By Richard Eskow | People’s Action | April 16, 2018

Mission accomplished,” says the President. What, exactly, was the mission? And what exactly was accomplished?

Donald Trump is being mocked for using this phrase in a tweet to praise what he claims was a “perfectly executed” airstrike against chemical weapons facilities in Syria. This recalls George W. Bush’s egregious evocation of the phrase in 2003 to claim an early end to the U.S. entanglement in Iraq, which is still ongoing fifteen years later.

History made a fool of Bush for that proclamation, which was printed on a banner behind the President as he delivered his speech proclaiming an end to the Iraqi conflict on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

But Bush’s foolish and lethal incursion to Iraq had the backing of virtually the entire national-security establishment. So did Donald Trump’s bombing attack on Syria, as did the bombing attack he ordered last year.

The Costs of Intervention

U.S. media, for the most part, reinforce the idea that intervention by our military is the preferred solution to global conflicts. Some of the same reporters who now mock Trump for saying “Mission Accomplished” cheered on Bush’s invasion of Iraq. They remember Bush’s errors, but not their own.

The media’s job, we are told, is to ask skeptical questions about the people in power. That didn’t happen much in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, and it’s not happening now. Here are the questions that should be asked – not just on the eve of a bombing attack, but every day we continue our disastrous and drifting military intervention in the Middle East.

1 Why couldn’t the military wait for inspectors to do their jobs?

Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an international non-proliferation organization, were scheduled to arrive in Douma, Syria on Saturday, April 15 to begin investigating the reported chemical attack on civilians there. The airstrikes took place on Friday, April 14.

This is a disturbing echo of the 2003 Iraq invasion. There, too, the United States was unwilling to wait for international inspectors to discover the facts before beginning the attack. Fifteen years on, we know that didn’t work out very well. Why couldn’t the bombing of Syria wait for inspectors to do their work?

2 How do we know we’re being told the truth?

“We are confident that we have crippled Syria’s chemical weapons program,” said U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. That statement was echoed by military leaders. But a report from Agence France Presse suggests that one destroyed building, described by attacking forces as a chemical-weapons facility, was actually a pharmaceutical and research facility specializing in food testing and antivenoms for scorpion and snake bites.

“If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here,” said someone who identified himself as an engineer who worked at the facility.

Given our country’s long history of public deception from military and civilian officials, why aren’t we demanding independent confirmation of the airstrikes’ effectiveness?

3 Have strikes like these ever really “punished” a country’s leader – or “sent them a message,” for that matter?

We keep hearing the cliché that airstrikes like these are meant to “punish” leaders like Assad. This time was no different. And yet, it’s unlikely that Assad personally suffered as a result of this attack.

So who, really, are we punishing?

Then there’s this comment, from Defense Secretary James Mattis: “Together we have sent a clear message to Assad and his murderous lieutenants that they should not perpetrate another chemical weapons attack.”

That was also the presumed purpose of Trump’s last missile attack on Syria, less than a year ago. Trump supporters claimed that attack sent a forceful “message,” too – to Assad, to Putin, the Chinese, and others. “With just one strike that message was sent to all these people,” claimed former Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka.

The situation in Syria did not perceptibly change after that attack. And the day after this latest airstrike, Assad launched a new round of airstrikes of his own.

These airstrikes seem more performative than tactical – warfare as theater, but with real lives at stake. There must be better ways to send a message.

4 Why isn’t the full range of U.S. activity in Syria getting more coverage?

Thanks to widespread under-reporting of U.S. involvement in Syria, commentators can complain about “years of unmasterly inactivity by the democracies” with a straight face, wrongly blaming that nation’s disasters on a failure to intervene.

In a paragraph that was subsequently deleted from its website, the Washington Post wrote that the latest airstrikes “capped nearly a week of debate in which Pentagon leaders voiced concerns that an attack could pull the United States into Syria’s civil war.” As of this writing, that language can still be found in syndicated versions of the article.

We were pulled into that civil war a long time ago.  The United States has more than 2,000 troops in Syria, a fact that was not immediately revealed to the American people. That figure is understated, although the Pentagon will not say by how much, since it excludes troops on classified missions and some Special Forces personnel.

Before Trump raised the troop count, the CIA was spending $1 billion per year supporting anti-government militias under President Obama.  That hasn’t prevented a rash of commentary complaining about U.S. “inaction” in Syria before Trump took office. It didn’t prevent additional chaos and death, either – and probably made the situation worse.

5 Where are the advocates for a smarter national security policy?

There’s been very little real debate inside the national security establishment about the wisdom of these strikes, and what debate there has been has focused on the margins. Anne-Marie Slaughter, a senior State Department official under Secretary Hillary Clinton in the Obama administration, tweeted:

I believe that the U.S., U.K, & France did the right thing by striking Syria over chemical weapons. It will not stop the war nor save the Syrian people from many other horrors. It is illegal under international law. But it at least draws a line somewhere & says enough.

In other words: This attack will not achieve any tactical goals or save any lives. And it is illegal – just as chemical weapons attacks are illegal – under international law. It’s illegal under U.S. law, too, which is the primary focus of Democratic criticism.

But, says Slaughter, the amorphous goals of “drawing a line” and “saying enough” make it worthwhile, for reasons that are never articulated.

Michèle Flournoy, who served as Under Secretary of Defense under President Obama and was considered a leading Defense Secretary prospect in a Hillary Clinton Administration, said:

What Trump got right: upheld the international norm against [chemical weapon] use, built international support for and participation in the strikes, sought to minimize collateral damage — Syrian, Russian, Iranian.

What Trump got wrong: continuing to use taunting, name-calling tweets as his primary form of (un)presidential communication; failing to seriously consult Congress before deciding to launch the strikes; after more than a year in office, still no coherent Syria strategy.

How can a country uphold international norms by violating international law?

If Trump lacks a coherent Syria policy, he has company. Obama’s policy toward Syria shifted and drifted. Hillary Clinton backed Trump’s last round of airstrikes and proposed a “no-fly” policy for Syria that could have quickly escalated into open confrontation with Russia.

The country deserves a rational alternative to Trump’s impulsivity and John Bolton’s extreme bellicosity and bigotry. When it comes to foreign policy, we need a real opposition party. What will it take to develop one?

6 “Take On” Russia? Really?

Commentators have been pushing Trump to take aggressive military action in Syria, despite the potential for military conflict with nuclear-armed Russia. MSNBC’s Dana Bash accused Trump of “an inexplicable lack of resolve regarding Russia” – leaving the audience to make its own inferences – adding, “We have not been willing to take them on.”

In the same segment, reported by FAIR’s Adam Johnson, Bash complained that “the U.S. hasn’t done “a very good job pushing Russia out of the way,” adding that “we’ve let Russia have too free a hand, in my view, in the skies over Syria.”  Her colleague Andrea Mitchell responded that “the criticism is that the president is reluctant to go after Russia.”

The Drum Beats On

“Mission accomplished.”

This drumbeat of political pressure has forced Trump’s hand. He has now directed missiles against Syria, twice. Both attacks carried the risk of military confrontation with the world’s other nuclear superpower.

That risk is greater than most people realize, as historian and military strategist Maj. Danny Sjursen explained in our recent conversation.

Trump has now adopted a more aggressive military posture against Russia than Barack Obama. Whatever his personal involvement with the Russian government turns out to have been, it is in nobody’s best interests to heighten tensions between two nuclear superpowers.

The national security establishment has been promoting a confrontational approach, but they’ve been unable to explain how that would lead to a better outcome for the US or the world – just as they’ve been unable to explain how unilateral military intervention can lead to a good outcome in Syria.

7 Did the airstrikes make Trump “presidential”?

“Amid distraction and dysfunction,” wrote Mike Allen and Jonathan Swan for Axios, “Trump looked and acted like a traditional commander-in-chief last night.”

The constitutional phrase, “Commander in Chief,” was originally understood to underscore the fact that the military is under civilian control. It has devolved into a title that confers a quasi-military rank on the president.  That’s getting it backwards. The fetishization of all things military is one of the reasons we can’t have a balanced debate about military intervention.

Besides, saying that an act of war makes Trump “presidential” – that’s so 2017!

Here’s a suggestion: In 1963, John F. Kennedy rejected his generals’ advice to strike Soviet installations during the Cuban missile crisis.

Rejecting reckless calls to military action: Now that’s a “presidential” act worth bringing back.

Contributed by Richard Eskow of

Richard (RJ) Eskow is Senior Advisor for Health and Economic Justice at Social Security Works and the host of The Zero Hour with RJ Eskow on Free Speech TV.


By Paul Craig Roberts | IPE | March 19, 2018

Washington’s gratuitous raising of tensions with Russia that we have been witnessing for many years is so reckless and irresponsible that we need some relief from the depression of it all. Perhaps I am grasping at straws, but here are some hopeful developments.

—An establishment journalist, Michael Goodwin, the chief political columnist for the New York Post and a former bureau chief for the New York Times, has blamed the New York Times and Washington Post for the destruction of journalistic standards in the United States.

—James Kallstrom, an Assistant Director of the FBI, told Fox News that high-ranking people throughout the US government coordinated a plot to help Hillary Clinton avoid indictment:

“I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted.

“I think it goes right to the top. And it involves that whole [Russiagate] strategy—they were gonna win, nobody would have known any of this stuff, and they just unleashed the intelligence community. Look at the unmaskings. We haven’t heard anything about that yet. Look at the way they violated the rights of all those American citizens.”

Kallstrom goes on to name names:

—Senator Rand Paul vows to block the appointments of Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel as Secretary of State and Director of the CIA. Read and rejoice:

It is possible that the firing of Deputy FBI Director McCabe has opened for public exposure the plot hatched by the CIA, FBI, Departments of Justice and State, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee to cover up Hillary’s felonies and to falsely accuse Donald Trump of conspiring with Russian President Putin to steal the US presidential election. If Trump doesn’t chicken out, it is possible to put Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Hillary, and many others in prison for their egregious and bold assault on American democracy and the rule of law. These prosecutions would break the power, of much of it, of the secret national security state, and, thereby, make it possible for Trump to return to his campaign promise to normalize relations with Russia. If these relations are not normalized, war will be the result. But at least now there is a chance.

—British Ambassador Craig Murray has successfully exposed the deception practiced by the utter corrupt British government in its false allegation that the Russian government used a nerve agent to poison two people on a bench in England. The British government’s scientists have far more integrity than the British government and flatly refused to sanction the government’s claim about the nerve agent. This forced the corrupt May government to use the wording “of a type developed by Russia.”

Amb. Murray goes on to establish that there is no evidence that Russia ever developed such a nerve agent and that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) found no such agent when it oversaw and verified Russia’s destruction of Russian chemical weapons. Amb. Murray reports that the only known synthesis of what is being called “Novichok” occurred in 2016 by Iran in cooperation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in order to test whether formulas published in a book many years ago could actually produce such an agent.

Amb. Murray exposes the utterly corrupt presstitutes that comprise the Western media for never once asking the corrupt UK government about its hedge words, “of a type developed by Russia” and for their efforts to silence him with libel and slander.

As important as Amb. Murray’s factually uncontested findings are, the main point is that no laboratory has reported any finding that such a nerve agent was used on Skirpal and his daughter. We don’t even know if any attack occurred on Skirpal. The corrupt British government has provided no evidence of any attack and no evidence of any nerve agent.

What is the real reason for the British government’s completely obvious blatant lies?

What is the real reason for the complete failure of the media to investigate and report an alleged event?

How much more evidence does the world need that the Western media is nothing but a collection of liars devoid of all integrity who serve as a Propaganda Ministry for undeclared government agendas? The Skirpal Affair is the final nail in the coffin of the Western media.

Originally Published by Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy


By Elizabeth Vaughn | Freedom Outpost | February 26, 2018

News that the school’s security video was on a 20-minute delay is distressing. The latest development that an armed guard, “The Coward of Broward County”, stood outside while the shooting was in progress is contemptible.

Mass shootings have become so frequent over the last few years; they have almost lost their power to shock us.

Unfortunately, there is no one law or combination of laws that will prevent another school shooting from happening again. The aftermath of every massacre is filled with rhetoric from politicians, parents and the press demanding action. Then the dust settles and we forget about it…until the next one.

The behavior of most school shooters raises numerous red flags prior to the actual attack. Nikolas Cruz was no exception. And yes, I am quite aware that we see so much more clearly in hindsight. But this young man sent out so many signals prior to the shooting that, if acted upon, may very well have prevented the attack.

The frequency of school shootings can be reduced through a dual strategy. The first part involves setting up a support network to include students, teachers, local law enforcement, government agencies who have interacted with the individual concerned and the FBI. Essentially, it should become a formal version of “if you see something, say something.” But this network must have an established, organized structure through which information would flow in a direct, predetermined manner (leaving a paper trail) to ultimately reach the FBI. People need to be held accountable. The FBI must set up a formal department to deal with these threats.  School shootings are now happening with regularity and they must be treated as the serious domestic threat they have become.

The FBI were notified twice about Nikolas Cruz, but failed to act. There is no excuse for this.

Nikolas Cruz was a very troubled young man. Police had been called to his home on many occasions.

“For years before Nikolas Cruz gunned down classmates and teachers at his former high school, his mother had repeatedly called police to the home to help deal with his violent outbursts, threats and self-destructive behavior, according to police documents obtained by CNN on Friday.

The incident reports, which are as recent as September 2016, describe Cruz as suffering from mental illness and being “emotionally handicapped,” and being on behavioral medication. One notes, “He has mentioned in the past that he would like to purchase a firearm.”

The documents include more than 30 reports going back as far as 2011, covering misbehavior by Cruz and some by his younger brother. They add further depth to the emerging portrait of Cruz as an unstable teen who had long been on the radar of law enforcement, behavioral specialists, teachers and fellow students.”

“Those emergency calls ranged from ‘mentally ill person’ to ‘child/elderly abuse’ to ‘domestic disturbance’ to ‘missing person.’ According to the court documents, details of those calls weren’t available and almost all of them are marked ‘no written report.’”

How is it possible that Cruz was able to pass a background check? Because of Cruz’s misbehavior, his mother had called the local police to their home over 30 times between 2011 and September 2016. However, Cruz was not arrested.

Four days after his 18th birthday, “sheriff’s deputies and adult welfare investigators” from the Department of Children and Family Services visited the Cruz home in response to a report that Cruz had “cut his arms on Snapchat and said he wanted to buy a gun.” Excerpts from the agency’s final report follow.

“Mr. Cruz has fresh cuts on both his arms. Mr. Cruz stated he plans to go out and buy a gun. It is unknown what he is buying the gun for.”

Investigators concluded there were “some implications” for Cruz’s safety but determined he was receiving adequate support from his school and outpatient care from Henderson Mental Health in Broward County.

“[Cruz’s] final level of risk is low as [he] resides with his mother, attends school and receives counseling through Henderson.”

His current “attorneys said the Snapchat incident alerted at least four local agencies — Children and Family Services, the Broward Sheriff’s Office, the Broward school district and Henderson Behavioral Health, one of the largest mental health providers in the county — that Cruz was in crisis and posed a potential danger to himself and others.

“Every single red flag was being thrown up by this kid, four days after his 18th birthday, and nothing was done to help him,” said Chief Assistant Public Defender Gordon Weekes.

The owners of the gun store followed the law in their sale of an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to Nikolas Cruz in February 2017.  They ran a background check, as they were required to do, which he passed. That is astounding.

The system checks for felony convictions, instances of domestic violence, addiction to illegal drugs and involuntary commitments due to mental illness.

But it does not check for school expulsions, other mental health history or domestic disturbances that do not result in criminal charges.

The system also does not review a person’s public statements or explicit threats to commit violence, such as Cruz’s multiple comments online — in his own name — in which he boldly declared his intentions.

“I wanna shoot people with my AR-15,” said one.

One of Cruz’s peers notified local law enforcement about his statements on social media. When she felt she hadn’t been taken seriously, she contacted the FBI on January 5, 2018.

“You know, it’s just so much,” she said on the call. “I know he’s—he’s going to explode.” She said she was making the call because she wanted a “clear conscience if he takes off and, and just starts shooting places up.”…

The caller began by saying Mr. Cruz had the mental capacity of a 12- or 14-year-old. She said he had started posting messages on his Instagram account that he wanted to kill himself and she’d alerted police to that threat, but wasn’t sure what happened in that investigation.

More recently, Mr. Cruz “switched it to he wants to kill people,” the unidentified woman told the operator in a somewhat rambling conversation.

“Something is gonna happen,” she said. “Because he’s, he doesn’t have the mental capacity. He can’t, he’s so outraged if someone talks to him about certain things.”

The caller described disturbing behavior by Mr. Cruz, including a propensity for cutting up frogs and, at least on one occasion, a bird.

The FBI took no action.

The FBI was also warned about Cruz by a YouTube video blogger in September 2017. Cruz had left a comment on his blog saying, “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” Once again, the FBI failed to act.

Math teacher Jim Gard said that school authorities had emailed teachers about Mr. Cruz’s behavior. “We were told last year that he wasn’t allowed on campus with a backpack on him…There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus.”

In Cruz’s case, the red flags could not be misconstrued.

Students, teachers, Children and Family Services, the Broward Sheriff’s Office, the Broward School District, Henderson Behavioral Health, and two phone calls to the FBI…how was this not prevented?

The second part of the strategy involves the hardening of targets, which would significantly decrease the frequency of school shootings, and if one should happen, these measures might stop the carnage sooner, saving lives.

Trump says the single most important step to be taken is the hardening of targets.

In today’s world, schools are gun-free zones. If a mentally ill student pulls out a firearm in a classroom or a crowded cafeteria, he can continue shooting until the police arrive which would take several minutes at least or until he runs out of ammunition or is somehow subdued. In the meantime, the carnage can be catastrophic.

If, on the other hand, there were several armed adults present, a combination of armed policemen and faculty members with concealed carry permits, who could act quickly in the event of an emergency to protect students, the killing would be stopped much sooner, resulting in less loss of life.

I am not proposing that we train all teachers, against their will, to carry and operate a gun. But, in any random faculty, there are likely a number of people who are very comfortable around firearms and who may even own a gun for reasons ranging from self-defense to hunting. These are the individuals who should be issued concealed carry permits.

Moreover, the knowledge that there were armed adults on the premises, especially if a potential shooter was unaware of whom those adults were, might act as a deterrent to a potential shooter. This would go a long way toward reducing the frequency of these attacks or would shorten the attack if one were to occur.

In fact, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel announced this week that Broward County sheriff’s deputies would now be carrying AR-15 rifles on school grounds within the district.

Critics will point to Thursday’s new development that there was an armed deputy at the school on the day of the shooting. School Resource Officer Scot Peterson, who was armed, stood outside the school for four minutes as Nikolas Cruz continued his six-minute killing spree. He is now being called “The Coward of Broward County.”

Sheriff Israel told reporters that Peterson was in an office inside the school when the shooting began. Video then shows him taking up a defensive position outside, but never entering the building.

“He should have went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer,” Israel said.

Scot Peterson failed to act, possibly out of fear. However, the school’s security video was on a 20-minute delay, which helped no one considering Cruz’s entire shooting spree took six minutes. Peterson had no idea where in the building the shooter was. This is not an excuse. It was his duty to enter the building and locate the killer. But a “real-time” video would have been of significant help to law enforcement on that day.

The installation of metal detectors at access points to schools, bulletproof doors and windows, bulletproof backpacks may help. Bulletproof glass actually saved several students outside the building at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

And a high school student in Wisconsin has invented a device that makes it difficult to open a locked door.

“Unlike other products, JustinKase does not allow a door to open even a crack which means students & staff can remain safe while emergency personnel race to the scene,” said creator Justin Rivard, “a student at Somerset High School in Wisconsin. You can lock a door with a lock, and it can get shot out. You can lock a door with this, and it can’t get shot out. You can’t get around it.”

Asking Americans to abandon their Second Amendment right to bear arms is not an answer. Guns are here to stay. A nationwide confiscation of firearms would not only be unconstitutional, it would be unfeasible. There are far too many guns in circulation today for the government to possibly round them all up. If this were tried, “bad guys” would surely not turn in their guns, and the law-abiding citizens who did would be left defenseless and vulnerable.

All Americans, including politicians from both parties, parents and the press, need to realize that we are working toward the same goal, which is to reduce the number of school shootings. This can be accomplished without an attack our Constitution.

Elizabeth was born and raised in southern Connecticut where she currently resides with her husband and two golden retrievers. She worked as a financial consultant at Merrill Lynch in New York City prior to becoming a stay-at-home mom of three. She has since earned her MBA and become an options trader.

Originally published @ Freedom Outpost


Isaac Davis | Waking Times | Jan. 22, 2018

“To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.” ~ G. Edward Griffin

Too often something major happens that forever alters the relationship between government and the citizenry, yet is insufficiently explained by the media. Government spokespersons and mainstream media recite an ‘official’ version of the story, then declare the case closed, while subsequent independent investigations uncover relevant information and facts which discredit and cast doubt on the official narrative.

The best example of this is the terror attacks of 9/11, which ushered in a new era of war, surveillance, mammoth government agencies, and assaults on the natural rights of Americans. The event also triggered a major shift in public consciousness, as the official story was so wrought with obfuscations, half-truths and obvious cover-ups that millions of ordinary people simply could not reconcile the official version with the breadth of contradictory information readily available to the public.

The alternative media was already alive and growing far before 9/11, though. It was born out of our natural curiosity for truth in a world of lies. In its infancy, the alt media existed in journals, books, private newsletters, underground radio broadcasts, and cable access television programs. Since 9/11 it has grown exponentially, now presenting a serious challenge for legacy media.

Several key events in 20th century America were watershed moments for the alt media, creating an enormous groundswell of interest in exposing government criminality.

1.) The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

It took a good many decades for the story of our financial enslavement to be fully appreciated and understood by concerned members of the public. Originally published in 1994, G. Edward Griffin’s essential book, The Creature From Jekyll Island, tells the story of how powerful industrialists and private bankers managed to seize control of the nation’s money supply, creating the Federal Reserve system.

This event marked the beginning of the end for American prosperity, ushering in our debt-based, fiat currency, along with the inflationary economic policies which have produced things like quantitative easing while forcing us all into utterly insurmountable generational debt and perpetual debt-slavery.

“The accepted version of history is that the Federal Reserve was created to stabilize our economy. One of the most widely-used textbooks on this subject says: “It sprang from the panic of 1907, with its alarming epidemic of bank failures: the country was fed up once and for all with the anarchy of unstable private banking.”23 Even the most naive student must sense a grave contradiction between this cherished view and the System’s actual performance. Since its inception, it has presided over the crashes of 1921 and 1929; the Great Depression of ’29 to ’39; recessions in ’53, ’57, ’69, ’75, and ’81; a stock market “Black Monday” in ’87; and a 1000% inflation which has destroyed 90% of the dollar’s purchasing power.24″ ~G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island

Griffin talks about the inception of the Federal Reserve System, and what it means for all of us, in the following presentation:

2.) Ruby Ridge

On August 21, 1992, federal agents including U.S. Marshals, BATF, and FBI agents,  began an 11 day siege of the Idaho residence of Randy Weaver, serving a warrant for Weaver for failing to show up in court over charges related to federal firearms violations.

The standoff followed a gunfight in which US Marshal William Deegan was killed (likely by friendly fire), and took a turn for the worse when federal snipers shot dead Weaver’s 14 year-old son and Weaver’s wife Vicki. She was unarmed and holding her 10-month-old baby in her arms when a bullet fired by Lon Huriuchi struck her in the temple.

The next day, Aug. 22, Randy Weaver walked to the little shack where his son’s body lay. As he was lifting the latch on the shack’s door, he was shot from behind by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. As he struggled back to the cabin, his wife, Vicki, stood in the doorway, holding a 10-month-old baby in her arms and calling for her husband to hurry. The FBI sniper fired again and hit Vicki Weaver in the temple, killing her instantly.” [Source]

Those few Americans who understood the implications of having government assassination squads meting out extrajudicial executions of American citizens took to print and the airwaves. Notable among them was officer Jack McLamb, a highly decorated veteran police officer who was outspoken about the importance of holding police and military accountable to the constitution.

In the following interview, McLamb shares his insight into this event, coming from a law enforcement perspective.

3.) The Siege at Waco

In 1993, the 51 day standoff at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas ended when the building burned to the ground with 76 people in it, including a number of women and at least 20 children. All of this happened live on television, and as newscasters and pundits laid blame for the deaths on members of the church, truth-seekers began asking questions about the government’s rules of engagement when dealing with American citizens.

On the surface, seekers wanted to know how the government could initiate a military style assault against its own citizens using tanks and helicopters, when so many lives were at stake inside the compound. Digging deeper, many found evidence that the fires may have been intentionally set by federal agents, while exits were destroyed by tanks during the assault, preventing people from escaping a fiery death.

The 1997 documentary film Rules of Engagement explores these issues in great detail.

4.) The Oklahoma City Bombing

On April 19th, 1995, the 2 year anniversary of the fire at the Davidian compound in Waco, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma was destroyed in a massive explosion, killing 168 people and injuring 680 more.

Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh was executed in 2001 for charges of domestic terrorism related to his role in the bombing, but to those in the truth growing truth movement, there was much more to the story. Similar to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, the accused, McVeigh, was considered by many to be a government patsy in the operation, playing a small role in a premeditated event orchestrated by unseen members of the government.

A litany of questions and shady events in the ensuing investigation added fuel to speculation, causing many to wonder if it was an inside job. This includes the story of Officer Terence Yeakey who supposedly killed himself after revealing that he had information of the government’s prior knowledge of the bombing.

“Yeakey was one of the very first rescue workers on the scene. He knew a lot about the bombing, according to his wife, and was very concerned about things that he knew. He expressed this to his wife and mother, and his sisters and brother-in-law.

The Oklahoma City Fire Department got a call from the FBI the weekend before the bombing to tell them to be on readied alert for something that could be taking place in the next few days. The Police Department also had some information that came through to them. While they’ve been very “mum” about that, we’ve got bits and pieces from some police dispatchers and others.

Evidently Officer Yeakey didn’t feel right about keeping his mouth shut about things that he saw that just didn’t look right to him.

The evidence itself shows that he obviously was murdered, even though they say he committed suicide. Yeakey was found in the outskirts of the city. He allegedly walked out into a fenced area off the road after having cut both wrists twice and then made another cut on his elbow and then cut both areas of the jugular vein on his neck.

Having lost tremendous amounts of blood in his car and elsewhere, he supposedly then walked all of this distance and then decided to shoot himself. He didn’t shoot himself with his service revolver. When a law enforcement officer dies, there is almost always an autopsy. They did not do an autopsy in this case. They proclaimed it a suicide. His family is not satisfied and his wife is not satisfied.” ~Former Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key

The documentary film, ‘OKC Bombing: The Forerunner to 9/11,’ by Pat Shannan looks at this side of the story in detail:

Final Thoughts

There are many more events in contemporary American history that deserve to be on this list, but these four represent major turning points in the media landscape prior to 9/11, ultimately playing a major role in the rise of what is now known as the truth movement.

Read more articles from Isaac Davis.

This article (4 Critical Events that Gave Rise to the American Truth Movement) was originally created and published by Waking Times


Ron Paul | RPI | Jan. 22, 2018

It’s deja-vu all over again, as baseball legend Yogi Berra might have said. The politicians and media are telling us the world is coming to an end because a “compromise” could not be made at the 11th hour to keep the Federal government in business.

Republicans blame Democrats for the shutdown over their insistence on legislation to benefit about 700,000 “Dreamers” — immigrants who were brought illegally in to the country as children. Democrats make the shutdown all about Donald Trump, hoping to gain political points from his unpopular status. The media headlines are recycled from the last phony “shutdown.” It’s all about “partisanship” in Washington, mainstream media tells us. The same pundits are on television demanding that the parties put aside differences and work together for the American people.

Don’t let the politicians and the media fool you. Despite the appearance of ferocious partisan warfare, the truth is that both political parties agree on all the important issues.

Both parties support perpetual, undeclared war.

Both parties voted last week to continue suspending the Fourth Amendment, granting President Trump and his Administration the “authority” to continue spying on all of us without a warrant for another six years. So much for Democrat talk that President Trump could not be trusted: they have entrusted him with the authority to spy on us for six more years!

Both sides agree on no spending limits for the warfare-welfare state. Both parties agree that the Federal Reserve should continue to manipulate our currency to the benefit of big banks, well-connected corporations, and Wall Street.

While they want to frighten us by claiming the shutdown will shut down the US military, making us less safe, the fact is Pentagon operations overseas will continue without pause. Defense Secretary Mattis assured us over the weekend that “daily operations around the world – ships and submarines will remain at sea, our aircraft will continue to fly and our war fighters will continue to pursue terrorists throughout the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.”

In other words the Pentagon will function as if there was no Legislative Branch to rein them in. But that;s not new. That’s been true for a long time!

Americans should understand that much of the Federal government is on auto-pilot. The deep state holds the cards no matter who is elected or how long the government is shut down. The CIA will continue arming terrorists and plotting to overthrow governments overseas. The “Justice” Department will continue handing out long prison sentences for people using marijuana even in states that have legalized marijuana. The NSA will continue spying on us without a warrant and telling us it is to keep us safe and free.

We are told that all “non-essential” personnel will be furloughed until Congress agrees to begin funding the Federal government again. In fact, the real “non-essential” personnel are most Members of Congress themselves! Perhaps their pay should be docked for each day they pretend to be in conflict. The only danger of that, of course, is that they would reach the inevitable compromise even sooner.

The only way average Americans will notice that the government is shut down will be high-profile closures of any national park or other such facility that Americans actually want to visit. That is their way of punishing Americans.

Who wins when a “compromise” is finally announced? Not the American people, that’s for sure! The winner will be, as usual, big government.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.