not only above the law, but the only law.

Given her own track record for ignoring the law it was particularly painful to hear that she stated: “Hammond has shown a total lack of respect for the law,” and also, “… there is a desperate need to promote respect for the law," she said, as well as a "need for adequate public deterrence." Had her court any respect for the law they would have let Hammond go. He was entrapped. As for deterrence, yes, they are trying to terrorize anyone who would dare expose illegality, because that is what Hammond was guilty of.

Hammond was able to finally speak out and stated: "Those in power do not want the truth exposed. …the injustice I fought against cannot be cured by reform, but by civil disobedience and direct action. The acts of civil disobedience and direct action that I am being sentenced for today are in line with the principles of community and equality that have guided my life, I hacked into dozens of high profile corporations and government institutions, understanding very clearly that what I was doing was against the law. But I felt that I had an obligation to use my skills to expose and confront injustice and to bring the truth to light. I tried everything from voting, petitions, and peaceful protests to expose the truth. I believe sometimes laws must be broken to exact change.”

Hammond is clearly a prisoner of conscience and the reverberations are beginning worldwide and will no doubt be major before it is all over.

 The views and opinions expressed above are my own, I can be reached at jar2@jar2.com.


Anonymous to Release Blackout OS - Anonymous


Download audio file 17 November, 2013 08:05

With more and more revelations of massive spying by the United States and its National Security Agency (NSA) on the citizens and countries of the world, coupled with attempts by the US to control, monitor and in fact take over the Worldwide Web, the Hacktivist Group Anonymous is continuing to fight for the free transfer of ideas and freedom of expression and speech on the internet. With Draconian laws and measures being taken by the United States, Anonymous has been busy developing strategies to counter corporate and government internet tyranny by those who wish to regulate, control, monitor, spy on and profit from you every time you go online. In part two of a longer interview with Anonymous it is revealed that the group will soon be releasing a new operating system that is super secure as well as open source. The existence of built in back doors in the Windows platform for the NSA is another very disturbing revelation that has been largely ignored until now.

Even when you are connected to Google encrypted, when Google is moving it from their Web interface over to actual processing. There is a small gap both in the digital sense and physically in a geographical sense. A gap in between it, and that data is actually handed over unencrypted, or was until Google just encrypted it now. And Google reasonably believed that was a safe thing to do because it was deemed moved unencrypted, sure, but it was being moved on dedicated fibre optic lines that Google themselves had installed. What they did not know is that the N S A had actually tapped directly into those fibre optic lines underground.

Robles: Wow. What about other services, platforms and as an expert in this, what programs should we stay away from if we want to protect our privacy?

Anon: Stay away from mainstream e-mail. And I say that regretfully as an avid user of Gmail who enjoys Gmail and a lot of Google products because I am a big fan of Google. But yes I would stay away from Gmail, stay away from Hotmail, stay away from Yahoo obviously. Basically stay away from any sources that are considered mainstream if you are concerned with your privacy.

For instant chatting use Cryptocat for example. It is burn and gone. We use burn notes.

Robles: Burn notes or Cryptocat it’s called?

Anon: Yes Cryptocat

Robles: OK. What about operating systems, what about software? What about like back doors in Windows – any other ones other than that NSA key that you know about?

Anon: Well I am sure there are plenty of back doors in Windows, This has been going on since the late nineties. The N. S. A. has had back doors in Windows. I am sure they did not stop now they are just obfuscating them more

Robles: Do you know, has anyone ever gotten the entire base code for Windows?

Anon: I do not believe it has been fully revealed or reverse engineered. No.

Robles: I know that technically like some governments are supposed to be allowed to have the code, but I don’t think they even get all the code.

Anon: We are actually working in conjunction with some other security people. I will tell you what here is a little exclusive for you. We actually have an operating system coming out soon and we call Blackout Linux. You can actually check it out in Blackout hyphen O S dot com

What we are going to be releasing is an operating system which will be Linux based. It is still a working project. It will be a while until there is any stable release for the masses. It is called Blackout. We designed the landing page for it at black out dash O S dot com and we are going to be putting all sorts great features and functionalities into it.

We are also working with an alpha working group for a hardened version of TORE….. There are so many error issues with writing a hardened version of TorE…. The people like a rich Internet experience and the hardened TorE …. We are getting rid of Java. We are getting rid of Flash. We are getting rid of a lot of steps that makes it difficult for stealth but which gives everybody an enjoyable rich user experience


Robles: Right, right. When is this OS coming out? This is very interesting

Anon: No release date. I am on the alpha working group and it is about 2 dozen of us and it is literally pre alpha stage

Robles: Wow. OK, so maybe within a year or 6 months or no prediction?

Anon: We have some of the best of the best inside of our development crews working on it. We have engineers who work for Fortune 500 companies and I would expect 6 months to a year from now we would have something decent. The beta version.

Robles: Wow, great.

Anon: Which will be for public release, yes.

Robles: Wow, and this will be Intel based or Pentium based or 486 base or whatever you want to call it? Or is this going to be Apple based or whatever?

Anon: It is going to be completely Linux based you know probably be initially released stand alone. There will be a live CD thing it makes it easier for the end users especially if we make like a pen drive install where all you have to do is put it on a thumb drive. You boot up your computer and you pick. Do you want to load a Blackout operating system or do you want to load Windows. If you click Blackout O S it loads from the USB key. Everything is stored on the U S Key ensuring even greater privacy and security

Robles: What, even the operating system is going to be on a flash drive?

Anon: True. It can be yes just like all Linux distributions we are going to make it live CD compatible.

Robles: Wow. So I could, for example, somebody could go to their work computer and put in their flash drive, if they could boot off the flash drive? Is that possible?

Anon: Yes. As a matter of fact technicians do it all the time. It is a quick way to rescue computers and you only need the hard drive of the computer to do that with and even the data disk drills are already out like Ubuntu even.

Robles: Wow. OK. A lot of people don’t know that. Can you tell us a little bit about some of the efforts that Anonymous has been doing, and I think they are very applaudable. Well I think most of what Anonymous does is applaudable, but I am a fan but regarding the battle against child pornography and paedophiles?

Anon: Well certainly this is my forte I am actually creating and led several operations against child pornography websites. Gap websites that seem innocuous on the surface perverted but innocuous until you get in and you infiltrate them and you see it trading kiddy porn in the message board and things like that, private messages and things of that nature. Op Pedo Chat is a good one, you will definitely find some coverage on that. PC Magazine covered it, C Net covered it, Examiner and everyone else covered it. And in that operation we were actually targeting about three of four hundered websites a month. Operation Op Pedo Chat we targeted about three or four hundred websites. A lot of those were hosted by a host called Ecatel

Robles: Are they still on line?

Anon: Part of Ecatel is still on line. They took a serious beating and probably about handles four hundred websites that we targeted. We permanently got rid of about 200 of them

Robles: Wow, that’s pretty impressive.

Anon: And we found the easier way unfortunately to do it the easier way was to lean on the I S Ps. You see we started by telling the I S Ps that we were covering these kiddy porn websites. That there was kiddy porn on their servers and websites and most of them came back with “we do not care”. In fact Ecatel told me personally not only they did not care, but they told me to quit hiding in the shadows and go screw your mommy.

Robles: Really!

Anon: And that did not work out too well for them. But the thing is there is there is a lot of it hosted in Lithuania and other countries where they feel they are beyond the law and that is where Anonymous steps in to take care of matters to police the Internet and if law enforcement cannot do it then Anonymous will do it. We will not allow crap like that on the Internet it does belong there.

Robles: OK, are there any other things that you feel shouldn’t be on the Internet?

Anon: In general Anonymous feels that everybody has a right to free speech except for when that free speech infringes upon children like that for example. Even West Grove Baptist Church we allowed them to coexist on the Internet. Scientology we let them hold down a website for now. We can take them down anytime we want of course.

Robles: What would you say to recent FBI claims that Anonymous was decimated and they said they arrested the leadership, which I think that would be impossible, but anyway what would you say to those claims?

Anon: We have said it long ago and we will say it again. For every Anon that falls 10 more will take his place. it will just increase dissent. You cannot arrest an idea. Ideas are bullet proof. I can say that the fifth of November next year should be mighty interesting. That is all I can say about it. Monsanto has theirs coming too. I hope they are hearing us. Monsanto can expect us.

Robles: Well I really appreciate you speaking with me

Anon: No problem. You have a great night.

This is John Robles. You were listening to an interview with a member of the Anonymous Hacktivist Collective. You can find Part 2 of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com. The speaker’s voice was anonymised to protect his safety or her safety. Thanks for listening.


Anonymous will always support Jeremy Hammond - Anonymous

Anonymous will always support Jeremy Hammond - Anonymous

Download audio file  16 November, 21:37  

The government transparency website WikiLeaks has recently released part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, this is a document that will affect over 800,000 million people. However it is being passed without the knowledge of their prospective governments, nor of the people who will be affected by it. Another event that has had reverberations throughout the internet was the November 15th sentencing of former LULSEC and Anonymous Hacktivist,Jeremy Hammond, to 10 years in prison for being entrapped in an FBI hack of the Stratfor e-mail files. The Voice of Russia spoke to a Hacktivist of the Anonymous Hacktivist Collective on these issues and more.

Robles: Hello, how are you this afternoon.

Anon: I’m doing fine. Yourself?

Robles: I’m very well. Thanks for agreeing to speak with us. Regarding some latest developments in cyberspace and legalese released by Wikileaks, can you give us updates on your opinions and what Anonymous is doing? First off with regard to this TPP, and what is that?

Anon: The TPP is the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement that actually affects about 80 percent of all global trade. It affects the taxes and trade stipulations on everything from your current everyday household items all the way to, more importantly for the Internet’s point of view, to media copyright patents.

Touching briefly on what it is doing to medicine, its actually making it so that pharmaceutical companies will be able to double dip on their patents. They will be able to take a drug like Lipitor and then come back and say: “you know what we can all see that Lipitor can cure headaches. And get a fresh patent on Lipitor just based on it being used for something else”.

And it is basically Hollywood’s wish list of things, its SOPA, its PIPA, its CISPA in disguise is what it is.

Robles: But its SOPA, its PIPA and CISPA with a total global reach isn’t it?

Anon: Yes that is pretty accurate. And most surprising is Australia which has really been the hypocrite here. On one face they are telling the consumers they are all off their copyright protection prima sharing and all that. And then when they close doors they are partnering with the US to strip Australian citizens of all those rights.

Robles: How can you comment on the fact that, as I understand, there are 12 countries, according to Wikileaks, there are only 3 people in each country with full knowledge of the full text of this agreement? And then Wikileaks says this will affect 800 million people, right, and that this has been pushed through by corporate America where there are about 600 corporate lawyers who are involved in drafting this thing, and Obama is trying to push it through. As a member of Anonymous, how is Anonymous going to react to this, it seems like the takeover of America by corporations?

Anon: There is I would guess if you look back at OP RIA or the operations that we did after Jeremy Hammond and things of that nature. That would probably in the vein of the direction we would have had if necessarily drew attention. We also of course have the so called Internet tax symbol from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. That includes partners for the Wikipedia Foundation for sites like Reddit and even heavyweights like Google you know I could see an internet blackout definitely being in the future to draw more attention to this.

I would say that it affects a lot more than 800 million people especially with how it impacts the ability to share on the Internet. And Anonymous is all about free speech especially on the Internet. That has always been our main monitoring filter is that is our free and open Internet. And the TPP would basically censor free and open Internet by imposing unreasonable copyright restrictions and redefining what Fair Use is basically bypassing the DMCA provisions and safe harbor provisions. And then sites like Youtube would not even be able to exist if the current form the current draft were passed.

Robles: Are you aware, does Anonymous have the full text of this agreement?

Anon: Just for the I P chapter.

Robles: Oh, just the IP part. Are you aware, is that out there somewhere, do you know?

Anon: You know I believe Laura Poitras has it and I believe Glenn Greenwald might have it. Other than I think Wikileaks is holding this one to themselves.

Robles: I see, I see. You mentioned some operations, I remember when they were trying to pass SOPA that Wikipedia shut down, remember that?

Anon: The Internet blackout. It was not actually just Wikipedia. It was actually over 15 hundred websites including quite a few big ones. 

Robles: Do you see something like that in the near future, or not yet?

Anon: I actually do see that in the future. The EFF was actually talking on one of their forums. They were having a talk about activating with what would have been dubbed the Internet cat symbol.

It is like that old bat it is a cat symbol. They will start copy pasting and then action gets taken. And they have actually made it into a module now where you can have it permanently installed on your website. And you can activate it and your website will automatically be changed to conform to whatever is necessary. Whether that that would be a banner on top for information, or a complete black out of your page if you have the code and you have allowed it to run it could automatically be updated across the entire Internet in one fell swoop.

Robles: I see, and that’s the … I actually have a link to that – to the Internet Defense League - on my site. What’s the address for listeners, the address of the Internet Defense League, if you could for the listeners?

Anon: I actually do not know the URL but I will find it for you. Internet Defense League dot Org.

Robles: Are there any other places that our listeners can go to besides Wikipedia, I mean Wikileaks, and the Internet Defense League to find out more information on this TPP?

Anon: The best source that I have actually found lately for information on it is the Politics and World News sub Reddits from the site Redit dot com.

Robles: And what about Anonymous, where can people go for information on Anonymous? I know it is always changing, but what is the best place?

Anon: We do not really have an actual operation rolling other than chatter in IRC and the average person throwing up in a pop in to our IRC rooms any time soon. But the EFF has a good write up on it too at EFF dot org. But there are quite a few people that are covering it, but obviously you want to stay away from the Government molded versions, FDR dot Gov things of that nature. They are actually ranking high if you Google search for the lot of plugs for media that is controlled by the US Government.

Robles: What about the Million Mask March, can you tell us your opinion of the success of it; do you think it was a success? And how many people actually took part in your opinion, of course the official figures are going to minimise any possible numbers.

Anon: We had some great turnout especially in cities like Amsterdam and London. I would have liked to have seen more turnout especially in cities in the United States. Personally I think the lower turnout in some of the United States cities was due to being all the factionary relation of it

and there were some states where there were 6, 7, 8 different cities hosting a Million Mask March, so only 10, 20, 30 or 40 people showed up in each one. And we personally think regional gatherings would have been a little more effective for a punch.

There was also obviously, I do not know if you have heard this, there was a media blackout in America about the Million Mask March and as a result this Saturday we are actually leading another operation, a march against mass media and that one is going to be taking place in about 150 to 170 cities so far that they are confirmed to sign on. And we are basically going to be going up to the television stations, to the radio stations. Protesting and picketing in front of them.

Robles: You will avoid the Voice of Russia I hope?

Anon: Yes. No we are not going to hit you guys, and the people, your listeners can find more information about that are MAMSM dot info, it is March Against Mainstream Media Dot info. MAMSM.info

Robles: MAMSM dot info? And that’s coming up on what date, I’m sorry.

Anon: On Saturday the 16th

Robles: Right, that’s Saturday the 16th, so that’s tomorrow? Can you tell me what is Anonymous doing right now about Jeremy Hammond, and how is that going – has he been sentenced yet?

Anon: I don’t believe he has actually been sentenced … I know Anonymous obviously stands behind

Robles: What is Anonymous going to do if he gets a really hard sentence?

Anon: As it is he is facing maybe 10 years, is what the Prosecution is actually looking for. We do not believe that he is going to get anything near that, obviously, but if he does I can see having goals going throughout the Internet reverberating throughout the Internet that is what is going to happen. Obviously he was in charge of LULSEC and Anti-SEC and he was a figurehead for a lot of the people who were in it simply for the LULZ. There are a lot of members of Anonymous who are just there for the LULZ of it.

Robles: Is Anonymous doing anything or are you aware of any activities about or against Sabu?

Anon: He has kind of dropped beneath the radar. Obviously we have never forgotten about him, I mean who could? But I do not even currently know his whereabouts. I know he went into protection and has fairly pretty disappeared off the radar as far as I know, and was talking about doing something about him about 6 months ago and now.

Robles: I heard he is still active and he’s still not doing any time, and he hasn’t been incarcerated, even though he should be, but as far as I know do you think it is possible he is still active somehow under a different name or something?

Anon: I believe that he might, or he might actually be still going under his name, there are a lot of copycats that are using his name, and you never know one of those could be not a copycat.

Robles: Oh my God, OK. Back to, if we could, to the Trans Pacific Agreement. Now in what ways exactly, if you can, you’ve studied in … in what ways exactly will this restrict the common rights of people, and why, double question here, why is Obama and the corporations, why are they trying to shove this through on the fast track?

Anon: Well, as you may know, in American the money is really the track for politics, and the second day is the oil industry out there is going to be the Hollywood industry. Hollywood has been trying to shove SOPA or anything they want to name it down our throats for about 10 years now, and TPP, a good chunk of it is related to intellectual property law, especially as it applies to copyrights, especially as it applies to file sharing. They want to make it so that file sharing in fact would be considered the same offence as transporting physical stolen media across their national borders, making it a serious crime.

Robles: Now in the United States, however, cyber-crimes are prosecuted I think to a higher degree than real crimes, for example with Jeremy Hammond, if he had driven a car through Stratfor’s front doors and stolen all these files he would have got like 6 months and community service or something but since he did that through a computer they wanted to give him hundreds of years at first: 35 year to life.

Anon: It is just like the DDoS attacks. Anonymous believes, most of Anonymous believes, just like DFS and a lot of political journalists informed of the matter believe that a DDoS attack is really nothing more than the digital equivalent of sit in, we are not even hurting anything. It is like going to a website and pressing the F5 of the refresh button a million times a second all we are doing is clogging up the lines, we are not hurting anything.

Robles: I agree 100%. You don’t damage anything. It might go down for a little while, but then it comes back up, right?

Anon: Well, it is about sending a message. It is about getting awareness out there.

Robles: What do you think about the extreme insane punishments that the US Government wants to get to make people pay, and the price they want to make them pay for a DDoS attack? Why would they want to make it something that warrants 35 years or 10 years?

Anon: It is because Jeremy Hammond did the same thing that Barrett Brown did. He hit a nerve with the private defense and private intelligence agencies, the so-called shadow CIAs like Stratfor, and it is just like when Snowden came out with all of his leaks. Everybody already knew that Booz Allen Hamilton was dirty, in fact Anonymous had previously hacked in Google list, Anonymous hacked Booz Allen Hamilton years before Snowden leaked things, and in our press release about it. I think we say that Booz Allen Hamilton was involved in illegal widespread mass surveillance on behalf of the U S Government.

It did make a bigger splash when Snowden came out because he had the documents to prove it obviously

Robles: Well we all suspected, I always suspected that Microsoft was a … that there was some back door, it must be in Windows or something that would allow them to spy on the planet every time you boot up, I don’t know. I’ve always suspected that they were listening on Skype and everything, but having this come out as an in your face fact I think shocked a lot of people?

Anon: Actually Windows N T 4 had a known back door. There was actually a variable called NSA key that allowed the NSA to subvert any Windows users security

Robles: Really!

Anon: Yes. And that made a splash in like 2004 but it did not really make that big of a splash. It did not really go viral.

Robles: Look, can we talk about … do you have other information like that?

Anon: Well. I am a store of information, you know.

Robles: That’s very interesting to hear, can you tell us any other reasons why people might not trust the Windows platform?

Anon: Well it is not just Windows it is Microsoft. For example Microsoft bought out Skype and handed the keys over to the NSA. But they did not even really have to that. Before Skype was even purchased by Microsoft Skype was actually involved in what was called the Project Chess, a top secret operation to allow, to allow them to basically split off their data and give the NSA a shadow copy without anyone being able to tell in real time.

Robles: Wow. Skype was at beginning was supposed to be a peer to peer, so there was not supposed to be any server involved in the middle or in the loop. How did they get away with that?

Anon: Well they basically perform a complicated version of what is called a man in the middle attack. They insert their presence in between the 2 computers that are talking to each other, and that is also how they are subverting the privacy and the encryption of Google for example.

That was the end of part 1 of the interview. More to come


Libya is in anarchy as US/NATO backed terrorists reign – Faraj Muftah

Protests in Libya

Protests in Libya

Download audio file   16 November, 15:04  

The entire western intervention in Libya was a lie fabricated from the very beginning to allow the US/NATO to prevent: gold-based dinars from damaging the dollar, an international law suit filed by Libya over the violations by the West of treaties, Libyan oil trade to be done in Euros, and a non-US controlled block to grow strong. The "humanitarian intervention" was never about protecting the Libyan people. It was only about money, geopolitics and resources. By providing air-support, funding and weapons to Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorists groups US/NATO was successful in destroying the government, completely freeing up the resources and assassinating the leader. The Libyan people now live in a state of anarchy being decimated by US/CIA/Al-Qaeda (the CIA data-base), and the West is silent. Where is the "support for the people of Libya" now? Faraj Muftah is a representative of the tribes of Libya and is in exile, he granted the VOR an interview on the real situation in Libya.

You are listening to part one of an interview with Farazh Muftah– a spokesperson for the tribal nations of Libya. You can find part 2 of this interview in the near future on our website at voiceofrussia.com

Robles: Can you explain to our listeners about the real situation in Libya right now? What is really happening in Libya?

Faraj: Thank you so much for giving us a chance to explain everything to your people and to your listeners.

Our country was safe and secure until what happened with it in 2011. It was started by lies and dirty games by satellite from many journalists of CNN, al-Arabia, Al-Jazeera, BBC as well and Qatari channels which prepared all the propaganda before the game has been started.

They lied to the people and they said that they will come to Libya to protect the civilian people. They only used this reason as a pretext to destroy our country, destroy all establishment and destroy our regime.

You have to know that the majority of Libyans supported the former regime and we did not have any problem before 2011. Our regime was the fairest regime, it was against Al Qaeda and terroristic groups on the ground and around the world.

And our leader Col Gaddafi – the fairest guy – announced and reported to the United Nations Security Council, the US and other Western countries that they must arrest Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda groups, it was in 1987.

At that time no one listened to our side. The reality and the truth is that the Western world and especially the USA and the CIA, which gave control to America, they knew already that Bin Laden works with them.

Nowadays, they brought all the Al Qaeda terroristic groups to Libya at the beginning of the crisis and we call it a conspiracy against our country.

France, the United States, Italy, Qatar, Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist groups – they used Security Council resolution of 1971-1973 to launch and intervention and “protect” the civilian people. But they killed the people, as you know now approximately more than 500,000 people have been killed in Libya.

Robles: 500,000?

Faraj: Yes, about half a million has been killed in Libya since 2011 up to now. The majority of this number has been killed by NATO and the United States, the rest of them have been killed by militias and terrorist groups, and Al Qaeda as well.

Al Qaeda has a full control of Tripoli – the capital. There is no government, there is no regime, there is not an agency in Libya.

The solution now is to return the people who have been exiled to their country, to their land, to try to sort out all the problems in Libya.

Americans supported Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and in Egypt as well.

Now in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood's regime has been finished and destroyed by the Egyptian people, more than 32 million people went on the streets.

In Libya still America and some Western countries support Al Qaeda and terrorist groups, especially in Tripoli – the capital of Libya. This is the big problem facing the Libyan people that NATO and the USA supported Al Qaeda and terrorist groups.

And the American administration – Obama and John McCain – are representatives of Al Qaeda terrorist groups.

John McCain is their close friend, he supported them and he talks about them every day. They plan how to support them, how to protect them. This is the big problem which faces the whole world.

In the future, I warn all of the people, we report that in a few days it will become a big problem and danger facing the whole world, especially the Western countries.

Now the Libya is the main source for terrorists, the main source for Al Qaeda training, the main source of weapons, main source of crimes and criminal groups.

Now the danger has reached Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Mali, Chad – they get the resources and establish control over our cities in Libya. As you know, they burned more than four or five cities in Libya. In Tawergha all cities have been completely burned in 2011.

And where was Tawergha, now it is a place for Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood training.

Bani Walid attack of 2012 was by militias, about 20,000 militias attacked Bani Walid city to try to establish control over it, but it was hard for them, because the people in Bani Walid are brave and strong fighters, they were against and they defended their city. They got the out back to Misrata militias.

Now, we have another problem the international community must know about – the unknown and uncontrolled presence in Misrata and Tripoli which is controlled by Al Qaeda terrorist groups.

It is a hard situation for more than 30,000 Libyan civilian people inside the prisons. Nobody knows their fates. It is a situation of unknown presence without any control from the government, because there is no government.

Even the so-called Prime Minister Ali Zeidan has been kidnapped by militias. And they still lie to the people, lie to the community, they lie to the media and he says he is the Prime Minister.

There is no Prime Minister in Libya, there is no parliament in Libya, there is no government in Libya, there is no regime in Libya now, only Al Qaeda and terrorist groups.

Let's me tell you something about the problem with Interpol. When NATO and Americans invaded Tripoli with militias and terrorist groups, they attacked the Interior Ministry and the office of Interpol was taken over by militias.

The militias reported papers and documents to Interpol. That is why Interpol has now called and is asking (searching) for more than 200 Libyan people who are living abroad.

There is no Interpol in Libya, it is impossible. There are militias all cities,the whole country controlled by militias and where is Interpol? There is no Interpol in Libya.

2 million Libyan people have been exiled and they are living in a bad situation in Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Mali, Egypt, Malta and a small number of them in the Western countries. There is no United Nations that cares about us, there are no human rights organizations that care about us, there is no international community that cares about us.

This is the truth and this is the reality, and this is our story.

Nobody will bring control in our country, nobody will clean up our country, only Gaddafi loyalists know how to clean out the terrorist groups and Al Qaeda. And we have our own experts, more than 2,000 security experts outside Libya, they have been exiled. And they are followed by Al Qaeda terrorist groups.

Every day they kill an officer from our military, every day they kill one member of the security section in Libya, every day they kill civilian people, kidnap them, rape the ladies, rob stores and banks.

This is the situation now in Libya. This is the real story. This is the truth and this is what is happening in Libya right now.

Robles: It sounds like complete anarchy. Can you tell me what was life like before the NATO invasion? What was life really like for Libyan people when the US and NATO said they were oppressed and they were being killed, and everybody hated Gaddafi? What was life really like?

Faraj: No! This is not truth. The truth is that all the Libyan people liked Gaddafi, supported our leader. Our leader was an honest man. He was a patriot, a strong man and defended our country.

He was against the international law which allowed them to invade any country, to attack any country, to bomb any country.

You cannot imagine how is it to burn and attack civil cities, to burn them and then bomb for two months about three or four times every day. Did you think about this? How is it that the NATO forces, their airplanes, their military, which were prepared to fight against Russia and then attacked a small city like Bani Walid?

From February 2011 up to October 2011 NATO attacked and bombed.

Most of the cities, as I told you, have been burned and destroyed, all cities – Sitra, Bani Walid, Tawergha, Qawalish, Mashashita, Ar Rayaniya, now Tiji.

Every day now Tiji is exposed to attacks from militias in Zintan.

This is the truth and this is the real story. We were living in so good situation, nobody was against Gaddafi. There were a few people and they say that this is a political group. But they ran away from the military in 1971-1973 to America and America protected them, and America used them as spies, as Ali Zeidan.

Ali Zeidan has stolen money from our Embassy in India and ran away to Germany.

He's stolen the Libyan Embassy's money in Delhi which was sent to use to help Muslim people in India and he ran away to America.

America protected (Magallion?) and America used him as a spy.

(Magallion?) is a member of the CIA. Ali Zeidan is from Gestapo, a member of German intelligence. This is the truth, this is the story.

Robles: I see. Why do you think they want to keep a condition of anarchy in Libya?

Faraj: In Libya right now there is no control, there are no companies, there is no government, there are no embassies.

All the foreign people, all representatives of foreign companies, all diplomatic groups in Libya are threatened and killed by Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda announced a few days ago that they will start killing all diplomatic people in Libya.

And there is no infrastructure from 2011. There are no buildings, there is no development, there isn't anything.

Even all the money in the Central Bank invested outside Libya has been stolen by these militias.

There is no money, there are no resources now because oil exports have been blocked by militias.

Robles: Who is in control of the oil right now?

Faraj: The militias since 2011 sell the Libyan oil in the Mediterranean Sea without any documents, without anything. It is a black market. Many groups from the eastern part did not allow Ali Zeidan, from the puppet government to sell oil unless they have a know and help to plan and organize how to sell our oil.

Robles: Is oil still flowing out of Libya right now?

Faraj: No, not any more. It's been blocked by many groups in Ras Lanuf, Sitra, Zueitina. And even yesterday I think a group from west part militias has blocked gas, which is supplied to the south of Italy.

Robles: I'd like to ask you a question. In Egypt we now know the United States supported the Muslim Brotherhood, like they supported Al Qaeda, like they created Al Qaeda, like MI5 created the Muslim Brotherhood – the Egyptian people have filed crimes against humanity charges against the US and Barack Obama. Can the Libyan people do the same thing?

Faraj: Yes, we have a lot of things, we have a lot of documents which will show to the world what was happening because of Obama and the Western countries.

Of course, because they started to help the militias and the Muslim Brotherhood from the beginning of the conspiracy against Libya.

Robles: Is there any movement or any group of lawyers or former judges who could organize a formal criminal complaint and deliver it to Hague?

Faraj: Yes, our group and our lawyers, who have been exiled as well, they are preparing all the documents and all files to bring them to ICC or to any international court, to show them all the evidence how NATO and America destroyed the country and destroyed the land of Libya. They are working on it.

My friend John, you have to know that there is no stability, no development and infrastructure, there is no growth for all the countries who were invaded or attacked by NATO and America.

You were listening to part 1 of an interview with Faraj Muftah – a spokesperson for the tribal nations of Libya. You can find part 2 of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com in the near future.

The first photo was taken inside one of the villas that had been occupied by the Misurata militias in Tripoli in Gharghour - on the ground floor was found some human organs inside the cans glass for their illegal trade in human organs:


Photo: James and Joan Moriarty

Algeria Square Tripoli:


Photo: James and Joan Moriarty

Misurata Militias that killed protesters yesterday:


Photo: James and Joan Moriarty

Mitiga Air base, Tripoli:


Photo: James and Joan Moriarty

Green Square:


Photo: James and Joan Moriarty


The TPP is a Corporate Coup D'état: Interview With Kristinn Hrafnsson

The TPP is a corporate coup d'état – Kristinn Hrafnsson

Download audio file   15 November, 2013 23:51

The transparency site WikiLeaks has recently released part of a secret trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty (TPP) being fast-tracked through the US Congress by US President Barrack Obama. What is astounding about the treaty, other than the fact that it is being pushed through without allowing US Congressmen access to the full text, is that only 3 people in each of the 12 prospective signatory countries, have access to the full text. Given that the treaty will affect countries which account for about 40% of the world GDP and over 800 million people, the fact that 600 corporate bankers are effectively hi-jacking the governments of the member countries and that only 3 people in each country know the full contents of the treaty, the document is a true step towards Corporate Fascism. The Voice of Russia spoke to WikiLeaks number 2 Kristinn Hrafnsson on the section of the TPP which they released.


Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with WikiLeaks number two Kristinn Hrafnsson, he is the official spokesperson for the Wikileaks Organization. This is Part 1 of a three part interview. This interview can be found on our website at Voiceofrussia.com in the near future.

Robles: Hello, sir.

Hrafnsson: Hello, John, thanks for having me on your program.

Robles: And thanks for agreeing to speak with me again. It's been a while, a lot of things are going on. WikiLeaks has just released a very important, very timely and unfortunately very secret document that will affect many people all over the world. Can you tell listeners exactly what the TPP is in the part that you released and why it's so important?

Hrafnsson: Yes. It's no wonder that people have not heard so much about this TPP. This is a treaty being drafted called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement often referred to as TPP between 12 nations that are in the Pacific Area: they are Canada, Mexico, the United States, Peru, Chile on the American side and in the eastern side you have New Zealand, Australia, Vietnam, Brunei and Japan, Malaysia as well, now 12 nations in total and this is quite a package because these 12 nations they have combined gross domestic product, GDP which account for 40% of the GDP of the entire world.

We are talking about a third of all world trade in this context and 800 million people.

This has been going on with drafting of this so called free trade agreement, and I'll tell you later why refer to it as 'so called', for almost four years, in secrecy there has been extremely little coming out from these proceedings, the instruction has been that those who are actually negotiating this agreement they are signing a non-disclosure agreement and are not allowed to tell anybody what is going on around the bargaining table. However, what has been disclosed is that apart from a handful of negotiators from each nation there have been 600 so called 'corporate advisers' involved in the process.

Now these so called 'corporate advisers' are representatives of the interest of those who have the biggest stake in this document. And those are the big corporations that are seen of course to benefit primarily from this deal: Monsanto, the big oil companies, Texaco, big pharma like Pfizer, the entertainment industry; Disney, Hollywood.

So those are the entities who are behind the chairs of those who are at the negotiating table and no wonder when we see what is in the draft of the document that we released yesterday – of course the interests of big corporations is at the forefront here and at the expense of the consumers.

Robles: Can I ask you to comment while we’re on the topic, you mentioned 600 corporate advisers are involved in this. Can you comment on a balance now? As I understand there is very few people in each country that actually can see the entire text. Can you comment on that imbalance?

Hrafnsson: That imbalance of course is absolutely absurd, and it is a good example of what is at stake here and what is the aim here.

Now what exactly did we leak? We did get a hold of and have published the most important chapter of this draft treaty, this is a chapter on intellectual property rights. It's almost a hundred-page document, that aims to this important issue and in it you can see the position on each and every clause from each and every negotiating nation. That is what is included in this draft.

Just to put this the context, where this treaty is at the Obama Administration has put a great emphases of trying to get this through, and implement it as soon as possible. The original aim was to get it actually signed before the end of this year.

So this is at the final stages, even though of course you can see from the draft which you can see on our website wikileaks.org, there is a lot of disagreement but we are talking about of course, the total imbalance in terms of strength on the one hand, you have the United States and on the other you have small nations like Brunei, or nations with weak positions like Vietnam and we don't know how they will end up in voting on this treaty.

The Obama Administration on top of the secrecy has been trying to push Congress to vote on a bill allowing this treaty to be fast-tracked through Congress.

The fast-track measure means that the elected representatives will not be allowed to discuss in details every aspect of this treaty, they will not be allowed to introduce amendments to it. They will have only the right to say yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down to the treaty. No of course this has been protested by actually representatives from both parties, both the Democrats and the Republicans have protested this segment of the Congress as being of course an undemocratic element.

There is now a push to get this through by Obama. He himself said last year that the TPP raised the standards of a new age in his view and indicated that this would be the benchmark for higher world trade and, keep in mind that just this year discussions between the United States and the European Union on a Trans-Atlantic Treaty, so the TPP, the Pacific Treaty, has big implication on world trade.

Now we have not got into the content yet but it is quite shocking what you will read there.

Just a reminder you are listening to an interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson

Robles: Please, tell us, that number was only three members now, three members, or three people in each member country, is that correct? Know the full text of this? And people in the US Congress who are supposed to vote on it are not allowed to see the entire document and this is a document that will affect, you said 800 million people, how is this possible?

Hrafnsson: It's stunning. It's stunning that actually there has not been huge debate about this. There has been an absolute silence in the mainstream media in most headquarters about this, because people have (the corporate media) have accepted the silence, the cloak of secrecy which is astonishing.

And the undemocratic nature of this process, both the writing of a treaty and what is proposed in the US (which of course has been the "bastion" of democratic values) to rush this through Congress without the Congressmen having any chance to discuss, or get to know this document beforehand, is of course astonishing.

Three people, that is my information as well, only three people from each nation have access to the full document.

Robles: So 12 perspective members, right? So we have 36 people on Earth that are going to make a decision that is going to affect almost a billion? Unbelievable.

Hrafnsson: Unbelievable and put that into the context that 600 representatives of big corporations had access to portions of it and have influenced the making of it.

Robles: I asked you a year ago, maybe longer, if you thought that the United States was sliding towards fascism. And I think we discussed once the definitions of corporate fascism etc. What would you say now?

Hrafnsson: It's very easy to see this entire process as coup d'état of corporations, hijacking power, and basically bypassing natural democratic process.

It is, and of course if we can get a little later into the elements of what this industry is, it is absolutely scary to see how influential they are in this process.

And yes, I have often said that we are seeing a tendency towards neo-fascism in the world. And this is definitely one of the indications that should go into that argument.

Robles: I see. A few minutes ago you mentioned some goals. What are the goals of the entire document and the goals in particular of the part that WikiLeaks released (that you released)and how is copyright going to be used to clamp down on whistleblowers and increase the police state? So, the goals, and how is copyright being used to manipulate and control basically?

Hrafnsson: Well, what I said earlier was that I would refer to this agreement as 'so called free trade agreement'.

What I mean by that is that free trade is of course the overall goal on which this with that it was advertised with a very positive connotation, this will create jobs and un-hinder market flow, cheaper products and all the positive benefits. But the fact and the matter is that of the 29 Chapters in this treaty, only 5 has the right influence and talk about the actual free trade and tariffs.

That is the indication of what it is really is. This is not about free trade and about consumer benefits. This is about corporate benefits and about their power takeover of this important market, a third of world trade, 40% market that has 40% of the world GDP.

A few examples of what this overall treaty entails, it entails a very strong enforcement mechanisms.

One proposal there of course is to create a supranational body, a tribunal where disputes will be settled with this regard to internal laws. This will be above the High Court of each and every country.

In this tribunal we will have corporate lawyers sitting, we will have corporations suing governments not just because they are not abiding by the treaty and causing some obvious harm, they have the ability to sue governments for prospective loss of the future.

Robles: To sue governments for prospective loss? So this is not actual loss and that's incredible.

Hrafnsson: So this entails of course a massive giveaway of national sovereignty in each in its country. And we have seen the past examples of how these so called tribunals of settlement have been used and abused in the past.

I can give you one example, that your people might remember. It is when the Ecuadorian Government, Ecuadorian entities were suing Chevron former Esso Co for damages in their oil production in Ecuador. And the Supreme Court in Ecuador actually decided on behalf of Ecuadoreans, and I believe that they were granted like $8 billion.

This took almost two decades to finalize in Ecuador. But the old agreement at the oil company had from decades way back was that they could actually take matters to a tribunal to settle. And in the tribunal where corporate lawyers sat, the damages entitled to the indigenous people in Ecuador was taken off.

So we have many examples of these kinds of measures when we have tribunals settled. This is of course, and can only be seen, as a giveaway of the national sovereignty.

Just a reminder you are listening to an interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson

Robles: Can I ask you a question? Regarding the Ecuadorian case I believe it was Exxon, wasn't it and all the executives had to leave and they don't dare set their foot in the country again because they might be fined, right?

Hrafnsson: Yes. And I think I wrongly referred to Texaco in that context.

Robles: You said, these corporations they will be able to sue governments. Now we are talking about 12 member countries, are you saying that these 12 members could they sue the governments of all the over 200 countries in the world? Or could they just sue member countries?

Hrafnsson: No, this will be implemented within the context of this treaty, where corporations could sue governments in member countries.

So the major elements that are of course in this so-called free trade agreement are of course neoconservative measures that we have seen elsewhere.

We are talking about major implications for those countries that would be signatories to these treaties. I can give an example – state-run entities of course would not be welcomed. And if you consider a country like Vietnam where about 40% of the nation's economy are within state-owned enterprises. So how will that effect Vietnam? What effect will it be on the country that is stricken down.

Another example Japanese farming is kept alive because of protective measures, the Japanese farmers have very serious considerations about this treaty because of course protective measures will not be allowed.

They maintain that this will be an attack on cultural values, the healthiness of their food etc. when they will have the inflow of food products from other countries.

We have many examples of these kinds and the biggest reservations what you can see from the text of the treaty are of course from the countries who are in the weaker position because they have been trying to have protective measures both to protect some segments of the economy but also national insurance and healthcare, etc which will be affected if this comes into force with all the measures that the United States will have to push through there.

We will see the effect on banking that will be not allowed to put into laws in these countries measures to limit the free range of the bankers anything likely to last, legal acts anything that will curve derivatives and other measures used in the financial markets. This is of course the crisis and problems it will not be allowed to put anything in place in other countries of such nature, it will be considered a trade barrier.

That was the end of part one of the interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson, the official spokesperson for WikiLeaks, you can find next part of this interview on our web site at voiceofrussia.com and as always I wish you the best wherever in the world you may be!


Obama Attempting to Ram Through Unconstitutional Secret Treaty

Obama attempting to ram through unconstitutional secret treaty

By John Robles, 14 November, 2013 11:34

WikiLeaks has released part of a larger document concerning a new economic treaty that is alarming in its scope and implications and according to WikiLeaks is the largest economic treaty in history. The secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is an instrument that will radically strip away rights and seek to completely control almost every area that is of interest to the large corporations that are going to be the main beneficiaries. The closeness with which US President Obama is working with the corporate interests behind the treaty to ram it through the US Congress with almost no debate or chance for oversight is egregious in itself and further shows just how closely connected corporations like Chevron, Halliburton and Monsanto are with the US Government. Such a document proves without a shadow of a doubt that the US Government has been annexed by huge corporations and the lines between monied interests and the government that was supposed to serve the people have all but disappeared.

If there was ever a time for Americans to stand up and take their country and their government back from the corporations this is it, because once this treaty is passed with all of its global implications the common people in countries that will be controlled by it will be just an inch away from becoming slaves of the state and the corporations.

Countries that sign it also need to beware because one the treaty is sign they will have effectively given up a very large and significant part of their sovereignty to the United States.

WikiLeaks Press Release:

Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

Today, 13 November 2013, WikiLeaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. The TPP is the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing nations representing more than 40 per cent of the world's GDP. The WikiLeaks release of the text comes ahead of the decisive TPP Chief Negotiators summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 19-24 November 2013. The chapter published by WikiLeaks is perhaps the most controversial chapter of the TPP due to its wide-ranging effects on medicines, publishers, internet services, civil liberties and biological patents. Significantly, the released text includes the negotiation positions and disagreements between all 12 prospective member states.

The TPP is the forerunner to the equally secret US-EU pact TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), for which President Obama initiated US-EU negotiations in January 2013. Together, the TPP and TTIP will cover more than 60 per cent of global GDP. Both pacts exclude China.

Since the beginning of the TPP negotiations, the process of drafting and negotiating the treaty's chapters has been shrouded in an unprecedented level of secrecy. Access to drafts of the TPP chapters is shielded from the general public. Members of the US Congress are only able to view selected portions of treaty-related documents in highly restrictive conditions and under strict supervision. It has been previously revealed that only three individuals in each TPP nation have access to the full text of the agreement, while 600 'trade advisers' – lobbyists guarding the interests of large US corporations such as Chevron, Halliburton, Monsanto and Walmart – are granted privileged access to crucial sections of the treaty text.

The TPP negotiations are currently at a critical stage. The Obama administration is preparing to fast-track the TPP treaty in a manner that will prevent the US Congress from discussing or amending any parts of the treaty. Numerous TPP heads of state and senior government figures, including President Obama, have declared their intention to sign and ratify the TPP before the end of 2013.

WikiLeaks' Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange stated: "The US administration is aggressively pushing the TPP through the US legislative process on the sly." The advanced draft of the Intellectual Property Rights Chapter, published by WikiLeaks on 13 November 2013, provides the public with the fullest opportunity so far to familiarise themselves with the details and implications of the TPP.

The 95-page, 30,000-word IP Chapter lays out provisions for instituting a far-reaching, transnational legal and enforcement regime, modifying or replacing existing laws in TPP member states. The Chapter's subsections include agreements relating to patents (who may produce goods or drugs), copyright (who may transmit information), trademarks (who may describe information or goods as authentic) and industrial design.

The longest section of the Chapter – 'Enforcement' – is devoted to detailing new policing measures, with far-reaching implications for individual rights, civil liberties, publishers, internet service providers and internet privacy, as well as for the creative, intellectual, biological and environmental commons. Particular measures proposed include supranational litigation tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards. The TPP IP Chapter states that these courts can conduct hearings with secret evidence. The IP Chapter also replicates many of the surveillance and enforcement provisions from the shelved SOPA and ACTA treaties.

The consolidated text obtained by WikiLeaks after the 26-30 August 2013 TPP meeting in Brunei – unlike any other TPP-related documents previously released to the public – contains annotations detailing each country's positions on the issues under negotiation. Julian Assange emphasises that a "cringingly obsequious" Australia is the nation most likely to support the hardline position of US negotiators against other countries, while states including Vietnam, Chile and Malaysia are more likely to be in opposition. Numerous key Pacific Rim and nearby nations – including Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines and, most significantly, Russia and China – have not been involved in the drafting of the treaty.

In the words of WikiLeaks' Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange, "If instituted, the TPP's IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you're ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs."

Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei.

A final step to Corporate Fascism

With the US debt at over $200 trillion dollars and their grasp on control slipping, Obama and the corporations that have taken over the US Government are attempting to do anything they can to cling to power and enslave the populace.

The fact that the heads of the governments who are a party to the TPP, would attempt to sign such an all encompassing treaty without the knowledge of their respective governments and their people is a something unheard of an unprecedented in history.

The complete lack of interest in the peoples of their countries and the readiness which the parties are set to effectively give up their sovereignty to the United States should have the populace taking to the streets, which is why the treaty is being done in secret.

One has to ask some serious questions here such as: What kind of country or government attempts to sign all encompassing treaties with other governments in secret? And when did the corporations become our owners and the owners of our governments and constitutons?

The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@jar2.com. My thanks go out to WikiLeaks for continuing to expose such nefarious activities.


Saudi One of the Puppet Master of American Presidents – Andrew Kreig

Download audio file   14 November, 10:23   Part 1   Part 2

The attack on the CIA base in Benghazi Libya continues to be the subject of discussion around the world as slowly more and more details continue to come and to coalesce into a fuller picture of what really occurred and the true role of the United States in Libya, as well as in the Middle East on the whole. In an interview with the Voice of Russia Andrew Kreig, the author Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters, gives his views on what he believes really occurred in Benghazi and the connections between presidents, the power elite and the intelligence services in the United States. He paints a portrait of presidents who are truly merely puppets to their powerful and secret masters, forces who are not necessarily American.

This is part 3 of an interview with Andrew Kreig, the author of "Presidential Puppetry". He is also an attorney and a founder and director of the Justice and Integrity project. 

Robles: Can you tell us about what really happened in Benghazi and the real story about CIA Director Petraeus, Hilary Clinton's connection with Benghazi, if you could? And what is going on in Libya, if you know anything?

Kreig: Well, one of the disturbing facts about this research I've done is when there is a very well-known event, such as what we've described as Secretary Hagel's transformation, and we don't get the full story. Benghazi is another example of that, where for more than a year Republicans have talked about Benghazi, how they want the real story and yet neither side is providing the real story, in my view.

Here is what I believe is the real story. I believe the CIA used Benghazi as a base to smuggle arms and foreign jihadist mercenaries to overthrow Syria's regime or government. That operation set the stage for the massacre in various complex ways. And the importance of this is two-fold:one, we know that there was a massacre and we know that for a year it's been a political football, and everybody is following rhetoric back and forth. But if this was a base to smuggle arms and jihadist mercenaries, and neither Democrats nor Republicans, nor Congress, nor the public knows about it, then we are having a debate about nothing. I mean this was a major foreign policy issue in the 2012 election.

If I'm right about this, then our major foreign policy debate, and which is continued to the Syria controversies, is leaving out important information that, not simply the American public should know about, which is my concern, but it illustrates a fundamental breakdown in our kind of democratic processes in the United States, in the press and in Congress. And I'll also say that this is extremely important, in my view, to the world community, because of course it is not just the United States that's been involved in Libya and Syria. And it would certainly promote greater public understanding and maybe even peace worldwide if people in Europe, in Russia, in Africa, we are all on the same page in understanding what happens in that specific situation, but in other situations like it, including Syria.

Robles: Ambassador Stevens, he was actually not a diplomat, as far as I know. And I researched this myself and wrote about it. He was actually a CIA agent controller or officer.

Kreig: First, for the United States and for many other countries, including Russia, it is widely understood – often the diplomats have a dual role as agents. And this is true for most of these countries. I think people pretend that they don't do it, but other countries do.

Robles: I think the issue here is that when you have an ambassador who rose up though the Foreign Service, for example, and became the Ambassador of the country and then decides to cooperate – that is one thing. Another thing is when you have somebody that started out in intelligence and was placed in this diplomatic role. Do you see a distinction? Do you see a danger in that?

Kreig: Not really. For example, earlier we were talking about the Council on Foreign Relations, and I know that you are interested in that. I happened to have a very secret list of those members of the Council on Foreign Relations who are interested in intelligence activities. So, I've got their names, I've got their emails, I've got their telephone numbers – it is 1500 of them. And I find it very interesting that virtually every news organization in the United States has at least one representative. And does that mean that they are getting money or that they are part of the whole thing? No. But it means that there are relationships there that you and I, and many other people are not part of. Maybe voluntary relationships, maybe they would all stubbornly convince themselves that they are totally independent. But as they are getting briefings and they are part of the club. And the general public does not quite appreciate what that means.

So, in the Foreign Service, if it is a war zone, I think we can logically assume, and this is one of important parts of my book "Presidential Puppetry", most of the actors are in this orbit. And whether they are in business, whether they work for a nonprofit organization, whether they work for the CIA signs their paycheck or whether they work for the State Department – we can generally assume that there are overlapping loyalties and interests. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. And also, the same thing is going on in other countries. One of the, maybe, larger points that I'm trying to emphasize here is not that somebody is bad or good, or anything, but I would say "Presidential Puppetry" is for those who want to understand the news, not just watch.

When people are saying: "oh, so and so's CIA, or so and so's KGB" – they understand the larger context here that news organizations have some people who are involved and have had for 50 years, whether it is in the US or anywhere. And they may not be getting a check every week, or even every year, but they are part of the orbit. To understand what is going on we have to have that in the back of our mind. And here is maybe the last part – is that there are very few people who will say what I've said. Now one of your longtime experts you bring on, and maybe you've got some, Wayne Madsen – he's pointed out a number of these points to your listeners and so forth. But anybody who does this is not going to be invited to the State Department briefings.

If they raise this stuff, they will in ways that are not necessarily obvious they will be frozen out and, ultimately, their bosses will… in my experience as a longtime mainstream reporter and Washington observer, the bosses will not back the reporters who ask the kind of questions or have the kind of discussions we are having now. Maybe, they can have one discussion or a few discussions like this, but they can't do it on any kind of regular basis. So, when I try to connect the dots of this stuff and write an entire book that is almost all new, it is like going to the berry patch in the season and just picking as much as you want, because it is all documented, it is all there but nobody can connect the dots except the isolated blogger or commentator who is never going to be invited to share it on the mainstream.

Robles: That brings up a whole huge mountain of other areas we could get into. You were going to say something about Syria, particularly if you can comment on the threat by Prince Bandar? And since you've researched the Bush family, maybe you can give us an insight into his connections, Bandar-Bush, you know who I'm talking about?

Kreig: Oh, absolutely!

Robles: His threat to President Putin and then, all of a sudden, this invasion. And what connection or was there a connection with the Government shutdown? And if this is not too much, if you can comment about the Al Qaeda-US Government link and the tragedy of 426 children being killed as a pretext for war?

Kreig: Well, that's a mouthful. Let's go through these one by one as best I can. First, the title of the book is "Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters". So, a lot of the focus is on who are the puppet masters. Now, someStates like to be in the shadows and some of them are kind of boring and so forth. I don't name a whole lot of them. The readers can find who they are, I point to various lists. But Saudi Arabia is definitely one of them, and it is very rarely talked about in the US, but they have heavy investments in the US media – the average person doesn't know that and can't understand why they would want to have heavy investments. But if the Saudis and Qatar have spent billions upon billions of dollars to overthrow the Syria Government, so to have investments in the US media that are not very well known actually makes sense, because that way someone like me and my book is not going to be on these media, because I would say that some of the puppet masters are in these Gulf monarchies.

And they are not supposed to be puppet masters of the Unites States, but through the kind of Bandar-Bush, Prince Bandar relationships with not simply the Bush family, but with Democrats alike and many, many business groups, and Wall Street groups, and foundations, they have enormous influence that the American public doesn't understand, and the worldwide community should understand. And I've got, really, again nothing against them, at one point in my career I was offered a big job in Saudi Arabia, but I'm now a reporter at this point in my career and a commentator, and I'm putting together a lifetime of connections here. And if we have puppet masters that are trying to get us into a war, the public needs to know somehow, someway to connect the dots of why it's happened.

Moving on to your next question, it is extremely important for the public to know that there are foreign jihadists, and not just a handful in Syria trying to overthrow the governmental regime, but lots of extremely well-funded from foreign countries who have both a religious mission, but a commercial one regarding pipelines, which is never talked about in the US media. And that they don't necessarily have much loyalty to the civilian population, or any loyalty. And I've gotten into quite vigorous disputes with reporters that I respect. And I frankly have risked some of my credibility when I said – how do we know what happened? And people says: "well you don't really think that the rebels would kill their own people with a gas attack and how would they get the gas?" And I say …

Robles: I would argue that these were not their own people first of, because there are tens of thousands of these … they are imported…

Kreig: That's where I'm going. But I'm replaying the conversation here. People have no concept, even very well informed professionals in the US, that these are foreign rebels in significant part and who are not from the same place necessarily where the killing occurred. And even posing the possibility that the rebels might have gotten weapons and gas from some foreign entity and that they may be foreign themselves, and create an incident – it just doesn't compute with people because there is such one sided news coverage. So, I hope that answers you question. And I don't claim that I've documented who did what. I've certainly followed it on the Justice Integrity project website, to probe it on, but no one is going to document a solution without the basic facts and reporting, and creating and fostering a curiosity among the audience to say: "maybe there is more to the story".

Robles: Do you think it is realistically possible that somebody would orchestrate the killing of 426 children as a pretext for war?

Kreig: It is theoretically possible, and we've seen this throughout human history including the recent human history. And yet, for many of us, as journalists, to even broach the topic is career suicide. And so, I mean, that's part of the danger, particularly when experienced reporters are often let go after they reach ten years experience anyway. They don't need this and there is incredible self-censorship that I have seen, documented in many parts of the American media. And this is only part of it. Just to circle back, I won't mention the name here, but early in my reporting on President Obama I asked a bureau chief of a Washington newspaper – "why don't you ask for the school records of, all hidden, of President Obama?". And she said – "Rahm Emanuel wouldn't like it". I said – "so what?" And she said: "You don't want to get him mad." He was the Chief of Staff at that time.

But you see, that's the attitude – that, maybe, they won't get invited to some event and then the boss will say "how come you didn't get invited to the event?". And I've seen many examples, I'm based in Washington DC. I've been quite active in politics and government affairs for many years. But this is now the time to put the pieces together and tell people what they are missing.

Robles: What about the shutdown?

Kreig: That's a more complicated story, but one that delayed the release of Puppetry somewhat. On the surface President Obama, really for the first time, looks strong on economic issues. And that is important to point out. But it is also important to say that just a few days ago one of his top economic advisors Gene Sperling opened the door to new austerity measures and yet another cave in by President Obama.


More calls for Crimes Against Humanity charges against Obama

By John Robles, 13 November 2013, 12:48  

Crimes Against Humanity related charges have been filed against US President Barrack Hussein Obama at the International Criminal Court in the Hague by a group of Egyptian lawyers according to multiple media sources in Egypt and worldwide. The Egyptian efforts are part of mounting international calls to finally bring the American President to account for egregious violations of international laws and conventions.

The new charges emanating from Egypt stem from direct US backing by Obama and the US of the MI-6 created Muslim Brotherhood during the violent June 30th Revolution which removed Muslim Brotherhood President and US puppet Mohammed Morsi from power.

US educated Morsi, who has a long history of involvement with US and Western special services was already in prison facing treason charges when he was freed and catapulted to the post of President of Egypt as the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood which like the similarly western created Al-Qaeda, many in the Islamic world classify as an extremist Islamic organization and even a terrorist group.

The charges against Obama are not new but they are serious enough that this time something may stick. We recall that recently, due to the egregious actions of Obama and the way the US defied international norms flaunting their impunity by interfering in the flights of presidential aircraft, that charges were filed at the ICC by Bolivian President Evo Morales accusing Obama of Crimes Against Humanity.

For any rational thinking person it is clear that there had to be a point when US impunity in the execution of their unilateral endless "Global War on Terror" has to be brought under control and put a stop to. Now that point may have been reached. US President and "Drone Executioner in Chief" Barrack Hussein Obama may be finally seeing his days of "Terror Tuesdays" and continued meddling in the Middle East come to an end.

Recently not only have Bolivian President Evo Morales and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro broached the subject of finally reigning in and holding the imperialist "sole world super-power" and its leader to account, threatening charges at the ICC, but an increasing number of bodies and world leaders are also taking the view that US illegality and war crimes have to end.

Before the United Nations President Morales called Obama "a criminal who willingly violates international law", called for a "Tribunal of the People" to be formed to prosecute Obama, said that he did not feel safe in the United States and claimed that the US harbors terrorists.

With the ongoing revelations of US involvement with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda, who the US was funding and arming to overthrow the Government of President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria and daily revelations about the way the US overthrew the Libyan Government, waged war on Iraq and Afghanistan and continues dozens of illegal practices around the world including black sites, the illegal extra-judicial prison at Guantanamo, their drone execution program and the massive spying on the nations of the world, the chances of Obama being brought to account are beginning to look like a possibility that no one would have dreamt about just a few years ago when he was the Nobel Peace Prize winning president of "hope" and "change".

Recently opinions and reports were issued by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN Special Rapporteur on Protecting Human Rights while Countering Terrorism and the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions all accusing Obama and his administration of War Crimes.

There are still the questions of Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against Peace and other international crimes almost too many to list, brought about by the aggressive acts of war by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq and related to the operation of the illegal torture prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

I have personally been documenting and have interviewed hundreds of people on these issues for years and the picture is damning. Thanks to President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government's insistence on following the rule of law regarding what was to have been the latest invasion by the US against Syria, it is possible that even though the US has concrete plans in place to invade the Hague and the Netherlands if any US official is brought before the tribunal, Obama and the architects of the "Endless War on Terror" may be forced to account for their crimes.

ICC Complaint Against Obama

The complaint cites Article 7 of the ICC covering Crimes Against Humanity which read as follow:

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

The complaint details how the Muslim Brotherhood was guilty of torturing, mutilating, raping, and killing Egyptians and inciting violence and the killing of peaceful protesters.

Given the targeting of Christians by the Muslim Brotherhood and Obama's support of them, Obama is guilty of almost every one of the aforementioned definition of crimes against humanity.

Religious Persecution and Apartheid (see h and j)

Right after Morsi was ousted, the Muslim Brotherhood, committed atrocities against the Coptic Christians include the torching, destroying, and plundering of at some 85 churches, some of which were ancient.

Murder and Extermination (see a and b)

Among many others to be murdered in response to Brotherhood-incitement against the Copts, a ten-year-old girl was shot and killed while walking back from Bible class. In the Sinai, a young Coptic priest was shot dead in front of his church, while the body of another Copt was found mutilated and beheaded. Four other Christians were slaughtered by Muslims in Luxor province. Most recently, a church wedding was attacked, leaving, among others, two girls, aged eight and twelve, dead and riddled with bullets.

As for "extermination," the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters have long been threatening the Copts with annihilation if they ever opposed them.

The Copts will be wiped off the face of the earth. I'm warning you now: do not play with fire!… What do you think—that America will protect you? Let's be very clear, America will not protect you. If so, it would have protected the Christians of Iraq when they were being butchered!

Ghoneim's words have proven prophetic—an indicator that this Egyptian hatemongering sheikh, who was expelled under Hosni Mubarak, knows the conduct of America's leadership better than most Americans. Along with Iraq's and Egypt's Christians, he could have mentioned the Christians of Syria as well, who are being decimated thanks to Obama's support for al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists, AKA, "freedom fighters."

Deportation, Extortion, Kidnapping, and General Abuse of Copts (see c, d, e, f, g, and i)

Since the Muslim Brotherhood publicly denounced the Copts, entire towns and villages have been emptied of Christians—for example, more than 100 Christian families from El Arish. Afte


According to the authors if one is to focus simply on the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt almost every criterion found under the category of "crimes against humanity" is met and only one is necessary for the charges to stick.

Complaint against Malik Obama

The site WND contains the text of a complaint that lawyers in Egypt have also filed against the half-brother of Obama, Malik.

The translation of the actual complaint against Obama's brother Malik, used by permission, in Arabic is as follows: Dr. Ahmed Nabil Ganzory, in his capacity as lawyer and agent for Dr. Sadik Rauf Ebeid, and resident in the United States of America, filed a complaint with Egypt's Attorney General Hisham Barakat, against Malik Obama, accusing him of supporting terrorism in Egypt and for his involvement in managing the Islamic Da'wa Organization (IDO). The complaint also asks to include Chancellor Tahani Al-Gebali to substantiate claims against Obama.

Complaint No. 1761 for the year 2013 reported to the Attorney General asked the Egyptian High Court to consider the suspicious activity of a group called the Islamic Da'wa Organization (IDO), which is owned and managed by Malik Obama.

The complaint also asks the court to bring in Malik Obama – a resident of the United States – to be questioned in regards to the terrorist groups in Egypt, whether by inciting or participating with or in any form of support punishable by law. It seeks permission to declare Obama a defendant in his right outside Egypt diplomatically, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


9-11 was an Indirect Defensive Attack – Len Bracken

9-11 was an Indirect Defensive Attack – Len Bracken

Download audio file   13 November, 2013 12:00

States have used terrorism in various ways to advance their own interests for hundreds of years, including the use of terrorist attacks as a means to justify acts of war, crackdowns and Draconian laws such as the US Patriot Act. According to research on the matter by Len Bracken who granted an interview to the Voice of Russia, there are different types of state sponsored terrorist attacks which he has classified and that have been used by NATO, the US and other states in the past. Mr. Bracken is a specialist on the attacks of 9-11 and has done extensive research and interviewed witnesses including police who knew about Anthrax being stored by "Israeli Agents" in the US who were allowed to go free.


Robles: Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with Mr. Len Bracken. He is the author of six books including The Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror, he is also a specialist in international affairs and international relations and an accredited journalist. This is part one.

Robles: Hello, sir.

Bracken: How do you do? Thank you for having me.

Robles: And thanks for agreeing to speak with us. It's a pleasure. My first question is regarding the motivations for your book The Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror – can you give us a little bit of background: why you wrote it, what led you to write it?

Bracken: Well, when 9-11 happened I was in Riga, Latvia for an activist event to sort of protest consumerism. It took place throughout the entire city.

On the day of the event I knew better than to jump to any conclusions and I was very reluctant of course to say one way or the other who had done it. But after about six-months time and looking at some of the evidence and of course this was the same year that Jame Bamford published Body of Secrets that contained the information and reproductions of documents about Operation Northwoods.

For your listeners who may not know – Operation Northwoods was proposed in the early 60s prior to the beginning of the Vietnam War and Gulf of Tonkin just before that.

Robles: That was the one, I'm sorry, that was the one to blow up a done civilian aircraft and start a war with Cuba, right?

Bracken: Exactly, right.

Robles: Tell us about that plan. It was actually turned down for the extreme quality of it, but…

Bracken: Yes, sure. It was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman L. Lemnitzer who proposed the plan to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.

And so the idea was to have a covert attack upon America. So the idea that they would attack America and this would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.

I guess that they had planned some bombings in Miami and Washington DC and blowing up an American ship in Cuban waters. That was what the plan had as sort of its stratagems. The kind of a tactics that would be used to provoke an attack.

I have a theory that I have developed, it's not just my theory but I've advanced it somewhat and we call this the "Indirect Attack". You know, this is always an attack pretending be someone else.

So the idea was that the attack would be staged and would make it look like the Cubans had done it and that would justify the attack.

We can see throughout history that this has taken place. You had Cuba in fact, you have the sinking of the USS Maine in 1898 to get the United States into the Spanish American War, and then in 1915 you have the sinking of Lusitania to bring the United States into WWI, in 1939 you have the provocation by Hitler, he staged the raid on the Gleiwitz radio station to begin war with Poland. And of course Pearl Harbor in 1941 and Operation Northwoods was in 1962, then in 1964 was the Gulf of Tonkin.

So at the same time the assassinations, and of course were coming up, the anniversary of Kennedy assassination – these events were well-known and were accepted as having involvement of the States. These other things were also taking place and of course these two now are becoming increasingly more accepted.

Robles: You just mentioned Pearl Harbor as being a false-flag attack. Can you give us little background on why you are saying that was a false-flag?

Bracken: You can look into some of the books that have come out- the one that I drawn a great deal is called Others Unknown, it's by Stephen Jones.

I think that the evidence has come out that there was advanced knowledge on the part of the US military and the US Administration, at the time the Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

And the idea was that they would send out the newer ships so that the older ships would be blown up and it would look like the Japanese had in fact attacked us without our knowledge when in fact there was advanced knowledge and the people on the ground in Hawaii were denied the information that was being held in Washington.

There are some documents that were missing from the archives that point to this, it's the implication.

One of the things about the book which is The Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror in addition to some detailed synopsis of these events we also have a chronology.

Robles: I recently wrote an article regarding 9-11 etc. And I found a mention of your book, I was researching actually something that I had read years ago from the project for New American Century.

It was very interesting that when I started researching this, the project for New American Century website was up and within like 5 hours of my beginning digging there, this site went down and disappeared and it has not come back up.

Regarding 9/11 state terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism and in particular the Project for New American Century – can you give us some background?

Bracken: Sure. I'm also the author of the first biography in any language on the French theoretician and filmmaker named Guy Debord.

He was part of what was called the Situationist International– the radical Marxist group that went from 1956 into the early 70s. And he stayed together with one of the members of the group whose name Gianfranco Sanguinetti and the two of them developed a theory of terrorism – sort of offensive-defensive theory of terrorism, saying there is offensive terrorism,, there is defensive terrorism, and it can be either direct or indirect.

And I have been working with that theory. I'm trying to develop and trying to advance it because, as I said, I wrote the biography on Debord and I also translated a book by Sanguinetti.

Sanguinetti's book is called On Terrorism and the State and this is where this theory was presented for the first time.

So with my book what we set out to do initially was to prove what we called the State Terror Thesis. And this is to recount many of the instances in which it's well known or fairly well-known and there is some reasonable evidence to support the idea that states use terror.

The big thing that influenced me in writing the book was the fact that in 2001 Jim Bamford published Body of Secrets about the NSA and other things which talked about the Operation Northwoods.

A more recent example was actually spoken of by Zbignew Brzhinsky in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in February 2007 in which he referenced a leaked document that said that George W. Bush had considered shooting down a UN plane in order to justify attacking Iraq.

So there is a lot of instances of this, with regard to Sanguinetti and his theory on Terrorism and the State. This involves the assassination in May of 1978 of Aldo Moro, who was the Christian Democratic Party leader, who was trying to reconcile some of the different political factions in his country.

And of course Sanguinetti's book was published in the next year 1979 and then again in 1980 they had the Bologna railway bombing which killed a lot of people. And a lot of the evidence has pointed back to, I hate to say this, but it pointed back to NATO and this Operation Gladio, it's called.

And there are several books published in Europe that have gone to great detail. One is by Philip Willan it's called Puppet Masters: The Political Use of Terrorism in Italy, another one is called NATO's Secret Armies by Daniel Ganser. Of course, there are books in French and Italian on the subject.

In fact the European Parliament has tried to go back to NATO and say:"What is the chain of command on this? How could you have justified these attacks, pretending to be the Red Brigades in Italy and yet having infiltrated these groups?" And NATO refused to respond.

Robles: What was the purpose of Gladio?

Bracken: The original idea of Gladio was these were going to be stay-behind armies that after WWII the US and NATO would leave caches of weapons in countries such as Greece and Italy and Turkey and set up networks that could be used in the event of a Soviet invasion or Soviet takeover or Communist Party takeover and then invitation of the Soviets, any eventuality. That was the purported idea behind these "stay-behind" armies but in the end they ended up being engaged in provocations and according to Philip Willan, a lot of it goes back to the CIA base in Paris, the Hyperion Language School and that a lot of the people who were the Red Brigades who were doing the liaison, the sort of "fake" Red Brigades, they were doing the liaison with the CIA at the Hyperion Language School in Paris at that time. In any case, that is sort of briefly.

It turns out that the man who was most suspected of having pulled the trigger on Aldo Moro is free at this time. He did some prison time but he is actually a free man right now.

Robles: I see. Back to your book The Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror, what were the motivations behind your book?

Bracken: People knew about my work in developing a chronology for The Strategy of Tension, this is called The Strategy of Tension in Italy, the idea would be that they would create so much social tension that masses would want to have the state protect them and it would justify any kind of police actions, it would justify a crackdown on the left, for example.

I've done a lot of work on that, I worked out the chronology of the Situationist International in Italy and of The Strategy of Tension in Italy – it's in my book called The Arch Conspirator, it's a collection of essays, and in fact I associated it with an open letter to the citizens of Poland in which I warn them that if they were to join NATO, that they would potentially have some negative repercussions along these lines, of course it turned out to be different, they were used more as these kind of "rendition centers" if my understanding of that is correct.

Robles: The "Black Sites"?

Bracken: Yeah, exactly.

So the idea is that you could have Direct Defensive Terrorism. So this goes back to the terror of the French Revolution.

So that the terror was used by the revolutionary regime to defend itself. And this was done directly, they said: "Ok, we are going to go out, we are going to have a 'Scorched Earth Policy', we are going to just terrorize everyone and they will fall in line with our revolutionary dictate". That would be a Direct Defensive Attack.

And then you have a Direct Offensive Attack.

So these categories are a little but muddy -the example used by Sanguinetti would be the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization. But of course we know that there were probably infiltrators there and that this is not so clean.

But just this whole idea that you could have the IRA, the PLO these groups would be involved in Direct Offensive Attacks against the established power, a minor group against the state.

So then you come to the category of the Indirect Defensive attack and this is the example that we could use from Italy where the Red Brigades are infiltrated, they are militarized and a Defensive Attack is staged. But it's done indirectly in order to justify the established power going on the offensive or for other reason.

So basically it allows a Draconian crackdown or it allows the Patriot Act for example in the case of the United States.

And then there is a forth category which is the Indirect Offensive Attack which has not been developed by Sanguinetti and I've done some unpublished work in that area.

But consider for example that maybe the British were caught in Iraq dressed as Muslims and carrying bombs and that kind of thing. So this would be an Indirect Offensive Attack, they are pretending to be someone else but they are doing it in a foreign country in an Offensive Attack.

Robles: There were reports out of Libya when all that was going on, there has been reports out of Syria as well, of officers being caught with British accents and Turkish accents and foreign languages being spoken.

Bracken: It could very well be this forth category –this Indirect Offensive Attack is where everything is gone since 9-11 which was an Indirect Defensive Attack although it was never really purely an Indirect Defensive attack because you probably had Israeli and Saudi involvement as well.

So it wasn't just the United States, there were other regimes.

Robles: Recently Prince Bandar, or "Bandar Bush", as he is commonly called, threatened President Putin and the Russian Federation with terrorist attacks during the Olympic Games if Russia didn't pull its support for Syria.

He also admitted that they control Chechen terrorist groups, they control AL Qaeda in Syria. What can you tell us about that - the Saudi connection to Syria, to 9-11, to the Bush family etc. if you could?

Bracken: With regard to 9-11 I can say that there was the report of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – this is joint inquiry into intelligence agency activities before and after the terrorist attacks in September 11th, 2001.

This was released in December 2002. And quite often when you get a report like this, that is conducted right after the fact it's going to be much more accurate than the 9-11 Commission Report, which we understand was more novelistic than historical.

So with regard to the Senate report they are missing I believe 24-28 pages and our understanding is that Senator Robert Graham has indicated in his novels and in other places, he sort of implied, that these missing pages relate to Saudi involvement in 9-11.

Of course there was a plane that ushered out, when all other flights were halted, the Saudis were escorted out of the country.

We understand that there was also a plane maybe even before the Saudi plane that ushered out Israeli nationals.

Robles: And the Bin Laden family…

Bracken: But the most damming evidence in my opinion goes to the Israelis, because, I have made the trip to Weehawken New Jersey where they had Urban Moving Systems and the only people arrested on the day of 9-11 were Israeli citizens, some of them tied to Mossad.

We know that with regard to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that the "Safe House" in New Jersey at that time was run by a Mossad Agent, probably working with the United States.

In 2001 Urban Moving Systems, they had the white vans, the vans that Dan Rather said: "Hey the police have stopped a white van on the George Washington Bridge" and it had thousands of pounds of explosives and of course the people were arrested, there was a massive "Spy Dragnet" but they were all allowed to go back to Israel.

And our understanding is that the person who was running the operation in Weehawken, at Urban Moving Systems is back in the United States and is actually living here now.

What the law enforcement officials that we spoke to, we went back to Weehawken years after the attack, they said that they were livid because they knew what was in there, there were bombs, there were detonators and there was even supposedly Anthrax there! Is what they told us.

This is John Robles. You are listening to an interview to Len Bracken. He is the author of several novels including The Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror. That was Part 1 of an interview in progress, you can find the rest of this interview in our website at Voiseofrussia.com.


"The media is a better keeper of UK spy data than the NSA" - Mike Smith

NSA headquarters in Fort Meade

NSA headquarters in Fort Meade

Download audio file  13 November, 2013 09:56  

The revelations of Edward Snowden continue to reverberate throughout the world and are causing light to illuminate the dark recesses of the West's intelligence agencies. Although the argument has been made that this "light" is causing terrorists to go "dark" Mr. Snowden's revelations have benefitted the public good worldwide and have caused a global outcry at the extent of intrusive spying by the once "non-existent" NSA and their partners. Regular Voice of Russia contributor Michael John Smith also gave his views on the fact that over 850,000 people had access to the same information as Edward Snowden. Mr. Smith believes light is the best remedy for exposing corruption.

Hello this is John Robles, I am speaking with Mr. Michael John Smith, he is a regular contributor to the Voice of Russia, he is an intelligence specialist and the last person convicted of spying for the Soviet Union in the world.


Robles: Hello Mike, can you give us your impressions on this meeting in front of British parliament, the Intelligence Committee? I believe it was the first televised meeting?

Smith: On Thursday, that's the 7th of November, there was a meeting, which lasted about 90 minutes between the UK Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, ISC for short, whose Chairman is Sir Malcolm Rifkind, an ex-Foreign Secretary of the last Conservative Government, and the committee was meeting with various heads of the security and intelligence services. That was Andrew Parker, who is the Director General of MI5 or the Security Service, John Sawers, who is the Chief of MI6 or the Secret Intelligence Service, and Sir Iain Lobban who is the Director of GCHQ, otherwise known as the "government listening center".

The whole transcript of this meeting is, it is worth reading because you can see exactly what was said. Advance notice of this meeting went out saying it was going to become a sort of grilling, if it was really a grilling we wouldn't have had raw meat at the end of it.

We had a well-rehearsed set of questions and obviously these chiefs had come along with some well-prepared sets of answers, and it all flowed too nicely and too sweetly, and so everything had been agreed outside the meeting, what was going to be said and how it was going to be said. In the end nothing really came out of it. It was all rather tame.

Robles: "Going dark" – what is that about?

Smith: The idea of "going dark" is that terrorists and people who are being put under surveillance will change their behavior or their tactics, to avoid using any means of communication that are being monitored by intelligence services. So the argument being used to attack Edward Snowden is blame him for making these revelations, that this is what the NSA is up to. They've got this mass surveillance operation going on, and that most people don't or didn't know about this, and that by revealing this, this would alert anybody who is likely to mention on a social media network, say, say anything about terrorism or some plan or plot they've got.

Some time ago there was an article written by a man named Peter Swire, which was published by the Center for Democracy and Technology back in November 2011, and he mentioned this "going dark" phenomena, and this was well before any revelations by Snowden came on the scene.

The way he put it was that the changes in the technology are what is making these people go dark, because the terrorists already know that they are being monitored and any electronic surveillance is going to pick up anything that is going through any wires or through the media. Peter Swire said this in this article 2 years ago. The same argument is still is being used as though it has just come on the scene.

What Peter Swire also said in this article is that this really is a "golden age" for surveillance simply because we have so many more electronic means of listening and spying on people. You know, in places like London, that you've got cameras all over London and there is recognition software that can recognize people's faces, it can even recognize the way they walk in the street, if they look a bit … as though they are not walking naturally, as though they are maybe looking for opportunities to thieve or to plant a bomb. But this could be picked up by the software that has been written already.

Robles: What if somebody is looking for a place to go to the bathroom or something?

Smith: Well yes, that could well pick up those people as well, and it would be very surprising if somebody got arrested just because they were looking a bit urgently in need of toilet.

Robles: If you look at the Boston bombing that was filmed by dozens of cameras and nobody picked that up.

Smith: Exactly, yes. It makes you wonder just what use some of this technology is if it doesn't pick up the very cases, when the bombing or the terrorist attack takes place.

Robles: The FBI and the CIA and counter-terrorism agencies in the United States, they were directly warned by Russian Intelligence that the Tsarnaev brothers were suspicious characters. What is the real point then of all this spying, really, if direct warning against terrorism is being ignored?

Smith: Exactly. It makes you wonder if this was so blatantly put to the FBI that these two brothers should be watched before Boston, and it didn't happen, it makes you wonder maybe there was something going on between the FBI or CIA and these two brothers, that possibly there was some sort of operation going on that has not become public. There is certainly some doubt in my mind as to whether the Boston bombing was partly due to the US Government own devices.

Robles: Well some people are saying, and of course they are labeled conspiracy theorists, that it was a false flag to continue the hyper security state. But why should you continue something that obviously is not working for what it is claimed to be designed for?

Smith: But then again it comes down to oversight, and who is watching and what the security and intelligence agencies are up to. If somebody from outside can see this happening, then it would be very beneficial for the public I think. But we don't really know what they are doing, we don't know what their strategies or their plans for the future.

Robles: Now in the US, focusing on them for a minute, again we are talking about all of this security services safety, public safety etc, here is a new story from a few hours ago: two killed 22 hurt in a Texas party shooting. It's just another mass shooting event in the United States.

Now those happen every day, if you are in the US, they happen maybe every few hours if you are watching internal US media, and then how many terrorist attacks have there been in the US since September 11th?

Smith: Well I can't think … there's … if you could call Boston one, I am not sure there are many others you could put down as being terrorism as such. Actually on the US territory I think it is very few, if any, that have become public anyway.

Robles: If you were the head of the FBI or MI5 or something, wouldn't you be worried about all these mass shootings going on rather than some phantom terrorist?

Smith: To me it would be more important to concentrate on the internal problems that are causing a lunatic to go out and kill 20 people with an assault gun, that is far more worrying for the general public, I think, than that there might be a bombing once every 10 years in a park or somewhere due to terrorism.

It is quite worrying to me that the people are not complaining about the lack of FBI solving of this problem with the guns. We don't have that problem in the UK. There is gun crime, and I can't deny there isn't, but we don't have these mass shootings that you have in the USA. It is far more loss of life in the USA due to just ordinary gun crime than probably any other crime I would have thought.

Robles: Maybe they seem to ignore that for some reason. In the UK what is the biggest danger the internal security services should be looking at?

Smith: We are very worried about terrorism and the Al-Qaeda threat, that is what they are saying is the ...

Robles: Of course, that is what they are all saying and then they turn around and they fund them and arm them. I just learned recently that Ambassador Stevens who was killed in Benghazi, there was some problem with about 20,000 surface-to-air missiles that were given to Islamist groups, and that those were apparently lost. I would think that might be a security concern but they were given to these terrorists by the CIA.

Smith: It sounds a very damaging thing. If that happened, then that sounds incredibly damaging for everybody's safety and around the world.

Robles: OK it sounds damaging, but OK, so let's say they have 20,000 of these surface-to-air missiles. Why aren't we hearing about aircraft falling out of the sky left and right?

Smith: Well it's possibly because the security and the intelligence services are playing a double game here, that they have a secret agenda which they don't tell the public, because I am sure if that type of claim came to the public notice that questions would be asked in Parliament about it: "why is this happening". It never comes up, it is kept off the newspapers, we don't hear about it.

Robles: What about claims against Snowden? They are the same claims that were made against Julian Assange, that were made against Jeremy Hammond, and everybody else, and Bradley Manning, that their revelations of blatant egregious government illegality were actually damaging secret sources and the beloved phrase is for the United States is "putting American lives at risk", as if nobody else's lives mean anything. Do you think Snowden's revelations have damaged sources or put people at risk?

Smith: Well I don't. For example, one the facts that came out during the last few months is that 850,000 people had access to the same files as Snowden did. So, if you are worried about security, then there is 849,999 other people that have got the same access to the files and it is unlikely they were all perfectly trustworthy.

Robles: 850,000 people?

Smith: Well, that is the claim that has been made from several sources, that that is the number of people that had access to the same data as Snowden.

Now, if you have got a secure system, you wouldn't make something accessible to that number of people. It seems extremely flawed to me that, if that material is considered highly sensitive and it is classified, why give it to so many people? And that just included, and from the British perspective here, as this included UK classified information. Then surely the UK intelligence chiefs should also have worried about this, because it is compromising the security of the UK that this is in the NSA's hands.

Robles: Mike, can I bring up something that no one has dared, or no one has thought of broaching this topic and I'd like to get your impression on it?

Smith: Sure.

Robles: By you telling me and mentioning 850,000 people had this information, is it possible - now I don't want to denigrate Snowden and his revelations and everything - is it possible that all that information is false, that that was specially put out there so the world fears the NSA and thinks that they are capable of getting into everything and anything they want, whenever they want?

Do you think their capabilities are really as real as Edward Snowden says? Or is it possible that this was just a huge disinformation campaign that was given to 850.000 people, maybe it would have been given to 3 million people until it was leaked out?

Smith: It is quite possible, I suppose. It is one of the possibilities to consider for anybody who has got doubts. But then again it is similar to the situation with Bradley Manning I think, because he had access to information that so many other people had access to but nobody is saying that that information was false. Because of the reaction I tend to think that Snowden did have access to real information and not false information.

Robles: Yes, I am just saying … with Manning it was war crimes, why would they want everyone out there saying "Oh, the US commits war crimes", what so people were terrorized, that these were war criminals they are going to kill us but if the entire world thinks they are being monitored by the NSA, the entire world is going to … for example journalists might self-censor.

Smith: Yes, but you've got to look at the information, and what has come out so far tends to be proving that it is true, not false. That would tend to make me think that I would at least believe some of it, because it makes sense, it adds up.

So, you've got to look at it always with some degree of criticism I think, and take care not to be just swallowing something that may be false. But to look at it rationally I think so far Snowden has done a good job and I think he has been proved right in most cases at least.

Robles: I am just saying that this might even benefit, even these revelations, although they are saying they are damaging and everything. In many ways they are beneficial for those at the top, I think, in some regard.

Smith: The benefit is that the public are hearing about this stuff. The public didn't know about this before, and now they do, and now they questioning it, and that has created a lot more interest in what these services are doing behind the scenes. What are they are spying on? Are they spying on everybody, every citizen, what they are up to? Do they know who you are phoning up, who you are e-mailing?

It is very important to a lot of people to know just how many people know what your private dealings are with other people, with other organizations, because it might be sensitive, it might cause people to be blackmailed. There are all sorts of reasons why you should be concerned about your own private data.

On Thursday there was a Newsnight program on the BBC, in which the previous Director of GCHQ, Sir Francis Richards, was asked various questions and he was actually embarrassed, you could see he couldn't answer the question put him by Simon Jenkins, who is a journalist at the Guardian, who was also being interviewed that evening. That it was insecure that these 850,000 people had access to all this information, and the biggest risk was that the NSA had our information.

That was the threat, NSA had British information that was considered sensitive, and Simon Jenkins actually made the point that Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian were safer custodians of this information than the NSA.

Robles: It hasn't got out, has it?

Smith: No, well that … the point he was making was that the Guardian has carefully vetted everything, it's even got the GCHQ to check it and make sure there is nothing that shouldn't be released in the public domain, so it's being done very, very carefully by the Guardian.

Robles: Wikileaks was doing the same thing with all the Afghanistan files and the Bradley Manning revelations. I mean they were going through very carefully making sure that no source was actually damaged or anyone's life was at risk. So you could make the same argument there too.

Smith: That's right. That's the idea, If you are coming back to what the security services say in many cases, is that you can't reveal a … you can't say anything about sources, because that might put them at risk, it might damage somebody's security, and that is what they are really afraid of in revealing the truth.

That's being used in arguments where, say, terrorists might go to court, and they don't put the terrorist in court because they say "if we put him in court, we will have to bring out evidence that might reveal our sources, it might show that we've got some guy high up in Al-Qaeda or somewhere, who we are trying to protect, because if that source gets found out, he might be assassinated, be removed, we will lose that source. So, it is better to let this terrorist stay on the streets".

So, they don't use any intercept evidence in court. And all that sort of argument; it's been going on for years.

You were listening to an interview with Michael John Smith, an intelligence specialist and the last person convicted of spying for the Soviet Union in the world, he is also a regular contributor for the Voice of Russia. Thank you very much for listening, you can find the second part of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com


President Vladimir Putin: A Force for Peace in Asia and the World

Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin

By John Robles, 13 November, 2013 06:30  

After completing a trip to Hanoi, Vietnam where literally scores of agreements and bilateral documents were signed, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin arrived in the Republic of Korea after receiving an official invitation from the President of South Korea Park Geun-hye. Steps by the Russian Federation to further develop mutually beneficial ties between the Russian Federation, the Koreas and the entire region point to.

The importance of the talks in Korea and the agreements that are expected to be signed as well as the significance of the president’s extremely successful official visit to Vietnam, where dozens of strategically important agreements were signed in almost all spheres, cannot be understated with regard to the geopolitical implications and global ramifications.

On the agenda of the visits is further economic integration which follows in the spirit of the BRICS and heightened integration projects being carried out by Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus (the Customs Union) and Russian plans towards deeper cooperation in Eurasia with the creation of a Eurasian Economic Union.

This economic shift away from the weakening paper based petro dollar and the US whose real debt is now said to be in the neighborhood of $205 trillion dollars, effectively making it bankrupt, is also coupled with a military and geopolitical shift away from US/NATO and their policies of force and acquisition of resources by nefarious means and the over throwing of governments and endless war.

With the positive economic growth of the BRICS countries and their policies based on mutually beneficial economic models promoting sustainable and realistic growth, forward thinking Eurasian and now even European economic powers are beginning to look towards the BRICS as an attractive alternative to the failed policies of the West.

The world has seen that endless war and force are unsustainable and with the recent events in Syria, as well as scores of other failures by the United States including multiple countries filing Crimes Against Humanity charges against the US in the Hague, has begun to shift their geopolitical weight towards the Russian Federation and President Putin, a leader who has proven beyond any doubt through continuous efforts that he stands for rule of law, peace, mutual respect, respect for sovereignty and the betterment of mankind.


President Vladimir Putin concluded talks with the President of Vietnam Truong Tan Sang and other leaders in Hanoi on Tuesday as part of his whirlwind Asian tour and will be meeting with the President of South Korea Park Geun-hye on Wednesday.

Among the key agreements signed in Hanoi by President Putin and President Truong Tan Sang were a new military deal that will see Russia train Vietnamese navy and armed forces and increase the types of military equipment Russia will sell to Vietnam.

The meeting was extremely successful for both sides with new levels of cooperation between the two states now reaching new strategic levels in almost all spheres. Agreements, memoranda and deals were signed in dozens of fields including energy, oil exploration and modernization of Vietnam’s oil refinery, nuclear energy, ecology, healthcare and industry.

Among the other documents which were signed in the presence of Presidents Putin and Truong Tan Sang include agreements on: the transfer of sentenced persons, military cooperation, allowing Vietnamese citizens to attend institutions of higher learning in Russia, cooperation in technology and innovation and cooperation in the fields of geology and subsurface resource use.


After leaving Hanoi President Putin is scheduled to meet with South Korean President Park Geun-hye and gave an interview to South Korean media in an address to the Korean people on the eve of his visit.

One key area of great importance to the Korean people is the issue of Korean integration and President Putin called for this to be done peacefully and with the respect to the mutual wishes of all of the Korean people. With Russia’s good relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea President Putin may be one of the few leaders in the world who can truly assist the Koreas in finally uniting.

Interview with Korean media

Military Cooperation

In the interview granted to South Korean media President Putin outlined his vision for Korean/Russian cooperation and gave a positive assessment even in the area military technical cooperation: “The Republic of Korea has become one of our key partners in Asia, which is reflected not only in the growing trade and a solid diversification of our relations, but in the strong ties even in such sensitive areas, as military and technical cooperation.”

Six Party Talks

President Putin underlined the good relations that the Russian Federation has with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and underlined that this would help Russia in assisting in bringing about a resolution to the six-party talks on the DPRK’s nuclear program, a process which he said requires the good will of all sides.

President Putin: “… the composition of participants seems to be optimal, provided that there is good will on both sides, first of all, on the part of the DPRK, Republic of Korea and, as a matter of fact, of other participants in the process, and it is even more true as there are three nuclear powers among them (Russia, the USA and People’s Republic of China) - all this still gives me some optimism, and I very much hope that this mechanism will play a positive role in the future.”

Regarding the setting of preconditions with regard to the resumption of talks President Putin was quite candid in saying that all sides need to work together: “If we constantly set preconditions for the start of talks, they may never begin.”He also said: “… when we try to agree on some complex and sensitive issues and adopt an extremely tough attitude, give ultimatums, as a rule, this does not lead to the expected result.”

Russian Far East Korean Relations

When asked about prospects for the development of South Korean and Russian Far East relations President Putin stated that the prospects were good and were a priority for Russia: “I have already said that we have prospects for cooperation in various fields. These are engineering, space, transport machinery and transport infrastructure. The Russian Federation sets an objective to ensure accelerated and priority development of Siberian regions, especially the Eastern Siberia and the Far East.”

Regional Development

Regarding recent moves by the President of South Korea to develop the region and improve cooperation, in particular the "Eurasia Initiative" of President Park Geun-hye, President Putin stated that steps have already been taken: “… we have already taken certain practical steps aimed at its implementation – concerns linking the Trans-Korean and Trans-Siberian Railways in order to ensure quick, reliable, safe and rather low-cost transportation of goods between Asia and Europe. I believe this is a highly interesting joint project.”Regarding differences between the Koreas in this area: ”If South and North Koreas could agree to reconstruct the Trans-Korean Railway… this would be an important contribution to the realization of the program proposed by President Park Geun-hye.”

Economic Development

President Putin then brought up the planned creation of a Eurasian Economic Bloc and the integration of the Koreas into such an organization: “In this regard, I would also like to mention once again and to remind you of a major integration project which is being carried out by Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus – the Customs Union – and our plans to make the following step towards deeper cooperation and the creation of a Eurasian Economic Union. By now, several dozen countries have already shown interest in establishing cooperation with the Customs Union, including Vietnam.”

Oil Pipeline

The Korean reporter Kyusun Yeon then asked the President to clarify comments he had made at the recent OPEC Summit in Brunei regarding a pipeline to South Korea.As to how a pipeline could be built the President said that this was an area for the experts but added: “I believe this can be done in two ways: by building a pipeline system either buried on the ocean floor, or going through the territory of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and extending to South Korea, the Republic of Korea.”

Korean Unification

When asked about the unification of the two Koreas, a question that is very close to the hearts of all Koreans, President Putin stated that was vital for the people and that it had to be done through peaceful and mutually acceptable means: “We definitely support the aspiration of Koreans for national unification. It's a natural process. However, I take as point of departure that it should be exclusively peaceful and take into account the interests of the North, as well as of the South.”

“Nothing should be imposed on partners, otherwise the process will become destructive instead of having a positive outcome. And, on the contrary, if the partners' interests are respected with consideration for the obvious longing of the people – and I believe that every Korean in his or her heart thinks of a possible unification of the country irrespective of his or her political views – this process can be very fruitful, constructive and bring great and positive results for the international politics, ensuring security in the region, as well as for the economics of the rapidly developing region.”

President Putin added that such unification would be a positive for Russia: “Such process is positive for Russia. We welcome it taking into account those special considerations I've just told you about.”

When asked about being called the world’s most powerful person, President Putin was modest as usual: “ I prefer to pay less attention to such things. Again, if you pay too much attention to that it is going to influence the decision-making process. And this would be most regrettable.”

 Positive Force

President Putin continues to be a positive force for peace and for global development and his Asian trip surely is underlining Russia’s role in what has now, once again, become a healthy multi-polar world, something that could not have been brought about without the modest Russian leader.


NSA/GCHQ/Et Al Spying on Everything: White Sheds on Five Eyes Embassies are SIGINT Posts

Old building of US embassy in Moscow. You can spot 'spy box' on its roof.

US embassy in Moscow.With 'spy box' on its roof.

By John Robles, 12 November,2013  12:55  

While much of the world’s attention has been focused on NSA and US spying through the internet and electronic devices, one area that has been overlooked are advances in/and activities surrounding signals intelligence through the radio spectrum. An area which has also made huge advancements over the last 20 years.

One of the key points for collecting foreign intelligence for almost any country are the embassies and diplomatic missions of the word’s states abroad and with the revelations by Edward Snowden of NSA servers based in US Embassies worldwide, this has once again placed a focus on the sovereign territories of countries as embodied by their diplomatic missions.

If one drives by the US Embassy in Moscow and looks up one might notice a white shed-sized "box" situated prominently almost directly in the middle of the embassy’s roof. But what is it? Well the answer is most likely a camouflaged spy post.

I contacted a source with expertise in Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) about the "boxes", which appear on US and UKUSA member embassies worldwide and he/she said the white "sheds" are actually called "Secure Compartmented Intelligence Facilities" (SCIF).

The source said that there are two types of installation, some are temporary and portable and some are permanent. The temporary or portable structures are covered with a white material which is apparently a "modified Kevlar made material that allows RF through with minimal attenuation."

The permanent locations such as on the US Embassy in Moscow and the US Embassy in Berlin have "dielectric windows (a dielectric window is not made of glass but it is transparent to radio waves ) which hide the specialist antennae and amplifiers, codenamed EINSTEIN and CASTANET respectively".

The source said that the specific frequency capability is dictated by the target frequencies and the structures allow for multiple intercepts including: data, voice, and whatever else they can receive.

The innocent looking "boxes" are not only based all over the world on the roof tops of embassies worldwide but they are all part of a global spy network with the codename "STATEROOM". It is part of a "Special Collection Service" or (SCS) apparently placed with the knowledge and participation of the FiveEyes (FVEY) (UKUSA) participants or USUKCANAUSNZ.

As I have written before UKUSA is a SIGINT alliance of the same "Five Eyes" countries, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The source says that there is no evidence of such SCIFs being mounted in FVEY countries and that he/she suspects that this is due to hard connections available to the four others who then share their take with the hosting nation; meaning that no nation spies on its own, hence you have the UK’s GCHQ passing information on UK citizens to the NSA, and Australia’s DSD, Canada’s CSEC and New Zealand’s CSO doing the same, with the NSA apparently providing the other four with the same level of data on their own citizens. The relationships allow for the FVEY countries to spy on their own citizens by having a "foreign" partner do it for them, thus skirting all of their own national laws and constitutions.

The source was asked about a cylindrical shaped structure on top of the UK Embassy in Berlin and stated that he/she thought it was not part of STATEROOM .

The source speculated that it could possibly be a probe into the beamwidth of a telephone microwave link.

Although the obvious targets of such surveillance are Chancellor Merkel and her Government Offices (German High Command) the source says, the dielectric window on the UK Embassy in Berlin is 90 degrees and one pane is pointing over the top of the British Embassy towards the Russian Embassy on the Brandenburg Gate a minutes’ walk away.

On the 11th September a man by the name of Ali Mansouri, an alleged member of the Iranian Quds Force, was arrested for espionage operations in Israel.

In his possession were photographs of various sites including the US Embassy in Tel Aviv which actually showed the SCIF atop the building. The media release on his arrest was not until the 29th of September so possibly, according to the source: "… intelligence agencies such as the German BND were taking a look atop the US Embassy in the Pariser Platz."

So that takes care of the white "boxes" and other structures and designs on the roofs of FVEY Embassies, now what about the NSA servers in the basements? Kind of hard to photograph those I guess.


Roots of Attack on Russian Embassy in Warsaw: Nationalists, Hate-Groups, Russophobia, NATO

Protests in Warsaw, Poland

Protests in Warsaw, Poland

By John Robles,  12 November, 2013 10:57

On November 11th, as Poland marked its Independence Day holiday, right-wing nationalists and rioters decided to target and attack the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Warsaw, Poland. The Polish Security Services protected the site but not until rioters burnt a police post and did damage to the Embassy Compound. Riot police were forced to form a cordon around the embassy to protect the location and multiple arrest were made. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has apologized for the attack, organized by hate groups operating in Poland whose backing must surely now be investigated.

Although official Moscow and official Warsaw maintain normal and mutually beneficial relations despite many areas where there are disagreements, some of these very serious such as in the area of allowing US/NATO missile elements and military infrastructure to be placed on Polish soil, there continue to be those who wish to see any warming in bilateral relations cut off before they have a chance to even get off the ground and continue to propagate anti-Soviet propaganda and outdated rhetoric repackaged as anti-Russian hatred.

The attack on the Russian Embassy in Warsaw was clearly a provocation by forces acting in Poland whose goal is to foment internal strife and maintain an anti-Russian stance by the Polish Government and the Polish people.

Official Warsaw has condemned the attack on the Russian Embassy and Polish law enforcement and security bodies did in fact respond accordingly to the threat (attacks on embassies are a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations), and were even forced to use extreme measures including rubber bullets on the rioters gathered under nationalistic slogans.

The Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, was one of the first to condemn the violence by rioters and went so far as to call it a "slur on the country’s reputation."

Tusk apologized for the attack on the Russian Embassy and even stated that he was "ashamed" by the acts of violence carried out by rioters on a day when Poles are supposed to be celebrating pride in their country.

The rioters, who gather every year and cause widespread property damage and organize acts of violence continually cause embarrassment to the government and the country as a whole. Effectively these "nationalists," who claim to be Polish patriots, are doing more on a continual basis to discredit and bring shame on the country they purport to defend and be patriots of.

According to RIA Novosti news agency Prime Minister Tusk partially placed responsibility for the disorders on his main political opponent, chairman of the Law and Justice Party Jaroslaw Kaczynski.

While there are internal political forces in Poland responsible for the yearly violence and the continuing Russophobia, Polish Security Services must not turn a blind eye to the fact that there are also external foreign actors who stand to benefit from fomenting strife between Poland and Russia. This fact should have been brought home by the crash of President Lech Kaczynski’s plane, in which 96 people died and the aftermath of anti-Russian hysteria that swept the country, propagated by western backed actors.

Although the Russian Federation and the Russian Security Services have tackled the problem of western backed NGOs and have openly confronted the fact that these organizations are used to effect political and social change in target countries, in effect subverting the governments and the countries in question, Poland has not taken such measures and is also want in dealing with their own internal hate groups and the proliferation of neo-nazi [sic] ideology and the spread of hate and violence by these groups.

Internally for Poland open media debate and political discussions regarding hate crimes and xenophobia rarely occur and are due to the fact that target groups are largely marginalized and have almost no voice to be heard. According to the site operspektive.de: "… the overwhelming silence surrounding the issue of right-wing crimes or related violence can be attributed to Polish society’s extreme sensitivity to the topic. Hate crime—as an element of the wider problem of racism, xenophobia and discrimination—clashes with the dominant (internal and external) image of Polish society.”

This internal problem, which sees international coverage every year as nationalists stage pogroms throughout the country, affects Russian-Polish relations because the groups often incite anti-Russian hatred due to old Soviet stereotypes that are still part of the public consciousness, and which suit the interests of US/NATO as they continue to subvert the sovereignty of Poland and use its territory as another instrument for the projection of US/NATO military force into the Post-Soviet Space.

Although the holiday, Polish Independence Day, is marked to celebrate Poland's independence in 1918, nationalist movements have taken a neo-nazi [sic] character and an anti-Russian one as well. While historically inaccurate these prejudices are assisted by some Polish media who continually blame Russia for the social and economic ills of the Polish people.

The fact that hate groups regularly use points of social discontent to foment hatred towards a particular targeted group is nothing new. This tactic has been used in particular in the post Soviet space by western backed interests whose only goal is to prevent normal relations between Russia and the states in question.

From US/NATO the Polish people have been given CIA black sites, NATO military installations and so-called ABM infrastructure. While flying in the face of the geopolitical reality and the fact that Russia is a friendly country interested in mutually beneficial relations with Poland based on the mutual respect for sovereignty, these moves by US/NATO serve their own interests and foment tension between Poland and Russia.

Perhaps it is time the Polish Security Services began looking at who is behind the yearly violence, who is funding and promoting anti-Russian hysteria and for the nationalists to take a sober and long hard look at who is truly subverting the sovereignty of their beloved homeland. Unfortunately that long hard look will have to be directed to the West.


Russia’s principled actions made the US/NATO back down – Rick Rozoff

Download audio file  12 November, 2013 10:30   PART 1

By preventing another act of aggressive war against Syria and giving asylum to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden the Russian Federation and due to the efforts of the BRICs countries being led by Russia, the "World’s Sole Military Superpower" has lost the reigns of world domination, and the world has become a multi-polar place once again. This has been another in a long line of failures by US President Barrack Hussein Obama, who has been an ineffective and failed leader domestically and internationally according to regular Voice of Russia contributor Rick Rozoff.

Hello this is John Robles, you are listening to part 2 of an interview with Rick Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list. You can find the previous and following parts of this interview on our website at Voice of Russia dot com.

This interview is in progress.


Robles: About Obama possibly doing something dangerous in some "refusal" to just quietly step aside… no no no, "Step Aside" might be a little strong, let’s say: "Quietly allow another player to make the world multi-polar."

Rozoff: You described that well and I think that’s exactly it, Does one do the right thing morally and politically and recognize…? It is almost like the heavy-weight boxer who finally realizes he is not going to dominate the game much longer.

Does he retire with some modicum of grace and dignity, or does he stay in the ring and perhaps make a fool of himself and damage somebody else in the process? That is a very good question, but we do have to be cautious and circumspect about this because it is entirely possible that; seeing the reigns of world domination slip through their fingers, major members of the US political elite may decide to do something reckless as you indicate and perhaps even catastrophic but increasingly world public opinion, to the extent it can again become a political force in its own right, we’ve seen in the post cold war era unfortunately, a tendency to supplant mass popular political and social consciousness and activity, by state or state-to-state relations.

That has been a part of the new totalitarianism I would call it, to be honest with you, is that a nation is now completely identified with the state apparatus and that state apparatus with the given administration of the day.

And that the idea of a nation state and a country and a populous and a people seem to be downplayed or downgraded as the result of celebrating the role of, the western states in particular, who have now asserted themselves as planners and made themselves the equivalent of the international community.

It is not unusual to hear the likes of the US president and its western European allies refer to strictly NATO countries, NATO-EU countries, the US and Canada as being the "international community", that has been a trick they have used for the last 20 years, clearly now they can no longer do that.

And the credit is due not to the BRICs countries as a whole, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, but almost entirely to Russia solely.

Again I want to emphasize and underline and italicize, in every way draw attention to the fact it was Moscow’s intervention around Syria to prevent a war which was clearly right on the horizon some 8-10 weeks ago and I think history will record not only principled and brave but perhaps heroic decision to grant refugee status to Edward Snowden, that signaled to the rest of the world that you could… not so much that the emperor was naked (the emperor is not naked, he’s got an arsenal as well as a wardrobe) but that one could stand up to the unipolar world’s sole military super-power and effectively have it back down. Because that is what’s happened and this is a major historical watershed.

Robles: Thanks for underlining that. The 4th of November was an anniversary date. It was the 5-year anniversary of Obama’s being elected to the post of President of the United States. A lot of people are pointing out his failures as a president even with former president Jimmy Carter calling him an "incompetent loser". Can you comment on that and on a violent, you might say, "homicidal aspect" of Barack Obama that has recently come out?

Rozoff: In the final part of what you said alluding to an excerpt from the book that is to be published where evidently the Commander in Chief Barack Obama in so many words boasted of drone warfare making it easier to kill and in fact those words emanated from him it is an indication of unconscionable, inhumane, how vile and offensive politics that has become in this nation.

But I think rather than focus on his individual traits, rather than psychologizing Barack Obama, the important thing is to realize that somebody who was catapulted from almost total obscurity into the White House in a matter of 4 years (we’ve talked about this before on your show John) going from the Illinois State Legislature to the White House in 5 years, that is unprecedented, and clearly there are some major political forces behind the political career of Mr.Obama and the rapid elevation to the level of "Commander in Chief of the world’s sole military super-power". Those are exactly his words, by the way, of 4 years ago when he received a Nobel Prize for Peace, if you can believe it.

And the fact that he was saddled with the infamous and egregious warmonger Joseph Biden, as his running mate in 2008, which I cannot believe for a moment would have been Obama’s personal choice, and that his White House as soon as he walked in, was taken over by now Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel who is another fairly disreputable and unprincipled individual, I am saying that at my own risk being a resident of Chicago, but let’s be honest.

But what we are looking at is more a figurehead, but I have no doubt that Mr. Obama is a particularly ambitious individual who would get ahead at any cost, he has proven that in Illinois during state legislative and state senate elections, and that he would trample on anyone necessary to get to where he wants to go.

But aside from his personal characteristics what we are looking at is a system that molds people to represent the interests of that system and he is simply the latest in the succession of such people.

Though I would state that in my lifetime, because I am old enough to remember a good number of presidents, I was born on presidential election day as a matter of fact, that the open brutality and cynicism of the heads of states in the United States I think has become more marked and I think now to the rest of the world as well as to many Americans.


Robles: How would you characterize Obama’s presidency? Has he had any successes in your opinion Rick?

Rozoff: No! I think that what is really astonishing, is that on the domestic front as well as on the foreign one, no!

But we have to keep in mind we have a political system where at best, (however it is defined even in self-interested or limited or cynical terms) it is all but impossible, we now have built a structural log jam that makes it impossible for any president to get much accomplished. By design!.

So that having 2 officially sanctioned political parties who are able to exclusively raise billions of dollars for their campaign coffers and for heaven knows what else (or slush fund), creates a situation where neither party is going to compromise of course, because they are dependant on their core constituent contributors for money, and if they appear to be reasonable or moderate or compromised in any manner, they may lose some of that.

So what they are putting on is, as we’ve talked about before, a Punch and Judy Show, this is the ultimate World Wrestling Federation (WWF) show, nobody is to believe this is really happening, the blood isn’t real, the person really hasn’t been hit in the head with a metal bar or what happens, but you have to put on a good enough show that it is in fact that which is occurring.

So that no president who doesn’t have a firm control of both houses of congress is going to be able to pass any substantive legislation domestically.

Though in his first term, as we’ll recall, at least for 2 years, Obama, like Clinton in 1993 and ‘94, had control of both houses of congress but his political party still didn’t do anything.

So the inescapable conclusion is nobody is to accomplish anything meaningful.

There are campaign platitudes and bombast that are meant to interest and maybe delude the voting populous but at the end of the day nothing major…

The major banking and corporate interests are going to be able to continue looting the citizenry and the Military Industrial Complex is still going to be given some of the largest military budgets since World War II without there being any country to seriously threaten the United States and that is business as usual and all the major power brokers in the United States are perfectly pleased with that arrangement. Why would they want to change it?

Robles: Personal question, I was looking at your site, how come you had posts in August and then it goes to November?

Rozoff: That is a good question. Somebody is messing with my Word Press site, with the Stop NATO site. I’ve noticed the same thing. As you scroll down instead of it being in chronological order, all of a sudden you have to get past the 4th of 5th, they jump back to any given time, a year ago, 2 years ago, I have no idea why it is happening, but it is part and parcel of a lot of similar inexplicable events.

Robles: I see.


Robles: How would you, in one phrase or sentence if it is possible, characterize so far the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama?

Rozoff: It is hard to see these matters in real time contemporaneously, but I think what will be recorded is: the Obama Administration through no blame or credit of its own, is officiating over the decline of the American Empire.

So, what that is going to mean is you can’t be the general of losing army, if you will, and come off with laurels or being praised.

So, he is going to be held accountable I imagine by historians for having overseen the continuation of the decline of the American Global Imperial Realm, just as his predecessor for 8 years George W. Bush, will be seen to have perhaps, overextended, discredited, US military power abroad.

But the legacy of Obama? It will be mediocre, like that of his predecessor and several predecessors in succession. As a matter of fact, I am hard pressed to think of a President … well we are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy who didn’t last most of his term so we have no idea of what he might have done… but I think that is perhaps the last time (and keep in mind we are jumping back half a century), that may be the last time that I think Americans fully expected of the President do something significant, to accomplish anything major and not simply tread water and throw a few favors to the groups that are supporting him.

In terms of any kind of vision, any kind of comprehensive or ambitious program for the nation at home and abroad, the Obama Administration doesn’t have that, could not have it probably under these circumstances and it will be recorded as another mediocre administration that kept the ball rolling and nothing fundamentally changed.

Robles: Didn’t people have great expectations of Obama?

Rozoff: A story is making the rounds today in the internet about Obama’s comments over the past few years about the Affordable Health Care Act, to the effect that those people will have their own insurance policy prior to this recent phase, this year’s phase, of the Affordable Health Care Act could keep their previous insurance. But the long and short of it there is a clear discrepancy between what he had said and what is now in fact the case.

And some Obama advisor, I read, said something like "we have to remember we wanted to keep the message simple and vague … he didn’t say "vague", but in so many words simple and not too complicated".

In other words the hallmark of Obama Administration is going to be, having kept this to an almost insultingly basic and primitive level: "Change you can believe in" and "hope", and so forth, I mean you couldn’t get any more nebulous than that, could you?

When you make very indistinctive or unclear or nebulous statements like that, you can get people stirred up until they walk away and say "Well what does 'Change' mean?" "What does hope mean?"

Hope is a transitive verb, you have to hope in something. Change is generally a transitive verb, you have to change something. But when you use these words intransitively, and use them without the relation to anything concrete, then people walk away with a little boost to their morale, but when they think about it subsequently, when they analyze what they’ve heard it really means nothing.

Robles: Nobel Peace Prize, continues wars, change, things have gotten worse, all his promises about the economy, about jobs, rule of law, protecting whistleblowers, it is all gone quite the opposite.

Rozoff: He’s gone back on, he has betrayed most of his major (particularly foreign policy-wise) most of his pledges, that is for sure.

What we see, (this is a country that developed massed advertising industry, Madison Avenue, this public relation so-called. We are a culture here that places form over content) and it maybe reached its apex with the 2004 presidential campaign where Obama was packaged as a very attractive and fashionable and appealing product and he was then sold to people. But the truth is that people bought the packaging and not the content because the content was not, the first one not fundamentally different than that of his predecessor, (as I believe you are alluding to in the question of Guantanamo and other issues), forced renditions and extraordinary renditions, black sites, drone warfare, which is increased exponentially under Obama.

So that people got a nice symbol. I mean they also got - we can’t downplay the significance of this – a not only African-American, bi-racial man coming into the White House - this is very significant in American terms.

And it was seen as exciting and bold and precedent setting and so forth, and it was, on the surface, but the unfortunate thing is, and I think we have to be very clear about this, Barack Obama is not Dr Martin Luther King, he is not somebody who both comes out of and has built up a mass movement of people, he is not somebody who both comes out of and has built up a mass movement of people.

He is somebody who has played his cards right with the Democratic Party political machine, initially in Illinois and then ultimately nationally to get himself into White House.

When he leaves there will be no Obama Movement left. He will leave and that will be the end of the story.

Robles: Not much of a legacy, is it?

Rozoff: No, there won’t be any concrete legacy unless, heaven forbid, as you were alluding to earlier, somebody in or around his administration decides or they are going to go down in a blaze of glory and do something reckless if not lunatic.

But barring that, and let’s hope that doesn’t occur, no there won’t be anything truly significant.

Again the symbolic social significance of an African-American being elected President is indisputable, that is a major advance. But in terms of what legacy is going to lead to, in social economic policy, in the United States, world relations, no there is not going to be any real legacy.

You were listening to part 2 of an interview with Rick Rozoff the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list. You can find the previous and following part of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com. Thanks for listening and as always I wish you the best.


CIA/Al-Qaeda Now Own Libya: Interview With James and JoAnne Moriarity

Download audio file    12 November, 10:13

Late CIA Agent/US Ambassador to Libya, Stevens, was a gun runner for al-Qaeda and during the time leading up to his death he was trying to secure the return of 20,000 MANPAD surface to air missiles from al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. These weapons were transferred to radical Islamist elements in Libya to help the US/NATO overthrow the country. Now according to James and JoAnne Moriarity in an interview with the Voice of Russia, al-Qaeda owns Libya, and the only way to get Libya back is through the tribal peoples of Libya, who do not support the fanatical Islamists. According to the Mr. and Mrs. Moriarity Stevens was killed by Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood who were being funded by the US Embassy in Egypt.

This is John Robles. You are listening to an interview with James and JoAnne Moriarty, they’re whistleblowers on war crimes in Libya and were part of an NGO 100 day fact finding mission during the recent NATO and US bombings of Libya. Due to their work with the tribes of Libya they were elected official spokespeople for the tribal nations of that country. This is Part 1 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website Voiceofrussia.com in the near future.

Robles: Hello, how are you?

James: We’re good. It's good to talk to you again.

Robles: It's a great pleasure speaking with both of you as well. A lot of things are going on. Last time we spoke about the Prime Minister of Libya – Mr. Zeidan. What's going on with him right now?

JoAnne: Ali Zeidan who is the Prime Minister of Libya is a puppet Prime Minister. He came in with el-Megarif, el-Megarif was also a puppet president, he has left Libya now with about $6 billion, last May he ran off.

James: You’ve got to appreciate the fact that al-Qaeda Muslim Brotherhood, Ansar al-Sharia - all these al-Qaeda affiliates own Libya literally.

The US has been trying to push back, they now told the US and all these guys were put in there by the US, the US has been trying to push back to recover the bunch of shoulder-to-air missiles and there is 20,000 of them that were delivered to Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Libya.

There was a bunch that Libya had themselves, those have all disappeared and that's a real problem for the United States because they could be shooting down friendly planes, passenger planes and everything all over the world.

This is common knowledge, the president of Chad, Niger and Algeria they all warned NATO and the US that these weapons were leaving Libya like a sieve and that there was a real danger to the world and they needed to stop it.

Robles: One more time, this is 20,000 shoulder mounted surface-to-air missiles?

James: They are called 'MANPAD' and there are different names but the US rockets have a real unique signature, so everybody in the world would see those and know that those were the US supplied weapons.

They went from the US to Qatar and then to Libya and then the night that Chris Stevens was assassinated.

Robles: I want to get this clear. I'm sorry to interrupt you. So this ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda who was supposed to help overthrow the government in Libya and in Syria or exactly in whose hands are these 20,000 missiles?

JoAnne: They are in the hands of Muslim extremists.

And you have to understand that al-Qaeda, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group Ansar al-Sharia - all of them they are all the same.

They just have these different names to confuse the West but those are the groups that NATO and the US joined hands with to take over Libya and now they are supporting them in Syria.

Chris Stevens was instrumental in sending weapons to them in Syria with the help of Abdelhakim Belhadj.

Belhadj was in Guantanamo, he is a known al-Qaeda operative and the US put him in charge, John McCain right there with him accepting a reward, I have a picture of it, with Belhadj in Tripoli.

That's something that the US did and they were notified that all the weapons that were inside Libya were stolen by al-Qaeda, allowed to be stolen and taken across the borders in the Chad and Niger and all these different places.

Robles: So now we have a massive proliferation of anti-aircraft missiles that could be used against civilian aircraft or any other aircraft creating a huge danger possibly to 20,000 civilian aircrafts, in the worst case scenario, that was caused by the US, it is that what you are telling me?

James: Yes, sir. That's exactly right.

Robles: Unbelievable!

James: This is something that has never come out. We told all the intelligence agencies in the United States this information.

One of the tribal spies, if you would, in Libya was serving dinner to Chris Stevens and the personal representative of the Prime Minister of Turkey the night he was assassinated.

And the discussion in that meeting was: Chris Stevens was demanding that Turkey use its influence to help recover those rockets. And the representative from Turkey said (for all practical purposes): 'No, we are not going to do that'.

Just a reminder you are listening to an interview with James and JoAnne Moriarty.

Robles: One more time, sir, please if you can regain your thought with the dinner.

James: Chris Stevens had dinner with the personal representative of the Prime Minister of Turkey. That gentleman, it was the first phone call Obama made when became President the first time was to the Prime Minister of Turkey.

They’re cohorts, their Muslim Brotherhood together, and in fact the man in Turkey believed he is going to be the Calipha when the Caliphate comes into play so he is a very powerful radical Islamist.

Robles: So, who is your source again in this conversation?

James: This is from one of the Libyan tribal members, who was the spy inside the organization in Libya – the CIA compound. He was serving dinner to Chris Stevens and this personal representative of the PM of Turkey.

Robles: Is that ok for you to mention him like this, because we've just blown his cover if he still has one.

JoAnne: CIA compound is gone, so that compound was burnt up.

Robles: But the source, he could be found.

JoAnne: He is a tribal member, all Libyans are tribal members.

Robles: Ok, so there were various tribal members, good.

James: And the conversation was - Chris Stevens was demanding that those rockets which he had originally turned over to these radical Islamists be given back because they are now a danger for the United States since al-Qaeda had made the open declaration that they own Libya, they are not taking orders from anybody.

They now have money, they own a country, they are going to do whatever they want worldwide.

And so this representative from Turkey when he finished dinner, he walked out the front door of that compound was taken by car to the military airport, put on the Turkish military aircraft, flown to Turkey.

The minute this plane set down in Turkey one of the attacks started on that compound.

Nobody has mentioned this and we've given it to four US Intelligence Agencies and they all do nothing.

JoAnne: But they know it's true, they have admitted it. Not to us but in other ways...

They know it's true, the Libyans know it's true, a lot of people know it's true.

Robles: One more time – who attacked the compound? Concretely.

JoAnne: Ansar al-Sharia is a radical Islamist Group it's like Muslim Brotherhood, like I said they are all the same. And the leader of that particular night attack was Mohamed Morsi and we have that document given to us by Libyan security.

That document has been read into the Congress of the United States.

Robles: That document is part of the US Congressional Record?

JoAnne: Yes, it is. Mohamed Morsi was the planner, the funder and he was behind the entire attack, it was a well-organized attack.

Robles: The reason to kill Stevens was what? Because he wanted the weapons back?

James: Yes. And they needed this scapegoat, you know.

When Stevens was so nervous about those weapons being after, he was going to be blamed for it anyhow and the Administration had been putting terrible pressure on him and to get those things recovered: he was the guy who was the arms dealer for al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia in the first place. And they said, get them back. And of course he didn't have a chance to get them back.

So he is now going out and pleading that they get them back and this thing was planned a long time. They wouldn't send any more security in.

JoAnne: It's my opinion, if you will, that Barack Obama is working with the Muslim Brotherhood, was working with Mohamed Morsi.

And when you have eyewitnesses to some of the crimes that you've done, it's much easier if those eyewitnesses, those people who took part in them, if they disappear. It's very difficult to prove then what you did.

Robles: It's possible that there was an order from up-high in the US to get rid of Stevens because he knew all the details of all these shady dealings, is it that what you are saying?

JoAnne: Yeah. And you have to understand too, that I think, in my estimation that, and I don't want to say anything that is not true, but at the same time you have to understand that there was a lot of illegal activity, huge amounts of illegal activity that happened in the NATO war against Libya.

And anybody who is a witness, you know, is a danger to the people that committed these crimes so that's why everybody was told to stand down, don't go help Chris Stevens, don't do anything.

Congressman Pete Sessions, who is a Texas Congressmen, he is a Head of the Rules Committee, he had a long discussion with us this last week.

He told us that Hillary Clinton is a person responsible for whether or not help would go to Chris Stevens. He said, as Secretary of State that is her position, that is her job.

James: Obama-inside, but when it is outside the US, that's the Secretary of State’s pervue.

JoAnne: And he said he understand this: he said, that when she was called to Congress she fell and hit her head and she got sick.

He said the same thing happened in the Clinton Administration when they were after Janet Reno for the Waco blow up, she went to the hospital three times with exhaustion instead of going in front of the Senate or the House.

That's in their play book.

Just a reminder, you are listening to an interview with James and JoAnne Moriarty.

Robles: Ok, two possibilities who ordered or organized the killing of Stevens, either it that was these al-Qaeda elements… ? Right?

JoAnne: There is no question that we have the documentation.

James: It was Morsi of Egypt who organized and paid and financed for the assassination and the meetings that were planned and all that that were probably just a set up, so that was well-known, they'd been training for that for some time. And Morsi was the guy behind the whole thing.

Robles: Morsi was behind it, and whose orders now? You said it was possible that Obama.

James: It was Morsi's orders.

JoAnne: I don't know whose orders. I think it was Morsi, it was Morsi himself.

He is the Head of Ansar al-Sharia.

He is very close to Obama, very close.

This is why Obama stepped up and said they didn't want him ousted in Egypt, they want the Muslim Brotherhood to take part in the government of Egypt.

Robles: Is there any indication here that there may have been some fore knowledge by Obama and Clinton that the Ambassador was about to be assassinated there?

James: We don't have any proof of that.

But the proof that Morsi was the guy behind it. It was done in a document delivered to Obama, two or three days after the attack which killed Chris Stevens.

The security office in Libya, so that they would not be blamed for it all, they captured a couple of the assassins, they interrogated them.

They got all this information about Morsi. They wrote a formal report and sent that to Washington DC just the few days after it happened.

And of course Obama was still telling the lie that it was a video that caused all this.

Robles: And they continue to support Morsi in Egypt?

James: Of course.

JoAnne: Absolutely. I'll give you a copy of that document.

Robles: I need that. That's absolutely vital if you can send it to me.

JoAnne: Sure.

James: While we are on the subject, let me tell you how asinine it is that they would blame a video.

First of all there are no movie-theaters in Libya, not any.

Second, YouTube has not been allowed in Libya in 7 years.

So tell me exactly how with no movie theaters, no YouTube that anybody in Libya could have seen that dadgun movie?

Robles: There was no movie, there was a trailer to a supposed movie. But there was actually no real movie. I mean, I did research on that myself, I tried to find that "movie", the so-called movie, there was no "movie". What was it called? The Innocence of Muslims or something?

JoAnne: Yes.

Robles: There was no actual movie, there was a trailer.

James: The trailer could not have been seen. No movie theaters and no YouTube. Tell me, where are they going to see that trailer?

Robles: So the whole thing with that trailer was all a fabricated provocation, right?

JoAnne: Yes. 100%.

James: Wag the dog. Wag the dog!

JoAnne: It was smoke and mirrors!

Robles: That's what a lot of people thought because there was no actual… there was no movie.

James: The asinine part about that is that if you are going to tell a lie at least make something that is not so easily disproven. Where are they going see it? No movie theaters and no YouTube.

Robles: Ok, another big story, big news that you mentioned before we started recording – a law suit held by Egypt. Can you give us the details on that.

JoAnne: Yes, Al-Watan News Agency in Egypt, it's an Egyptian News Agency, has reported that there a number of high ranking attorneys in Egypt that have filed law suits against Obama for Crimes Against Humanity, for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

And in Egypt, they have arrested the bunch of Muslim Brotherhood that received money from the US Embassy in amounts as high as $850,000.

They have the document, I have a copy of the document which I will give you, with their signatures on it.

They have to go and sign for the money, it has their name and their signature.

This document is… These gentlemen (they are not gentlemen) they are going to be put on trial in Egypt for treason because taking money from a foreign government is treason in Egypt and that carries a death sentence.

So these Egyptian attorneys know these guys are going to be on trial for this and they know they got the money from the Obama Administration. So this is their next step. They are taking Obama to International Criminal Court.

Robles: For attempting to...? They were involved in...?

JoAnne: The Obama Administration gave money to the Muslim Brotherhood through the embassy and the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.

James: So, these are Crimes Against Humanity.

The Muslim Brotherhood was paying thugs to go out and beat up people and attack churches and kill Coptic Christians.

All these terrorist activities were in essence financed by the Obama Administration through payments in the US Embassy in Cairo.

Robles: You know, the Muslim Brotherhood was actually begun like al-Qaeda. It was begun in (I think) 1917 by the United Kingdom?

JoAnne: Yeah, MI-5!

James: But you see what happened, when they ended up with all that money from Libya, Libya had over $500 billion in cash, and cash equivalents, lots of gold, silver... All that has disappeared.

This is the rabid dog that has now turned around and is biting the hand that put it there.

These 250,000 radical Islamists that the US put into Libya to take over that country now own the country. They now have the money, they have the oil income, they now own a country.

So they are going back and they told their handlers the United States and France and England: "We don't need you anymore, we want you to stay out of our business because now we own a country. We got income out the wazoo and we are able to do our activities worldwide."

So you will see us again in your countries. And that has been written, there have been several radio broadcast from leaders of al-Qaeda inside Libya and Egypt and other places.

So this is a fact, this is a real threat to the world!

Robles: It sure is. What you are telling me is that now al-Qaeda has their own country? Basically.

JoAnne: Yes sir. The best hope I believe, for getting rid of al-Qaeda in Libya and taking that country away from them is through the Libyan people and tribes of Libya, because there are no Libyans that support them.

That was the end of an interview with James and JoAnne Moriarty. You can find Part 2 on our website Voiceofrussia.com in the very near future.


Sharing a Hyperlink May Get You 100 Years in Prison in the US: Interview With Sue Crabtree


Jeremy Hammond

Jeremy Hammond

Download audio file  11 November, 12:58  PART 1, PART 2

The sentencing of former Anonymous Hacker Jeremy Hammond is scheduled for November 15th in New York City. Mr. Hammond will be sent to prison for being entrapped in a hack of Stratfor Global Intelligence by an FBI informant named Hector Xavier Monsegur who is still working for the FBI and went by the hacker name Sabu when he was part of Anonymous. The sentence in the case is expected to be close to 10 years for a cyber crime which in an analogous real-world situation would have gotten Mr. Hammond six months. Mrs. Sue Crabtree, a close family friend of Mr. Hammond spoke to the Voice of Russia about the case and also the case of a journalist named Barret Brown who may be sent to prison for 100 years for (according to Mrs. Hammond) sharing a link to the Sratfor e-mails.

This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mrs. Sue Crabtree – a very close associate to Jeremy Hammond. You can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com.


Jeremy Hammond © Screenshot: Freejeremy.net
Robles: Unbelievable!

Crabtree: He is facing over a hundred years in jail for sharing a link. He is a journalist, his information was journalistic and he is facing a hundred years in jail.

Robles: A hundred years?

Crabtree: Yes.

Robles: You’re kidding, right?

Crabtree: No, I’m not kidding.

Robles: How could somebody face a hundred years for sharing a link?

Crabtree: Yes, to the Stratfor e-mails.

Robles: I have no words. That’s not even Orwellian, that’s beyond belief!

Crabtree: I believe you will find that indictment as well under the resources on freeanons.org. I believe that indictment is there as well.

Robles: This isn’t even Oceania, this is like the twentieth Dante’s Inferno under Oceania or something. Unbelievable!

Crabtree: He’s been in jail over a year for sharing a link.

Barrett Brown is a well-known journalist and he was interested in what was in those Stratfor e-mails. And he shared the link in order to gather some support to go through 5 million e-mails. And he was arrested for sharing a link.

Robles: You have a world audience right now. After everything you’ve just told us, what would you say to people who say that Julian Assange is not facing any danger, he can just walk out of that embassy and he’ll be okay?

Crabtree: I don’t believe that. I believe that if Julian Assange walks out of that embassy, the Government will ship him to the United States where he will be charged with espionage or anything else.

My fear is that he’ll never be seen again.

I believe that Julian Assange should stay right where he is or be allowed to safe transport to Ecuador. But I do not believe that he could safely leave that embassy and not be shipped to the US and charged with espionage or anything else that the US decides they want to charge him with.

Robles: What’s going on November 15th ?

Crabtree: Jeremy’s sentencing in November 15th in New York City. And that is when the judge will hand down a sentence of up to ten years, given the fact that Jeremy will not express his apologies for what he’s done.

He stands firm in what he has pled guilty to, he has no apologies to give. And with that in mind it is our belief that he will face ten years in jail.

Robles: Did he plead guilty under duress? Some people were saying he was under conditions that amounted to torture.

Crabtree: Jeremy has been in and out of solitary confinement for a year and a half. He’s had his commissary privileges taken away. He’s had his phone privileges taken away.

So, the only thing he has is letters. He loves to read. We tried to send him books and that sort of thing. But they’ve done everything they can to keep him away from the public. With the exception of the letter writing he has lost his phone call privileges, he’s lost everything.

So, he did take a non-cooperating plea deal in which he would not apologize for what he’s done, he would not cooperate with the Government against anyone else, but he’s accepted fully his responsibility in that hack of Stratfor.

Robles: Normally, accepting responsibility for your own actions – that’s an honorable thing.

Crabtree: But if you apologize and say you are sorry, and you’ll never do it again – it appears in the United States you get a lesser sentence. And he is not willing to apologize.

Robles: If they told Bradley Manning to apologize: "Oh, you exposed heinous war crimes, now apologize!"

It is like the guy that Dick Cheney shot in the face with the shotgun and the guy had to apologize to him for being in a way of the buckshot, remember that? Unbelievable!

Crabtree: I think Bradley Manning is very-very strong. His beliefs and his strength throughout very torturous circumstances are commendable.

I think Jeremy’s strength is commendable.

I think Mr. Snowden, I’ve heard a lot of people in the US say – well, why did he flee to Moscow, why don’t he come here and face charges?

Mr. Snowden in my opinion would be a fool to come to the United States and face charges given the ridiculous charges that are being placed on people who are whistleblowers.

Robles: Just a reminder for everybody out there: the United States revoked his passport while he was in Moscow and Russia was forced to protect him.

I mean, he wasn’t a Russian agent, he wasn’t working for Russia, his destination wasn’t Russia. I just wanted to make that clear.

Crabtree: That’s correct. His passport was revoked and if anyone remembers Mr. Snowden was stuck in the Russian airport for quite some time until Russia was kind enough to give him a temporary visa.

And in that time the US, although they deny it, was able to force down the plane of another country’s president in an effort to see if Mr. Snowden was on that plane.

Obviously, it outraged many people and denying airspace to other presidential planes… I mean, I just don’t know where we are headed, but this sounds like the strong-arm-of-the-law and it is a dangerous place to be for people who want to expose the truth.

Robles: And let this be a warning to the architects behind it; it is not sustainable, really. I mean, they can do it for a while, but it is not sustainable.

One more time, what’s the judge’s name in this?

Crabtree: Her name is Loretta Preska. And I think if you search the case of Susan Lindauer, who is also a whistleblower and who was also a defendant under judge Preska, you’ll find that judge Preska has a long history of very harsh punishment and not so kind behavior.

Robles: One more time, like you said, if he had stolen a car, driven through the front door of Stratfor, physically stolen all their files and left – you said, he’d get something like six months or something?

Crabtree: Correct! And some community service where he’d sweep the streets and clean up garbage.

Robles: And he is facing 35 to life for being led into this by an FBI informant.

What can people do to support Jeremy? It is got to be something serious I think.

Crabtree: The thing they can do is go to freejeremy.net. If anyone would like to donate, there is a donation button there. That will help Jeremy with commissary needs while he is incarcerated for the next several years.

In the United States prisoners literally have to pay for their socks, for their uniform, a coat, their food, because they are not fed enough.

So, those things are purchased through the commissary. They pay for their soap. These are things that prisoners pay for here. So, you can donate.

If you use Facebook, we have a Facebook page called Free Jeremy Hammond Support Network. It provides an address to write to Jeremy and until this address is changed, that address is where he can be written to. And that’s all he has. He has your letters of support. That is all he has, everything else has been taken away.

Robles: Sue, you sound, I’m sorry to say this, but you sound a little resigned, you don’t think…? They should let him out on the 15th, shouldn’t they?

Crabtree: I think that Jeremy deserves time served. I think that we are all hopeful for time served. But we are prepared for ten years.

Robles: One more time the web address.

Crabtree: The web address for Jeremy’s website is freejeremy.net and you can get his address off mailtothe jail.org, if you use Facebook. We have the Free Jeremy Hammond Support Network where we provide almost daily updates: whatever we can find.

We have put together literally a road trip of as many people as we can gather to drive throughout the country to New York to be there at that sentencing to support Jeremy.

There is a donation link for that, to help us to afford those costs for everyone to get there, and be in court for Jeremy and support him, and not let him accept this sentence alone. And we’ll continue to support him for however long he is incarcerated.

Robles: Is there anyone working on like a petition to the governor of New York or this would be to the federal authorities, has anyone put a petition up? Anything like that?

Crabtree: There is one at change.org. And if you search Jeremy Hammond, you will find that there. It is a petition to judge Preska to allow him time served and return him home.

We have just completed letters to judge Preska to explain what type of person Jeremy is and his importance to his community, and to request leniency for Jeremy.

And we’ve gathered about 300 letters for the judge requesting leniency for Jeremy.

So, at this point now we are waiting for the hearing. We are collecting donations to get as many people as we can there. And there is a donation thing at freejeremy.net which goes to Jeremy’s commissary and there is Hammond Support Network on Facebook which has his address for you to write him.

Robles: What kind of letters are you collecting? Can this be international?

Crabtree: We actually had to stop that on October 15th, because we only had a certain amount of time to provide those to the judge, so that she would be given the amount of time she needed to read them. And so, that project ended. And now we are just looking at letters for Jeremy.

I would point out though, if they are coming from other countries and they may take more than two weeks to get here, you may want to hold off on letters until he is moved, because they won’t transfer them. The bureau of prisons will either through them away or return them.

Robles: Was there a response yet or is that going to come out later?

Crabtree: We are hoping that that will aid her in her sentencing of Jeremy.

It’s been an 18 months battle of trying to support a young man who means so much to his community. And he is such a wonderful human being, but at his bail hearing he was literally vilified and it is disheartening to so many of us.

But we continue to fight for it and we will have a giant rally for him before court, and we will fill that court room.

So, if there is anyone in New York who happens to be to hear your show, November 15th is the date to show Hammond that we support what he did and we support him.

Robles: You need to fill up the entire city.

Okay, thank you very much Sue. I’ve taken a lot of your time, I really appreciate you speaking with us.

Crabtree: Thank you sir.

Robles: Don’t call me sir I work for a living! (jokes)


You were listening to an interview with Mrs. Sue Crabtree – a very close associate to Jeremy Hammond. You can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com


The NSA/US/NATO/Cyber Command are not simply passively spying – Rick Rozoff

NSA chief Keith Alexander

NSA Director Keith Alexander

Download audio file 8 November, 12:19  

The head of the US National Security Agency also heads the US/NATO Cyber Command, an offensive device designed to wage war in what architects call the "Fourth Space". This, in effect means every time you go on-line you are potentially entering a war zone. Recent events surrounding the attempted military aggression against Syria that was stopped by Russia's adept diplomatic efforts and the granting of asylum to Edward Snowden have shown that the days of US domination of the world are coming to an end. According to Voice of Russia regular contributor, Rick Rozoff, the people of the world need to stand up and it's not just their leaders who have been "publically humiliated in front of their own people by being maltreated in the manner they have by their Yankee NATO allies".

Hello! This is John Robles, I'm speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff – the owner and manager of the stop NATOinternational mailing list and website.


Robles: Hello Sir!

Hello John! It is good to be back on your show. Thanks for the invitation.

Robles: And it is a pleasure to be speaking with you again. After US President Barack Obama's loss in Syria being not allowed to attack another country have you seen any changes with NATO strategy? And do you think Obama is going to try to use proxies instead of the US military more so in the future?

Rozoff: I think the second question is perhaps easier to answer than the first, but I'll attempt the first, first.

As we know, starting yesterday the US and NATO have launched major war games in the Baltic Sea Area to be conducted in Poland and Latvia called "Steadfast Jazz". And the latest iteration this being the year it is, "Steadfast Jazz 2013".

This includes participation of 6,000 troops, not only infantry but air and naval components, with the expressed intent to activate and put on a war footing, if you will, the NATO Response Force, which was something envisioned several years ago to be a global rapid reaction force NATO could use to intervene essentially anywhere around the world.

It was actually inaugurated, in its initial manifestation in 2006 with a series of war games off the west coast of Africa. But currently now it is in the Baltic Sea Region in two countries that have borders with Russia; Poland, in this case Kaliningrad and Latvia similarly. So that what you are seeing is saber rattling right on the Russian border.

Were the situation to be reversed and Russia and its military allies were exercising along the Rio Grande, or the Saint Lawrence Seaway, I'm sure the US would have something to say about it.

So in that sense, though this was scheduled long in advance of the most recent developments in Syria. It indicates that the US still intends to use NATO as a military Trojan horse in northeastern Europe, amongst other places and ultimately globally.

On the second score: by the way you are correct in characterizing the developments in and around Syria due to and almost entirely to, adept principled Russian diplomatic intervention over the last few weeks, as having put a spoke in the wheel of the war plans of President Obama and the United States and its NATO allies.

So that, I think to segue into the second part of your question, the US is left with no other alternative, I suppose, than to use proxy forces.

And we have to recall that Secretary of State John Kerry was recently in Saudi Arabia (and he just left there) where he clearly is conspiring with that country and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council to wage, perhaps more covert military activities against the Government in Syria.

Robles: Recently, there was an incursion by Israel. Can you tell our listeners about that? Do you have any details on that?

Rozoff: Yes, it bombed the coastal city of Latakia exactly where, according an Associated Press report several days ago, Russian anti-aircraft missiles, air defense missiles, have been moved. And the report, according to the US news service, was that Israel intentionally targeted Russian-made and Russian-provided air defense missiles which had been supplied to Syria, under the rubric, or under the pretense actually, that such missiles were to be moved into Lebanon and given to Hezbollah.

That seems pretty far-fetched, if not beyond the realm of possibilities. Syria certainly needs them inside the country for exactly this sort of defense against Israeli attacks.

So, what we see then is not only an act of international aggression, an action of aggression against a neighbor, by Israel against Syria, but as the target of that attack were Russian air defense missiles, it is also an act of: disrespect for; if not, hostility towards; Russia.

Robles: Why would Hezbollah need air defense missiles?

Rozoff: They indeed need them, but I think in the more immediate sense Syria is not able to part with any, given the fact it is still is essentially under siege, as we've been talking about, that is neighbors like Turkey or Jordan.

By the way, Turkey and Jordan recently concluded a joint military exercise, the intent of which and the target of which, I don't think we need to spell out, is clearly Syria.

And Syria would need all the air defense capabilities that it has for its own defense. And it is certainly not in the position currently to be sharing them with anyone else, including Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Robles: Being in the United States, our listeners know you are based in Chicago. Today marked a holiday that is important for the English; Guy Fawkes Day. There were massive demonstrations planned by supporters of the hacktivist group Anonymous. Have you seen any protests like that in Chicago? Can you comment on that?

Rozoff: I think what is significant about this is that this is indicative of an international outrage over historically unprecedented acts, not only of surveillance / spying, by the United States, particularly by the National Security Agency (NSA), but also that what we are seeing (and I think that this is a significant fact that has eluded many commentators on the issue) is that the individual who heads up the National Security Agency is a four-star general named Keith Alexander, and that with the activation of the full operational capability of the first Pentagon, US Defense Department global command that was not geographically specific (and I'm talking about Cyber Command) which achieved full operational capability in May of 2010, that the intent from the very beginning was to use Cyber Command not (Every military apparatus or program, or command ostensibly is for defensive purposes) but sensible people realize that there is an offensive component to it, and particularly when you are dealing with the self-proclaimed world's sole military superpower (those are Obama's words to describe the United States).

And as many of us warned three and a half years ago that the US was preparing the cyber command to begin a process of international cyber warfare, warfare in the "Fourth Space", as it was described by the US military officials. And the fact that Keith Alexander simultaneously heads up the National Security Agency and is the first commander of Cyber Command I think is a reason to pause for a moment and realize that the United States is not simply passively gathering information by spying on the private phone conversations of the Chancellor of Germany or, according to one report, spying on the Conclave of Catholic Cardinals as they selected the most recent Pope, and who knows what else they are prying into?

But they are also manipulating information, passing on falsified reports, engaging not only in espionage but in sabotage. And who knows the full extent of this?

But the fact that Russia took the principled path of granting asylum to Edward Snowden, a former NSA employee, who first blew the whistle on what was happening, only to have subsequently this become an international scandal and international affair, international incident rather, where everywhere from Brazil to Germany, around the world people are incensed by the gross and in essence the criminal intrusion of the US spy agencies into every nook and cranny, every aspect of their lives.

And this should have been to a degree anticipated by the fact that the US openly acknowledged it was prepared to conduct not only defensive but offensive cyber warfare operations with the introduction and activation of the US Cyber Command 3.5 years ago.

So, these are all related issues. But I don't think there is any way of overestimating the significance of what is going on right now, because this represents, as you indicated vis-à-vis Syria, the fact that the US has suffered two black eyes in short succession, and both I think, are going to go down as historically significant.

The first is that for the first time perhaps the US truly wanted to wage a military aggression against a comparatively small country of maybe 25 million people and Russian intervention and world public opinion, I think, interfered with that and prevented the US from doing it.

And then, almost simultaneously, and again we have Russia playing on the side of the Angels in both cases – preventing war against Syria and then granting asylum to this heroic young man Edward Snowden, who is going to go down in history books as a person who first had the courage to notify the world about the gross abuses of the US National Security Agency, and we are seeing that everything subsequent to that not only confirms the alarm that he had sounded, but on a level that nobody could have anticipated.

Robles: They actually spied on the Vatican Conclave when they were picking the new Pope?

Rozoff: Yes, there were reports to that effect, and to be perfectly frank with you, if the US has capacity (and it does), I would be a surprised if it didn't.

I suspect it is not the first time the US has battled with Vatican policies, both with the Curia and with the Conclaves that have selected the pontiffs.

I personally have my suspicions about their role in 1979 when Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Advisor and the first non-Italian Pope his countryman, subsequently John Paul II, was selected as Pope. That could be a coincidence but it is an astonishing one.

Robles: A lot of questions just popped up. You mentioned Brzezinski, would you like to comment on a statement he made, I guess it was about 2.5-3 weeks ago? He said that American hegemony worldwide is no longer possible. The world, I believe he said, was a "complicated place".

Rozoff: Yes, indeed. You know, it is amazing, a die-hard fanatical ideologue and Russophobe like Brzezinski would finally have to deal with subtlety and complexity and to realize that the world was not the US' oyster as I'm firmly convinced that it is a notion he has subscribed to for all of his professional life.

In fact, things have got beyond his ability to even envision a way where the US could continue to unilaterally manipulate, if not ultimately dominate the world.

But we have to recall that in his book of the late 1990s – the Grand Chessboard – he actually identified the United States as being the first, and to date, only uncontested world superpower. And he offered prescriptions for sustaining that status for decades into the future and the chief component of which is maintaining control of what he referred to as the Eurasian Balkans, which would be the Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia regions. And basically, this is Halford Mackinder's concept of geopolitics; the world island and whoever controls Eurasia ultimately controls the world, and Brzezinski was simply parroting that basic theme.

What has subsequently occurred, and you can expect from Brzezinski what you would anticipate with somebody who is basically unprincipled and not a little vane, that he will blame subsequent administrations for not following his blueprint, and that's why the US lost control of the world.

He's already made statements of this effect going back to the George W Bush Administration for not handling things as deftly as he would have recommended personally.

So, has the US lost its previously uncontested control of the world? Not yet.

The US still controls Internet portals. The US still has the overwhelming military superiority and so forth. But I think, what we are seeing, it is a kind of jump back a little bit, both with the publically humiliating revelations about the National Security Agency and the utter contempt the US must have for the rest of the world and its so-called allies to be monitoring them, down to the finest particular, without notification and so forth, and the historic (again, I would underline) the historic setback the US suffered in Syria as you indicated at the beginning of this program; both I think are indications that we may be seeing the genuine emergence of a multi-polar world order, a new balance of power in the world; the one that is no longer based on the Cold War or is bilateral, but one that truly can be democratic.

The slogan required in the post-Cold War period is democracy, both within and between nations, I think is a concept that needs to be revived and that we are maybe seeing the harbingers of the new world emerging around these two issues we are talking about – that finally, no ally or subservient vassal (the term is Brzezinski's incidentally "tributaries and vassals", this is how he described other nations around the world paying tribute to the US, who aren't direct allies…

Robles: That sounds like something out of Mein Kampf or something.

Rozoff: Yes, I mean it is almost that bad. It truly is. One thinks of the slogan of Germany at that time, right? "Heute Deutschland und morgen die ganze Welt" – today Germany and tomorrow the whole world.

I think the kind of Imperial Hubris you see in the United States with initially the weakening of the Soviet Union under the Mikhail Gorbachev presidency in the late 1980s, and then with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 those in the US who saw themselves as global policemen and global empire builders, saw their moment and they seized it, and they have in fact not only run but ruined a good deal of the world in the interim.

But those days appear to be coming to an end. And what we all have to hope for is the fact that it happens peaceably and happens with the increased involvement of the populous of the respective countries, rather than depending on the Angela Merkels and Francois Hollandes and others to continue to play ball with the United States even when they are publically humiliated in front of their own people by being maltreated in the manner they have by their Yankee NATO allies.

 You were listening to part 1 of an interview with Rick Rozoff – the owner and manager of the stop NATO international mailing list and website.You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com


Bush Family Ties to the Nazis and Skull and Bones are Significant: Interview With Andrew Kreig

Bush family

Bush family

Download audio file   7 November, 2013 11:05

There are secret forces which control the real power in the United States. These include intelligence agencies like the CIA and the FBI, the military industrial complex, secret organizations and societies like Skull and Bones and countless foundations. These bodies might be called "Puppet Masters" as author Andrew Kreig does. Mr. Kreig is the author of a new book on the matter and the director of the Justice and Integrity Project as well as an investigative journalist and public advocate of transparency and rule of law. He spoke to the Voice of Russia on these and other issues.

Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with Mr. Andrew Kreig. He is an attorney, the founder and Director of the Justice Integrity Project and a legal reform advocate. He is also the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters. You are listening to an interview in progress.

Kreig: When the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was nominated, there was all kinds of political drama about it. The Republicans in the US were trying to give him and President Obama a hard time, even though on its face he had quite a lot of relevant experience. But his nomination in some ways was a little bit in doubt.

People were trying to look for anything they could to exert leverage. But one thing that never came up, John, was his involvement with the company that now owns Diebold, the election company that you just mentioned.

So, a very important part of Secretary of Defense Hagel's distinguished background as a Vietnam Veteran and US Senator, has been almost lost to history, almost like a “George Orwell - Winston Smith” situation.

He was the Chairman of a very important voting tabulation company in Nebraska that tabulated the votes for his own first Senate run in both the Primary and Senate election.

And also he still retains ownership in this company which is now the largest election tabulation company in the United States.

It's acquired Diebold and so forth and I’m almost tempted John to ask you, but I guess I should be answering your questions.

Robles: No, go ahead.

Kreig: But I talked to Capitol Hill reporters who covered those hearings. And I said: “Why didn't you cover this?” And they said, they'd never heard about it. And that's the kind of thing that I hear all the time.

Robles: Oh, we've never heard about it either. And we are always looking for this stuff, so… That's the first I've heard about it.

Kreig: That's because we all can only proceed on the basis of information and the tips that we get. And often in Washington there is kind of a conventional wisdom, a group think, and maybe people go a little bit outside of it.

But partly through my investigation of these political prosecutions and talking with people who were doing very deep and dark dirty tricks and now feel bad about it, I’ve learned the real stuff, that's in the dossiers.

Robles: Can we continue, with regard to your book again … very interesting and I really appreciate your going into all that. What about the secret history of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's connections with the FBI and the CIA and the intelligence community and the military-industrial complex?

Kreig: At the risk of spoiling the mystery here, because we get to that at the end, but your audience is busy, so let me just get to the point here that I think your audience may be able to handle but it's a little startling for most people in the US to handle.

Now, I just connected the dots, and I can say flatly that every US president since Jimmy Carter has been an asset in a sense of either the CIA or FBI at least for part of the time before they entered politics.

And it's very interesting, John, because if I said I did all the research myself, well that would be, you know, just incredibly impressive, but also unbelievable.

So, the reality is we each build on predecessor reporters, historians, and so forth. So what I'm doing is connecting the dots.

A year ago an author named Seth Rosenfeld came out with a very interesting book, I'm just pulling it off the shelf now, called “Subversive: The FBI's Waron Student Radicals, and Reagan's Rise to Power”. This is the product of 30 years of document hunting through the Freedom of Information Act by this very dedicated author.

He documents that Ronald Reagan was an FBI informant since the beginning of practically the 1950s, long before he entered politics. And he worked his way up through relationships, where first he was helping the FBI, then they started to help him, and then finally as he got to be Governor and then a candidate it was very mutually supportive. But it started in 1950, and that's a long time of cooperation and it puts a new light on how he ascended.

President Clinton's story is much briefer and less documented with paper, but I think it's pretty compelling that at the time that he was trying to avoid the draft in the late 1960s, and trying to keep his Rhodes Scholarship in England, that while he was antiwar, one of the things that was going on at that time is the CIA and other agencies were extremely interested in having informants that would tell them what was going on in the antiwar circles.

So I've assembled again the evidence that is right out there, and the reader can judge the power of the evidence for themselves, but I think it's pretty persuasive, that at least for that period he was cooperating in passing on information that would help him maintain his status and at least get a few more months in of his Rhodes Scholarship.

And this was by the way around the time of his trip to Russia, and very interesting little details that anybody could find and connect the dots, and I’ve just done it.

For example his roommate was Strobe Talbott who was translating the "Khrushchev Remembers" diary. So these are the types of details that help prove the story and they are right out there for anybody who wants to connect the dots, like me. And the astonishing thing is; no one does it.

Robles: Can I ask you a question regarding this now? I want to play like devil's advocate here. Is it that bad do you think, or what is the danger of presidents, leaders having connections with intelligence agencies? I mean, they get a real understanding like President Putin of what's really happening and how things really work in my opinion. Is that such a bad thing?

Kreig: No, and I appreciate the question, and I'm not arguing that it's a bad thing. In fact, one of the subplots of this that I make very clear in the book is that I reveal in the book that my own mother, who was a very well-known author in the United States, an investigator and a world traveler, who was invited by the Communists to go to China before Nixon did, and they gave her a VIP tour of China as an author. And I reveal that she was actually at the time an asset for Central Intelligence Agency, and that she reported back on what she saw to one of the top CIA officials. And I reveal that for the first time.

The relevant part is that she had dropped out of college to be one of the first women in the United States to join the Marines as a woman during the World War II. And all of this is patriotic.

So there is nothing the matter with it as it happens, or even now in my view except that I think the public should know to better understand democracy. So if they all admit it and people say “Oh well, you know I'm going to hate them for it and so forth” I would say just what you said. It makes him more experienced and let's think of the overall context.

Robles: If you have somebody in intelligence, I mean, if you have somebody in the CIA or you have somebody in MI5, or MI6 or you have somebody in the FSB or the SVR or the KGB or whatever. I mean these people are real, most of them are, real patriots, and they are going to do anything they can to protect and advance their countries. So I don't think that's a bad thing to have that person as a leader but if you would like to comment, go ahead, if not let's continue with…

Kreig: Well, I’ll just make one point. I said that every president since Carter I identify the evidence that they've been an asset.

Two things about it: one is why did my research stop with Carter? Well, because he was a graduate of the US Naval Academy and of World War II generation as were his predecessors George H. W. Bush, and so forth.

So those people we know, were in the military, and so forth, so it's not a mystery that needs to be discovered through public channels.

The other thing, and this is kind of an almost humorous aside, but there is less evidence of that for George W. Bush than for President Obama oddly. But on the other hand his father was Head of the CIA.

So, he grew up in this environment, and his father (I traced back the CIA involvement of the father to the early 1950s, that period right after the father graduated from Yale), so it's not just the one year or so that the father was Head of the CIA. It's a life time for the whole family. But for that very reason there is less specific evidence of George W. Bush. So, anyway, I just wanted to add that.

Robles: I have to ask you this: then what about Prescott Bush and the connections to the Nazis? Can you tell us anything about that?

Kreig: Well, I’ve got a whole chapter on Prescott Bush and his close connections, actually his entire career is an adventure. And I traced back the connection with the Nazis, and what it does, I think the chapter is probably only about 6 or 7 pages, I've gotten entire books about Prescott Bush right here on my shelf, but I'm summing it up to say: ‘Yes, he had connections with the Nazis, they were very significant ones’.

But the readers will know exactly what they were and what his defense was, although he rarely defended it. Nobody had nerve enough to ask him. But he was able to sell out his interest just before World War II started and essentially covered it up pretty well.

But readers will see that this was a very close connection and yet it was like many things involving Wall Street, complex enough so there is a certain deniability involved.

There is a Russian connection as well. The connection is that his very close friend and contemporary from Yale Skull & Bones, people in the wealthy Harriman family brought him into their firm and that helped him.

The interesting context of this, particularly to those in Russia, is the very close connection between Prescott Bush and Averell Harriman, who was a very wealthy man and the US Ambassador to Russia. He and Prescott Bush worked at a Wall Street firm Brown Brothers Harriman.

And it was in that context that one of their most important accounts was during the 1930s, handling many US transactions for the leading financier of Adolf Hitler's rise to power.

This financier wanted to diversify his assets into the United States and it was Prescott Bush who was in charge of the accounts and that required many trips to Russia, but it also involved the Harriman family that would prove so important in US politics for many, many years and Harriman was a true puppet master who brought, in this way, the Bush family into that orbit in a quite prominent manner.

So it’s not simply that they were working with Adolf Hitler during his rise to power, but that this is extremely important context to both the American Government for many years but also interactions with Russia.

Robles: What can you tell us about the connections with the Bush's and the Skull & Bones, so-called “secret” society at Yale University? What do you know about the Skull & Bones and their manipulation of, and connection to, the power elite in the United States?

Kreig: I think it's much more important than most people think, including myself, when I started this research.

I'm a graduate of Yale Law School which is a professional school there and only those who are seniors as undergraduates at Yale can be brought into Skull & Bones which is a secret society founded essentially in the late 1830s.

The Bush family has been very prominent in it, so has the Harriman family.

And before I started this research, John, even though I knew some things about it, I did not really realize its history, its kind of continuing influence.

John Kerry was a member and we had the very unusual situation of, in 2004 in the US, that both presidential candidates, John Kerry and George Bush, had been members of Skull & Bones during the 1960s at Yale.

Only 15 people a year are invited to join, and you really can't get in because you are the football captain or handsome or smart. You’ve really got to have many characteristics, and part of it is kind of a tie in many cases to old money, and it's really a dynastic force that plays an important part in my book.

Even though when I started the research I did not understand how important many of these secret societies or secret groups are, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rhodes Scholarships, the Foundations, these are ways of controlling dynastic power so that when someone dies they don't really die. And the family power and these ideas continue to rule as “Puppet Masters” I call it.

That was the end of Part 2 of an interview with Andrew Kreig, an attorney and a founder and Director of the Justice Integrity Project. He is also the author of “Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters”.

Thank you very much for listening and we wish you the best wherever you may be.



In the U.S. One Must Be Careful What One Shares – Sue Crabtree

In the US: be careful what you share – Sue Crabtree

© Flickr.com/ocularinvasion/сс-by-nc

Download audio file 6 November, 2013 20:15  PART 1

Obama and the US Government are waging a war on whistleblowers and anyone who can expose the wrongdoings and illegality being committed by the authorities. This includes the entrapment of activists, hackers, and whistleblowers. One such young man, Jeremy Hammond, is currently being held in solitary confinement awaiting sentence for releasing the Stratfor e-mails, a hack arranged by the FBI, most likely to entrap WikiLeaks. The files were stored on the FBI’s own servers and uploaded directly from FBI servers to WikiLeaks. Rather than stop the release of the information, the FBI allowed it to happen and then blamed Hammond. Sue Crabtree, the mother of a family who had taken Jeremy Hammond in spoke with the Voice of Russia about the persecution of Hammond, a member of Anonymous.

This is John Robles, I'm speaking with Mrs. Sue Crabtree, a very close associate to Jeremy Hammond.



Jeremy Hammond © Screenshot: Freejeremy.net

Robles: To back up a little bit, you talked about the other people that were involved in the case, so they’ve already pretty much served their time and they’re out. That was in the UK, that was in Ireland, I believe.

Why is the US so insanely cracking down on people for doing simple things like DDoS attacks and stuff? I mean, 35 years for this, it seems insane to me, I'm sorry.

Aaron Swartz, he took some educational material that was funded by the Government and the public, and they were going to give him 35 years and look what happened to him. Isn't this insanely outrageous? I mean, the level of sentencing that they are giving to people?

Crabtree: Well, and look at Bradley Manning's case too, these are whistleblowers. And Jeremy Hammond is a whistleblower as well.

He exposed information about what was happening in this country, that the people had a right to know. And the interesting part is our president said that if whistleblowers came forward they would not be prosecuted.

In fact, here we have Bradley Manning who was prosecuted as much as any young man could be prosecuted, and Hammond threatened with 35 years to life for exposing that our government was working with a private contracting firm and what they were doing.

He was no different, he is a whistleblower and yet, this is how the government is treating whistleblowers.

We have John Kiriakou who is a former CIA individual employee, who is spending I believe 30 months in jail for whistleblowing. So this is how we treat our whistleblowers.

Robles: Remember Obama, promising that whistleblowers would be taken care of, and he has prosecuted, persecuted and hit whistleblowers harder than any president, and more than any president in US history.

Crabtree: Oh I'm not sure that anybody… that our country wants any other country to see what is going on here. Obviously, other countries are very upset with the leaks from Edward Snowden and the spying that is being done and the monitoring of other embassies, the monitoring of phone calls.

It's an embarrassment to the US. I personally am ashamed of what our country is doing to other countries in the way of spying, our drone programs are concerning regular citizens.

So I'm not sure that the government is pleased when people like Hammond, Snowden, even Hastings, - any of these people come out and expose the government for what's really going on.

Robles: Sure, I agree with you 100 percent... A member of the German Bundestag met with Edward Snowden less than 24 hours ago here in Moscow, and he is ready to give evidence to the German Parliament regarding spying on Angela Merkel and her personal cellphone, and everything.

It's gotten that ridiculous and people in Europe are pretty upset, they try to blow it over, blow it off at first, but I think it's not possible to do that anymore.

Can you comment on that, on the spying on supposed allies? There were 34 allied leaders around the world that were being spied on according to Snowden.

Crabtree: I actually watched something on TV about this either today or yesterday. And one of the Heads of the NSA said that, “All governments spy on each other, and that these countries are spying on us just like we are spying on them.”

Hence the fact. I have never seen anything to lead me in a direction of believing that, but I do know that the information provided by Mr. Snowden shows what our US government is doing to countries that are supposed to be our allies.

And I don't believe that there is any way that other countries are going to trust the US. And to us, that bothers us, that the US should not be recognized as a country that spies on their allies and on personal phone calls.

Robles: They always flip the switch and try to switch the blame. Recently members of the European Union, they arrived in Washington representatives for Angela Merkel and all of a sudden the US media's full of reports that Russia was doing some spying or something. I mean. It was ridiculous to watch. I don't know how they can keep doing this.

Back to Stratfor: did Stratfor know that the FBI could have stopped this? Did they know the FBI had these files? I'm sure they do, but...

Crabtree: It’s my understanding that Stratfor knew that the hack was taking place and were advised by the FBI not to do anything to interfere with the hack itself.

Robles: Wow, really?

Crabtree: Yes.

Robles: Afterwards, how could they say anything?

Crabtree: A writer in the US, his name is Nigel Parry. He wrote a very interesting in-depth article about the hack of Stratfor and how easy it would have been for the entire thing to have been halted, had someone just chosen to do that, and literally take down their servers would have ended the entire intrusion into their system. But they were advised not to do that, to let that continue. And it did.

And I almost believe that the FBI thought they were going to be able to maintain their files on their servers and perhaps limit the damage that was done. But they were taken from their servers, they were released to WikiLeaks, without WikiLeaks having to pay for them. Thereby avoiding an espionage charge against them.

And within those e-mails that were taken there were also comments and discussions about getting Julian Assange to the US without an indictment, there were just a multitude of things that are being found within those e-mails.

And with 4 million – I believe there are 4 million left to go through – one can only imagine what else will come of those. But I do believe that Hammond is a whistleblower and should be treated as such. In the US whistleblowers get many years in jail.

Robles: He should be released tomorrow. You said he's been in custody for a year and a half already?

Crabtree: Yes, sir. And at what point are the charges … a lot of people say, 'well, you know, he did hack this and he deserves to be put in jail for it' but how much jail time is enough jail time, and we believe that 18 months is a long enough time, and Jeremy should be released with time served and allowed to return home to his family and his supporters in Chicago where he does great work, activism type of work, to help the homeless and to help the people in need there.

And I believe18 months in jail should more than suffice for the crimes that were organized by our own FBI.

Robles: Yes, I think that has to be underlined over and over again. I mean, he was clearly set up.

I have two questions here I'd like to ask you regarding this. If somebody broke into an office, say, and stole some files in a file cabinet and gave them to a newspaper and they show that some corporation was doing something illegal, how much time would they get?

Crabtree: It's interesting that you say that because I spoke about that on a radio interview just a couple of days ago.

If Jeremy had taken a car and driven through the front doors of Stratfor and stolen all of their files, and drove away with all of their files he would have been given about 6 months in jail and community service.

Robles: Are you serious?

Crabtree: Yes, for the exact same crime had he driven through and stolen them he would have gotten about 6 months in jail and community service instead of 35 years to life. He was originally facing 35 years to life before he accepted a non-cooperating plea deal of ten years.

Robles: Unbelievable. The same thing with DDoS attacks. People are facing ten years, I think, for a DDoS attack which it really does no damage at all.

Crabtree: Well our PayPal 14 – I’m sure you are familiar with them – were in court today and their case was postponed until I believe December 5th, but there’s was a simple DDoS attack of PayPal because PayPal had refused to send donations to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

It was a simple protest, but they could face years in jail for a simple DDoS attack.

Robles: And I think they came up with some, you know, abstract monetary loss of like hundreds of thousands of dollars or something in that one? But it wasn't based on anything, and, I mean, if that shut it down temporarily people would just go and pay for … or buy what they wanted to buy anyway a little bit later.

I don't see any loss at all. This is just ridiculous.

Crabtree: I'm not even sure I should be mentioning this, but there is a case of a young man here, I believe in New Jersey, his name is Adam Nafa. Adam produced a YouTube video for an operation against Verizon.

The event never even took place and the op never happened. Adam was arrested for inciting an op and was charged, I really can't recall the fee, for Verizon Wireless to upgrade their security.

And one has to wonder when you are in possession of people's private information because they are using your service, why is a person who has done nothing but produce a YouTube video, paying for you to upgrade your security. Shouldn't your security be as upgraded as possible, when you are in possession of people's private information?

Robles: Yes, absolutely right, absolutely.

Crabtree: And Hammond is being charged, we are told, the amount that Hammond could have paid over in restitution, could be $2,5 million in restitution to Stratfor.

Robles: I'm sorry.

Crabtree:We were told that the restitution that Hammond could be forced to pay to Stratfor could be something like $2,5 million.

Robles: Oh my God.

Crabtree: One does have to wonder when a company like that is securing people's credit card information, their personal information, when they are a spying company that not only contacts with the US, but with other governments, one would assume that their security would not need to be upgraded and why would Hammond need to pay for you to maintain your security?

Robles: Yes, right. It's all about the money- is that what we are looking at?

Crabtree: It's all about something, I'm just not sure what it is. But it's very questionable.

Robles: Yeah, It sure is. You mentioned, you said, maybe you shouldn't talk about Adam Nafa, is there a reason why?

Crabtree: Well, I believe Adam just accepted a plea deal in his own case and I believe it was a probationary situation. But just speaking about his case in a simple YouTube video, he was threatened with years in jail for producing nothing more than the YouTube video.

Robles: It seems insane. I'm sorry, but it's getting ridiculous. And then they got killers and war criminals just walking the streets, right?

Crabtree: Yes. And we have people for instance who drunk-drive and kill people who only get a couple of years in jail.

Robles: Or you got people like Zimmerman. They just go and they shoot someone dead in the street and they just get off.

Crabtree: That's correct.

Robles: And you got war criminals, you got people cutting off body parts and taking them home as trophies and they are just walking the streets as well?

Something is seriously sickly wrong. I'm sorry, I shouldn't be getting emotional, but I deal with this stuff so much and it makes me physically nauseous sometimes.

Crabtree: The severity of these cases and the way the United States is handling them is making many countries outraged at how the US is handling these cases. And it's exposing a lot of wrongdoings that other countries simple don't approve of.

Such as the spying. And Edward Snowden to many of us should be viewed as a hero who is exposing things that our government should not be doing.

And Hammond in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, exposed things, too, that our government should not have been partaking in, and he will be jailed for exposing those things.

Robles: Two things – back to Stratfor for a minute. Why in your opinion is the US Government farming out intelligence type-work to private companies?

Now I know the Director of Stratfor, he was either CIA or he had CIA connections, but why would they be doing that?

Crabtree: That's an interesting question. I'm told that the Government has limitations that private contractors don't have. So, their ability to work outside of Government laws, it's much easier for them to do that, so they contract with companies like Stratfor.

Robles: I see. Let's say I’m a journalist, right, I’ve accessed the Stratfor logs, the Stratfor e-mails. Let's say I've written some articles based on them. Could I be charged, or could I face charges in the United States for accessing or using that information?

Crabtree: I really can't say. But I can speak on the case of Barret Brown. He shared a link, he did not produce a link. He shared a link to those Stratfor e-mails for the purposes of investigating what was in those e-mails and he has presently been in prison for a year, without bail, awaiting trial for sharing a link to the Stratfor e-mails.

Robles: For sharing a link?

Crabtree: Sharing a link to the Stratfor e-mails.

Robles: Well, I have a link on my site and I’ve probably shared it with several million people, so I mean I'd better stay in Moscow, I guess, right?

Crabtree: Well I think you should because you could end up like Barret Brown.

You were listening to an interview with Susan Crabtree. She was someone who was very close to Jeremy Hammond. This was the second part of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview here on our website - The FBI could have stopped the Stratfor leak at any point – Sue Crabtree.


"Obama's Change You Can Believe In Turns Out to be Change for Worse" - John Robles

By John Robles, 5 November, 21:57

 He was a president who was to bring “Hope and Change” to a populace and world weary of endless wars, a hyper-security state and the trampling of their rights, yet things have gotten worse rather than better since the reign of Barack Obama begun. Almost everything that Obama has done seems hypocritical, from his quoting Abraham Lincoln at his inauguration and his refusal to speak at the 150 year anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address to his continuation of endless wars and his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. On the 5th anniversary of his election, VoR looks at some of the areas in which Obama has not succeeded. These failures have affected people worldwide and include: the Nobel Peace Prize, the “Reset” with Russia, foreign policy and interventionism, rule of law and maintaining the moral high ground, Guantanamo, the economy and unemployment, healthcare, education, the hyper-security state, terrorism, US Defense, human rights, the respect for sovereignty, and Edward Snowden.

Obama’s failures are a danger to world peace

November the 4th 2013 has come and gone, passing by like almost every other day in the world. However that date marked an important anniversary date in history, namely the five year anniversary of the election win by US President Barack Obama. The event was not only important for US history but human history as well after the dark years of George Bush following the events of September 11, 2001.

From a global perspective the coming into power of Obama was an event which was at the time believed to be one which was to have marked a fundamental change in the paradigm of endless war, unilateralism, terror and illegality that Bush has unleashed on the world. The world at that time, influenced by US hegemony, battered by US imperialism and yearning for betterment, believed in the promises of change and hope, as did the American people.

Those promises and the fact that Obama was an African American, had the world convinced that something fresh and new and more importantly “good” was going to come out of Washington. The world, with images of Martin Luther King in their minds and yearning for peace was eager to see the change Obama promised, believing him so much that it even joyously awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize before he actually did anything worthy of it.

Obama’s marketing as an agent for change and hope was a historic success, leading even the staunchest US critics to pause and allow America the benefit of the doubt. However the world now knows that it was fooled. That initial success unfortunately has not been followed up on, but has instead been followed by failure after failure, both internally and internationally for the US.

We can say without a doubt that change has occurred internationally and Obama’s failure in bring about complete US world domination, while a failure for America, is a success for the world community. Recently even the most optimistic US forecasters have begun to admit that global American hegemony will never happen, and as we have seen by the recent successes of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the world has once again become a multi-polar place. This is good and for this the world can be thankful for Obama’s failures as it can be thankful to Bush for showing the world what a true brutal imperial power the United States of America really is.

The Nobel Peace Prize

One of Obama’s most glaring failures, from a global and historic perspective, is his failure to live up to the promises he made that fooled the Nobel Committee into awarding him the Nobel. Obama not only continued and expanded two wars, Iraq and Syria but launched a third, Libya and attempted to unilaterally launch a fourth in Syria. Obama also brought the world to the brink of a nuclear conflict with North Korea with aggressive bellicose rhetoric and US led war games on the DPRK’s borders. His aggressive bellicose rhetoric, droning campaigns, reckless meddling in the Middle East, support, training and arming of Al-Qaeda and terrorist elements in advancement of US geopolitical goals, and his confrontational stance with the Islamic Republic of Iran have led to a world teetering on the brink of world war.

Not only has the world become a much more dangerous place since Obama has been in power but the immeasurable suffering and death caused by Obama and his polices in unquantifiable. Not only is Obama responsible for his personal signing off on the extra-judicial drone assassination of hundreds if not thousands but his polices have caused and continue to cause massive casualties in the Middle East.

Obama’s aggressive global expansion of NATO is another factor that, although propagandized in the West as being for security and defense, causes nothing but an escalation in tensions, instability and is fraught with danger. It is only thanks to the wisdom and patience of Russian President Vladimir Putin, that the world has not seen a military confrontation between the United States and Russia.

Obama’s brinkmanship and insistence on threatening Russia with missiles and “defense” elements in its own back yard, while maybe playing well for the audience back home, are dangerous and one might argue not entirely sane, given the fact that Russia is a top nuclear power, does not threaten the West in anyway and is no longer the leader of an ideologically opposed block of nations.

Any of the above should be enough to get Obama stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize, but that is a failure of the Nobel Committee, besmirched by Obama. Obama’s failure to give the prize back only points to his own arrogance, inhumanity and hypocrisy.

So with regard to the Nobel: failure to earn it and live up to its meaning and failure to give it back.

The Reset with Russia

Not much to say here, “The Reset” a much touted optimistic improvement in bilateral relations, caused the Russian Federation to allow for US war elements to travel through its territory on their way to and from Afghanistan, had Russia ready to cooperate with NATO on its “missile defense” plans and caused Russia to attempt to cooperate on countless other fronts but US (Obama’s) insistence of promoting its own bests interests, in lieu of those of bilateral importance with Russia, killed any chance of a “reset”.

Foreign Policy and Interventionism

US interventionist polices, in my opinion, can be best summed up by a comment made by a gleeful Hillary Clinton (Obama’s pick) upon the brutal murder of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi: “We came. We saw. He died!” Hillary was a total failure on so many levels for Obama that it would require several volumes to document thoroughly.

Intervention, state building and “spreading democracy” have been a complete failure for Obama with the only successes being the murders of leaders such as Gaddafi.

Every country where the US and Obama have “intervened” has been left shattered and broken. A failure for peace, stability, humanity, progress and the global economy.

Obama’s foreign policy failures were pretty well summed up in August by the Wall Street Journal titled Obama’s Foreign Failure.

Rule of Law

The failures of Obama with regard to the rule of law both internationally and domestically are too many to list as well but include: failure to prosecute for war crimes; failure to abide by international laws, treaties and conventions; failure to stop a policy of aggressive war (preventative war); failure to protect whistleblowers; failure to uphold the US Constitution with regard to the rights of US citizens in multiple areas; failure to stop intrusive and illegal spying and surveillance by agencies under his control (failure to contain such programs); carrying out a program of extra-judicial execution by drone; renditioning (kidnapping) citizens of other countries anywhere in the world and illegally holding them; failure to abide by and respect the legitimacy of the United Nations on many fronts; militarizing the US police forces; continuing a campaign of stripping away the rights of Americans, including illegal search seizure and detention; allowing (security) bodies of the US Government to be influenced and compromised by corporate interests and to operate without oversight; stripping away the gains of the civil rights era and completely marginalizing the poor and the less fortunate and believe it or not much more.

Moral High Ground

For much of the world the equating of sexual relations between two men as being the equivalent of the institution of marriage, has been the icing on the cake of a total loss by the United States of any claim to having the “moral high ground”. The moldy oozing petulant cake is made up of everything above and unbelievably, more.


The failure regarding Guantanamo are many but in brief: failure to close as promised, failure to release those who have been cleared, failure to stop illegal detention and failure to stop torture and conditions amounting to torture. This last applies not only to Guantanamo.

Economy and Unemployment

Obama has failed to keep all his promises with regard to the economy and jobs. The US economy is on the verge of collapse, the US is for all intents and purposes bankrupt and unemployment is rampant and the US population is sliding into poverty and uncertainty with no hope for the future and no chance of obtaining elementary healthcare or even housing.

Some of Obama’s failure from an internal US viewpoint can be found in a fairly balanced article on a right wing source by Bruce Thorton.


Obamacare has failed and more people are being left without any healthcare whatsoever.


This was never one of Obama’s favorite projects but education in the US is on the decline. Higher education is now only available for the elites, student loan and aid programs have been gutted and public schools are closing all across the country.

The Hyper-Security State

It is in full swing and has spread globally.


Global terrorism is up due to Obama, yet internal US terrorism carried out by foreign actors (if it ever did exist) is now in the hands of home grown terrorists.

US Defense

The US has more enemies now than when Obama came into power. This can in no way be good for US Defense.

Human Rights

Obama’s human rights record is dismal in almost all areas and there have been expanded human rights violations under Obama, with no recourse by those violated.

Respect for Sovereignty

For Obama and the United States it is clear the concept of sovereignty only applies to the US and its allies. This has become clear with the PRISM program, the multiple interference in the flights of presidents of sovereign nations (Morales, Maduro), the attempted invasion of Syria, continued meddling in the Middle East and worldwide, the kidnappings of other countries nationals and their illegal detention and the continuing global drone campaign. Military expansionism is also another area where the US infringes on sovereignty but that would require volumes to document properly.


Obama failed to protect Snowden as a whistleblower, then failed to ensure his capture and caused an international incident when the US cancelled his passport while he was in transit.

Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter has called Obama an incompetent failure and has said that now the United States does not have a functioning Democracy.

The “Change You Can Believe In” turned out to be a change for the worse.


President Vladimir Putin Ends Russia/NATO ABM Cooperation

President Putin ends Russia/NATO ABM cooperation

By John Robles, 3 November, 2013 23:21

In another powerful and significant move for peace, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has cancelled a presidential order which in 2011, had set up an interdepartmental working group under the authority of the Russian Presidential Administration designed to develop ways to establish cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the sphere of 'missile defense'.

Sigh of relief

Many experts and NATO watchers familiar with the decree and the attempts by the Russian Federation to develop an equal partnership relationship with NATO on the basis of mutual respect and transparency may now breathe a collective sigh of relief that President Putin has finally run out of patience with the alliance.

The wisdom of the president can not be questioned after what many have been saying for years and dozens of failed attempts to develop a partnership with the alliance. These “failures” have been many fold and compounded by NATO own actions and have included NATO insistence on Like the proverbial Russian bear, President Putin has been slow to be provoked into action but once that action has been decided it is resolute.

Empty rhetoric

It was almost obvious from the outset that despite all of its rhetoric to the contrary, rhetoric that has proven time and time again to be as empty as the minds of those espousing it, that NATO had no intention of allowing the Russian Federation into its “fold” as an equal partner.

This total inability by NATO to adjust and modernize its strategic mission taking into account the contemporary realities of Russia as a leading European power interested in peace, rule of law and mutually beneficial cooperation, may be due to its inherent nature of being an organization that was designed, and whose only purpose was, to contain the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and/or that NATO has become a wholly owned global proxy for the attempted advancement of short-sighted, myopic US geopolitical military domination and American hegemony by force.

Failure of cooperation

Since the chaotic days at the end of the cold war the newly formed and struggling Russian Federation, rising from the ashes of the shattered and broken greatest power in the history of mankind, vainly attempted to find a way to cooperate, and at times it seemed to appease, its former Warsaw Pact adversary, one which should have been disbanded at the moment of the demise of the Soviet bloc. But unfortunately the lust for hegemony and global military domination and the new modus operandi of “advancement of interests by force” did not allow the West to dismantle their war and death machine.

This first occurred in Yugoslavia and Serbia, when NATO promised Russia to allow Russian peacekeepers, the when the time came for Russian boots on the ground quickly did an about face.

This slap in the face to Russia and Russian interests and allies then occurred many times again, as NATO was used to launch illegal wars of aggression and military adventures against country after country all over the world.

Then with what has been revealed to be the false “War on Terror” paradigm, when Russia on countless occasions attempted to cooperate express its will, Russia was spurned time and time again.

Lastly, we have seen that despite the new nature of Russia, as a growing democratic country, promoting peace and cooperation, NATO continued expanding to the east and in fact expanding globally and even into space, while at the same time surrounding Russia with missiles and military weapons, under the pretense of the bogey man of an attack from the equally demonized Islamic Republic of Iran.

Seeking to become an equal mutual partner in their Missile Shield, Russia attempted time and time again to work with NATO. However NATO locked out all attempts by Russia to participate and gain assurance that the missiles were not being placed to neutralize Russia itself.

Russia repeatedly asked for a written guarantee, in light of the track record by the West of proving their spoken guarantees mean nothing, something proven in Serbia and Kosovo, but one was never provided, let alone considered.

Russia attempted to introduce what was called the Sectoral Approach, a wise and carefully planned as well as effective “shield” strategy to protect both Europe and Russia itself, but was spurned at every turn.

Missile defense a Trojan horse for a first strike

It has been proven and is now part of the public record that the interceptor missiles and missile shield elements of the US and its NATO allies, the ones that have been surreptitiously placed to surround Russia, can be turned into first strike offensive weapons with almost the literal flick of a switch. These so-called “defensive” missiles are also largely capable of delivering nuclear payloads directly into the heart of Russia.

This can be further underlined by witnesses to US and NATO Missile Defense Shield tests and scientists knowledgeable in radar and the elements that make up the shield. As a “shield”, the US/NATO missile system is almost completely ineffective allowing more than 40% of missiles to pass unstopped and almost 100% ineffective against small missiles and shorter range weapons. It is a given that the designers of the system are aware of this. So why install the system? For a totally devastating and unanswerable first strike.


The victory for President Putin, the Russian Federation and peace in Syria has now proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that President Putin is a leader who truly honors and believes in peace, rule of law and transparency. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize winning Obama, who attempts to continue policies of aggressive war, advancement of interests by force and personally approved extra-judicial execution by drone. President Putin has said he does not care about the Noble Peace Prize and in this he is sincere. He cares about peace.

New arms race

NATO’s relentless worldwide and eastward expansion have forced countries to build weapons to defend themselves, a right any sovereign nation has against the threat of an aggressor and has caused the world to enter a global arms race the likes of which make the Cold War seem like a training exercise.

Russia, China, Venezuela and North Korea in particular, have been forced to spend billions on defense and their militaries to counter the threat of NATO. And with the constant bellicose elements North Korea and other countries the US does not favor, have been forced to seek a nuclear deterrence. This has led to a much more dangerous world but has proven to be necessary after what the world witnessed was done to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya by the US and its NATO allies.


US/NATO continue to attempt to advance their interests by force and to militarize once neutral and peaceful countries and regions, with the case of Scandinavian countries and even the Arctic. The attempted move into the Arctic by the US/NATO is clearly a strategy to obtain resources and territory by force. Something as illegal as its aggressive wars and the Bush Doctrine of preventive wars.

Russia’s new position in the world

Two recent events, one the refusal by President Putin to be swayed by the threat of terrorist acts by Saudi Prince Bandar with the “full backing of the United States, and two, the prevention of another aggressive attack on asovereign nation by US/NATO on Syria, have once again moved the world into the realm of being a healthy multi-polar place and have effectively put an end to US plans for “Global American Hegemony”, a fact admitted even by grand geopolitical chess architect Zbignew Brzhinky.

Warnings issued

Warning have been issued to Russia from many corners since the beginning of NATO’s eastward expansion. This includes the warnings that the the US/NATO shield can be quickly and seamlessly converted into deadly first strike architecture. So why would Russia continue in attempting to cooperate with a plan to surround itself with NATO missiles? The answers to that may be Machiavellian or they may be as simple as the fact that Russia was attempting to cooperate with the West until the very end, in a peaceful manner.

End of an era

With the very quiet repealing of the presidential order, dated April 25, 2012 officially establishing cooperation with NATO and titled: "On the Repeal of the Russian President's Order 'On the Special Representative of the Russian President for Missile Defense Interaction with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)'", President Vladimir Putin has officially put an end to the era where Russia attempted to appease and cooperate with its former foe NATO and has quietly, once again quietly asserted Russia’s own sovereignty and shown that Russia will stand on the side of peace, not only in word but by quiet dignified deed.

NATO continued shows of aggression

Meanwhile NATO will be holding war games a 30-second jet flight from the territory of the Russian Federation


Boston Proved that NSA Spying is Not About Terrorism – Anonymous

Boston proved that NSA spying is not about terrorism – Anonymous

Download audio file  3 November, 18:00  PART 1   PART 2

Anonymous is calling for a massive turnout for the Million Mask March in Washington DC on November 5th. The protest will publicise the extent of NSA surveillance programs and that they must be held accountable for their actions. While the NSA chose to ignore Russian warnings about terrorist threats prior to the Boston bombing, they are deeply implicated in the drone attacks that are killing innocent people in several countries around the world. The revelations of Edward Snowden could be seen as a heroic action in raising awareness about NSA spying, but the underlying reasons for all this surveillance may be more sinister: that the US Government is planning a Surveillance State to prevent future rebellion by its own citizens.

A member of the Hactivist group Anonymous spoke to the Voice of Russia on these issues and more. The speaker is a member of Anonymous and is not speaking for the entire collective. He/she is merely exercising his/her right of freedom of speech. The individual's voice has been digitized to protect his/her identity

Robles: What would you like to tell our listeners about Anonymous and about the upcoming Million Mask events? 

Anon: It is, like I said before; just spread the word, that’s the main thing. Without anyone backing anything nothing will happen, and it is not really that difficult. A lot of people make excuses, but people can make time. A lot of people work full time jobs, even two full time jobs, they have kids, and they still manage to make time to go out and protest, even for a couple of hours. 

Robles: What can people do to show support for … on November 5th. Say you can’t go to a demonstration. Are there other things people can do to support the idea? 

Anon: Well, there are events going on all over the country, so you can always go to the Million Mask March.org and click on locations and you will see. You will definitely find an event near you. If you are not able to join or do anything to support the march, you can watch it live. 

Robles: What can people here in Moscow do? 

Anon: Ah yes. If you are somewhere out there, outside of the United States, it is really hard for you to do a lot. Because you cannot just go out into the street and tell people, “hey the NSA is spying on you”. 

If you are thousands of miles away you cannot really do anything about it. What you can really do is just tell people on line. 

Robles: Yeah, I would say about 98% of Russians know about NSA spying. It’s something most Russians have suspected from the very beginning so it wasn’t really a big surprise. 

Anon: Definitely, a lot of people knew about it. It was a conspiracy theory back then but it is not a theory any more. So yes,spread the word or share information. Tell people about it. 

Robles: It’s scary here because I mean Americans in the United States, I mean, everybody has this illusion that “oh they are not supposed to spy on us they are supposed to spy on foreigners”, right? And then out here, away from States, I mean, I’m sitting here like I was a target for the NSA and the CIA and I am just open game for them. I think that it is shocking for Americans to see well they’re spying on us too, you know? 

Anon: A lot of people outside the US cannot really do anything about it. They cannot really go out and protest, and you cannot vote for anything because you are not a citizen of the US. You are not even in the US, so there is really little you can do. That is what we are trying to stop here, everyone needs at least a reason to be spied on. There has to be a very good reason to spy on this person, they must have a reason. Some people say: “spying on everyone doesn’t matter”. But there has got to be a reason to spy on people. 

Robles: Next it will be they can drone anyone it doesn’t matter. I mean they have gotten away with it in Pakistan so what just change it a little bit and it will be droning traffic violators in New Jersey or something. 

Anon: Yes, and the worst thing is our National Security Agency is linked to the drone programs. Many innocent people are getting killed, not every day, but all the time innocent people are getting killed in these drone strikes. They are killing more innocent people than Al Qaeda members, and I really would hate to see that happen anywhere else, and for it to spread to anywhere else. </